Prime Evil's page

I'm very glad that they acknowledge the hobby's history and are sensitive to the work of these past giants.

As I read through the new rulebook, I am increasingly overjoyed that they have not simply discarded the Sword & Sorcery roots of the game in favour of anime-inspired 'dungeonpunk' or something similar, but have chosen to realign the game along more traditional lines. The guys at Paizo seem to be aware of the literature that inspired D&D and are working to recapture that feel. Even people who don't like 3E should read the core rulebook to get an idea of how the game might be updated without losing sight of its roots. Excellent work - and a fitting tribute to the pioneering spirit of Gygax and Arneson.

MerrikCale wrote:

I thought 2E won

Nono, there can be only 1e.

My hat of d02 know no limit!!!!

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31914

(WARNING: DO NOT READ THIS THREAD WHILE DRINKING ANYTHING)

I just downloaded my copy and so far I'm impressed.

This is an excellent product from Adamant that seems to have learned from many of the mistakes made by third-party publishers in the past.

I haven't seen anything wildly unbalanced yet and I will definitely use some of the new options in my own campaign.

The chase rules look good...as do the morale rules...

Congratulations, guys! This is pure WIN!!!

The good news is that the level of initial sales has definitely proven the financial viability of releasing a new fantasy RPG. It's a nice antidote to all of the doomsayers who have been predicting the demise of the tabletop RPG hobby over the next few years. It looks like the right product can still tempt many people to break out their wallets....even in tough economic times. And it pretty much guarantees that Paizo can continue supporting Pathfinder for years to come...

It will be interesting to see how sales hold up after the initial print run - will the Pathfinder RPG continue to attract players, or will the initial surge of interest die down after a while?

I suspect that many casual gamers will watch the level of ongoing support for the Pathfinder RPG before deciding to pick up the core rulebook to check out what all the fuss is about.

Oh my house is definately spider filled.

I happen to adore spiders.

I have seen four different species of spider in my house in the last two days and it makes me smile every time i see them.

Anyway, I live in Australia and we have some of the coolest arachnids in the world.

I love the whistling spiders from northern Queensland....up to 6cm in body length and a total length of 16cm...plush they make a weird noise if you disturb them...

http://www.biocity.edu.au/content/view/103/68/

Are the 0 level spells usable 'at will' ala 4E

Or is my mind mixing editions (again)

EDIT: like sorcerer and bard, I guess

If I remember rightly AEG retained all the IP for Oriental Adventures..now if Lisa could negotiate a deal..we might yet get the Wu-Jen and the Shugenja into PF

The declaration is usually worded something like this:

AECs intention is to open up as much of the book Magic of Rokugan as possible to be used as open Game Content (OGC), while maintaining Product Identity (PI) to all aspects of the Legend ofthe Five Rings intellectual property Publishers who wish to use the OGC materials from this book are encouraged to contact AEGJohnZ@aolcom if they have any questions or concerns about reproducing material from Magic of Rokugan in other OGL works. AEG would appreciate anyone using OGC material from Magic of Rokugan in other OGL works to kindly reference Magic of Rokugan as the source of that material within the text of their work. Open Game Content may only he used under and in accordance with the terms of the OGL as was set forth in the previous column.

USE OF MATERIAL AS OPEN GAME CONTENT: It is the clear and expressed intent of Alderac Entertainment Group to add all classes, skills, feats, equipment, prestige classes, spell effects, magic item effects, artifact effects, and monster and NPC statistics (hence forth “goodies”)contained in this volume to the canon of Open Game Content for free use pursuant to the open Game License hy future open Game publishers. Some of the aforementioned items, however, contain Product Identity, as designated above, and that designation remains. A limited license is provided below which allows use of content designated as Product Identity for these items only.

Any chance that Paizo might eventually consider E.C. Tubbs's Dumarest of Terra series? The early books have been out of print for a while, although apparently Tubb is working on a new novel in the series....

And how about H. Beam Piper's Space Viking? Or Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen?

While the excitement is there, I must speak honestly. I'll be looking very, very carefully at any PF support products not from Paizo. As one who was more than a little burned by careless 3.0 d20 books by folks back in the day (and have since purged such sins from my shelf) I want to be more careful.

So, count me in as one who would definatly like to see more than a few previews or commentary before jumping on board. Thanks!

