Epic Meepo's page

Several years ago, while experimenting with ways to make rules text more concise, I discovered that replacing all pronouns in the PRD with "you" and "your" whenever possible (and changing sentence structure, accordingly) reduced the size of the document by several thousand words.

Quite literally, the PF1 Core Rulebook could have included multiple pages of additional content if it had used "you" and "your" instead of third-person pronouns. In English, the sentence structure you use when speaking directly to the reader can be surprisingly efficient.

Healing has been a part of the fantasy RPG experience forever.

Forcing one player at every table to have no fun because every party requires a dedicated healer was bad game design 40 years ago and it's bad game design today.

If healing is an essential part of the fantasy RPG experience, give every character some baseline healing capabilities (through skills, stamina, wands, or whatnot). Healing spells should be extras for characters who want to optimize their healing, not an unspoken prerequisite for enjoying the game.

*opens rulebook*

ME: "There's a six-page glossary of descriptors! Not really my style, but I suppose it does remove lots of ambiguity from the rules; traits will finally clarify things like what actions require only the use of your mind, allowing you to take those actions while paralyzed."

PARALYZED: "You have the flat-footed condition and can’t act except to Recall Knowledge and act in other ways that require only the use of your mind (as determined by the GM)."

ME: ...

*flips table*

Asking a master blacksmith (level 7) to lend you your tools should be a really hard level 7 task with preregs (being friendly already andcetc)

Asking the same blacksmith to teach you a common formula should be much easier since thats almost a service he already provides.

Why isn't a "really hard level 7 task" just a level 9 task? In other words, why aren't things like "easy" and "hard" just modifiers to the base DC?

All wands should be spell dueling wands. Those are way more thematic than boring PF1 wands.

A few years ago, I felt the English language was incredibly close to embracing singular "they" as an all-inclusive pronoun of unspecified gender. Since then, I've encountered singular "they" being used as a preferred gender pronoun... which means singular "they" is actually gender-specific, in the same way "he" and "she" are gender-specific. Goodbye, divisive system of binary gender; hello, divisive system of trinary gender.

TL;DR: Labels for people make me sad. :(

I get the "some things are extra bulky and that matters more than weight." But that's a corner case.

In a system where armor with numerical modifiers can also have the "clumsy" or "noisy" traits, it seems that an item could have a distinct weight and also have the "bulky" trait if that item has a larger than normal impact upon one's encumbrance.

Doing things that way would make the encumbrance system more complicated, but an overabundance of traits seems to make everything in the game more complicated, so encumbrance would fit right in; and at least then we'd know what everything weighs.

I'm not really understanding the utility of a two-dimensional DC table.

Wouldn't it be easier for GMs if there was a table with just one DC per level, and you simply increase the level if you want a harder DC? There aren't "low-difficulty" and "high-difficulty" level 10 monsters, so why are there "low-difficulty" and "high-difficulty" level 10 DCs?

The playtest rulebook uses the term, "Dent," to measure damage to dealt an object. To me, this terminology produces a fair amount of cognitive dissonance. How, for example, would I "Dent" a rope by attacking it with a sword? How would I "Dent" a piece of paper by cutting it with scissors?

It would almost make more sense if objects took generic "Hits" instead of "Dents," as in: this statue has Hardness 10 (5 Hits). That's slightly closer to plain English than the current terminology which equates "damage" with "dents."

---

Although I'm calling out "Dents," in particular, I think that term exemplifies a larger trend in the game rules. Lots of things are saddled with unusual keywords that don't exactly fit any sort of plain English definition: bulk as a unit of measurement, screening (an apparent neologism), awkward phrases like Focus Activation action, etc.

At times, as in the case of "Dents," the rules seem to read less like English and more like computer code, where the names of variables are assigned arbitrary values as needed, with no regard to the dictionary definitions of the names themselves.

This may or may not be a problem for other readers. I can only speak for myself when I say that much of the terminology in the rulebook comes off as awkward and artificial, so I hope it sees some sort of revision before the playtest process is finished.

It seems strange to me that damage from cantrips automatically scales but damage from weapons does not.

