Is it legal to add material from one setting to another setting?

[gogogome]

I always thought if you were in Eberron, you ban all Faerun books and vice versa. But a lot of these books contain content that is independent of their setting. Regional feats, dragonmarks, Prcs, and the like are obviously tied to the setting but a lot of other stuff like spells and feats are not.

So do the rules say it's ok to add the non setting specific stuff like class, feats, spells, etc. from one setting to another setting? Or is that illegal?

With spells I can easily "import" them by letting my players research those spells, but there's no research for feats.

[Eldaran]

Uh... Illegal? Everything is legal in D&D, it's all up to the DM.

[gogogome]

Uh... Illegal? Everything is legal in D&D, it's all up to the DM.

I am the DM but I like to play a no house-rule/homebrew game.

[Celestia]

Legal? Sure. I've never come across a rule saying you couldn't. Most tables don't allow setting books unless they're playing in that setting, but that doesn't stop you from allowing whatever you want.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by gogogome
So do the rules say it's ok to add the non setting specific stuff like class, feats, spells, etc. from one setting to another setting? Or is that illegal?

I’ve done it, and I haven’t had any Inevitables show up at my door.

I don’t think there’s any rule as such that you absolutely can’t mix material between settings. A lot of people, and probably most people in the Playground, borrow liberally from sourcebooks irrespective of setting.

There are certainly DMs who won’t accept material outside of the particular setting they’re using, but that’s a personal preference rather than a formal game rule. I had one DM who wouldn’t accept a single item, feat or spell from any Forgotten Realms sourcebook, because his campaign wasn’t set in the Forgotten Realms. That would probably be considered an extreme approach by a lot of people, but it was his game and his call.

Some feats won’t operate outside of a given setting because they’re tied to some aspect of that setting—dragonmarks being a prime example. And you might have trouble using the Warforged Juggernaut PrC in a setting with no warforged. But of course some people will see these examples as challenges rather than strictures.

So if it's your game and you want to include something, by all means grab it. It's your game.

[Elkad]

I am the DM but I like to play a no house-rule/homebrew game.

I don't see how that is even possible. There are too many typos, vague statements, and just flat broken things in the rules. The DM has to correct and clarify all those things, and his interpretation won't match any other DMs rules exactly.

[umbergod]

Your example is a bad one OP, since Eberron states specifically "if it exists in other dnd settings, it has a place in eberron". Beyond that, no there arent any rules against using setting specific bits in a different setting

[gogogome]

Your example is a bad one OP, since Eberron states specifically "if it exists in other dnd settings, it has a place in eberron". Beyond that, no there arent any rules against using setting specific bits in a different setting

Do you have a page number and book name for that quote? Because that quote is exactly what I'm looking for. I am away from books atm so I'll need to look it up online if you give me the information.

I don't see how that is even possible. There are too many typos, vague statements, and just flat broken things in the rules. The DM has to correct and clarify all those things, and his interpretation won't match any other DMs rules exactly.

Gentleman's agreement gets rid of all the flat broken things. As for the other things, extensive rule lawyering does bring things to a conclusion.

[Thurbane]

No, you can't do this...the Inevitable of cross-setting contamination will come after you!

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Thurbane
No, you can't do this...the Inevitable of cross-setting contamination will come after you!

And here I was just trying to think what that Inevitable would look like. I had an image of a mechanical skeleton armored in iron plates, each one deeply stamped with a page of rules text from the DMG.

[RoboEmperor]

Do you have a page number and book name for that quote? Because that quote is exactly what I'm looking for. I am away from books atm so I'll need to look it up online if you give me the information.

If it exists in D&D, then it has a place in Eberron.
A monster or spell or magic item from the core rulebooks
might feature a twist or two to account for Eberron’s
tone and attitude, but otherwise everything in the Player’s
Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide, and Monster Manual has a place
somewhere in Eberron. Also, this is the fi rst D&D setting
built entirely from the v.3.5 rules, which enabled us to
blend rules and story in brand-new ways.

Eberron Campaign Setting p.11

Unfortunately it's not as clear cut as you'd like it to be. The first sentence covers everything, but the elaboration only includes core rule books.

You can always rule lawyer that the core rule books are just an example and focus only in the first sentence.

