|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
I ordered my copy online and received it early. But then I walked into a major bookstore today and noticed a couple of copies of the 4e PHB out on the shelf. Go figure. If you want to snag a copy early, I recommend checking out chain stores that carry a small amount of D&D stuff rather than your FLGS*. I suspect that a few of these may have leaked a few copies onto the shelves before the official release date.
Before I had an opportunity to glance through the core rulebooks, my feelings about 4e were fairly ambivalent feelings. Although I liked some of the changes that had been announced, others made me shake my head in bewilderment. Now my attitude has hardened somewhat and I'm in the '4e is irrelevant' camp. I don't despise 4e, but it doesn't really capture my imagination either. It's certainly a playable game - it's just not one that I'm terribly interested in playing. 4e is like one of those movies that you enjoy well enough while you're watching it, but forget about five minutes after you walk out of the cinema. 4e is not dreadful, but it's not that great either. It's a very mediocre effort. To be honest, 4e feels a bit insipid in comparison to Pathfinder. It might be slicker and faster, but it has far less substance. Hmmm...Perhaps D&D editions have an odd/even rule like Star Trek movies?
I've had the new rulebooks for a couple of days and I've come to the conclusion that 4e is definitely not for me. The mechanics look solid enough and certain sections of the new rules are extremely well written (the combat chapter in particular is a delight to behold). Much of the artwork in the new books is beautiful, some of it far superior to anything in 3.5. And the organization of the PHB is outstanding. But the overall feel of the new system doesn't appeal to me at all. I know that this is a fairly subjective thing, but the game seems a little bit too slick and antiseptic to me. It's not that the new edition isn't real D&D - it is easy enough to see where some of the changes have come from - it's just that it feels kind of.... claustrophobic. It feels far less generic than any previous edition of the game - the designers obviously want you to play a particular style of campaign. Unfortunately the implied style of play doesn't suit my group. The MMORPG influences are strong and can be a little bit intrusive at times - this may be a bit unkind, but I find myself wondering whether some of the design decisions in 4e were driven by the needs of the digital initiative and the desire of Hasbro to license new computer games off the system.
Swarm version I can understand - wizards telling us that we better throw away our books when we want to play 4e and buy all new ones, because the old stuff has been invalidated. Backwards compatibility for P&P RPGS is apparently worse than that for game consoles... Let's not to be too bitter and twisted about this :P
Combat is obviously important to D&D, but it doesn't have to be the sole focus of the game. For example, I'm currently running a game of political intrigue set in the Underdark that has almost no combat at all - the characters are ambitious drow from a minor noble house who are trying to work their way up the social hierarchy. In this campaign, resorting to brute force is rarely an option for the PCs - subtlety is far more important than raw firepower. The only way to win credibility in drow society is to eliminate your political rivals with style and panache...
I haven't gotten very far, but I'm sure my players will like the new point buy system. Also I think if I ever play a cleric in 4th editon it will be devoted to the Raven Queen. Actually, most of the descriptions of the deities are nice, although it seems a bit jarring to have some familiar gods from Greyhawk mixed in with a bunch of newcomers.
I've only had a few hours to flick through the 4e rulebooks so far, but one of the disappointments for me is that the monsters seem to be described almost purely in terms of their combat capabilities - there's almost no sense of their place in a broader context. This seems a huge backwards step to me. A similar thing can be said for the various powers available to their different classes - things like spells, prayers, etc are described primarily in terms of their combat effects. Possible non-combat applications of these abilities are pretty much ignored. There is still some descriptive text outlining what each ability does, but that's pretty much it. The combat system does look like it will be faster and more fluid though.
Meh...who need crappy pirated PDFs when you receive the real deal via mail order before the official release date ;) So far, I'm not that impressed. I was hoping that WoTC would pull a rabbit out of their hat, but they seem to have missed the ball (I love mixing my metaphors!) Although I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I don't think that 4e is going to be the game for me. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad - simply that it doesn't appeal to my personal taste. I wish those who like it the best of luck, while I start to think about migrating my 3.5 campaign across to the Pathfinder RPG....