Keep in mind that supporting the Pathfinder RPG at this point is an act of faith for publishers - nobody really knows how well the game will sell. While there is little doubt that it will do OK, there is a chance that its popularity will either drop off after the initial print run or that it will balloon into a monster hit for Paizo (my hope is the latter). In either case, the market for third-party Pathfinder products is completely untested. It would be very interesting to know how strong pre-orders for the Tome of Secrets are compared to Adamant's recent releases for 4e, True20 and Savage Tales, but I doubt that company will share that information.

I suspect that many of those publishers who choose to publish Pathfinder-compatible material will do so because they harbour a secret love for the 3.5 game system and prefer the freedom afforded by the OGL over the more restrictive terms of the GSL. Purely from a business perspective, there is little doubt that Paizo offers a better deal to third-party publishers than the most obvious alternative....

Sounds like an excellent product that will add some cool content into the Pathfinder RPG. I'll definitely pick this one up!

Yes, the rules will be 100% Open Content. Adamant is a firm believer in the OGL.

3. It's precisely BECAUSE the math breaks down in the normal D&D rules after level 20 that a special Epic ruleset is needed. Saying "normal D&D rules don't work after 20" isn't an argument against special Epic rules -- it's an argument for them. The problem is, that it hasn't yet been handled right. What I'd like to see is a set of Epic rules handled right.

4. One way to do that, just as a random thought, would be to start scaling again at 21. That is, bonuses at Epic levels are designated as "epic +1, epic +2, epic +3, etc."

This would mean that against 'non-epic' DCs, saves, etc., the epic stat automatically gets a +20 bonus. Against epic-level saves, DCs, etc., then the straight epic stat is used, making the die roll more important again and making it so that there are less situations where someone always succeeds, and someone else always fails.

For example, a PC with an epic +6 Will save would receive a +6 Will save against Epic effects (21+). Against non-epic effects, they would receive a +26 Will save.

In this way, you'd return the math to manageable levels, but still retain the feeling that your characters can mash ordinary heroes and villains flat in a few seconds.

In effect, against epic-level challenges, a 21st level character would effectively be a 1st level character again, although with a diverse selection of abilities and powers, making the character feel much more epic than a 1st level character (something also achieved by the nature of the stories and challenges they would face at these levels). But the math would be brought back to a manageable level, bonus-wise, and the die roll would become more significant again.

Against non-epic challenges, this same character would be pretty overwhelming -- which is appropriate, too.

The idea of a level cap at 40 for epic-level play also fits in well with established third-edition D&D lore, which set the precedent that most gods and other immortals should possess 40 class levels.

Under this scheme, I would suggest three distinct scales of play: 1-20 = heroic; 21-40 = epic; 41-60 = mythic / immortal. The mathematics rescale each time the characters pass from one band to the next to reflect the idea that each type of play is qualitatively different.

In my own opinion, the OGL was probably the most important innovation of the 3E era. It had no precedent within the industry, drawing instead upon the model of open-source software development. The OGL allowed an entire ecosystem of independent publishers to flourish - some good, some bad, and some indifferent. WoTC never really allowed the OGL to develop to its full potential - they didn't release much OGC after the first year or two and never incorporated the best of the third-party material back into the 'official' ruleset. However, the fact remains that the OGL kick-started a revival of the hobby (which was in severe doldrums back in the late 1990s).

By contrast, the GSL seems to be a big step backwards. The restrictive terms of the license and the mishandling of its release killed off many of the third-party publishers (or at least sent them into very deep hibernation). Rather that drawing upon the open-source development model, the GSL reads like a standard contract for the use of licensed intellectual property - the kind of contract that lawyers in the entertainment industry draw up all the time.

The fact that Paizo has chosen to stick with the OGL for the Pathfinder RPG makes me very happy. Although it is unlikely that Pathfinder will attract the number of third-party publishers that 3e did in the heyday, it wouldn't surprise me if a few of the big names test the waters with a couple of Pathfinder-compatible releases. If these are successful, we might see a modest revival in the 3PP ecosystem.

I am consistently impressed that Paizo seems to 'get' the OGL far better than anybody at WoTC did after Ryan Dancey left - not only do they release most of the non-setting specific material in their books as OGC, but also they routinely use spells and monsters from other publishers (especially Green Ronin and Necromancer). I'd love to see Paizo develop an official online SRD that serves as a resource for the OGC contained in their own books - but also the best OGC from other Pathfinder-compatible publishers. I'm not sure whether this is likely to happen though.