Either casters should have to pay for potency runes on their wands (or whatever) in order to heighten their cantrips, or non-casters should have their weapons (or even just their magic weapons) automatically heightened in potency as they advance in level.

Alternately, I saw someone suggest in another thread that additional damage dice be replaced with "plus proficiency modifier" to damage. That sounds like it would work nicely. (In fact, something similar does work nicely in Starfinder, where Weapon Specialization grants "plus level" to damage. Substituting proficiency modifier for raw level just adds more nuance to weapon proficiencies.)

There should be no game mechanics tied to gender. In fact, aside from Close Match, there are no game mechanics tied to gender (based on a search of the rulebook for the word, "gender"). Close Match really stuck out like a sore thumb when I read it.

I'll go one further and say I'd like to see the word "gender" removed from all game mechanics.

In fact, a quick search of the rulebook shows that the Close Match feat is the only rules text that contains the word, "gender." The gender-based penalty on disguises mentioned in Close Match feat doesn't actually seem to exist in anywhere else in the rules, making the Close Match feat the only instance in the game of gender having a game mechanical effect on one's character.

It seems like those feats state "until you stop raging" or "while you are raging".

I find the "while you are raging" wording problematic, because that, to me, implies a continuous effect that provides a benefit when certain conditions are met.

Compare that language to this plain English statement: "While you are wielding a sword, you are armed." In plain English, this statement continues to apply even when aren't wielding a sword. The truth value of the opening phrase has no effect on the statement's duration.

Something else about the fighter class that made me wonder:

Will saves: Why are fighters only trained in Will saves while rangers are expert in Will saves? That seems backwards to me, especially now that rangers are not spellcasters. Rangers have no Will-related class features, while fighters at least get Bravery by default. It feels almost as if the fighter and ranger saving throw proficiencies got swapped in a copy-paste error during layout.

Davor Firetusk wrote:

In thinking more if were going with the 10th level caster or no caster paradigm in 2E, it makes more sense to trying and make the bard more like the Alchemist and not a cast, but with more hard wired special abilities, or just keep stealing from the 1E Masterpieces and bard get a selection of those, and also gets rids of the mysterious some how the bard is now occult, which does not match any lore from any incarnation of the game.

i always saw bards as the kind of people who meddled in everything, trying to find bits of lore and stories about legends, cursed places, magical items, rumors and such.

that fits nicely with the wider scope that "occultism" received in the 2nd edition.

If bards are supposed to meddle in everything... why can't they meddle in arcane, divine, and primal magic?

Making the jack-of-all-trades class the iconic occult specialist seems weird to me.

On re-reading the barbarian, I'm actually noticing multiple feats with action icons whose effects are described as continuous benefits with no apparent duration. I think some of this has to do with the rage descriptor having special rules, but it wouldn't hurt if a developer combed through all of the class feats with action icons and made sure their effects have clear-cut durations.

I couldn't find a way to mark this thread as a FAQ candidate, so I'm just going to post here to bump the thread.

The whole unarmored defense proficiency question bothered me the whole time I was reading the rulebook.

The following are a few random questions I had while reading the rogue class.

Footpad’s Focus: Why isn’t there any sort of synergy between this feat and Bludgeoner?

Battle Assessment: How does this differ from a Recall Knowledge action? And, assuming there is a bigger difference than I am seeing, why is this a rogue feat instead of a fighter feat?

Dread Striker: Why isn’t this also a fighter feat?

Poison Weapon: Where is the simple poison generated by this feat coming from? Shouldn’t this feat involve some sort of rules for crafting a simple poison instead of just handwaving its existence?

Dispelling Slice: Is it intentional that you can use this on an ally to end a harmful spell whose effect is worse than the damage you would deal with Dispelling Slice?

Perfect Distraction and Reactive Distraction: How are these feats not powers? Isn’t every class ability that produces a spell effect supposed to be a spell in PF2? And even if they somehow aren’t spells, shouldn’t these feats have the same descriptors as the mislead spell they are duplicating?

Implausible Infiltration: How is this feat not a power? And even if it is somehow not a spell, how does it not have any descriptor indicating that moving through a solid object is a magical action?