Although the artwork for the insect swarm version on p144 of the 4e Monster Manual looks kind of neat, this kind of arbitrary change is something that has annoyed me since 4e was announced. As previously noted, the lamia is a monster drawn from classical myth. The story of how Lamia was transformed into a half-woman / half-serpent is described by a number of ancient authors, notably Diodorus Siculus and Strabo. This version of the lamia appears a few times in modern fantasy, notably in the works of Clark Ashton Smith. Even in ancient times, the figure of Lamia became mixed up with the Empusae - malicious female spirits with shapeshifting abilities that were described as being part-human and either part-donkey or part-lioness. This alternative tradition is probably where the lamia in the 1e Monster Manual came from. The lamia noble in the 1e Fiend Folio was probably an attempt to get back to the original myth. But the scarab swarm version in 4e? That doesn't have any sort of mythic resonance to me. It seems like the designers came up with an idea for a cool concept and decided to apply it to an existing it to an existing monster. I would have preferred it if they dropped the lamia from the game altogether and came up with an original name for 'evil scarab swarm girl' Now don't even get me started on what they've done to archons - these have gone from the angel-like beings of ancient Gnosticism to elemental humanoids. Maybe I'm missing something, but 'huh?!?'. Now that I've had a chance to glance through the new edition, it seems very rootless to me - driven more by designer fiat than by any sense of adherence to the literary traditions of fantasy that informed earlier editions of D&D. In general, there is very little respect for the history and established tropes of the genre. Hopefully the Pathfinder RPG will do better in this area - a company that creates an imprint like Planet Stories to bring the works of Leigh Brackett and C.L. Moore back into print gets some immediate credibility with me in this area. I don't mean to sound like a bitter old grognard, but I'm a genre fiend who has spent a couple of decades tracking down the books listed in Appendix N of the 1e DMG. These are the works that influenced the flavor of D&D. It saddens me that the current designers at WoTC either don't seem to be know them or don't think they are relevant anymore.
The basic mechanics were OK, but the product suffered from poor editing and lack of consistency between sections (or even with the 3.0 core rules). It's best used as a resource, rather than a rules expansion. I would argue that this creates an opportunity for Paizo to revisit the topic of epic levels, cleaning up the existing material. I am gradually coming to the conclusion that epic-level play should get its own book once the main Pathfinder RPG rulebook is out. Epic level play is not to everybody's taste and it will take a fair amount of space to rework the existing material properly.
For me 4th is NOT the evolution of 3rd but another offshoot from the same root which is OD&D. This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter too. What astonishes me is that WoTC has handled the marketing surrounding the transition from 3e to 4e so poorly - especially in contrast with the disciplined marketing campaign that accompanied the move from 2e to 3e. In both cases (2e to 3e and 3e to 4e) the new edition went back to first principles and rebuilt the game from the ground up, slaughtering a lot of sacred cows in the process. But whereas the folks responsible for marketing 3e successfully positioned the edition as a return to an 'authentic' D&D experience, the current marketing team hasn't delivered such a strong marketing message. As a consequence, no clear consensus has emerged within the gaming community regarding the value of the new edition. IMHO, this is a failure of marketing department rather than a failure of the designers of the new edition.
I dont think epic levels should be included in the rule set. it just starts to get either improbable or plain annoying at epic levels. just go to 20 then roll another char for another adventure. I dunno. So long as the rules for epic levels don't take up too much space, I have no problem with their inclusion. Some people really do play to level 30+ and would find these rules useful. But on the other hand, it would be nice to see the epic rules get a book of their own. It may be the only way to do them justice. The Epic Level Handbook was one of the weaker releases from WoTC and it would be nice to see Epic levels done again right.
Speaking from a personal perspective, I am worried by the degree to which the subject of 4e has polarized the D&D community. This is not a good thing in a small hobby that is currently shrinking in size. The lack of a community consensus around the new edition is disturbing given the amount of attention that it has received. I get the feeling that WoTC bungled the marketing campaign and alienated many long-term fans for no real benefit. Having said that, I'm not terribly interested in the new edition based on what I know about it at the moment. It's not that I hate it or that I think it will be poorly designed - there are a lot of talented people working on it. However, I get the feeling that it's not going to going to do a good job of supporting the kind of games that I'm interested in running. I want a system that allows me to simulate the kind of classic sword & sorcery adventure exemplified by Howard, Leiber, and Moorcock (with perhaps an occasional pinch of Lovecraft). I get the feeling that 4e is straying from these roots and moving away from the idea that D&D exists to simulate the tropes of fantasy fiction. I get the feeling that Paizo has a greater level of sensitivity to the influences of the fiction exemplified by Appendix N of the 1e DMG. Although I'm waiting to see the final product before I pass final judgment, my own concerns about 4e are centered on the overall feel of the game rather than any specific rules or mechanics. I'd love to see WoTC pull a rabbit out of the hat, but I'm not filled with confidence at this point.
