Artofregicide's page

The We Be Goblins series of 4 scenarios (Free RPG Day Adventures) still hold up amazingly well. The writing is so absolutely delightful, and our little mob of chaos gremlins had a blast. We played PF1e but I'm sure D&D 5e and PF2e conversations exist for those who prefer those systems. If not, it should be super easy to convert them.

But now, the promised Goblin Songs!

(Some spoilers for We Be Goblins Two!, which is pretty old at this point.)

Mevis:

Reta:

Mogmurch:

Sincerely, it was a lot fun. 10/10.

Also, I was never here, you can't prove anything, bye.

I've locked this document and revoked all access to this document. I'm not on the Paizo forums anymore, so don't expect any response to this thread and PMs.

Thanks.

I don't think that any of this was haphazard. I do think the changes may have been more motivated by liability and copyright visa OGL than anything else, but the outcome is positive regardless.

I'm really happy to see that they changed Golems too. I looked on AoN but apparently the family page for Golems was still showing me the Legacy versions? Go figure. I guess the Paizo Golem is... the Paizo Beefcake or something now?

I'm glad they brought in a sensitivity consultant at least. I'd have preferred they not use something from an religious mythology to represent something at best tangentially related and have Nephilim reflect the actual mythology or just not use them. And use a made up word for the made up concept.

To be clear, I'm not saying Paizo should change anything because one internet person had an opinion about it. The Tefillin/Phylactery was really what bothered me, the rest is closer to nitpicking.

That said, I think all of my concerns have been answered, honestly. Good on Paizo.

Oh, then Paizo must have psychically sensed my post and solved the issue before I ever posted.

It couldn't be that I forgot to hit the Remaster toggle on AoN.

Now I wonder if the same trick will work with Nephilim and Golems...

This has been bothering me a fair bit lately. Disclaimer: I do not claim to speak for anyone other than myself, and do not encourage that anyone conflate loud, opinionated people (such as myself) with nuanced representation of larger population.

To be very clear, I'm not referring to the magic box that liches put their souls in, which have already renamed to soul cages. Neither liches nor phylacteries/soul cages are part of a real, currently practicing religion, so whatever made up thing they're called is irrelevant.

No, I'm referring to the items that include the term "phlactery", such as the Phylactery of Faithfulness:

This tiny box holds a fragment of religious scripture sacred to a particular deity. The box is worn by affixing it to a leather cord and tying it around your head just above your brow.

This is pretty clearly a description of Tefillin, which have long been and are still (incorrectly) referred to as phylacteries (a Latin word via Greek that refers to an amulet or charm, often used as a ward for protection). The actual history of the term phylactery and how it became a substitute for Tefillin is more complex and muddy than I have the the time or inclination to detail here. And presumably some people who are part of the Judaism do refer to Tefillin as phylacteries, and obviously I don't claim to speak for anyone's opinion on the matter than my own.

Suffice to say, I don't think the items should be renamed to Tefillin, which are religion specific. Nor should the items be removed. Instead, the term phylactery should be removed entirely and the description modified so it doesn't almost exactly describe a Tefillin.

And while you're at it, probably don't start cherry-picking more things out of Jewish religious history or mythology...

In all fairness, I don't think there was that much "confusion" on the part of the community. Paizo made a pretty grievous misstep with the Fan Content Policy, the community pushed back in a big way, and to their credit, Paizo seems to have listened. See, nobody was confused (the community certainly wasn't).

The stay of execution is absolutely appreciated (especially for everyone with 1e Pathfinder & Starfinder Infinite projects still in the air), but I'm still concerned on whether Paizo is going to demand that all content published for PF1e, SF1e, and PF2e Legacy be on the Infinite Platform.

I think there's still a lot of questions about how this will all shake out, but its a very encouraging response.

I suspect that PF1e and SF1e (and probably anything PF2e Legacy that is OGL adjacent) is still going to be a no-go on Pathfinder Infinite, but I also suspect that Paizo doesn't have much choice on that one.

I'm still going to keep encouraging bookstores and gaming shops to carry Paizo content, but I'm also still going to keep scrubbing anything vaguely Paizo IP adjacent from my own existing work and avoiding completely it going forward.

If we've learned anything from OGL, the best of intentions mean very little in a court of law.

Update

Looks like Paizo listened, in case anyone missed this.

TL;DR version: CUP has been reinstated with some changes, at least for the time being.

The changes to Pathfinder Infinite (no PF1e or SF1e and probably PF2e Legacy content) appear to remain intact, but I suspect that's not something they have a choice on.

Again, folk *can* still make Starfinder 1E products, just not with Paizo proper names.

Sorry, no, DMurnett is absolutely right here. The fact that they hypothetically can make SF1e content is not a helpful statement when you realize how difficult actually doing that may be.

While there's a decent amount of Paizo IP baked into PF1e, it's generic enough (it was based on D&D3.5e after all) that you can cut out the Paizo content without too much issue.

But Starfinder is pretty much entrenched in layers of Paizo content. If you cut that away, you're gutting the system itself.