The following are a few questions I had while reading through the paladin class

Oath Feats: Should you lose the benefits of these feats if you fail to follow your paladin’s code? As written, these feats are “other paladin abilities” that are not lost if you fail to follow your code, which seems a bit silly for something that’s supposed to be a sacred vow.

Armored Fortitude: Why does this grant you a bonus on saving throws against things like poison and disease, but only when wearing armor? Why is your immune system dependent upon (the non-magical properties of) the armor you wear?

Vengeful Oath: This feat says it cannot be used to determine a creature’s alignment, so what happens if I try to use it to damage a creature I believe to be evil but which is not actually evil? How does the feat fail to deal damage in such a way that I do not know it failed? There is literally no game mechanic which makes the “no determining alignment” restriction workable in that situation.

Loyal Warhorse: What do critical hits have to do with Retributive Strike?

Second Ally: Shouldn’t this list righteous ally as a prerequisite (since multiclassed and fallen paladins might not actually have a first righteous ally, let alone a second)?

Sense Evil: How long, exactly, does it take to sense an evil aura?

16th-level paladin feats: If you didn’t pick righteous ally (blade) on 3rd level, it is entirely possible you may not qualify for any of these feats on 16th level. Shouldn’t there be at least one feat on this level with less-stringent prerequisites?

The following are a few assorted questions and comments I had while reading through the fighter class.

Open Feats: For clarity, shouldn’t all of these feats have the following reminder text: “Requirements: You have not used an attack action this turn.”

Press Feats: For clarity, when exactly can these be used? It seems like press feats are supposed to be used any time after you make your first attack on your turn, but the actual rules use circuitous language about multiple attack penalties, which seems to be a very roundabout way of explaining things. Wouldn’t it just be easier to add the following reminder text to each press feat: “Requirements: You have used at least one other attack action this turn.”

Exotic Weapon Training: Why does this grant trained proficiency with an exotic weapon when fighters are already trained with all exotic weapons? Is that just there for multiclassing purposes?

Revealing Stab: How does getting a weapon stuck in you necessarily immobilize you? If the answer involves pinning a target to a nearby surface, what happens if the target is flying in the air or swimming in a vast expanse of water? Also, what happens if the target is amorphous?

Whirlwind Strike: Why does this have the open descriptor? There are only a small number of edge cases where you are going to have more than three actions on your turn, so adding this restriction seems to be largely unnecessary.

Impossible Volley: How much ammunition does this require?

A question/comment about fighters in general: Why does the fighter class, in particular, involve so many conditional restrictions upon the use of its abilities?

So many fighter feats seem to read like, “whenever you are wielding a one-handed piercing weapon with one hand free, and are already in a dueling stance, and haven’t used an attack action yet this turn, and are adjacent to an enemy, you can Stride double your speed and Strike with the required weapon, but only if you end that movement adjacent to a different enemy, and when you do, your movement doesn’t trigger reactions if you move in a straight line and the phase of the moon is just right.”

I understand the desire to give fighters something more interesting to do than just move and attack, but to me, “keeping track of what conditional actions I get to use this round,” doesn’t qualify as interesting. That’s just bookkeeping. The fighter would be much more interesting if most fighter feats were useful in a wide variety of circumstances with a wide variety of weapons. Then, instead of asking, “Which of these conditional actions can my fighter actually use this round?”, I can ask, “Which of these broadly-applicable actions does my fighter want to use this round?” That’s much more interesting.

The following are a couple questions I had while reading through the druid class.

Armor Proficiency: I understand that metal armor is anathema for druids, but how does that prevent their armor training in light and medium armor from applying to metal armor? If I am trained in light leather armor, how am I not also trained in light leather armor with metal studs on it? And if I somehow can’t conflate training in leather armor with training in metal-studded leather armor, how am I then proficient with ironwood-studded leather armor, which is functionally identical to metal-studded leather armor except it isn’t made of metal?