Krome wrote:

It remains a right only until it is taken from us.

Or until we surrender it.

All men are equal and free: society by nature, and destination, is therefore autonomous and ungovernable. If the sphere of activity of each citizen is determined by the natural division of work and by the choice he makes of a profession, if the social functions are combined in such a way as to produce a harmonious effect, order results from the free activity of all men; there is no government. Whoever puts a hand on me to govern me is an usurper and a tyrant; I declare him my enemy.

Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices...The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society [...] is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worse state an intolerable one.

Never played RoS, but I was a GURPS fanboy in my college days. I definitely could get my GURPS on again!

Reign of Steel is now part of the Infinite Worlds setting that was originally published in the 3e GURPS Time Travel, allowing you to do cool Terminator-style stories involving the manipulation of past events. The Infinite Worlds hadcover for GURPS 4e was written by Ken Hite and won a couple of awards for best RPG sourcebook, if memory serves me right.

This is great news.

Roughly how long does the printing process take?

In other words, how long do we have to wait until we get can see a snapshot of the finished product?

And would now be a good time to find some typos that were missed?

How would you feel about new sword and planet stories by established authors with new ideas?

Bless you all.

Thanks for sharing in the PDF Love!

By the way, I think there's a typo on page 73. You might want to fix that before you send it off.

The Paizo twitter feed lets us know just how much fun they've been having.

The day before we send the Core Rulebook to print is probably not the best time to ask the art staff to make free wallpapers, but I'll see what I can do for the near future. :)

The depiction of the troll on the cover of the Bestiary shows why I love the approach adopted by Paizo for the Pathfinder RPG - the troll has definitely had a makeover, but it is still recognizably a troll in the classic D&D tradition. The balance between innovation and tradition seems to be about right.

Any chance of some desktop wallpaper based on these images (hint, hint)?

Prime Evil wrote:

Vaz'zht (Not sure of the origin of this one)

Vaz'zht is based on Graz'zt.

Wow. That is an amazing cover. It's probably one of the most iconic pieces that Wayne Reynolds has ever done. I think that I just melted my pants!

Malcanthet was created by Rob Kuntz in Dungeon #112's "Maure Castle," and I did the majority of the work developing her character in Savage Tide, the Demonomicion, FC1, and Rob developed her more in the Maure Castle sequels in Dungeon. All of that was under WotC, alas, so she's closed content. Since she's not based on a real-world myth, she's not public domian either (as is the case of Demogorgon, Orcus, Pazuzu, and many other demon lords).

Which is the primary reason we turned Nocticula into the queen of the succubi in Golarion, rather than continue using Malcanthet.

Here's the ones that I am aware of:

The Tome of Horrors from Necromancer Games contains OGC writeups for the following demon lords that were authorized by WoTC back in the early days of 3e:

Baphomet
Fraz-Urb'Luu
Jubilex
Kostchtchie
Orcus
Pazuzu

In addition, this book provided a original writeups of the following demon lords:
Dagon
Tsathogga

The Book of Fiends from Green Ronin contains some OGC information on a number of demon lords.

Many of the demon lords described in the Book of Fiends have names and attributes that are clearly in the public domain because they are based upon real-world mythology - most of them are lifted directly from the Goetia:

Abaddon
Abraxas
Anarazel
Astaroth
Baphomet
Behemoth
Decarabia
Demogorgon
Flauros
Gamigin
Haagenti
Ipos
Nocticula
Raum
Sabnach / Sabnock
Shax
Socothbenoth
Vepar

Many of these demon lords also appear in the list of Rulers of the Abyss on p.35 of the 1st edition Monster Manual II.

A couple of additional OGC demon lords appear in the Book of Fiends:

Arachnadia (obviously based upon Lloth)
Vaz'zht (Not sure of the origin of this one)
Zhar'Ub-Luur (presumably based upon Fraz-Urb'Luu)
Yughhooragh (obviously based upon Yeenoghu)

Have I missed anybody?

Blizzard have dedicated the latest content update for World of Warcraft to the memory of Dave Arneson:

"Blizzard Entertainment would like to dedicate Secrets of Ulduar in memory of Dave Arneson. We were greatly saddened by the news of Dave’s passing. His work, passion, and creativity helped give life to an entirely new genre of gaming, and our fondest memories of playing Dungeons & Dragons continue to inspire us. Farewell, Dave, and thank you. You will be missed."