And we're not just talking about making content. There's also the robust community of character builders, sheets, accessibility tools, and translations that are also under fire.

Terminalmancer wrote:

Second, as I'm such a grognard, I'm splitting off a local group to run PFS1e adventures using mostly PFS1e rules (sans reporting, don't worry VOs!)--but we have to make some changes to enable sustained play. If I put those up on a website for everyone in my little home group to read, am I running afoul of the updated rules?

What you and your own group do for your own games in your own little circle is never, and never has been, of any concern of anyone or any company. (And don't ever let anyone try to convince you otherwise.)

I don't think that's the question though. I think the question is about putting the organized play rules (PFS1e) up on a publicly available website. Even if their group is the intended audience.

TomatoFettuccini wrote:

The Ringworks Wanderer is a Photoshop mashup of a reversed Jedi Starfighter and Robotech Valkryie veritch's cockpit and nose.
The Idaran VoidRunner is a Photoshopped Naboo Starfighter.

You must be a lot better at Photoshop than I am, how in the dark side of Eox do you turn a Naboo Starfighter into an Idaran VoidRunner using Photoshop?

The Robotech Valkryie veritch's cockpit and nose are found on almost every modern fighter jet.

I feel you are connecting dots that are not there.

Please stop encouraging this conversation to continue here.

If you're really that invested, create a thread of the Starfinder section of the forums. Or, better yet, don't.

Quote:

good to know vague similarities are the threshold for accusing something of being stolen art

For sue-happy corporations like Disney and Paramount, "vague similarities" is more than enough to issue a cease & desist letter at the very least.

You may not be able to see it, but many others do. With a trained eye it's not hard.

This conversation needs to either end or move somewhere else. It's not helpful or productive, and it really isn't even about the actual issue at hand.

You're also using up oxygen from the very people who need to be heard the most, those whose projects and businesses are threatened.

Please move on.

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

Got any sources for the claim that Paizo/Starfinder is stealing art?

Look through the starships in SOM: many of them are bad Photoshops of stuff taken from other properties.

Prime example #1: the Redshift Revolution, SOM p85 is a bad photoshop of Star Citizen's RSI Apollo medical ship; they didn't even change the ship's colour.
The Ringworks Wanderer is a Photoshop mashup of a reversed Jedi Starfighter and Robotech Valkryie veritch's cockpit and nose.
The Idaran VoidRunner is a Photoshopped Naboo Starfighter.
The Infernex Unshakeable is a Photoshop of Farscape's Peacekeeper Prowler.
The UC Librama is a Photoshopped Zentraedi Flagship.
I've seen Photoshopped Star Trek ships (Norikama Valkyrie - they seem to like Maquis and Cardassian ships).
The Driftmaven station is a photoshopped engagement ring (and some pretty low-effort Photoshop at that).
The Infernex Justicar is a Photoshopped Serenity from Firefly.
I'm certain the Idaran Saga is taken from another IP, I just don't know which one.
The Sov-El Korinath is also from another IP.

Paizo mined just about every scifi IP in existence for not just inspiration, but material to alter.

If Paizo is going to start punishing the community for creating tools Paizo can't profit from, maybe these IPs should be made aware of Paizo's own copyright violations in turn.

I'm sorry, but that's just not how IP law (or anything) works. It's also distracting from the point of the conversation. Let's also keep commentary on the quality of Paizo's artwork out the discussion, everyone is welcome to their own opinions but it has zero relevance to the conversation.

Also, equating similarities between pieces of art and the fate of 3rd party tools, publishers, accessibility and translation projects is just not really an accurate comparison.

I will continue to push back on the idea that the primary driver of this is greed. If maximizing profit was the goal, potentially alienating large parts of the community and consumer base is not a rational strategy.

A lot of us are worried about this. A lot of us a disappointed.

Let's not lose focus here.

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

And I would like to make content for said system. I definitely don’t want to host it on Infinite. But if I were to “charge” for it, I would host it on Paizo’s website. It would have no Golarion-conversant material, be fully conversant with ORC and abide by the PCL.

There ARE other stores out there actively selling and promoting 1e products fyi. I can think of one right off the top of my head.

It's worth mention - d20pfsrd.com is the reason I (and many others) got started playing Pathfinder and kept playing. Pretty much everyone I knew back when I converted from 3.5e to PF1e was using d20pfsrd.com. You can fault them for every single dollar that Paizo has earned from me, either through online purchases or brick and mortar stores happened because of that website (because Archives of Nethys wasn't great back then). I still use d20pfsrd.com from time to time.

That includes the SF1e and PF2e content as well, and then me introducing my friends to the game and some of them went on join to PFS, the list goes on. And you know, most of those people are nice and respectful members of the community, which turns my joining into a net positive if you think about it. ;)

For what it's worth, there's a pretty stark difference in tone between Paizo's response to community feedback with new the FCP and WotC's with OGL 1.1. A cynical person might assert that they have to be, considering the ramifications of a similar backlash would have on their company (unlikely as that may be). They wouldn't be wrong, but I would argue that this is exactly in character for Paizo. They do listen.

