|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Kevin Mack wrote:
Any good Iconic art in the previews?
That's right there was. Occult adventures iconics were in the art preview. Let me just say that everyone's favorite iconic is going to be the kineticist. She rocks. Also, the ... I'm forgetting which one, the one with the spirit companion rocks. There aren't enough elderly iconics and this is downright cool. There's even an overweight iconic. Its the one with Bob the skull.
Basic pictures are in my twitter feed, and probably Wolfgang's as well.
Brandon Hodge wrote:
That's incorrect, DMW. Due to a class with 54 spirits taking up a huge chunk of the book's wordcount, the number of spirits was scaled down to 6, which each one representing an embodiment of classic heroic archetypes (small "a") which correspond to the six mythic tiers. Jason stated they promise to find a home for the 54 in a future product!
As Brandon said, the six spirits correspond to mythic tiers. The idea is that you are channeling the spirit of a former mythic hero. But yea, to do all 54 would have eaten up a third of the book.
Milo v3 wrote:
Wasn't that announced a while ago?
First I heard of it. It was mentioned in this little exchange at the Inside Occult Adventures seminar.
*question about occult monsters in the book*
Erik: We couldn't fit monsters in the book but we have the Occult Bestiary as a hardback this fall ... Which I am not sure it is announced yet.
I remember thinking that when I read Pathfinder's main setting books, its like the countries were developed completely independent of each other, or were developed right along side another for a specific campaign in mind.
I've been reading the World of Greyhawk book for the past day and franky, I can't put it down. The countries actually interact. You don't have to do "save the world games". Heck a group of players can be the spies for an advancing army. And a whole number of other campaigns I can't see that (with a few exceptions) can't really be done in the above mentioned CS. It definitely sounds like a nice change from what I have been playing.
Would greyhawk inspired adventures for 5e be of interest to anyone? I can't do Greyhawk itself, but I can certainly make adventures that would fit will in Greyhawk.
Liz Courts wrote:
Also, your anxiety is something that every artist I've ever met experiences, from the beginner to the veteran. We all know its cruel embrace. Punch it in the teeth and keep drawing.
This. Heck, I'll admit to this for everything I write. The fraud syndrome is strong among authors as well as artists. Only thing you can do is stand up to it and put yourself out there.
Since we're on the wish list of think we want in a new edition:
I want masterwork to really mean something. I don't want every Tom, Dick, and Harry that is 3rd level and above to have a masterwork weapon. I want, "Six-fingered man commissioned a special sword. My father slaved a year on it." I want masterwork to be something that no one short of 10th level gets. Sure you have your flaming sword at 4th level, but it is not "masterwork." A masterwork sword can have twice as many magical properties as a regular old sword. The same magical properties are more powerful on a masterwork sword. And there should be a table of quirks and/or backstories stories for masterwork weapons. I want them RARE!
[PaizoCon 2015] So You Want To Be a Pathfinder Compatible Publisher? - Sunday morning, 11:00 am-12:00 pm
Its the easiest, sure, but is it the best way of doing it?
What do you feel about this change: Remove the requirement that all magic weapons start with a +1 bonus. Now your first weapon magic weapon can either do +1 to hit/damage or it can do +1d6 fire damage.
Now lets talk about one other change: capping magic weapons at +5 instead of +10. Lets be honest, when was the last time anyone saw a +5 vorpal sword? But if you cap it at +5, you can have a vorpal sword, but no other bonuses, not even a +1 on it.
I'm all for players getting gear, but first we have to ask, "are we, as GMs, giving stuff just to give stuff or are we giving meaningful stuff." a +x bonus items being baked into the system means that certain items must be given out at certain times. I'd rather eliminate that from the math and focus on the adventure instead of making sure that this perfect magic item is included in the treasure pile, and providing an explanation as to why the bad guy wasn't using that item.
