Not under the OGL
Up front, you are going to want to get a lawyer for this. We can do general legal education here, but few of us are lawyers (I’m certainly not), and even those who are, aren’t your lawyer, which matters a great deal. If you move forward with this, you are going to want to have one of your own.
But I think it’s fairly safe to say that your proposed usage would violate the Open Game License (v1.0a, which is the only version actually published at the time of writing).
The OGL expressly forbids using trademarks in very broad terms
- Use of Product Identity: […] You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. […]
Referring to content within trademarked books like the Player’s Handbook or Dungeon Master’s Guide alongside your own would fall under “indicating compatibility or co-adaptability” with them. Using an abbreviation would not help you in this regard—if it’s clear to the reader what book you’re talking about, it’ll be clear to a court what you are “indicating” and will violate this provision.
You are able to refer to—or even reproduce—OGL content (e.g. the SRD)
If the content you’re referring to is available under the OGL as open game content, you have no problems whatsoever—you can refer to it within the SRD, or just reproduce it yourself, without any mention of anything trademarked.
You also might be able to do this without the OGL—but get a lawyer first
Copyright and trademark law has exceptions for “nominative use,” that is, naming another product to describe it or compare it to your own. Saying that Wizards’ product contains certain relevant content would fall under this exception.
The tricky part is, when you agree to the Open Game License, you are, in part, agreeing not to use that exception. That’s part of the deal: they let you use the open-game content, you agree not to use product identity or trademarked stuff, even if you otherwise could.
So in order to exercise your rights to nominative use, you would have to not use the OGL. Which means that your entire product has to avoid copyright infringement. And the problem is, no one is exactly sure what that means. Broadly, game mechanics cannot be copyrighted. So there is a ton of stuff you might be able to say or talk about without infringing Wizards of the Coast’s copyright. On the other hand, however, the text, tables, diagrams, and so on that describe the game mechanics can be (and are) copyrighted. And copyright includes any “derivative use,” so just saying what they said in your own words may not be enough to keep you safe.
At the end of the day, you need a lawyer to navigate this. It’s been done—Kenzer and Co. published D&D content without license during the 4th edition—but it’s really hard. Kenzer himself is a “noted expert in intellectual property law,” (per Wikipedia) and had previously sued Wizards of the Coast successfully for them infringing his copyright. If you aren’t that kind of expert, you probably need to hire one... and that will be very expensive, and almost-certainly cost more than this product will ever make.
(Worse, even if you do it right, you risk Wizards of the Coast suing you anyway and you having to pay for your defense. You might well not be able to afford to win such a case.)