Thank you Dave for a hobby that has kept me enthralled for 25 years. Not many people can claim to have invented a whole new type of gaming nor to have brought joy into so many people's lives. Heck...the millions who play World of Warcraft or Everquest II today owe you a huge debt of gratitude for laying down the first foundations.

This is a strange decision on the part of WoTC and it is hard to understand the reasoning behind it from a business standpoint. However, it strengthens Paizo's position in the marketplace...

Prime Evil, I know there’s a few Paizonites who are based around Penrith area.

Hey...I live up in the Blue Mountains and most of my gaming group are scattered across the Western Suburbs. Our group isn't playing much but the Pathfinder RPG beta rules these days. A Paizonian gathering in June might be fun!

Perhaps Paizocon should go global :)

There's only a little bit of time left before the beta playtest for the Pathfinder RPG ends, so I'd like to make one last suggestion to the folks at Paizo who are working on the final version of the rulebook.

As you work feverishly to get the final manuscript ready, take a moment every now and then to step back from the rules and pay some attention to the tone and 'feel' of the product.

Speaking personally, improved rules are not the main reason that I want to play the Pathfinder RPG. I want to play the game because I sincerely hope that it will capture the magic that attracted me to roleplaying in the first place. I really want the final version of the Pathfinder RPG to be the rulebook that I dreamed of when I was 12 years old. And this has as much to do with the quality of the 'fluff' between the covers as it does about the quality of the 'crunch'. It is all about atmosphere and attitude. I believe that flavor actually matters!

Although the Pathfinder RPG contains modern game mechanics, I encourage you to wrap them in old-school sensibilities. Make sure that you show proper respect for the traditions of fantasy roleplaying that have kept many of us playing for more than twenty years. Always choose flavor text that accentuates the 'feel' of the game. Reach back to the pulp fantasy roots that inspired D&D in the first place. And try to capture the spirit of that tradition.

We're counting on you to show us something really special in August. At the end of the day, I hope that you will astonish and inspire us with an amazing piece of work...

I'd like to second the notion that the Pathfinder playtest has been a very rewarding experience.

Even though I haven't been able to participate in the day-to-day discussions as much as I would like to due to real life commitments, I've enjoyed reading many of the discussions here and thinking about the rule system in a new light. This exercise has given me a better appreciation of what works in the 3.5 ruleset and where some polish could be gainfully applied.

I'd like to echo the comment made above that the discussions in these playtest forums have been remarkably constructive and comparitively free from obnoxious behaviour. Given that most gamers (myself included) are ridiculously opinionated, this is nothing short of amazing.

Kudos to all involved in the project, both within Paizo and in the wider roleplaying community.

When the 3.5 rules replaced the 3.0 rules, many people complained that the use of miniatures became mandatory. For example, Monte Cook commented:

"The game now has an even stronger focus on miniatures. 3.0 had a strong focus on miniatures, but we wanted to at least address the fact that you might not want to play the game that way. But everyone in the Wizards of the Coast offices does, and so now you have to as well. And Wizards has a new line of miniatures to sell you. Seriously, though, for those wanting to play the game sitting on the couch, the game now offers a new barrier for you. The Combat chapter in the Player's Handbook now reads like a miniatures game. More and more of the game stats use "squares" rather than feet (or both). This is a huge step backward toward the "inches" used in 1st Edition."

"Facing (now called space) is now always square. In order to facilitate miniatures play (apparently), horses are no longer 5 feet by 10 feet when you put them on a grid, they're a 10-foot square. The horse has to "squeeze" to get through a 5 foot wide space. Three 9-foot-tall ogres require a 30-foot-wide passage in order to walk abreast. D&D, with its already abstract combat system, did not need this extra layer of abstraction. Not to mention the fact that this changes game play in strange ways, such as how many of the charging ogres you can get with your fireball spell."

Although I enjoy playing with miniatures, there are times when breaking out the figures for a combat is a chore. Does anybody have any suugestions for changes to the rules that would reduce the overdependence upon minitures?

Perhaps it would be worth adding a brief 2-3 page appendix with an streamlined abstract combat system for those times when the full combat system is too much? Speaking personally, I would find this useful for minor incidental combats, barroom brawls, etc.

The feats themselves are not bad...but most of my characters never take them because there are things out there that I need to get to meet prestige Class requirements or even other feats.