Personally, I'd like to see the inclusion of a short appendix (no more than 2-3 pages) containing a simplified and streamlined combat system for use in those situations where the full combat system simply isn't appropriate. This would be the kind of thing that you could use to run quick incidental encounters and 'minor' combats (such as tavern brawls) that don't contribute much to the plot of an adventure, but are good fun from a roleplaying perspective. At the moment, players are loathe to engage in anything that isn't directly related to the main plot because it means hauling out the miniatures and battlemats. Don't get me wrong - I enjoy playing with miniatures most of the time, but sometimes it just isn't worth the effort. As far as I can see, the main disadvantage in implementing such a system would be that it tends to penalize characters who have invested heavily in feats with mechanics that lean heavily on AoO's.
Jason mentioned elsewhere that it will be out tomorrow (Wednesday that is). Very nice. I'll be interested to see to what extent the feedback from these messageboards has helped to shape the next iteration of the alpha. If nothing else, the discussions here have encouraged me to think a little more deeply about what I want from any RPG that claims the legacy of D&D :).
Maybe they can get rid of the OGL, and tell companies like Paizo that they can no longer use 3.5...actually, it will be more like 3.75.Fortunately for Paizo Pathfinder RPG fans this will never happen. WOTC cannot revoke the 3.x OGL because of its own terms. Paizo can continue to use 3.x rules through as many editions of WotC's D&D as it wants, and they can't be forced to change. Speaking personally, the fact that Pathfinder will be published under an open license is a huge selling point. I *like* the idea of open gaming - to me the GSL seems like a huge backward step. Although the d20 license undoubtedly encouraged the release of an awful lot of poor quality material, market forces have shaken out most of the ephemeral crap. Nowadays, we are left with about a dozen companies that have a track record of producing outstanding work in this space - Paizo, Necromancer, Green Ronin, etc. It is worth pointing out that most of these companies did not exist before the d20 license. It saddens me deeply that we may lose some of these companies from the D&D industry due to the GSL.
I can't believe no one's mentioned Jeff Grubb yet.You'll probably want to pay special attention to the Hardcover Campaign Setting and Pathfinder #15 then... Squee...*dies* That is awesome news. Isn't it great that so many of the fan favorites from TSR and WoTC are now working with Paizo? We're merely suggesting that Paizo should round up all of the remaining ones and set them to work immediately :)
Well, he's written the novel Blackstaff, has another FR novel called Blackstaff Tower coming out, and is posting on these very boards about playtesting his half-orc cleric/sorcerer with the Pathfinder rules . . . Well draft him into writing something, dammit! Don't let him get out of here without turning in a manuscript or three....
I wouldn't mind seeing Steven Schend writing a few things. I'd forgotten about him. What is he doing these days anyway? Is he still in the industry at all? Personally, the fanboy in me would love to see some new artwork from Dave Trampier, but I understand that this is very unlikely given the strange circumstances surrounding his departure from the industry. I'd also like to see some new black-and-white illustrations from Valerie Valusek. I loved her style back in the 2nd edition days. Finally, is there any chance that we could get a poster map of Golarion from Darlene Pekul now that she's come out of 'retirement' to do work for Troll Lord Games. That would so utterly rock!
Anyone know what happened to Roger Moore? (No, not the actor) That man was old-school goodness!Scuttlebutt has it that he got fed up with the industry and wants nothing at all to do with it. If this is true, it's a real shame. He was a very talented man who helped to shape the feel of D&D, especially in the early 2nd edition period.
How complete is the Beta going to be? Meaning - I still have to refer to the PHB (and DMG) a lot with the current alpha versions . . . including for the core classes in the alpha version. I'm curious to see whether the beta will tackle the prestige classes from the DMG. I presume that the remaining core classes will be tackled in the final Alpha release, so I wonder whether the prestige classes will get a similar treatment during the Beta phase. Personally, I'd love to see updated versions of some of these - particularly the assassin, the mystic theurge, and the blackguard. (For the record, I never liked the magic-heavy version of the assassin presented in 3e. I preferred the flavor of the 1e version, even if it the game mechanics were badly broken. To me, the D&D assassin should be modeled on the classic sword & sorcery assassins from Fritz Leiber's Lankhmar stories).
