Recent Posts
Is the Tome of Horrors version of the Nabbasu the same as those presented here (Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss)?
Obviously I don't have the Tome of Horrors, and I'm just making sure I'm using a reliable source for the beastie.
Tharen the Damned
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
Is the Tome of Horrors version of the Nabbasu the same as those presented here (Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss)?
Obviously I don't have the Tome of Horrors, and I'm just making sure I'm using a reliable source for the beastie.
As this is a WoC product and not open game content I am sure that you are not allowed to use them.
At DRIVETHRU you can get the whole book for 10 bucks.. It is certaily worth buying it, not only for the scenario. It is packed with monster goodness!
Is the Tome of Horrors version of the Nabbasu the same as those presented here (Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss)?
Obviously I don't have the Tome of Horrors, and I'm just making sure I'm using a reliable source for the beastie.
They are not the same, but bear in mind that all you need to do now is tell the story. I'm sure that Paizo would provide whomever writes the scenario with at least a statblock for design purposes.
They are very similar, and their basic features (gaze, camouflage) are pretty much the same. So if you have FC and not TOH, you know the principles of the critter.
Simply put, Nabbasu is a classic fiend from the days of 1ed - the ToH was made with classic monsters in mind, so many old school creeps got their treatment there - it took a few years later for WotC to roll out a demon splatbook and stat it there.
The nabasu from the Tome of Horrors and the nabassu from Book of Fiends 1 are NOT the same. (Note also the different spelling between the two.) They're both based on the same demon from the 1st edition Monster Manual 2, so they're both gargoyle-looking death-stealing demons, but the actual stats are quite different.
This may hedge out some prospective writers who don't have access to the revised Tome of Horrors, but at the same point, owning the proper tools to get the job done is part of the responsibility of the author. We normally don't require authors to have access to anything but the SRD of the game, and let them decide on how and where they want to go to use material from other open sources, but in some cases we want to feature specific things from other books (like a nabasu demon), in which case we DO expect the writer to have access to those rules.
Fortunately, the Revised Tome of Horrors PDF is pretty easy to find and not that expensive.
Fortunately, the Revised Tome of Horrors PDF is pretty easy to find and not that expensive.
If you run Pathfinder adventure paths (or like converting old modules) I highly recommend picking it up. I think this is the most common non-SRD non-paizo book referenced in the various Pathfinder products. It also has a lot of classic monsters from 1st edition, and I've found it invaluable in my recent planescape 3.x campaign when converting some of the older adventures. Just last night I used the Lurker Above and the Monstrous Crayfish from the book. The Lurker nearly one-shotted the halfling in my party ;)
Anyway, if you plan on writing for Pathfinder Society, it seems to be a must have resource.
Tharen the Damned
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
I can't agree more.
ToH I-III and Creature Collection I-III are my flagship books for my own adventures. and the Dragoneet from Strange Lands has a special place in my heart.
I ran an adventure where they fought a face stealer. It freaked the snout out of them.
the more these books (and the Book of Fiends) get used, the better it is for everyone.
To be honest, hogarth, I thought about that briefly.
Then I remembered it's only $10 for the entire book on PDF, and if you can read this, then you should be able to use a credit card or paypal.
It's also a necromancer games product, and they're not exactly awash in business.
Then I remembered why the question was asked. If you can't spend $10 for others work, then why should I help you submit an adventure I might pay $5.00 for if you win?
It's also a necromancer games product, and they're not exactly awash in business.
Then maybe they should ask Paizo for some money for using the nabasu in a Pathfinder product.
Seriously, I don't get this squeamishess about using the Open Gaming License. If a publisher doesn't want to freely license their material, no one is forcing them to. But Necromancer Games decided to designate the nabasu as Open Content (I assume -- if I'm wrong and the nabasu is not Open Content, then forget I ever said anything), so I think they're fully prepared to deal with the ramifications of their actions.
FWIW, if I want to use a nabassu, I'll open up the MM2.
I think it comes down to an issue of professional courtesy vs. what may be legally allowable. Just because the OGL allows Paizo to re-post OGL content from another source, doesn't mean they have to.
But they'll publish the nabasu stats in the finished product anyways (and presumably won't pay Necromancer one thin dime for the privilege). So how is that any more courteous than publishing the stats here?
Because they're still selling the product.
Heck, I've -given away- my two classes to people who have asked for them, fully OGL, and I'd be miffed of someone just slapped them up on the web.
Then why don't you come up with a license that makes that impossible instead of using one that allows it? Did someone trick you into using the Open Gaming License instead?
It's $10. Buy the gorram PDF.
I have no interest in nabasus at all; I'm not a module writer. And it has nothing to do with money; I've bought plenty of OGL material in my life.
My point is only that it's a bit silly to pretend that re-printing Open Content is somehow immoral when one's whole business model is predicated on re-publishing Open Content.
We're not "pretending" anything, though a lot of folks in this thread have done a good job ascribing emotions to our lack of posting that stat block. I haven't posted it because I haven't had time to be sure I *can* post it and it hasn't terribly impacted the submissions on that scenario anyway.