That said, actions speak louder than words. Paizo may feel they have no choice but to take the losses and move forward. If they do, I can only hope that they explain their reasoning. I don't think that will change the outcome for myself and likely many others, but we'll part on better terms.

TOZ wrote:

emky wrote:

The reverse (that is updating the PF2 APs to PF1 rules)

Fixed that.

Even that wording feels wrong... I'd say "converting" instead, mostly because "downdating" isn't a word!

Let's try not to make this into an edition wars thing. Let's stay on topic at hand. There's, you know, the rest of the internet, for that.

Ravien wrote:

It basically forces every member of the community to learn legalese and go through their enrollment process, and don't realize that they're breaking the law by publishing statblocks for their ideas on their personal blogs for download.

This doesn't seem likely to really become a huge issue. If someone publishes a statblock for a monster that, I dunno, mentions Cheliax, Paizo will at worst send them a message saying "please don't mention Cheliax", and as long as they vagueify the language, it stops there. Odds are good Paizo doesn't even notice the small blog, but assuming they do and decide to act, that's the worst-case scenario.

I dunno, y'all. Like. Golarion was never OGL, it's not gonna be ORC, it's always been the part of Paizo's copyright (along with the adventures) that Paizo restricts access to, and they've always been way more laissez-faire with their setting than a lot of the industry. During all the War of Immortals speculation, I didn't even pull out my setting books. I looked at the wiki, because almost all the information has been posted online for free. Even with these changes, Paizo is still extremely easy-going, even by industry standards and arguably even by non-WotC industry standards.

It's one thing to say "yes, but I believe these specific changes are damaging". That's totally fair and may be true. It's quite another to act like the status quo hasn't always been exceptionally generous, or like works using Golarion content are anything other than fanworks for the most popular PF2 setting on the market.

Like, I know I sound like a landlord here, but the reason everyone's afraid of even the ghost of potentially losing access to the setting is because Lost Omens is enormously popular. Because it's good. That's value Paizo writers and artists created. Yes, they had the community's help, but it's not like we came up with the Mana Wastes or the Radiant Prism. This is value that you're directly benefiting from when you post stuff about Desna on your hypothetical...

I think we're closer to agreement than you might think. It's the way this was communicated and the timeframe that's the crux of the issue, not the fact that Paizo should have ownership of their work. Because we do want them to stay in business and keep publishing, paying artists and writers, and being a force for good in the hobby.

Although, it's worth noting that a bunch of stuff that's canonical in Golarion was created by the community. It's actually much, much harder to parse the contributions of the community from the company than you might think. The argument that "Paizo made up all this stuff, so they own it and can do whatever they want" is a compelling argument in a court of law but less so in where I spend my time, energy, and money.

Oh yeah and I'm not paying the rent, not sorry. ;)

For what it's worth, as a pretty pedantic person, I don't feel any ideological difference. The original version of Pathfinder Infinite was Wayfinder, published by the self-dubbed Paizo Fans United. Working with Golarion is fanwork. I also think that using extremely similar names for different licenses would have been confusing. I don't read any malice or deeper meaning in the name change.

I also don't read any malice into Paizo's actions, critical as I may be. I hope that's been clear throughout.

I do think there's some overlap in the terms, and as I said, some of this may well be me being pedantic.

But the change of terminology still rubs me the wrong way, in context of the announcement and how it effects fans individually and the community as a whole.

YMMV.

I do think people are overstating things a little to say this is the equivalent of the OGL revision WotC attempted. Like, this isn't even close. Paizo isn't sectioning off their rules or anything of that sort--the ORC is still fully intact. They are becoming more protective of their setting material, and I have concerns that they may be overreaching with that and I kind of want to know the reasoning behind it, but that's completely different from what WOTC did.

When we overstate ourselves, we obfuscate to Paizo what our concerns are, and thus make it less likely that we will be heard and answered.

I also hate to say it, but I feel like restricting Pathfinder Infinite to prevent OGL content from being included on it... kind of makes sense? Like, it sucks for PF1 players, and I do sympathize, but being a fan of the older, unsupported editions always does kind of suck, and that's not something Paizo can necessarily fix. PF1 is a huge legal liability, and while the old content is probably fairly manageable, new content is likely to mix more and more with modern Pathfinder releases and create more and more confusion about what's actually canon. We can't have Pathfinder Infinite products in 2028 still calling them drow and aboleths, because if a social perception remains that that's what cave elves and alghollthu are, Paizo is effectively still profiting off of aboleths and drow in all their works. At least, I bet I can see a lawyer making that argument.

I can fully buy that that would be a liability for the license as a whole (and Paizo, which would be directly profiting off of OGL content in that case). It sucks! But that doesn't mean it's really Paizo's fault. PF1 was always an awkward port of D&D third edition. Legally, they probably don't feel safe continuing to profit off of D&D 3.75, and they also don't want to continue to effectively promote a license under WotC's control on their own platform.

And sure, they're leaving a lot of stuff up there. I'm pretty sure that...