I would also like the idea of improved versions of these feats allowing perhaps a reroll or 2d20 "keep the best one".

Another other option might be to give all characters a discretionary point every few levels that they can add to a base saving throw of their choice. One option might be to give a point each time the character receives an attribute increase - i.e. one point every four levels. This wouldn't make much difference at low levels, but might ease some of the statistical anomalies that occur at high levels.

One of the problems that crops up in high-level play is the growing size of the gap between a character's best saving throw and the character's worst saving throw. In the 'sweet spot' that exists from about level 5 to about level 10, the size of this gap is approximately 2-3 points, but above level 15 or so it grows to a whopping 5-6 points. This means that an encounter that is a reasonable challenge for one member of a high-level party is likely to be deadly to those that have a poor saving throw against its attack. It is also one of the reasons that the challenge rating system breaks down badly at high levels. And it ensures that high-level characters have a glass jaw - any attack that targets their weak spot (their poor save) ensures that they go down. When this is combined with the growing proliferation of save or die effects, problems ensue. Most characters respond to this issue by loading upon items that boost saving throws - which exacerbates the christmas tree effect.

So what it the solution? Short of modifying the saving throw progression (which would seriously break backward compatibility), I suggest that those feats which improve a character's saving throws could do with a bit of a boost. I'm thinking of Great Fortitude, Iron Will, and Lightning Reflexes. I would suggest tweaking them to read something like this:

Great Fortitude
Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all Fortitude saving throws. This bonus increases by +1 for every four levels of experience that you possess.

This would ensure that characters can compensate for their weak saving throw without resorting to magic items - but only at the cost of a feat. It would also have a smaller impact on backward compatibility than most of the alternatives.

So what do folks think?

And I'm still on my crusade to have the name of breath of life change to cure deadly wounds, so that clerics can swap spells to cast it. That's how I run the spell in my homebrew and it works really good.

all of that will be exciting to see. Hopefully there'll be a growing market for the game and eveything associated with it.

The basic concept of having Death effects do Constitution damage rather than hit point damage is a good one, but may have some strange side-effects.

I think that 3d6 + 1/2 Caster level Constitution Drain on a failed save may be a bit too steep for the Save or Die spells though. Or perhaps that might be retained, and the victim takes no damage on a successful save...

A lot more decisions have to be made, but how many sets of rules Paizo has to release to make it possible is not one of them. If I wanted to go forward, and felt good about my understanding of their OGL, Paizo has already given me everything I need.

You could publish material using the OGC in the Pathfinder Beta without any claims of compatibility, but gamers would need to work out which rule systems it can be used with on their own.

It will be interesting to see just how closely you need to follow the Paizo RAW in order to utilize the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License - for example, if you develop a variant combat system or significantly modify one of the core classes for your own campaign can you still publish it the compatibility license? Or does any significant change to the official Paizo rules make the work infringeing?

Another thought...it will be interesting to see how the Community Use license handles things like non-commercial software such as fan-made Neverwinter Nights modules set in Golarion or homebrew tools for online play using Fantasy Grounds or OpenRPG...

All I can say is that I really want to see a Pathfinder Modern system. More so, I would really like to see it fully compatible with Pathfinder.

Thanks for the clarifications, Vic.

At this point, the licensing arrangements are sounding very reasonable (barring last-minute changes at the request of the lawyers).

I did think of a couple more quick questions though...

Will the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License only permit the licensee to indicate compatibility with the material from the Pathfinder RPG core rulebook, or can the licensee also use it to indicate compatibility with OGC from future Pathfinder RPG material from Paizo?

For example, let's say that Paizo releases an updated set of psionics rules and declares some of the content to be OGC. For the sake of this argument, assume that the new psionics book makes that minimal references to the Pathfinder RPG core rulebook. Could a third-party publisher use this OGC under the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License to publish a book of psionic monsters without directly referencing the core rulebook anywhere in the work? Or would that be a breach of the license?

The reason that I ask this question is that the legal status of books that used the d20 logo and OGC from Unearthed Arcana was always very unclear - was this OGC covered under the d20 trademark license or not? WoTC never clarified the situation either way - my gut feeling is that they basically lost interest in the d20 license at some point around 2005.

It would be nice if the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License covers claims of compatibility with OGC from the entire Pathfinder RPG product line, but from a legal perspective I can understand the desire of Paizo to establish clear boundaries around the license.