Druid Order Feats: Is it really necessary to add separate druid order benefits to certain druid feats? If a benefit granted by a druid feat is important to the identity of a druid order, wouldn’t it make more sense for that to be a benefit of the order itself, not the benefit of an otherwise unrelated druid feat? And if the benefit is more important to the identity of the feat than to the order, shouldn’t it just be a benefit granted to every druid who takes the feat, regardless of their order? In other words, shouldn’t a druid order work more like a cleric domain, in that it provides one or two thematic benefits without locking a character out of half of their feat benefits?

The following are a few assorted questions I had while reading through the bard class.

Spellcasting: Why can’t each bard choose their own spell list instead of all bards using the occult spell list? Sure, many bards delve into occult lore. Aren't others inspired by nature and trained by druid circles? Aren't others professors at arcane academies? Aren't others inspired by deities to perform sacred hymns in temples? The bard is supposed to be the jack-of-all-trades class that can follow any number of paths, so it seems like a better candidate for the “choose your own spell list” benefit than the sorcerer class.

Bardic Lore: Shouldn’t your proficiency in Bardic Lore improve if you are legendary in any skill with the Recall Knowledge action, not just Occultism? Bardic Lore has no more of a connection with Occultism than it does with any other knowledge skill.

Eclectic Skill: Shouldn’t the benefit of this feat improve if you are legendary in any skill with the Recall Knowledge action, not just Occultism? Eclectic Skill has no more of a connection with Occultism than it does with any other skill.

Mental Prowess and Mental Stronghold: Why do these require Bardic Lore? Neither of these feats builds upon the benefits of Bardic Lore in any way, so the Bardic Lore prerequisite seems completely arbitrary, in a way that PF2 feat prerequisites are not supposed to be.

The following are a few assorted questions I had while reading through the barbarian class.

Totems: Why are the names assigned to barbarian totems not called totem themes, the same way names assigned to bard muses are called muse themes? It makes more sense to have a totem with a fury theme than a totem that is literally named Fury, for example.

Giant Totem Anathema: Is it intended that giant totem barbarians who refuse contests of strength suddenly forget how to use oversized weapons? The anathema for other totems are arguably reasonable, since other totems with anathema produce magical (or anti-magical) effects, but the benefit of the giant totem has no descriptor to indicate it is anything more than extraordinary weapon training that applies even when not raging. How can that suddenly go away?

No Escape: What happens if the triggering foe uses a movement type you cannot use with the Stride action granted by No Escape?

Cleave, Great Cleave, and Whirlwind Strike: Why do these feats have the rage descriptor? Aren’t these just adaptations of non-rage feats from PF1? Why add new restrictions on their use?

Animal Rage: Is this an action you can take while raging to modify your rage, an action you can take while not raging to start raging in a different way, or a continuous ability that modifies your rage? The feat has an action icon, but the first sentence in its effect describes a benefit that always applies when you rage, not an effect which occurs when you perform an Animal Rage action. Also, shouldn't this ability have a minimum duration that applies even after your rage ends? Otherwise, animal totem barbarians keep turning into animals and back again every 6 to 18 seconds, which seems weird.

Come and Get Me: For clarity, shouldn’t this say “until you stop raging” instead of “while you are raging”?

Dragon Totem Wings: For clarity, shouldn’t this say “until you stop raging” instead of “while you are raging”? Alternately, shouldn't this ability have a minimum duration that applies even after your rage ends? Otherwise, dragon totem barbarian will have wings that keep appearing and disappearing every 6 to 18 seconds, which seems weird.

Giant’s Lunge: For clarity, shouldn’t this say “until you stop raging” instead of “while you are raging”?

Contagious Rage: For clarity, shouldn’t this say “until you stop raging” instead of “while you are raging”?

Quaking Stomp: Where on the map do the permanent fissures created by this feat appear? If the answer is “GM’s discretion,” isn’t this essentially requiring the GM to create an alternate version of every tactical map in every adventure, each representing an existing tactical map with added fissures that will inevitably be created once the barbarian starts fighting?

Why not use the ordinary Pathfinder homebrew forum and just mark it as PF2?

I can only control where I post things. I can't control where dozens of other homebrew enthusiasts post suggested changes to the playtest rules. And, based on what I saw during the first-edition playtest, I expect to see lots of posts about proposed rule changes showing up in the playtest forum. Why not direct them towards a specific subforum to keep them separate from posts about actual playtest data?