I do agree that this, ultimately, is motivated by about Paizo's need to protect their IP and their company from litigation. I don't believe that this is the best or only way to go about it - but maybe Paizo does. If so, it would be good to hear their justification.

I don't think it's "overstating" things to compare this to OGL 1.1, although I would agree it would be a stretch to treat them as equivalent.

Think of the abrupt timing. Originally, I thought it was 5 weeks, which is an extremely short period of time for people to get the news and react, especially considering that Paizo isn't the best at being centralized information out and the tone of the blog post vastly misconstrues (hopefully unintentionally) the ramifications this will have on large swaths of the community.

But no, it's in effect immediately for all new projects. The five weeks are anything that's in flight. As a publisher, Paizo knows exactly how ruinous that is to creators.

And there was no discussion, no lead-up, no community input - just a Thrune-esque proclamation that it's in place and that people should be excited about it.

And then there's the walling of the garden into Pathfinder Infinite.

All of this definitely reminds of the OGL debacle, even though I'll be the first to say that it's not the exact same situation.

Ultimately, Paizo won't be able to blame WotC for every decision they make. Don't get me wrong, a lot falls on WotC's shoulders here, but that isn't a limitless get out of Gallowspire card.

Something has been bothering me for a while, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it until just now:

"As of today, Paizo’s Community Use Policy has been replaced by the Paizo Fan Content Policy, which serves a similar role, but with different provisions."

So we're not community anymore, we're fans?

That's a dynamic shift in tone for the relationship. Some might assume (incorrectly) that the two the terms can be used interchangeably, but a Community is a cooperative, symbiotic relationship between the creators and the people who support their work.

On the other hand, a Fan's relationship to a creator is almost always one way, with the creators holding all the power. That's not inherently a bad thing, but keep in mind - we're not a Fandom. We're a Community that put their time, money, and energy into making Paizo awesome. Without the community, I would have never even heard of Paizo, much less gotten invested in their products.

If you say that's a pedantic distinction, well, you're not wrong to accuse me of pedantry but really think for a moment on how the language shifts the tone of the conversation. I can only hope it's unintentional.

As a bonus, the irony is palpable:

"Now go out there and start creating! We can’t wait to see what you have in store for us."

You know, unless it's PF1e, SF2e, or PF2e Legacy content that includes any of Paizo's IP, which is very heavily interwoven into those game systems. Or you want to build an accessibility tool, fan website, publish your own content, or an endless list of other community content that's suddenly in jeopardy. Then, well, I guess you're out of luck.

But hey, you can keep making and selling body pillows with Cayden Cailean's sweet tushy on them or whatever on Etsy, you can... keep doing that. Yay.

I think the best thing people can do at this time is spread the word about the change to the community. Paizo is pretty notorious for their communications being fragmented across different channels, which is less of an issue when the announcement has a lot of lead time (which isn't the case here).

Even if Paizo doubles down on the change, which I suspect they will, it's important that creators are aware before they commission artists, make investments, and launch projects that they may be heavily impacted or even forced to drop their work.

emky wrote:

Yes, it matters a lot that they are shoving people into the walled garden of Infinite. Paizo gets a cut of it. An unearned, unnecessary, undue cut. Plenty of us saw this coming from miles away when they announced Infinite originally.

I miss the "founders in charge" era... Paizo used to be such a wonderful company by and for gamers that cared about community, actually cared about open gaming, and operated at a human scale. Heck, now there's not even a "who works here" page anymore!

AND this whole thread and debacle are filled with misconceptions. Like the "sell your creations" thing in the original post: you always could. They were your own creations. And Paizo couldn't prohibit them before. But now they "graciously" allow you to do something you always could. (And you couldn't before, and still can't, directly use their own images, etc.) To deny fan art, wow... That's Margaret Weis levels of delusion to think that fanworks must be licensed. (I pick her name explicitly because she's the grandmother of the whole false idea that you need a license to make a compatible product or say, "This works with that.")

Okay, as one of the other negative voices on this thread I have to say that this is too far. Infinite is great, and the fact that Paizo gets a cut is perfectly fine. If you're using their IP and making money off of it, giving them their "royalties" in place of appropriate licensing which would arrange for such makes perfect sense.

Which is super weird because the FCP gives away that profit stream for merchandizing that isn't an RPG product. Not sure why their idea was to choke out RPG products for more money but completely ignore profits from merchandisers now.

I do think that you're right on the fanworks - and even if we build RPG content, and give it for free using their IP, I'd be surprised if they could even give us a nintendo-style C&D or do anything litigious to us, because fanfiction has been legally defensible for a long time, and all we're doing is creating...

I do agree that we should try to keep this conversation focused on the topic at hand. Discussion of what existed in the past honestly isn't relevant in the post OGL crisis era. It's increasingly looking like the world of open RPGs is over, at least, those that are tied to corporations.

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

… i dont think P1 was built to oppose anything. I think it was just made so Paizo could stay in business.

100% this.