If you allow infinite advancement by simply extrapolating the experience tables beyond level 20, all kinds of weird mathematical anomalies start to appear as your level increases. The d20 system wasn't originally designed to handle that kind of power level. This is the reason that WoTC introduced a clear distinction between normal and epic levels. The problem is that this transition at level 20 feels a bit artificial. There are a couple of ways that this might be addressed: Option 1: Rather than having a hard cap between normal levels and epic levels at level 20, make the transition more gradual by spreading it out over a couple of levels. Allow characters to gradually 'unlock' epic abilities as they move beyond level 20. Try to make the transition feel a bit more 'natural' by making it a bit more gradual. Option 2: Modify rate of character progression beyond level 20 by ensuring that the experience tables are exponential. Under this option, as the characters progress into epic levels they face a law of diminishing returns - they can continue to advance as before, but it gets harder and harder to go up levels as they rise above the realm of normal human achievement. I'm sure that there are other ways that the transition between normal levels and epic levels could be handled better than it is in the official 3.5 ruleset. There are other issues that also need to be addressed to have a more effective system for epic level games. For one thing, the epic magic system needs an overhaul. And epic-level combat needs to be more streamlined.
Alpha 3 is looking like it should be available late next week. Or so. One of the most interesting things for me about the whole open playtest process is seeing the way that certain sections of the document change between versions. By noting the sections of the document that change and those that don't, I am getting a better idea of the direction that Paizo is taking the game in. Paizo seem to be confident about the changes that they are making to the 3.5 rules in some areas, but willing to explore a variety of different options in other areas. The open playtest process obviously serves as a form of market research, enabling the folks at Paizo to get a sense of community reaction to some of the bolder changes.
I fail to see how as some posters seem to be implying that Pathfinder and 3.5 are going to be vastly diffrent I mean in most classes they havent taken anything away but they have added things on. (Bloodlines for Sorecors being an example) From what i have seen thus far most of the stuff seems easy enough to convert. This is true. It's also worth keeping in mind that this is an Alpha test and Paizo are deliberately pushing the envelope a bit. At this point, they need to work out what changes work and what don't.
Huh. I thought the point was that if you had the 3.5 PHB, you wouldn't need to buy the Pathfinder RPG. I thought Pathfinder was supposed to be for two purposes The Pathfinder RPG is trying to walk a difficult line. On the one hand, it is trying to maintaining a high degree of backward compatibility with 3.5 so that existing material is still usable with the new system. But on the other hand, it is also trying to fix some of the problem areas in 3.5 and to provide enough new material that the game system is revitalized. On the whole, it looks like the approach adopted by the revised classes in Pathfinder is to leave the classes from the 3.5 SRD more or less intact, but expand the range of options and choices available to players. You can usually build the standard 3.5 version of a class using the revised Pathfinder rules, but you can usually build something different too. The problem is that some of the choices made in the standard 3.5 builds look suboptimal in comparison to some of the new options, raising the spectre of possible power creep.
this means that a fighter with a weapon from his chosen group, that he is also specialized in, can afford to try combat maneuvers and feats that require him to take a penalty to his roll moreso than any other class, reinforcing the idea that fighters are the "technique" front line fighter. This is a very good point, but it isn't made explicit in the rules - perhaps it should be. Hmmm....perhaps fighters should receive a bonus to their CMB from Weapon Training rather than a bonus to their attack and damage rolls? This would give them a real incentive to try out interesting maneuvers in combat. High-level trip-masters armed with a spiked chain would be truly scary though....
Are we certain that weapon specialization is gone? I assumed that the new Weapon Training rules were designed to be used in addition to weapon specialization to give fighters a reason to stick with the class beyond 4th level. However, I did get the feeling that the new rules removed the need for Greater Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Specialization. Removing weapon specialization entirely will damage backward compatibility, making it harder to use existing 3.5 material in a pathfinder game. If it is desirable to replace the old weapon specialization rules with the new weapon training class ability, it might be better to introduce this ability at 4th level and make the initial bonuses granted by it equivalent to those granted by weapon specialization under the 3.5 ruleset. This turns weapon training into a form of 'extended' weapon specialization, similar to the weapon mastery rules from earlier versions of D&D. Personally, I'd like to see fighters get some form of fighting style training like they did back in 2e.