Which I just realized is the answer to the post above: PCs and NPCs in the system as it stands right now do not use the same creation system. According to the rules of the system right now, a 20th-level NPC is suppose to have 159,000 gp, which a 13th-level PC is suppose to have. And how are you ever to see a +10 weapon when that costs 200,000 gp, 41,000 gp more than a 20th level NPC is ever suppose to have?
And yes, that is at high level. A +1 magic weapon costs 2 kgp (kilo gp or 1000 gp). An NPC isn't suppose to have that much devoted to a weapon until level 6. Compare that with the automatic bonus progression (Unchained) which lays out what kind of bonus the game expects you to have and when. A PC is suppose to get a +1 weapon bonus at 4th level.
So right there, you have two different systems. One for PCs and one for NPCs.
all creatures working under the same generation system,
I read the first post, but the rest, TL;DR.
I'm cool with most of what you said in your post except the quoted part. As a monster designer, I can only say, oh please no. This is one of the things that needs to go. Unchained's monster creation is great; I imagine that it is a starting point idea for what the designers would like to do in a new edition but back compatible with a new edition. I support this effort.
Another thing I would love to see changed: eliminate all +(whatever) bonuses with magic items. I really like the "automatic bonus progression" in Unchained. Now if Pathfinder 2e can just eliminate all that from the game's math to begin with, I'd be thrilled. There is no reason for the game to assume that all the players would have cloaks of resistance +1 at 3rd level when it can just eliminate its need from the math altogether. Same with armor and weapon +1, +2, + ... bonuses. Why can't a magic flaming sword be a sword you get at 1st level with a fire enchantment on it. Why do you have to have a +1 bonus on it to begin with.
Dangers of a Forgotten Past Awakened in the Deep
When hobgoblin raiders kidnap a caravan full of workers and supplies, the adventurers set off to get them all back. But neither the raiders nor the adventurers know what terrifying horrors await them in the depths of their cavern hideout. Now, the adventurers must risk it all to prevent the minions of an ancient enemy from visiting death and destruction upon the land. Can the heroes rescue the captives from the hobgoblins and deliver them from this ancient foe—or will they all perish, ushering in the rise of a forgotten deity?
Rescue from Tyrkaven is the first adventure module in Jon Brazer Enterprises’ Deadly Delves series for the Fifth Edition of the World’s Oldest Fantasy Roleplaying Game. This 19-page adventure is designed to challenge four to five 2nd-level adventurers who thirst for heroics… but they may find more than they bargained for in the process! Inside this volume, you’ll find:
Dangers Unknown. Treasures Untold. Adventure Awaits.
Actually, now that I think about it, the biggest problem with summoning a draconic or a lovecraftian, is that one is a dragon, and the other is an abberation. Neither is an outsider, or, for that matter, an extraplanar fey.
To me, this sounds like the unchained summoner needs more eidolon subtypes, which is the perfect thing for a Pathfinder Compatible Publisher to work on.
[/shameless Pathfinder Compatible Publisher plug]
No. The problem with the summoner being a 9 level caster in 6 levels is that you only need a 16 in Cha to access 9th level spells. That means you can give your halfling the 14 and never, ever use a single ability score increase or magic item that increased ability scores and still have access to 9th level spells. Instead you can spend all your gold and ability bumps on things that let you hit better, dodge better, gave you better hp. You hit with weapons better than a wizard, had more hp than a wizard, and got access to spells like haste and dominate monster before the wizard did, all without using a single gp on your magic and using a single ability bump. And that is no counting the eidolon.
Its spell list was just broken.
Now it is a 6th level caster, it gets haste, greater invisibility, and slow the same time as the bard instead of 3 levels earlier, and access to mass ability buff spells, the same time as the bard instead of 6 levels earlier. If anything, the bard should get these spells before the summoner, not the other way around. Yes there are some differences between their spell progressions (i.e. bard gets heroism earlier and summoner gets summon monster 4+ spells earlier), but they're thematically appropriate. It had access to spells that should have only been available to a 9 level caster like binding, dominate monster, maze, protection from spells.