At the time, Paizo was publishing content under the OGL using the 3.5 rules, and recognized that if people were going to buy and play these products, there needed to be an in-print rules system that was getting ongoing support. Because tying your brand to another company's core rulebooks that are going to become harder and harder to find as time goes on is not the way to grow your fan base. And while the first version of Pathfinder could have just been a word-for-word reprint of the 3.5 SRD, the fact that "the patient was already open" made for a great opportunity to tinker with mechanics that the previous 9 years of using them had revealed to be less than optimized.

The fact that a large majority of the gaming community was uninterested in moving on from the 3.5 core game they loved, and chose Pathfinder over 4E, was merely good fortune.

But gamers love edition wars and the narrative has taken on more of an oppositional tone than reflected reality since the earliest days of the Pathfinder playtest. C'est la vie.

With all due respect, it feels a bit dismissive to diminish people's concerns about a license change that may well destroy their livelihoods or years (decades) of work to "edition wars" (which really isn't what's being discussed here anyway).

And while it may not have been your experience (somehow?), my experience of the 4e rollout out was more oppositional at the time than looking back, because people were genuinely terrified of losing something they loved. 4e wasn't published under OGL, and under the new terms independent creators (like Paizo) wouldn't be able to exist. Very similar to OGL and now this.

Et tu, Brute?

Yes, the owners retired but still own it, as far as I know. So until time marches on, I don't see selling the company being a thing to worry about.

Time does keep marching on, doesn't it?

Dracology wrote:

This whole thing seems confusing and dumb but it's clear that the company isn't going to change its decision or even really cares about the players of old content. They would have given a much longer heads up about this or come up with a more amiable solution than just say no more 1e with lore content.

But then again why would they want to provide a solution to a problem that keeps people from buying a product they don't want?

I think this is needlessly pessmimistic. Whether or not Paizo cares about the game is not actually relevant, they've pissed off far more than just the 1e crowd. We're not bargaining with some industry giant for once, I reckon Paizo really can't weather something like a potential boycott. If even Wizards caved under pressure then I fail to see how Paizo wouldn't. In case good intent towards their community won't make them reconsider, we can.

While I'm not happy with this decision, I wouldn't support a boycott of Paizo for this reason. I probably wouldn't support a boycott even Lisa Stevens came out and said the reason they made this decision purely out of corporate greed and to seal an infernal pact with Mammon. I don't think a boycott would be successful both in general or in accomplishing any of the stated goals.

I do think, however, that this decision may have the unintended effect of harming community participation and driving away fans (and thus customers). Maybe that's a risk they've calculated, but the way the announcement was presented doesn't cast it in the light of "this is an unfortunate sacrifice we need to make".

And thus Paizo may manage to create the effects of a boycott (depressed sales and community hostility) inadvertently. But my guess is they'll do something to address and clarify their plans based on the very mixed feedback.

Artofregicide wrote:

And for those who put your faith in the goodwill of those currently working at Paizo (as I do), don't forget that businesses can be acquired. There's no reason WotC/Hasboro or thousands of other less scrupulous corporations couldn't hypothetically buy the company and all the IP at some point in the future.

Well, the company and IP has to be for sale first, so I don't expect that to ever happen.

We can all agree Paizo isn't on the market now and that it's current leadership almost certainly would never agree to sell it. But that it would never be? I wish I lived in that world. Hasbro acquired a little company called WotC in 1999 (mostly for MtG), and honestly I couldn't imagine the old guard original founders of WotC would have dreamed of running their company the way its run now.

And keep in mind, Paizo isn't a passion project. It's a business. And one that's in a very difficult industry. We all want Paizo to do well, to be clear. But if they go under, they may not have a choice but to sell (and if they don't, the IP may end up for grabs anyway).

Don't forget that the old guard at Paizo is, well, old. They have to retire at some point. They've brought in some really great people to carry the torch. But if we've learned anything from the OGL crisis, good intentions are no safeguard against corporate greed.

Don't get me wrong. Even if I don't buy a single product from Paizo going forward (very unlikely), I want them to be successful because of the force of good they are in the industry. But I won't be naive about where things stand.

I feel like it's telling that the reactions range from "who would Paizo do this, they're evil" to "this is the best thing I've ever seen." Obviously this is because different folks are affected in different ways, but it shows that a bit of perspective is needed here when assessing the actual effects and motives of these changes.

The people who are saying "this is the best thing I've ever seen." (Not hyperbolic unfortunately) seem to have either not read the actual licenses (just Mark's post) or probably aren't content creators themselves. Exceptions undoubtedly exist.

The people who are saying "who Why would Paizo do this, they're evil" (hyperbolic) are presumably upset because of the drastic and sudden nature of the change, and the poor light it puts Paizo in context of the recent OGL debacle where they were seen as heroes.

Most of the people (especially those who are creators) are confused and concerned. These are valid feelings. It's very clear Paizo either didn't think through the reaching ramifications of this choice, or didn't manage to communicate that successfully. People who make accessibility tools, character tools, fan sites, translations, VTT content, etc. are suddenly left wondering if they'll have to make drastic changes, scrap plans, and kill dreams in little over a month.