Although most of the sorcerer bloodlines add extra flavor to the class without increasing its overall power, the fey bloodline doesn't quite feel right. It seems to me like the first power in this bloodline is there to provide a combat power equivalent to most of the other sorcerer bloodlines. Personally, I'd go for something like this: Fey Glance: As a standard action, you can bedazzle a single living creature within 30 feet with a glance. The target creature becomes shaken for three rounds unless they succeed on a Will save against a DC equal to 10 + your Charisma modifier. The DC of this saving throw increases by +1 for every two caster levels that you possess. Once a creature has been affected by your fey glance, it is immune to its effects for 1 day. This power only affects living creatures. I'd also alter a couple of the other powers in this bloodline, but that's a matter of personal taste.
Slashdot isn't exactly unbiased in the way they present information on there site. I love this piece of understatement. Just for fun, try posting a comment on Slashdot to the effect that "Windows must be a good operating system because so many people use it in the real world." It's guaranteed to provoke an instant flame war every time. (Disclaimer: I work as a Linux sysadmin. So there.)
Hi Lisa, This is wonderful news. I look forward to hearing more when the time is right.
I want to say that I've read a comment from someone at Paizo (Erik?) saying that they were looking a way to do exactly this, provide a way for people to list thier products as PRPG compatible, but as I can't remember where I read that take it with a grain of salt. This is encouraging news. I'd love to see companies like Green Ronin release stuff that is compatible with Pathfinder. I'd also love to see some interesting fan content emerge. I read the sentence above from the OGL as saying that you simply can't have a trademark or registered trademark on a product with open content (which is not a trademark though folks have made their own OGL logos) without an agreement. Presumably the D20 license itself would be an example of a trademark agreement that qualifies since its compatible. Yep...this is why the OGL and trademark license that allows you to place the d20 logo on your products are separate. WoTC have indicated that the d20 license will end in June - which ends the ability of publishers to market products as d20 compatible - but they can't revoke the license that allows you to use OGL content from the v3.5 System Reference Document. Similarly, you can use OGL from the Pathfinder RPG without a license, but you can't actually say that your product is designed to be used with Pathfinder without a separate license from Paizo.
The potential extra bookkeeping for Barbarians does concern me a little (not to mention the irony of more bookkeeping for a class that is illiterate), but extra uses for Rage? Sign me up! Somebody over on ENWorld pointed out that the barbarian tends to be a one-trick pony under the standard 3.5 rules. I like the idea of giving the barbarian a more versatile role. I just wonder whether there is a way to do this that doesn't increase the amount of bookkeeping. One option might be to introduce something similar to the ranger talent trees. Another option might be to use a mechanic similar to the rogue talents...perhaps something like this: Rage Talents: As a barbarian gains experience, she learns a number of to channel her rage more wisely. Starting at 2nd level, a barbarian gains one rage talent. She gains an additional rage talent for every 2 levels of experience attained after 2nd level. In order to activate a rage talent, the barbarian must expend one use of her rage ability for the day. This is a swift action. Personally, I'd love to see a barbarian ability that allows a barbarian to get a second Will save against mind-affecting spells and supernatural abilities by focusing their inner fury - Conan does it all the time :)
Hmmm...The concept of Rage Points for barbarians sounds interesting. It might add a bit more versatility to the barbarian character class without greatly increasing its overall power level. My only concern is that this mechanic may introduce some additional bookkeeping in combat. I wonder whether it would possible to preserve the underlying concept of alternate rage powers without introducing the need to track rage points?
Will Paizo be producing some kind of Pathfinder trademark license similar to the d20 System Trademark License or Green Ronin's M&M Superlink License that will allow 3rd party publishers to indicate compatibility with the Pathfinder RPG? I realize that the Pathfinder RPG is being released under the OGL, but section 7 of the OGL explicitly prohibits you from indicating that compatibility with other people's trademarks: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that 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. Personally, I'd love to see the growth of a vibrant developer community around Pathfinder. I'm thinking of working on a fan website for my homebrew campaign setting that will go live when the Pathfinder RPG is released. However, I wonder how to indicate that people need the Pathfinder RPG to use the material that I develop.
The interesting thing is that West End Games have recently announced that they will be releasing a generic version of the d6 system under the OGL. They are currently working on a d6 System Reference Document in an attempt to revive their fortunes.
The accusation that the Pathfinder RPG is heavily influenced by WoW raises the interesting question of what the influences on the 'feel' of the game actually are. It seems that one of the design goals for Pathfinder is to maintain some degree of continuity with the feel of 'classic' D&D (whatever that particular loaded phrase might mean). From a business perspective, this is a sensible move as it helps to differentiate Pathfinder from 4e (which seems to be a more radical departure from the past in many respects). But what does it mean in practice? What kind of mood or atmosphere does the Pathfinder RPG attempt to evoke? Does it lean towards an 'old-school' feel, or is it aiming for a more contemporary approach to fantasy? Does it lean towards sword & sorcery (Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Michael Moorcock) or the high fantasy of Tolkein and his imitators? Is it OK for the game to absorb some influences from anime and MMORPGs? Or are people implacably opposed to this idea?