In fact, haven't several of the more recent Paizo playtests divided their forums into a "playtest feedback" subforum and a separate "playtest discussion" subforum? I think it would be useful to have similar signposts in this latest playtest: "Post your Doomsday Dawn playtest feedback over here, post your suggested rule changes over there, argue about alignment and goblins over yonder." Something like that, to make the threads in the playtest forums easier to navigate.

Related question:

Can we get a "Homebrew" playtest sub-forum? That way, posters and moderators can keep homebrew suggestions separate from direct feedback about the rules-as-written.

This would benefit homebrewers by giving them a place where they can get creative without feeling like they're creating a distraction, and it would benefit folks testing the rules-as-written by eliminating the need to sift through homebrew suggestions they won't be using in their playtest games.

If I’m playing a cleric in PF2...

...I use my gold to purchase the magic items I want, and I then activate those items in nearly any combination by spending points from a single Resonance pool.

...I use my class feats to select the domain powers I want, and I then activate those powers in nearly any combination by spending points from a single spell point pool.

...I use my spell slots to prepare the spells I want, and... I’m locked into casting that exact, immutable combination of spells by an archaic fire-and-forget spellcasting system from the 1980s.

One of these things is not like the others.

Why can’t my cleric purchase magic items using gold, select domain powers using feats, prepare spells using spell slots, and then activate any of them by spending points from a single resource pool?

Or, at most, have two resource pools for magic: a generous number of spell points for routine things (like class powers and non-heightened spells) plus a few spell surges per day for particularly potent effects (like heightened spells and magic items designed to be used only a small number of times per day).

If necessary, limit the number of magic items that can be active at any one time and adjust the power level of non-heightened spells to match the power level of class powers and magic items available at the same class level. (Make a non-heightened 9th-level spell equivalent in power to a 17th-level class power, for example.)

That seems like it would be a simpler, cleaner magic system than the hodgepodge of Resonance, spell points, prepared casting, and spontaneous casting appearing in the PF2 playtest.

I feel you are upset that Paladins are still lawful good and that, now, you might be trying to take it out on us Epic Meepo... I know from your post history what side of the debate you come in on. I get being upset. However coming in with an agenda like this, effectively trying to stealth in the alignment argument isn't really cool.

I’d appreciate it if you refrain from ascribing false motives to my behavior. I haven’t played in a Pathfinder game using the alignment system in years; to me, debating alignment mechanics is about as relevant as debating the best way to design a Myspace page. Alignment mechanics are an amusing hypothetical to consider for playtesting purposes but otherwise have no relevance to me.

Something I do find relevant is class design in general. You made a convincing argument in favor of narrowly-defined classes elsewhere, so I decided to make a parallel argument relevant to this thread's topic as a means of playing devil's advocate (hence the alias on my previous post). I find that considering the possibility of a narrowly-defined class is a useful thought experiment to perform when contemplating possible expansions to that class.

You are welcome to disagree with me if you want, but please do so without making ad hominem attacks.

So your level 2 soldier takes a critical hit from a level 2 ember flame doshko. The attack deals 4 points of damage, all of which is dealt to your stamina. Then you fail a save against the weapon's critical hit ability and the doshko severs your arm... without having dealt any hit point damage. Monty Python level hillarity ensues.

The mystic might not be very useful in combat, but when that alien pops up on your view screen we all know who we want to negotiate a deal for the crew.

The envoy?

I'm sorry to hear that, sir. Please pardon my asking, but may we assume that also means the Animal Races PDFs that you were doing are also finished?

Your assumption is correct. Releasing any product as an independent publisher would violate the spirit of my current employment contract.

Most campaign settings I've encountered take place in original fantasy worlds. Our Earth might exist in a given fantasy campaign setting, but it is invariably distant (in time or in space) from the central focus of the campaign.

Has anyone published a fantasy campaign setting that instead takes place on an alternate version of historical Earth? Several computer RPGs have settings of that sort, but I'm more interested in settings for Pathfinder and other pen-and-paper RPGs. Do campaign settings of that sort exist? Is there any interest in campaign settings of that sort?