The truth is we don't know the full context of this announcement, and while it's reasonable to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt generally, that's very little comfort to the people described above.

I will say that there's pretty much no evidence that anything Paizo has done is in service of greed or ill will to anyone (the idea is honestly laughable). Almost all of it goes back to future-proofing themselves from potential litigation and securing their IP (which is pretty much their whole business). And they are, ultimately, a business in a very difficult and not very profitable industry.

I also don't find the arguments so far that Paizo had to do this, that this was the right way to do it, in any way compelling. But maybe that's the world we live in, where everyone's staking their claims and building fences around their content after WotC poisoned the well.

And for those who put your faith in the goodwill of those currently working at Paizo (as I do), don't forget that businesses can be acquired. There's no reason WotC/Hasboro or thousands of other less scrupulous corporations couldn't hypothetically buy the company and all the IP at some point in the future.

My players just finished book 4. After some roleplay with the Order of the Black Arrows (felt they should have a presence in this AP) and likely their one and only revisit to Minderhall's Forge (unless they drop some cash on some means to teleport) we'll be starting book 5 with this rewrite! I'm looking forward to running a night encounter in a small village as an introduction to the fiery portal of death.

One of my PCs has a grudge against the oni specifically, so seeing them in the rewrite gives a much welcome starting point in that regard.

I check the Paizo forums very, very rarely these days, but I'm glad that people are still making use of the rewrite.

If I ever went back and gave the rewrite another pass, I'd strongly consider expanding the presence of both Oni in the book and the adventure as a whole.

James Jacobs Jason Bulmahn was there and he repeataly stated that they had to hurry to produce Pathfinder because 4E wouldn't allow them to continue there line of APs. So, yes, PF1 was built so Paizo could stay in business.

AND he said that the OGL debacle was the second time they nearly went out of business because of another company and so they decided now to cut all ties as fast as possible.

EDIT: Mixed up names.

I was there, I'm aware. But this is a false dichotomy, of course.

PF1e was created to so Paizo (and the 3.5e community ecosystem) could stay in business doing what they loved. And it was meant to oppose WotC tightening the grip on the community to control IP and monetization (via the introduction of 4e and changing licenses).

To act like none of this was personal (just business) to the folks at Paizo displays a deep misunderstanding of what all of this means to them and to the community.

You don't go into the RPG printing business to get rich. You do it because you love it.

That's the last I'll speak of this.

… i dont think P1 was built to oppose anything. I think it was just made so Paizo could stay in business.

You weren't there at the beginning, clearly. ;)

Hmmm... did Paizo get bought out by WotC? Because there's some major walling in the garden going on here. It would certainly make them a more appealing acquisition, with all that juicy IP tied up neatly in a bundle.

In actual seriousness, I've had really bad feelings about the direction Paizo was taking for a while now, and I feel justified that I've been working to extricate my own works from any Paizo written lore and content.

Giving the community little over a month to comply with a drastic reduction in their freedom to create and contribute, and then sell it like it's a good thing? Honestly, it's insulting.

The justification that PF1e and SF1e sales are low of Infinite, a platform intentionally designed to promote PF2e is rather ridiculous. If anything, this seems as much like an attempt to completely force the PF1e and SF1e communities to "upgrade"to PF2e Remaster, new revisionist PF2e lore and to host their content on Pathfinder Infinite.

It's actually kind of sickening to watch Paizo come full circle and become the very thing they'd built PF1e to oppose. This is poisoning the roots of the community ecosystem, even after so many players bounced off PF2e after the OGL debacle.

As for me, this may be the last nail in the coffin. I've seen this coming for a long time, but I didn't want to believe it. I wanted to believe Paizo was better than this.

Clearly, that's no longer true.

PS: I like PF2e a lot (haven't had time to dig into the Remaster yet), and was excited about SF2e. This isn't just about a PF1e of SF1e.

I'm just happy this is still a thing.

So, as a final chapter to this story, I did speak to Erpa on Discord and a I'm pleased that they found some use for what I wrote.

Love. It.

When my players get to this book in 2023, I'll be sure to reference this! Lol

My, how time flies :D

Artofregicide wrote:

That's very kind. I'm glad I've inspired a few folks on what is an underrated AP.

.....
I really wrote this document for my own amusement, and while it was a lot of fun, I think it's a good starting point and resource to pull from, not a finished product.

Hope that helps!

Well, good sir, as I've said before, I'll say it again-great work!

I'm using all your rebuilds, and extras, as I trudge through this book. 7 PCs, built for killing giants, and I have decided to skip most of the training level. Even with your variance in creatures to fight, each room being a cave, with only some environment changes as made this into a slog still.

My players are having fun, I love using the infernal angle to change some of the difficulty, and make them question 'what is going on here?!', but I'll be looking forward to when they face King Tytarian to end this book.

....
I'm not even sure how in depth I'm going to run Zephyr Keep and book 6. But that's about 2 months away yet.

As always, thanks again for your efforts!!

You're incredibly kind - my rewrite is pretty half-baked, but it was a lot of fun to write. I'm glad you've found some use for it.