If a character is going to have a spell list of a 9 level caster, you should be dumping all your money and energy into making it a powerful caster. The summoner, being a 6 level caster has to do neither. He has everything he needs to one day have access to 9th level spells at 1st level.
That ain't right.
I dunno, this constant hiring back and forth, i'm not sure it's that great for the industry.
May I recommend some Pathfinder compatible material (or 5e compatible material) produced by a small publisher?
Heck, I can recommend some good books from publishers I have never worked for nor have I hired them.
[/shameless small publisher plug]
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
He specifically said "I'm helping sort out lore and other content (primarily for FR) so WotC licensors (like videogame companies) have easy access to the info they need." (emphasis mine) I would assume it is to more making sure that things like the Elemental Evil video game stays in FR lore and less about getting more new RPG material out.
He specifically said "I'm helping sort out lore and other content (primarily for FR) so WotC licensors (like videogame companies) have easy access to the info they need." I would assume it is to more making sure that things like the Elemental Evil video game stays in FR lore and less about getting more new RPG material out.
On some levels I completely agree with you and others I disagree with you. The basic idea of Unchained being a book to test ideas, I definitely agree with you but I believe you ascribing ideas of designers wanting to push ideas onto gamers more than is there. Having been a playtester for a number of games and having used books like Unchained for various other games (i.e. Pathfinder Alpha and Beta, 3.5's ToB: Bo9S, Exalted 1e's Player's Guide, Mongoose Traveller [hard to believe that was 8 years ago]), I'd sooner describe something like this as throwing spaghetti against the wall and seeing what sticks. "If the fans like it, run with it. If not, well it was a good test."
To me OA doesn't feel like an experiment as much as giving fans of a certain style of play what they want, hitting some of the last few points before closing up PF1e. Like Magic of Incarnum, OA feels like a stand alone book that does not have much impact on the rest of the game, so if players/gm's want to skip it, they're not going to be behind. Having said that, I would not be surprised if an AP next year is about Vudra. (But that is pure speculation, I have no direct info on this one way or the other.)
If Paizo is going to do another test book, I'd expect it to be the spring 2016 hardcover. (Again, no direct info. Only speculation)
I just want to say thank you to the RPG development team. I perma-banned the summoner for being broken. I felt it was a 9 level caster smashed into 6 levels. Thank you for actually making it a 6 level caster class.
No perma-ban on the unchained version. In fact, I might be bringing one as a pregen character to PaizoCon.
Steve Geddes wrote:
1. This would be nice, but I'd consider that a kickstarter stretch goal level of desire. I'll be happy with the revised 4e GSL. (The first version required that you stopped selling anything that used the OGL; the revised eliminated that part and was cool with dual stating a product, as long as the 4e portions were not open content.) I would have used the revised 4e GSL if I enjoyed 4e as a game, which I didn't.
2. Yes. Having a license is good and all but is useless without the terms that we are allowed to use. Again, this doesn't need to be 3.x level SRD here. Just a long list of terms that are ok to use ALA 4e's SRD.
To be honest, I'd be cool with a really short license that said:
Technically, saying 5e is "not OGL" is a a misuse of the term. But it is a misuse inline with calling a tissue a "Kleenex." When people ask for an OGL for 5e, they are looking for any kind of compatibility license instead of having to rely on copyright law or on using a license that corresponds to a set of terms that are free and open to use that was designed for a different version and is not designed with this specific version of D&D. What we want is a simply, easy to understand (since few of us are lawyers in the day job) way of saying this is for use with 5e and if you use these terms (terms being anything from "blue dragon" to "advantage"), Wizards will not care one way or the other what happens.
5e has no free, open license of any kind to date. There is no list of terms or phrases that are allowed to be used that directly corresponds to 5e. And there is no official way to indicate compatibility. Can you make a 5e adventure with all the tools available to you right now? Yes. It is not as easy as the OGL, but it can be done.
