avaible -not avaible - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

avaible -not avaible

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
norge
May 05, 2009 21:00:51 is legal if i said ?
Warlock classe described in the D&D 4E Player’s
Handbook and the D&D 4E Player’s Handbook
2 is not avaible in (cenary name)
#2
haplo81
May 05, 2009 21:52:17 I'm guessing that English is not your first language.

Your post is extremely difficult to understand. No offense, but please consult someone who is fluent in your native language as well as English to translate for you.
#3
jlaurhughes_dup
May 05, 2009 23:31:34 Simple answer, no, if it is not listed in the SRD as something you can make reference toward then you cannot mention it.
#4
CdrcJsn
May 09, 2009 4:11:28 I think I understand the question...

"Can I say that the Warlock class in the PHB and PHB2 is not available in Scenario X?"

Is that right?

If so, then yes you can. You can omit stuff. You just can't modify existing stuff.

So you can say for example, "Arcane classes and elves do not exist in my universe of Aeroth."

You cannot say, "Arcane classes use holy symbols and and elves are really humans that have bred with halflings."

Mechanical and fluff changes are both not allowed. You can introduce new mechanics (i.e. a feat to allow arcane classes to use holy symbols), just not change existing stuff.
#5
Quintarius
May 09, 2009 6:28:19 Uhm you can change fluff all you want, look at the Faerun Campaign Setting for example.

#6
ascottbay
May 09, 2009 11:41:42 The Forgotten Realms products are not GSL products; they're made by Wizards of the Coast, who can do whatever they want with their property.

However, as long as you're not defining or redefining an existing term it isn't against (that section of) the GSL. What part of "Warlocks do not exist/are not available in Setting X" is redefining what a warlock is?
#7
CdrcJsn
May 13, 2009 20:00:27
However, as long as you're not defining or redefining an existing term it isn't against (that section of) the GSL. What part of "Warlocks do not exist/are not available in Setting X" is redefining what a warlock is?

Not sure if you're referring to what I said...but I agree with you. Sorry, if I was unclear.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 norge May 05, 2009 21:00:51	is legal if i said ? Warlock classe described in the D&D 4E Player’s Handbook and the D&D 4E Player’s Handbook 2 is not avaible in (cenary name)
#2 haplo81 May 05, 2009 21:52:17	I'm guessing that English is not your first language. Your post is extremely difficult to understand. No offense, but please consult someone who is fluent in your native language as well as English to translate for you.
#3 jlaurhughes_dup May 05, 2009 23:31:34	Simple answer, no, if it is not listed in the SRD as something you can make reference toward then you cannot mention it.
#4 CdrcJsn May 09, 2009 4:11:28	I think I understand the question... "Can I say that the Warlock class in the PHB and PHB2 is not available in Scenario X?" Is that right? If so, then yes you can. You can omit stuff. You just can't modify existing stuff. So you can say for example, "Arcane classes and elves do not exist in my universe of Aeroth." You cannot say, "Arcane classes use holy symbols and and elves are really humans that have bred with halflings." Mechanical and fluff changes are both not allowed. You can introduce new mechanics (i.e. a feat to allow arcane classes to use holy symbols), just not change existing stuff.
#5 Quintarius May 09, 2009 6:28:19	Uhm you can change fluff all you want, look at the Faerun Campaign Setting for example.
#6 ascottbay May 09, 2009 11:41:42	The Forgotten Realms products are not GSL products; they're made by Wizards of the Coast, who can do whatever they want with their property. However, as long as you're not defining or redefining an existing term it isn't against (that section of) the GSL. What part of "Warlocks do not exist/are not available in Setting X" is redefining what a warlock is?
#7 CdrcJsn May 13, 2009 20:00:27	However, as long as you're not defining or redefining an existing term it isn't against (that section of) the GSL. What part of "Warlocks do not exist/are not available in Setting X" is redefining what a warlock is? Not sure if you're referring to what I said...but I agree with you. Sorry, if I was unclear.