[Celestia]

I don't see how that is even possible. There are too many typos, vague statements, and just flat broken things in the rules. The DM has to correct and clarify all those things, and his interpretation won't match any other DMs rules exactly.

Nah, it's fine. We don't need house rules. The monk is already powerful enough as is; why give it proficiency in unarmed strikes? A melee class with medium BAB and a -4 penalty on all attack rolls makes perfect sense.

[Florian]

So do the rules say it's ok to add the non setting specific stuff like class, feats, spells, etc. from one setting to another setting? Or is that illegal?

D20 is build to be modular, so (most) everything works based on the core system.

It´s not illegal, but rather a thing based on style and taste. What do you want to import, fluff or crunch? When the fluff has meaning, then going setting x-over is a no-go. When it´s all about the crunch and you're into refluffing, the all is fair game.

(Remember, WotC did this to sell you more books)

[gogogome]

D20 is build to be modular, so (most) everything works based on the core system.

It´s not illegal, but rather a thing based on style and taste. What do you want to import, fluff or crunch? When the fluff has meaning, then going setting x-over is a no-go. When it´s all about the crunch and you're into refluffing, the all is fair game.

(Remember, WotC did this to sell you more books)

Well my player wants to use some stuff in Races of Faerun, but adding that book to Eberron or Greyhawk is out of the question since that book is full of region specific stuff tied to FR, and the races in there are really tied to the region specific stuff. But some of the feats are not tied to the setting in anyway, but a lot of the feats are.

So like allowing the book is a no, taking only small parts of it feels iffy, and as much as I like to accommodate my player, I just can't get over this OCD of mine so I'm reaching out to this forum to see if there is a way to make everyone happy.

[BWR]

Well my player wants to use some stuff in Races of Faerun, but adding that book to Eberron or Greyhawk is out of the question since that book is full of region specific stuff tied to FR, and the races in there are really tied to the region specific stuff. But some of the feats are not tied to the setting in anyway, but a lot of the feats are.

So like allowing the book is a no, taking only small parts of it feels iffy, and as much as I like to accommodate my player, I just can't get over this OCD of mine so I'm reaching out to this forum to see if there is a way to make everyone happy.

It's your game, your table, your players: you know more about what will work than we do.
Personally, I draw the theoretical line at fluff differences. If a certain piece of mechanics is tied to fluff that doesn't fit in my game, it's not allowed. Sure, you can refluff things and sometimes it works but usually it just feels weird and uncomfortable. If you don't want to allow stuff from a book, that's fine. There are good and bad reasons to disallow stuff in a game, and "I don't like it" is a good one. "it doesn't fit in the game" is just about the best reason you can have.

[RFLS]

So I think the important thing to note here is that mechanics and fluff are by and large separable. Some mechanics imply the existence of an organization or god. For example, Jade Phoenix Mages (iirc) have their own, semi-defined organization within their rules text. However...you could easily slot them under the Church of the Silver Flame in Eberron. Not a particularly difficult lift.

The point being - D&D rules are all compatible (*glares at Serpent Kingdoms*). Occasionally fluff will seem to get in the way. Don't let it. If someone wants something that seems setting specific, let them take it, but add something to the setting you're playing in. It's more fun that way anyway. We're playing make believe anyway (ish).

I’ve done it, and I haven’t had any Inevitables show up at my door.

+1. I chuckled.

[Marlowe]

No, you can't do this...the Inevitable of cross-setting contamination will come after you!

I want one.

[RoboEmperor]

I'd like to add that d&d specifically says to refluff everything to your campaign. Check out every PrC ever made. Every single one of them says "Adapt this to your campaign by removing the race restriction, remove the organization restriction, change ___ and ___ to be more evil" etc. etc.

So if the feat exists in a different setting and is not tied to particular fluff, just put it in your game because
1. It is official
2. It is "balanced" since it's official
3. There is no homebrew because it's official.

If it is tied to a fluff then you refluff it because by RAW, you the DM, have to refluff it.

[RFLS]

2. It is "balanced" since it's official.

Heh. Good one. *further glaring at Serpent Kingdoms*

[RoboEmperor]

Heh. Good one. *further glaring at Serpent Kingdoms*

Waht. I put it in quotations!