So how much do publishers want some kind of 5e license? Roughly the same amount a GMs wants an adventure. And for similar reasons: we're busy and don't have time to learn copyright law, some are more risk averse and want a simple clear license that says this is what you can do and this is what you cannot, and some just flat out like running a company with the OGL.
Does this make sense?
Do Not Meddle in the Affairs of Dragons ...
Children of the cauldron, wyvarans stand as a race of dragons like no other. They met the challenge for survival with a roar that was heard around the world. Now they quest for gold, territory, knowledge, and honor. This quest leads to many heroic deeds as tales of this young race spread from town to town. Now you can play a wyvaran and show the world what it means to be a dragon.
Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Wyvarans gives you everything you need to play a wyvaran character. This 23-page supplement features:
Be Heroic with This Advanced Race Today!
Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Wyvarans is part of the Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Subscription. Purchasing the subscription gets you Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Changelings, Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Catfolk, Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Tengu, and Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Favored Class Options in addition to Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Wyvanrans all right away, plus 8 more races released throughout 2015 plus the upcoming Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Compendium when it is finished. Download today at DriveThruRPG/RPGNow, d20PFSRD, and Paizo.com.
Over the years, races ending in a gender specific ending have typically been replaced with "folk" instead:
So shouldn't the gillmen be called the gillfolk these days?
Disclaimer: My company will be producing Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Gillmen (or Gillfolk, if decided otherwise) later this year.
My current favorite thing I like about 5e: teleportation circle. With teleportation raised to a 7th level spell (which makes me really happy), this spell handles the quicker travel at lower levels with a number of storytelling options I like. First off, small villages won't have a dedicated circle, so a group won't be able to beam there quickly, even if they have a scroll. Second, an ancient circle can still be in working order, so you can beam into the area of extreme danger rather quickly. 3rd, it takes a minute to cast, so if you are being chased by a monster you can't defeat, you just have to fight from a defensible position, hold it off for a number of rounds while the wizard is busy. Great fun.
Steve Geddes wrote:
As I understand things, the risky thing about publishing for 5E under the OGL is the prohibition on advertising it as compatible with a trademark.
That is one of them. There are others, but as long as you know about them and avoid them, everything should be fine. You can still find yourself in a lawsuit who's whole purpose is for one company to drive the other company out if business, which is a real possibility, but I don't think this will happen.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Totally off topic here for a moment, but those that click this link and enter their email address and check a 5e box before tomorrow morning may get a nice surprise come the morning.
Just saying. Totally has nothing to do with Dungeons and Dragons and a lack of support. Nothing at all.
I still have the mindset that a DM who uses published adventures is a lazy failure of a DM because he can't come up with adventures of his own.
I use to agree with you on that. Now I recognize that it is just a matter of how much free time you have. The first published adventure I ever used in 2011-ish time frame. For the 15+ years before that I prided myself at never, ever using a published adventure. Now I'm just plain busy and published adventures are pretty much the only way I can run a game anymore, unless I want to wing it every session.
Right there with you. This is the kind of strategy you employ when you value the core as a brand that can be used to generate revenue through other mediums instead of valuing the core itself. It leads to not taking chances, playing safe, and not rocking the boat. Its going to lead to adventures that revolve around "going somewhere and killing things" instead of actually doing something cool and interesting, like one that centers on machine gods and so forth.
Up until now, I have actively not talked about my fellow Pathfinder Compatible companies because I always felt that it was not proper. If I said anything less than positive, I felt that that was a snide way of saying my products are better, and if I said something glowing I was always afraid that someone would say that I am “shilling for my buddies.” So I stayed away from it. But honestly, I was not being true to myself. I typically love the work that my fellow Pathfinder Compatible publishers do and I want to take a few moments to share with you every so often some of my favorite Pathfinder Compatible books. Allow me to start with what I feel is the best Pathfinder Compatible book, and quite frankly better than some Pathfinder RPG books, available: Ultimate Psionics by Dreamscarred Press.