On a different subject, how will the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License handle works that do not fall into the medieval fantasy genre? For example, let's say that I want to publish an updated version of material from the d20 modern system that has been reworked to incorporate the new mechanics from the Pathfinder RPG (such as CMB and the revised skill list). Could I publish this under the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License or would I be in breach of the license? How would the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License handle something like a Pathfinder version of Mutants & Masterminds - a product that applies the Pathfinder rules to a different genre?

Blazej is correct: that sort of thing is not part of the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License; pretty much all that license does is let publishers advertise compatibility with the Pathfinder RPG.

Our Community Use License will allow non-professional use of some of our other trademarks and setting material under certain guidelines. That document is also at the lawyer right now (and Ryan has also looked that one over).

Anyone wanting to use any of our trademarks or setting material for *professional* publication (beyond what's allowed in the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License) will need to contact us for a direct license (and we'll be pretty selective about granting those).

• Open Game Content: Anybody can use the Open Game Content contained in the Pathfinder RPG under the terms of the OGL, but cannot claim compatibility with the Pathfinder RPG (as per the restriction contained in Section 7 of the OGL).

• Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License: Anybody who complies with the terms of this license can use the Open Game Content contained in the Pathfinder RPG under the terms of the OGL and can also indicate compatibility with the Pathfinder RPG. However, they cannot use any material from Pathfinder products that has been designated as product identity (eg. Paizo trademarks, elements of the Golarion campaign setting, deity names, etc).

• Community Use License: This license allows limited non-professional usage of Paizo product identity and trademarks under conditions that are yet to be revealed. From the description above, it sounds like this license is designed for folks who want to set up a Golarion-based campaign blog or something similar.

• Direct License from Paizo: Professional publishers who wish to utilize Paizo trademarks or material that has been designated as product identity in Paizo products must enter into a separate commercial license with Paizo. In order to prevent a glut of substandard Pathfinder products, Paizo intends to limit the number of direct licenses granted and presumably retain some kind of approval power over products that fall into this category. This would cover stuff like articles in Kobold Quarterly and established third-party publishers who wish to produce a quasi-official Pathfinder product (such as a Pathfinder version of Green Ronin's Freeport that contains advice on placing the city in Golarion).

A couple of general questions:

• How do you ensure that material released under the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License actually uses the Pathfinder RPG ruleset and is not merely 3.5 material that has been re-badged?

• Will the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License or Community Use License contain a 'community standards' clause like the one that was inserted into the revised d20 trademark license?

• Will Paizo provide a standard logo that products released under Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License can use to indicate compatibility? I'm wondering if Paizo is planning something like Green Ronin's M&M Superlink logo...

• Would Paizo consider releasing some trade dress guidelines for products released under the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License to help develop a sense of brand identity. I presume that the license will prohibit licensees from producing material that imitates the look and feel of official Paizo products and was wondering whether Paizo would consider would consider wourking with the community to develop a style guide for third-party Pathfinder RPG products?

• Will the development of third-party character generation software be permitted under the terms of the the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License? This was always a grey area for the d20 trademark license, and it would be nice to have some clarity in this area.

• Will there be a restriction in the Community Use License against using Paizo material with game systems other than the Pathfinder RPG? For example, if a fan wants to write up 4e conversions of NPCs from a Pathfider module, would that be acceptable? What about adaptations of monsters from Pathfider products to OSRIC or other retro-clone systems?

I just glanced over the designation of Open Game Content and Product Identity in the Pathfinder beta rulebbook and a couple of other recent Paizo products, and I would like to thank Paizo for being so generous with their intellectual property - it is really wonderful to see a company giving so much back to the gaming community.

I am particularly impressed by the fact that Paizo doesn't cripple the OGC designation on its products in the way that some third-party publishers have, effectively preventing other people from using their 'open' content while complying with the letter of the license. Given that Paizo has a lot financially riding on the Pathfinder RPG, it is extraordinary that they have shown such faith in the concept of the OGL.

It should be noted that Paizo has been more generous with its intellectual property than WoTC was with the 3.5 SRD - the designation of Open Content in the beta rulebook fully opens up the rules for character generation and advancement for the first time.

If Paizo comes out with a separate license that allows third-party publishers to claim compatibility with the Pathfinder RPG (something which is forbidden under the OGL), that will simply be the icing on the cake so far as I am concerned.