[Florian]

Heh. Good one. *further glaring at Serpent Kingdoms*

Why? 3.5E players have developed a very unhealthy obsession with being empowered to use any kind of material, as longs as it´s WotC. That's extremely bizarre when it comes to "gm books" like BoVD or Serpent Kingdoms.

[RFLS]

Why? 3.5E players have developed a very unhealthy obsession with being empowered to use any kind of material, as longs as it´s WotC. That's extremely bizarre when it comes to "gm books" like BoVD or Serpent Kingdoms.

I was cherry picking, to be honest. In reality, even sticking to, say, Core + Races + Environment books + Completes + Setting Cores (Eberron, Faerun) is enough to allow some characters to snap the game over their knee, if the player so chooses.

[EldritchWeaver]

I was cherry picking, to be honest. In reality, even sticking to, say, Core + Races + Environment books + Completes + Setting Cores (Eberron, Faerun) is enough to allow some characters to snap the game over their knee, if the player so chooses.

Fixed that for you.

[hamishspence]

Well my player wants to use some stuff in Races of Faerun, but adding that book to Eberron or Greyhawk is out of the question since that book is full of region specific stuff tied to FR, and the races in there are really tied to the region specific stuff. But some of the feats are not tied to the setting in anyway, but a lot of the feats are.

Given that Faerun has had "armies of construct soldiers" in its own history (the Raumathar Empire had them) refluffing a Warforged to be one of those soldiers (or, a construct built by some other group who has access to Raumathar magic, like the Witches of Rashemen), is not that hard.

I played a Warforged in a 4e Faerun game.

Similarly - Greyhawk has more than one elven race - so there's room for giving Greyhawk's "highly intelligent elves" (called gray elves) the Sun Elf racial feats, region rules, etc, or Greyhawk's own "wild elves" some of the stuff Faerun's wild elves have.

[KillianHawkeye]

I think it would be helpful to stop thinking of it as allowing or disallowing entire books. For most books, it doesn't make sense to think of them that way (the exceptions being books that basically just have rules for a new system like XPH, Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, ..., since those are very focused around their particular schtick).

Instead, you should start by figuring out a list of things you'll definitely allow and definitely won't allow in your games, and everything else you should evaluate on an individual case-by-case basis. So it becomes your players' job to find something in the gray area that they might want to use, and you just have to look at the feat or spell or item (or whatever) in question and decide if it fits in your game or not.

That way, you can (for example) allow the dwarf-related options from Races of Stone without opening up goliaths and whisper gnomes as player races if you don't want to. Or you could ban all the martial initiator stuff from Tome of Battle but still allow players to take the Superior Unarmed Strike feat.

[GrayDeath]

I always thought if you were in Eberron, you ban all Faerun books and vice versa. But a lot of these books contain content that is independent of their setting. Regional feats, dragonmarks, Prcs, and the like are obviously tied to the setting but a lot of other stuff like spells and feats are not.

So do the rules say it's ok to add the non setting specific stuff like class, feats, spells, etc. from one setting to another setting? Or is that illegal?

With spells I can easily "import" them by letting my players research those spells, but there's no research for feats.

Its usually a case by case decision.

For your specific example of using Races of Faerun Stuff on Eberron, I`d say those that have a very similar equivalent of culture/Region on Eberron should work well.
Those that dont fit because of X dont.

Everything in between can be argued one way or another, but honestly, the "Races of... Books are some of the smaller offenders balancewise, so it should not be a big problem unless, as mentioned above, it REALLY clashes with the fluff. ;)

No, you can't do this...the Inevitable of cross-setting contamination will come after you!

Lovely pic. ^^

[Psyren]

I just can't get over this OCD of mine so I'm reaching out to this forum to see if there is a way to make everyone happy.

I'm saying this out of pure regard for your long-term well-being: your best route by far is indeed to get over it. Adjusting your game so both you and the players maximize your fun is far more important than what books you use to get there.

[emeraldstreak]

Anything that requires GM intervention (refluffing included) isn't readily available to the players.

[Inevitability]

Remember that many settings are connected. For example, the Plane of Shadow holds a link from Eberron to the Forgotten Realms, allowing characters to have feats and such from both worlds (and even membership in organizations of both).

[legomaster00156]

I am the DM but I like to play a no house-rule/homebrew game.

Oh, my poor friend. If you run everything Rules as Written, you will have a nigh-unplayable mess of a game.