Examples would include things like a magi-tech interpretation of Plato's Atlantis, a dark fantasy version of Britain in the years following the death of King Arthur, or a timeline where the Trojans defeated the ancient Greeks using powerful ritual magic.

Bummer.

Open playtests and RPG Superstar were what initially drew my attention to Paizo back in the day and were two of the main reasons I remained interested in Paizo and its products throughout the years. Now both have gone the way of the dodo.

I perfectly understand Paizo's reasoning, though, and I don't hold it against them.

When will the final product be out?

Unfortunately, the final product is on indefinite hiatus. A non-compete clause in my current employment contract precludes me from owning and operating a rival publishing company.

Can one of you flip the images and do mirror images of each monster?

Then we get MORE MONSTERS! :-D

I've re-purposed my 198 stat blocks. They use the same illustrations that Threeshades is using, but I've given each of them a twist that should make it different from other adaptations of the same monster.

When I eventually finalize my page layout and rewrite my flavor text, you'll get MORE MONSTERS!

Here is a little taste of what the book will look like on the inside.

Nice!

The two of you should collaborate on it so you're not repeating work already completed.

Sadly, we're both already repeating an unknown amount of work performed by WotC freelancers. At least two of the monsters we're working on (firbolg and vargouille) are scheduled to appear in WotC's new 5e monster book this November. In theory, any number of additional monsters we're working on could also be in that book.

Hey everyone, I thought I'd let you all know I just started working on a fairly big project with which to debut on the DM's guild. I decided to stat out all the official monster illustrations available from the DMs guild creator resources.

That's over 160 monsters, and I will aim to make the document available in print on demand, so you will be able to get a physical book!

Not sure what to call it yet.

Hm. That's the exact same project I've been working on for the past two months.

I've finished 198 stat blocks to go with the 160 illustrations (though I haven't finished all of the lair actions for the legendary monsters yet) and I'm about half way through the page layout required by the DMs Guild print on demand service. I'm procrastinating a lot, though, because I'm finding the page layout work on this project unusually tedious. You'll probably publish your version of this book long before mine is ready.

Also, thanks for the kind words, bookrat.

And thanks for the insightful critique of the Resource (food and drink) feature. I'll take your thoughts into consideration when compiling errata.

The 5th Edition Background Generator is now live in the Paizo store.

I didn't know he was going to be a father soon. Tragic.

Steve's sister posted the following in a comment on this blog:

The thing that scares me the most is that Steven’s (and Miranda Russell) baby, who is due this winter, will never have the opportunity to know what an extraordinary person his/her father was.

I have been overwhelmed by the outpouring of love, compassion and concern everyone has shared for Steven. So many of you have shared memories and stories you had with him. I look ahead to the future and wish I could remember them all so we can share them with his son/daughter.

I have set up a gmail account for anyone that would be willing to share stories/memories/thoughts of Steven so when Miranda feels the time is appropriate, she can share the account with their child. I’m hoping this will give him/her a small glimpse into the amazing life his/her father lived and what a caring, giving, creative, loving person he was.

babyrussell2017@gmail.com

I never had the opportunity to meet Steve in person, but I had the pleasure of working with him a few times, and I can say without a doubt he was one of the most enthusiastic and supportive people I've ever met. He had a way of making everyone he talked to feel like the most important person in the room, and he was genuinely interested in seeing everyone around him excel.

I still remember our first conversation from a few years back. I was pitching an idea for a product and I mentioned, as part of introducing myself, that I had written several articles for Dragon magazine. Out of curiosity, Steve asked their names, so I rattled them off. The list included an obscure pair of articles I had written some ten years earlier.

Imagine my surprise when Steve not only recognized those two titles, but cited his favorite part of the first article off the top of his head. As it turns out, Steve, gaming enthusiast that he was, kept a binder filled with photocopies of all his favorite Dragon magazine articles for ease of reference. To this day, knowing that I contributed to that binder remains the biggest compliment I have ever received as a game designer.