Hehe...Here's a quick idea off the top of my head. How about an adventure that features a village where nobody has been able to sleep for 2-3 weeks. Upon investigation, it turns out that the village is infested by psionic parasites that feed on dreams...and that gradually turn their victims into soulless zombies.
These are all great suggestions....and the kind of small details that many third-party adventure publishers overlook. Basically anything that cuts preperation time is a good thing - especially if it gives me more time to concentrate on fiendish subplots that will appeal specifically to my own gaming group.
If I was to make a prediction right now, I would want to present a map that was tied in to the setting of the adventure (from Pathfinder or one of the modules) but not directly related, so that the DM can run a side-trek of his own creation without having to send the players to another plane or candy mountain, just because that's the map that's handy that month. That's exactly the kind of thing that I was hoping for. It gives the DM a chance to put their own unique stamp on the setting, with some confidence that whatever they create will mesh seamlessly with the campaign as a whole. In fact, now that I think of it, what would be really cool would be if Paizo could provide the DM with occasional sidebars suggesting ways that the adventure could be 'personalized' to suit a range of different tastes. I'm thinking of things like encounter hooks, locations, or interesting NPCs that DMs can flesh out on their if they want to expand the adventure...as well as suggestions for places where the DM might like to drop in an extra roleplaying or puzzle-solving encounter...
Will we see anything like the Maps of Mystery from Dungeon magazine in Pathfinder? I've always found them useful when I'm stuck for inspiration. Hmmm...perhaps it might be possible to see a map tangentially associated with the adventure that is left blank for development by those individual GM who want to add a short side-trek to the main plotline?
I do believe that WotC does own those two other finalist settings. In any event, this new world is not them. It's a setting that we're building from the ground up at Paizo. Given Erik's well-known love for Greyhawk, I really hope that the setting that you are currently developing will be presented in a similar style, with lots of interesting cultural diversity between regions. It occurs to me that Paizo may just have a golden opportunity here to create something new that captures the classic D&D feel and grabs a segment of the market who aren't keen on either Eberron or the Forgotten Realms. Oooh...Will we see some pretty poster maps of the setting someday? And maybe even a hardcover book eventually?
The world we're developing is enormous. There's room for all genres. For Pathfinder, we're focusing on a relatively small part of that world to start with (about the size of California), and it probably matches the Sword & Sorcery and Dark Fantasy genres the best; think Robert E. Howard meets Hammer Horror. Now you've definitely got me intrigued! It sounds like the initial adventure path will feature a setting kind of similar to the works of Clark Ashton Smith, C.L. Moore et al. Will Paizo be using any OGL content from other publishers such as Green Ronin, Necromancer, et al in Pathfinder?Yes. Currently, the Advanced Bestiary, Book of Fiends, and Tome of Horrors I are all in easy reach on my desk, for example. The books that you mention are all good, solid works. And I personally find the idea of sharing the best OGL material between third-party publishers very appealing. I like the idea of building a shared body of high-quality material that benefits everyone.... Also, will new creatures, spells and other stuff introduced in Pathfinder be released for third-party use under the OGL?Absolutely. Pathfinder's an OGL product, and while we'll likely retain product identity on the flavor stuff, the crunch is all open. Ok...I think that you just sold me a subscription...
I don't often post on these messageboards, but I feel the need to add my voice to those who are deeply saddened by this decision. This truly is the end of an era. It just add to my misgivings about the direction that WoTC has been heading in the last 12 months or so... I am interested in Pathfinder though and have a couple of quick questions that Erik or Lisa might be able to answer: What will the 'feel' of the new campaign setting introduced by Pathfinder be like? I've read the first blog entry by James, but it doesn't give an indication of the kind of setting that is under construction. Will it be sword & Sorcery? High Fantasy? Dark Fantasy? Steampunk? Or some interesting combination of these elements... Will Paizo be using any OGL content from other publishers such as Green Ronin, Necromancer, et al in Pathfinder? Also, will new creatures, spells and other stuff introduced in Pathfinder be released for third-party use under the OGL?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