IMHO, the suggestion by the OP is excellent.

I agree that if a character suffers a -2 penalty to AC when flanked by two opponents, it might also be reasonable to allow a cumulative -1 to AC for each additional opponent who attacks the flanked character (up to a maximum of -6 AC or so). This makes it possible for a group of weaker opponents to bring down a tough character by sheer weight of numbers, especially if they can completely encircle their enemy. It also opens up new tactical possibilities, forcing characters to look at options like keeping their backs to a wall when outnumbered or taking up defensive positions in doorways.

I would also suggest that characters should be prevented from flanking opponents more than two size categories larger than themselves. This eliminates abuses such as invincible pixies and situations where a group of medium-sized humans bring down a dragon by surrounding it.

This is excellent news. It looks like the spirit of the OGL lives on!

IMHO, the entire hobby owes a huge debt of gratitude to people like Ryan Dancey and Peter Adkison who took a huge gamble on the OGL licensing scheme back in the late 1990's.

Despite the glut of bad d20 books towards the end of the 3.0 era, there is an entire ecology of cool RPG material that simply would not exist without their foresight and imagination. Heck, even Paizo would not exist in its current form without the OGL...

It will be interesting to see whether companies like Green Ronin, Necromancer, and Goodman Games announce third-party Pathfinder RPG support shortly after the terms of the compatibility license are announced.

Keep in mind that at least some of these companies will choose to support both 4e and Pathfinder (which is probably the best possible outcome for the hobby as a whole).

The release of the Pathfinder compatibility license will hopefully ensure that those of us who like the underlying 3.5 game system will have new products to look forward to from a number of different publishers for the next few years.

But in D&D the weakest attack misses anyway. In SWSE multiple attacks all attack with the higher bonus (there are no iterative attacks).

Rolling just extra dice for damage makes the rolling faster then rolling multiple attacks, and calculating multiple results of that and then rolling damage for all of these.

They got rid of iterative attacks and turned those into feats. Also the feats that would grant extra attacks now give extra damage. Like Rapid Shot which gives +1dX of damage instead of a new attack.

Another move that would benefit high-level combat is to tighten the limits on the number of conditional buffs that can iunfluence the outcome of a combat encounter. At the moment, each member of a high-level party may have 4-6 buffs that have an effect on combat - and keeping track of all of these fiddly conditional modifiers can slow combat to a crawl. For starters, I would suggest eliminating unnamed modifiers from the game entirely to let the stacking rules do their job. Secondly, I would place an upper limit on the size of maximum bonus that characters can add to their attack roll and damage roll from all sources - I would suggest capping the maximum attack and damage modifiers at 1/2 the character's level. Thus, a 10th level character could add a maximum of +5 to attack and damage rolls from various buffs, a 12th level character could add a maximum of +6, a 14th level character could add a maximum of +7, and so forth. This upper limit would ensure that high-level combat does not degenerate into a buffing contest...

Assassin Talents as rogue-like talents available through the Assassin class. I meant that they are special Assassin talents that are only accessible to those who take the Assassin PrC. Else, classes besides Rogue that become Assassins could never take the Talents. Maybe they should not be called 'Talents' since they are accessible by all Assassins, not just former Rogues. The term 'Talent' could cause confusion.

But the point is that different assassins might take different paths. Some might use spells. Some might be masters of wet work with a knife. Some might become experts with poison. Others might become snipers

Let me suggest a few rough ideas for additional assassin talents:

Social Chameleon: Helps the assassin 'blend in', perhaps providing a bonus to certain skills when attempting to get close to a target in a social situation.

Concealed Weapon: Gives the assassin a bonus when attempting to hide a small weapon such as a knife or shuriken on his or her person. Perhaps the size of this bonus should be equal to the assassin's class level?

Benefit: You gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC. In addition, as a swift action you may increase this dodge bonus to AC by +1 for every 5 ranks you have in Acrobatics or for every 5 points of BAB, until the start of your next turn.

For those that invest in Acrobatics or have a high BAB, the benefits scale as follows:
Level 5 (5 ranks/+5 BAB) +2 bonus
Level 10 (10 ranks/+10 BAB) +3 bonus
Level 15 (15 ranks/+15 BAB) +4 bonus
Level 20 (20 ranks/+20 BAB) +5 bonus

This may be getting too rules laden though.