But the great thing about Steve was that he did that for everyone he worked with. He could cite all of his freelancers' best work, and he could push them to produce more of it, because he wanted everyone around him to succeed. He was an amazing collaborator, an amazing publisher, and an amazing man.

This week, the industry lost a muse and quite a few people lost a friend.

Nifty! Did you happen to see my guide to designing background features when writing that? If so, I hope it helped!

I was unaware of that particular thread until just now, but I see it offers some good advice. If someone creates a feature based on your advice in that thread, their feature should be perfectly balanced for use with the 5th Edition Background Generator; they could substitute it for one of the existing features in the generator without disrupting anything.

I should also note that the 5th Edition Background Generator can be used to modify existing backgrounds, so you can use it to create a custom background with any background feature published in any source.

Some shameless self-promotion:

My 5th Edition Background Generator is now available here and will soon be available in the Paizo store.

Can't find the right background for your 5e character? No worries, now you can build your own custom background with this 29-page PDF of modular background options. Also included: dozens of sample backgrounds, from bandit and courtesan to templar and vigilante. If you're looking for thousands of new background options, this PDF is for you.

You might ask around on Google +. There is a vibrant cluster of communities with much experience to share on the matter.

Thanks for the advice. Looks like I'll have to consider joining Google+.

If you don't mind my asking, what are the folks with "metal" bestsellers doing to promote their products?

I recently published a product through the DMs Guild to test the waters but I discovered that my usual promotional strategies aren't available there. When I publish products for Pathfinder, I rely heavily upon the DrivethruRPG publishing tools, and on the fact that Paizo has an official Compatible Products board where everyone goes when they want information about licensed products goes.

Given my lack of those go-to options, I'd be curious to hear what strategies successful sellers are using on the DMs Guild.

Warning, shameless self-promotion follows:

I just published some rules for hybrid multiclassing on the DMs Guild. If you want to build some gestalt-style combos that don't actually break the game, you may want to check it out.

I'd dislike seeing vancian magic make an appearance...

I'm glad someone brought this up. I was starting to get worried when I didn't see Vancian magic mentioned on page 1.

For 30+ years, every time someone put psionics in a D&D or Pathfinder product, a vocal group of objectors would complain, "Psionics is too sci-fi. Power points are too sci-fi. All these pseudo-scientific power names are too sci-fi. It's too different from the feel of the game's traditional magic system."

Now we have Starfinder, and Starfinder is sci-fi. The most sci-fi fi that Paizo ever claimed was fi about sci. And it's a stand-alone game. There is absolutely no excuse for Starfinder to use anything other than psionics as its default magic system. Actual psionics, not Vancian magic with the serial numbers filed off. Psionics with power points that make narrative sense from a pseudo-scientific perspective.

I'm a tad annoyed because I'm starting a furry game myself, but I have plenty of options from the series already to get started. And I can fudge the rest.

My apologies for the delay.

If it's any consolation, even if I were following my original release schedule, this series wouldn't be finished for a year or more after the time stamp on this post. My 5e projects have only set this series behind by four or five titles (out of a planned forty-something titles).

It's been called to my attention that I have been out of touch with my customer base for a few months, so here's an update:

Since the 5th Edition SRD and the Dungeon Master's Guild dropped a few months ago, I've been taking a detour from the Animal Races product line to familiarize myself with the options those new licenses make available to small publishers. Over the next few months, I'll be doing some playtesting and market research related to that other game system.

Once that's finished, I plan on returning to the Pathfinder-compatible Animal Races product line and releasing new titles. I may also begin releasing 5th Edition conversions of old Animal Races titles, but that's a discussion for a thread in another sub-forum.

Any update?

Any Archetypes for Unchained and Occult Adventure?

An update on my latest archetype-related work:

Instead of posting a limited number of specific archetypes, I am working on a system one can use to create one's own archetypes for any class. I plan on including this system in the final version of the Custom Class Builder.

My initial plan was to finish the full version of that product by the summer of 2016, but downloads have been relatively sluggish. As a result, several of my other projects have taken on a higher priority than the Custom Class Builder. I do plan on eventually finishing it, though, and I plan on including my rules for archetype creation therein.