Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 2038687" data-attributes="member: 22882">A d20 (or even OGL) game does not have to be incompatible just because it's radically different.To whit:I create a setting and attendant optional rules with no PC spellcasting classes, armor as damage reduction and a massive damage threshold of 0 + Con (ouch!).  I remove attacks of opportunity and the combat manuever feats, allowing the others as default parts of the system.  I include no monsters and almost no magic items.If I include six core classes, I'll still make them perfectly compatible with D&D.  That means that if you happen to like them and want to stick flaming holy long swords +5 of really big smiting in their hands, gird them in +2 full plate of mad skillz, have them use the D&D rules and turn them loose, they'll be equivalent to the core D&D characters around them.It doesn't mean flaming holy long swords +5 of really big smiting have to appear in the setting book.  It doesn't mean that the setting book can't rail against them and tell the GM the author will come to his house and beat him with a nerf stick if he gives out said swords.  It doesn't mean that the setting and the rules aren't grim or gritty.It just means the classes and feats are portable.Nothing less, nothing more.Not terribly difficult, either.</blockquote>