I very much like the ideas to this day, and wish I had a chance to run Giantslayer. Alas, no such luck.

Also, I'm really not on the Paizo forums these days, sadly, so don't expect a quick response from me (if anyone reaches out).

Thanks!

I shared this in the GM reference, but I think it's worth giving its own attention-grabbing thread. Largely copy-pasted.

The monster in this case is the Claws of Time in the Cradle of Quartz. In theory it provides a neat spin on a usual dungeon crawl, echoing Alien: Isolation's Xenomorph, Resident Evil 2's Mr. X and other (seemingly) unstoppable stalkers. But its aura is wildly over-powered, compared to the GMG's guidelines. This will probably kill your PCs if you go all out with it.

The Hound's aura damage is actually absurd, as is the base creature's. 6d6 is the recommended amount for an unlimited damaging ability, according to the GMG, but that assumes it is a 2-action activity. Definitely not a passive aura. I think the "limitation" was supposed to be the immunity on a crit, but that's way too unlikely if you're using the creature as a boss before anyone can even get Juggernaut.

My suggestion, one of two things:
- Scale back the aura's damage, I would say 2-or-3d6 is appropriate. (worrying for low HP characters to stay in, spooky for anyone on a crit)
- Make the aura a 2-action activity instead. It could use a ranged option if the group tries to bait it away from the wall anyway.

In addition: allow regular perception checks in place of Recall Knowledge for PCs to catch on that the creature is staying as close to the corners as it can. Hopefully that helps them put together how best to fight it without having to make a wild knowledge check

To be clear, my group LOVED the tension of having this thing stalking them and its hit-and-run tactics. I would have liked them to get in a few more encounters before they bee-lined for the central geode. But that aura is just too much.

I mean, it's just a buffed up Hound of Tindalos, right?

On the other hand, they can be brutal. I ran a scenario on the FtP Discord server that had like 7 or 8 vs. a party of 6 and... that's where the term "Blender of Death" came from.

Love this. Thank you. I am years away but if we get here it will probably be 3 pcs. Advice? Should I juice up their level?

That's very kind. I'm glad I've inspired a few folks on what is an underrated AP.

Looking back on this, it's in desperate need of proofreading. I got a few important rules wrong (potions of see invisibility and shield aren't a thing), even if I still am quite fond of the core idea. Please give everything a good look over before you use it.

So, for 3 PCs, you have a few options:

1) Increase their level and/or give them alternate rules (such as Mythic, gestalt, etc.) I'd be very careful with the second part of that.
2) Decrease the CR of the encounters accordingly.
3) Add an NPC or let them summon some sort of an outsider.
4) Run as written, but let them know it's hard mode/they'll need to be extra clever and tactical.

Again, it really depends on your group and their level of optimization. It's very possible to optimize to the point where even these encounters won't be overall challenging. But other groups might find them overwhelming and unfun or unfair.

I really wrote this document for my own amusement, and while it was a lot of fun, I think it's a good starting point and resource to pull from, not a finished product.

Hope that helps!

I've been planning on running a Rise of the Runelords game for awhile now. And I just came across The Scribbler's stats and one of them has me asking questions. Mainly due to his Ability Healing Special Ability allowing him to heal from ability damage. Would dropping him to 0 con kill him out right or would it be like regeneration rules knocking him out but not dead until killed by other means?

The Text from the ability
"Ability Healing (Ex)
The Scribbler heals 1 point of ability damage per round in each damaged ability score."

Dropping him to 0 Con still kills him as normal. If he wasn't killed for some reason, he'd continue to heal ability damage as normal. I'm assuming he's got the Divine Guardian template or something similar.

I've done my part.

Have you? :p

The timing seems especially appropriate when certain entities *cough* Hasbro/WotC *cough* are attempting to crush the life out of competition and innovation...

Certainly shows the difference between them and Paizo, no?

I'm surprised but I received a very prompt answer from customer support which answers this question, and hopefully will be helpful to others in my same boat, see below:

"Hi Murderous Undead Spellcaster,

Thank you for reaching out with your question and the research you've done thus far! You would be correct that there is no way to visit our offices in person at this time. As noted in that thread you linked, we do not have a store front that one could visit while there nor are we providing tours. Tours would be dependent on an individual basis and particular circumstances of said tour. With all of that said, there are currently no plans for this to change at this time. I am sorry that we don't have a more exciting response to your inquiry regarding visiting us, but we deeply appreciate you taking the time to ask about it as you have!

Your kind words are truly appreciated! I will make sure to pass this on to our team to let them know how you appreciate us.

Please feel free to reach back to me if you have any further questions or concerns!

Happy Adventuring!
A Super Cool Nice Person (He/Him)
Customer Service Representative
7120 185th Ave NE Ste 120
Redmond, WA 98052-0577"

Dear Golem,

Is it possible to visit the Paizo offices in person (in Redmond)? I expect the answer is no, but other than a previous thread of the forums I can't see any evidence one way or another.