*shrug*
Call us what you want, but don't ascribe to malice what can just as easily be explained by being way too busy.
We're not "pretending" anything, though a lot of folks in this thread have done a good job ascribing emotions to our lack of posting that stat block. I haven't posted it because I haven't had time to be sure I *can* post it and it hasn't terribly impacted the submissions on that scenario anyway.
So you're certain that the OGL allows you to publish a downloadable Pathfinder scenario with the stats for the nabasu demon and yet you're not certain that he OGL allows you to publish the stats for the nabasu demon somewhere on your web site?
So you're certain that the OGL allows you to publish a downloadable Pathfinder scenario with the stats for the nabasu demon and yet you're not certain that he OGL allows you to publish the stats for the nabasu demon somewhere on your web site?
The Difference is that one is a product, and the other is a free location.
If we use the nabasu stats, we have to print the OGL and cite the source along with those stats. We don't print the OGL on our website, but we do in our products. If we were to post the nabasu here, technically we'd have to post the OGL at the same time in the same post, I believe.
In any case, if you're serious about writing for Paizo, know that we WILL sometimes ask our authors to use material from other sources, be they other companies' products or our own. In the case of Paizo products, we can provide our authors with those PDFs for free. We can't really do that with other company products, but that doesn't stop me, at the very least, from wanting to use stuff from the Tome of Horrors.
Think of it like a construction worker. They have to buy their own tools to work on a construction site, right? Same goes for freelancing. We don't buy your computer or word processor for you; we don't need to buy your reference books either.
The Tome of Horrors is one of a very few d20 books I'd call invaluable in writing for Pathfinder. The nabasu is a classic demon from the early days of the game, and I personally want it to be in the Pathfinder Bestiary; by ordering an adventure with one in it, we get an illustration for the demon to use in the Pathfinder Bestiary, AND we get a cool nabasu adventure in addition. That's the REAL reason this adventure needs a nabasu; because the plot requires a demon, and we have art for most of the demons already, and I want there to be a nabasu in the adventure.
If that's a problem, my suggestion is to not submit a proposal for the adventure and to just do one for the other adventure, or to wait for the next round of open calls. We're gonna keep doing open calls for a Loooooong Time.
In any case, I'm really not interested in seeing complaints about nabasus continue. We want one in the adventure, and that's pretty much that.
I don't currently own Tomb of Horror. And cant easily get hold of it at the momment. So when i realised i would not be able to get a handle on the Nabbasu, i just didn't write a proposal for 'Demon Haunts the Devil's Hall'. I don't really see what the problem is. Its like cooking a meal, if you don't have tomatos, you don't make bolognese, you make a shepards pie instead.
I personally, actually am kind of glad i was forced to concentrate on the Skeleton Moon. It pushed me out of my comfort zone a little, made me use some monsters i would never normal have considered and I think what i came up with was better than what i could have done for demon haunts.
The nabasu is a classic demon from the early days of the game, and I personally want it to be in the Pathfinder Bestiary; by ordering an adventure with one in it, we get an illustration for the demon to use in the Pathfinder Bestiary, AND we get a cool nabasu adventure in addition. That's the REAL reason this adventure needs a nabasu; because the plot requires a demon, and we have art for most of the demons already, and I want there to be a nabasu in the adventure.
I don't know about other people, but having that information at the beginning of the open call would've made it a lot easier for me to do one for #20. It really helps me at least to know the mindsets behind the restrictions (I can sometimes figure them out, like the no-undead clause), but the information behind the decision would allow us to know what you're getting at and where you're flexible. For example with #19 one of my encounters is written for monstrous centipedes, but I told Josh in the pitch that I thought Shadows would be a better fit there if he's willing to bend the clause. With that information for #20 I could have written the proposal I had in mind that would have featured Nabasu but my estate wouldn't have been 'overrun' with them.
No such thing as too much information for the writers ^^
I don't know about other people, but having that information at the beginning of the open call would've made it a lot easier for me to do one for #20. It really helps me at least to know the mindsets behind the restrictions (I can sometimes figure them out, like the no-undead clause), but the information behind the decision would allow us to know what you're getting at and where you're flexible. For example with #19 one of my encounters is written for monstrous centipedes, but I told Josh in the pitch that I thought Shadows would be a better fit there if he's willing to bend the clause. With that information for #20 I could have written the proposal I had in mind that would have featured Nabasu but my estate wouldn't have been 'overrun' with them.
No such thing as too much information for the writers ^^
Actually... too much information CAN be a problem. We're already seeing a little of that backlash in that some folk feel that the scenarios are too rigid in what they need to do and what they can't. Of course, writing for a shared wold like Golarion means that there'll always be a certain amount of throttling on creativity, with us editors telling writers what their adventure has to be or do, and frankly, the best writers take those limitations and do wonders with them, using the "limitations" as tools to enhance their writing.
But we don't want to fill these open calls with SO many rules and info that things get overwhelming to the writers. By keeping things simple with a few relatively brief requirements, the hope is that we'll get more submissions.