Read the whole article at JonBrazer.com
Earlier today, I finished adding all the favored class options from this supplement to their respective races on d20PFSRD. So now you can see all the favored class options for:
You can download this as its own PDF here or as part of the Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Compendium—Work in Progress subscription.
Steve Geddes wrote:
What I find most surprising is the shift to outsourcing production of the adventure content. Addressing 'bloat' was clearly an idea whose time had come - it seems to me that WotC are vying away from the OGL approach and are looking to utilise third party publishers through a more traditional licensee/collaborator model. I didnt expect that.
I didn't expect them to outsource, but it doesn't surprise me. I talked to a member of WotC back at GenCon 2012 and they said that they know they need to keep hiring new talent (at that point, they hadn't made a new high profile hire since Mearls, IIRC). And (yes, I was told this) that they need to have the OGL as a path to making new hires. Their opinion was that 90% of everything produced for the OGL was crap, but that they had to accept that for the 10% that was brilliant and make hire from that group.
So I am highly surprised that they have not released any kind of open license yet (OGL or otherwise), but I assume that their outsourcing of adventures is management's way of doing that without having the "90% crap" problem.
What does surprise me more than anything else though is that the two companies they hired from so far are run by former Wizards' employees. So if my guess about this being their audition for new hires method is correct, then they are not looking for new hires but are sticking with what they know. Especially considering that Sasquatch Games had not produced a single RPG book before the PotA was announced (and long since turned into Wizards). Mind you, they might have simply done that while the rules were being written/very early days after being published (since they know they can handle a dynamic set of circumstances like that) and will move forward using new companies for talent audition.
I'm mostly posting to keep the thread bumped. I took the request for reviews seriously because it is true; I have bought a lot of third party products due to good reviews. Generally I get books or pdfs to fulfill a need but its a money risk if there isn't an honest review that gives the details that you need to decide on whether or not to purchase. I hope that more people review and read my own reviews because that's how third party products keep a level of integrity and dignity as opposed to being dismissed as inherently unbalanced, bloating and useless.
Well, we really appreciate your efforts.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Now where's some kind of license, any kind of license to produce compatible material. Because Wizards is not coming anywhere close to meeting the demand for adventures, additional crunch, settings, etc.
After Pathfinder became a more successful game than D&D 3.5, do you think WotC is going to let that happen again?
It doesn't have to be the OGL. Even if it was the revised GSL, that would work fine.
Had you asked me that question when it was first released, my answer was "I'm cautiously optimistic." I believed it was possible, but I recognized the doubt in the back of my mind for what it was.
Had you asked me when they released the DMG, I would have been frustrated, but I would have held out hope.
We are 9 months out since the release of the PHB. That is 8 months longer than the first version of the 4e GSL's release after it's respective PHB. We are 3 months out from the revised version of the GSL (so yes, in the same time frame since the 4e PHB's release there have been 2 versions of the GSL). And a year and a half longer than the much publicized telephone conference that Wizards had with Paizo, Green Ronin, Mongoose, Goodman, and Necromancer (and I think a few others) to get them on board with 4e when it launched. If Wizards was serious about fostering some kind of compatible market, they would have done something by now other than a few designers saying, "Yes, we really want to make it OGL."
And yes, Perkins did say something stronger back in November (6 months ago). But since then Mearls went on jury duty and things screeched to a halt with certain product developments. He said on twitter that the conversion documents for older modules should be coming in July. When asked about a license, he didn't respond. Which, I think at this point, is reasonable to assume that it is not going to happen.
If Wizards put out some kind of ... anything ... that hinted at some kind of license, I'd be the first to speak up in their defense. But we haven't seen anything other than, what is in my opinion, several developers that believe in the OGL trying to influence those that make decisions by speaking publicly about it. And have since not said anything else on the topic.