Is there going to be a remake of The Book of Exalted Deeds and The Book of Vile Darkness? These two books are great flavorwise and some additional options concerning good and evil would be more than great.
Also are new things going to be published only as books, or should we expect to see for example collections of Feats, Prestige Classes, etc?
I wouldn't mind a 32 or 64 page sized book on all four extreme alignments (all in the same book). The law-chaos axis especially could be a lot better defined; chaos is pretty nebulous at the moment.
I don't think a full-sized single-alignment book is really needed. BoED and BoVD both felt to me like they were just inventing stuff just to fill space a lot of the time. I think we could do with a few pages discussing each extreme alignment, like ED and VD did with good and evil, and then some discussion on how they interact, how the planar interactions between the alignments work, and so on, and then a section with a few game alignment-related game mechanics that DON'T get as silly as the ravages and afflictions and such.
I thought a lot of BoVD and BoED were pretty bad (and, in some cases, contradicted themselves). The fiend/angel stats were cool, but a lot of the "vile" and "exalted" actions/rules were pretty unnecessary. While I trust that a Paizo book on extremely aligned characters would be done well, I'd be a little wary if they claimed to use these books as inspiration.
|
I'd love to see a really evil book, Book of Vile Darkness is still my go-to source for nasty evil stuff.
I find it a good 'toolkit' to mine for ideas.
Stuff came out in 3.5 (like swarm rules, and a variety of ways to get immunity to only the harmful aspects of diseases, while still having the disease, and the ability to divine persist cleric spells with turning attempts) that made the hive mind rules in BoVD and some of the specific diseases and the nightsticks item crazy broken, but that's not a fault with the BoVD, as with other stuff introduced later that didn't play well with what was already written.
It's not like the Taint rules, introduced in the same book as the Tainted Scholar, and being broken right there in the same book. :)
As long as you weed out the bad interactions, a lot of the BoVD stuff is pretty awesome. New Assassin spells? How many books have those? Rules for gaining power through sacrifices? An evil *Fighter* PrC to go with the plethora of evil Cleric and Wizard PrCs? Neat.
Most of the stuff in those books is pretty compatible with PF IMO.
Most of the stuff in those books is pretty compatible with PF IMO.Of course, but we like shiny new books with the Paizo logo on it. :)
Yeah, but I think there would be copyright issues with those 2 books I am pretty sure neither is open source.
|
Yeah, but I think there would be copyright issues with those 2 books I am pretty sure neither is open source.Most of the stuff in those books is pretty compatible with PF IMO.Of course, but we like shiny new books with the Paizo logo on it. :)
You're implying that paizo can't come up with their own Book for Good-To-shoes and Hitchhikers Guide to Scum & Villainy. :P
The law-chaos axis especially could be a lot better defined; chaos is pretty nebulous at the moment.
(un)Intended humor? or is it philosophy?
Either way, it made me grin.
Here's a question, if someone pathfinderized content from a book is there a legal way to share those conversions? Many of my players own 3.x books and we had to adjust abilities and items to better fit in our games. Can we really only keep that stuff to ourslves?
Here's a question, if someone pathfinderized content from a book is there a legal way to share those conversions? Many of my players own 3.x books and we had to adjust abilities and items to better fit in our games. Can we really only keep that stuff to ourslves?
Indirectly referencing the original work is ok as it falls under fair use of copy right material, and the entire world of academia would collaspe if you were no longer allowed to reference someone else's copyrighted work.
For example, we took the XXX class from YYY book and added this and removed this.
Quoting sections of a copyrighted book verbatum is a grey area where you have to follow specific rules and so forth. I would generally avoid doing this.
I hate to think that there are still groups out there that are playing PF and if it isn't in PF then you can't play it....
There were always some real sticklers out there (DMs usually) who would not use certain books, (I call them DMazis for the record).
It is easier to approach the DMazi when you have it from the "official PF source".....
We play that 3.5 stuff is allowed with DM approval, but that is only because I know there is some broken stuff in some of the official 3.5 splat books. Persistant spell metamagic comes to mind. Most of the 3.5 stuff is fine, but there are a few things here and there I am inclined to not allow.
I hate to think that there are still groups out there that are playing PF and if it isn't in PF then you can't play it....
There were always some real sticklers out there (DMs usually) who would not use certain books, (I call them DMazis for the record).
It is easier to approach the DMazi when you have it from the "official PF source".....
So you think DMs are wrong for limiting the material in their games? That's interesting.
|
|
I'd really like to see at least a 3PP do an evil book to update BoVD and introduce a setting similar to Midnight perhaps, but from the evil angle. Another approach would be to do the settle with a sort of Necessary Evil bent, but fantasy based. I also agree that the book has to be balanced a lot better than its predecessor.
Didn't AEG do an OGL book for Evil? How was that if they did?