Link: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs43mod?Visiting-Seattle-is-there-a-way-to-visit

It would nice to have a notice of whether a) visiting the office is acceptable at all and b) if not, that is expected to ever change. I am *not* planning to show up unannounced but I could see that happening without guidance.

Not that digging through the Paizo forums for
answers isn't fun, but it's not actually the most effective or official method of conveying information.

-Some Lich

On paper, a lich is the best option. Sure, the other templates provide better mechanical benefits, but only a phylactery soul cage soul egg can nearly guarantee immortality - indeed, your greatest threat is not pesky adventures or rival undead, but boredom taking you and becoming a demilich...

Polymorph and possession spells resolve the "go in public" issue. Heck, if you want to indulge in the pleasures of the living (eating drinking, romantic pursuits) it's an option. But you'll probably get bored quickly. After a century or two. And if you're not a powerful caster, why bother?

With a vampire, the party goes on forever. Well, during the nights anyway, and with all that stolen youth you've got to sleep it off sometime. But your weaknesses are pretty brutal - sunlight can be dealt with a goth tattoo, but you'll never be safe. Also, with create spawn, you won't just have minions, you'll have a big family. But vampires are much easier to root out and you can't travel without keeping your coffin close by, so liches are more mobile.

Graveknights are obviously the most metal choice, but they're also the easiest to destroy... and if you're not engaging in battle, you'll lose interest quickly. There's evidence in at least one AP of graveknights falling into long torpor without a purpose.

Mummy Lords have a powerful rejuvenation ability as well, and if you're smart their tomb can be just as inaccessible as a Lich's phylactery[/] [s]soul cage soul egg. The greater despair aura is going to make interacting with the living difficult, but otherwise it's a good alternative to Lich and you save some cash. The bad news is it's harder (but not impossible!) to relocate your tomb than a trinket.

If you're a druid, Siabrae is an option. You need to be on blighted ground and able to make a DC 20 Fort Save, which means every time you are destroyed, there's a 5% chance you don't come back. Otherwise, it's unclear whether you can be stopped from coming back. Otherwise, you get some pretty neat stuff, although druids are pretty notorious for dumping CHA...

Ghosts are great. Powerful, very difficult to put down permanently unless they want to be, and being incorporeal with effective at will possession is a spicy combo. The biggest downside, most likely, is you have to be unfulfilled, if not miserable all the time. But for most, that's probably not an adjustment.

Also, don't forget all the variant types of liches and vampires - there's plenty of fun options there.

So which is best? It depends really on your needs. Your best option is to move to Geb or somewhere that's tolerant to undead to avoid all the aspiring undead slayers. But the paranoid caster with a doom lair with layered defenses isn't exclusive to the Lich, although they can for obvious reasons pull it off with the most confidence... really being destroyed is just an inconvenience most of the time. And living without fear... that's hard to put a price on. Also, all undead are immune to it anyway.

1d6 bleed is pretty standard, especially around that power level for CR 12.

That's pretty much what I thought, and the only source (a monster blog) that lists it has 1d6.

Interestingly, in an adventure path with sayonas with class levels, the bleed also isn't listed so I don't think this is an AoN thing.

I just noticed this - and it's actually pretty annoying. I was creating a sayona with class levels only to find

I'm thinking 1d6 bleed, does seem reasonable? There's no reason to assume that a creature bleeding from a sayona's attacks will stay adjacent - indeed, they have strong incentive to run away.

We can assume safely that it's bleed isn't any worse than 1 Con damage, which admittedly is brutal...

I can't believe this, but I never actually rebuilt Thoon! To save your digging through the abomination of a Google Doc, dear non-existent reader, instead see below:

Silas Ruin wrote:

I'm actually starting this book tomorrow, and very much plan on using almost all of what you've done here. Really appreciate it.

Awesome! I've got a group just about ready to enter Skirkatla's tomb, which means readying Book 5 on roll 20 with these statted creatures instead!

Skirkatla's tomb is one of my favorite dungeons, hands down. Really, one of the best parts of the AP.

Pretty much my advice above applies. I'm not a professional writer, and some of the encounters are over-tuned. I genuinely hope my mad scribblings make book 5 more fun for your group, but nothing is sacred. Use it as a resource, it's definitely not a polished guide. Some of the encounters just sound really fun to me, if I was a player, so that's why I wrote it.

Best of luck!

I'm actually starting this book tomorrow, and very much plan on using almost all of what you've done here. Really appreciate it.

As always, I'm tremendously late (I check the forums effectively each quarter), but I hope it is going well!

In my own game, the players seem to have a lot of fun, but their feedback has been that some of the encounters are very challenging. As before, I always advise caution and tailoring the game to your group. I wrote most of this with moderate to high optimization in mind - and some of the encounters spike heavily in terms of difficulty.

I'll also say that with Ashpeak in Hell, the biggest issue I've run into is the party getting sidetracked and distracted. How much you want to railroad is up to you.

Paizo listened! <3

All my complaining about Rungus was noticed! They really do have real world cultural significance so it's weird that Paizo gave them to the Grippli.

I mean, it probably wasn't me but I'm happy to take credit and happier still to see the injustice righted!