emky's page

Chapter 2 of Rise of the Runelords did "Haunted House" in better ways than I've ever seen done before or since.

Not in. But will be when Owlcat makes another PF1 game!

I just wondered about another aspect of the policies this blocks: artwork commissions.

If I wanted to have a commission of a character I would have to ensure there is no Pazio IP present in the description. This might not be possible if they rely on specific representations of creatures, such as Paizo's goblins being creatures with beady eyes, razor sharp teeth and football-shaped heads, or a cleric's holy symbol.

The ONLY part of that at all that's relevant is the holy symbol (because it's a specific drawing). Nothing else is relevant, and don't let Paizo or anyone ever try to convince you a license would be needed for such a thing. There's no owning an art style.

And the artist could trivially work around that by you giving a the text description of the holy symbol and the artist not look at the official rendering of it.

Specific characters is muddier and is not resolved clearly.

Then maybe cool it on slinging insults at Paizo’s staff? I am 100% sure that’s what got your post deleted, not your criticism of their policy choices.

There was no such thing and it's a little hurtful that you would make such an insinuation. This thread's a super important topic with Paizo staff present; why would one do such a thing? But, please, do go ahead and jump to such conclusions if it makes you feel better about the world.

I still see plenty of criticism in the thread?

Point at timestamps to see the post #s. You'll see gaps. One of them was a previously reply of mine (finishing up the Chopper's Isle sub-thread).

Unhappy to see moderation (silently) deleting criticism in this thread. I guess I should stop caring about Paizo's success entirely. This is becoming a zero-trust environment. I'm out.

But the Chopper's Isle you linked to is fine, mostly.

You said it's fine and then proceeded to describe how it's not at all fine at all.

I don't care about it then/past. I care about it *future*. Your new policies entirely prohibit such content. No more "expanding adventure paths". Part of the vibrancy of Paizo's APs (or at least the 1e ones; I don't really pay attention to 2e) is the huge community around making each AP as much as it can be, far more than what's in the book. (And of course the tools, but that's been discussed quite at length in this thread.)

I don't see the things in that thread being against any policy.

I already listed multiple examples. Let me direct link to one of them: Chopper's Isle

I'm not sure how that thread is impossible now, as it isn't a collection of published content.

It's obvious I mean the things in the thread, not the literal thread itself.

If they are using the Pathfinder and Starfinder settings or other material that isn't licensed via the OGL or ORC, then such APs and one-shots need to be released on Pathfinder or Starfinder Infinite. If they're using a different setting or no setting, then they can function as you describe under the OGL/ORC and (if you so choose) the Paizo Compatibility License.

But these policies are meant to apply to published content, not general discussion, so if it's a forum where people are just tossing around ideas for campaigns or homebrew material, that's not something we're interested in policing.

Just pointing out again that this is a generally bad policy, both for the community AND for Paizo (that gets great benefit out of said community).

Stuff like this thread (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2i3wa?Community-Created-Stuff) is basically impossible with the new policies. These things shouldn't need to be on Infinite (at any price, even 0) to exist. Things like Tsuto's journal, or other updated/expanded handouts, or even the Chopper's Isle drop-in that so many people use in Chapter 1 to round-out Sandpoint.

Paizo has this hammer (Infinite) and is now treating literally everything as a nail to be smacked with said hammer.

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’d like to add that I very much hope free community conversions are still allowed under the revamped policy. The existing community is a huge value add to the PF2E brand and generates Paizo revenue by promoting sales of PF1E books by PF2E GMs. Limiting free fan conversions to Infinite prevents the crowdsourced collaboration that allowed many of the existing conversions to be created in the first place, and the new ban on OGL material makes converting certain adventures via infinite extremely difficult. An OGL-less WOTR would be essentially an entirely different adventure for example.

The reverse (that is upgrading the PF2 APs to PF1 rules) is even more important (because it's so much harder), but is totally forbidden under the new policies.

So few have been done. I was still buying some of the PF2 APs (even though I despise the rule set) for a while, but don't anymore.

Is anyone allowed to publish a 1 to 1 guide of ogl replacements? Can Paizo or does this have to be a fan project? It is allowed at all? Example can someone say looking for pitfiends? Nessari are right there.

Are the wikis going to have to get rid of the legacy posts and redirections?

I don't think the wiki maintainers would mind at all, sadly, if they had to. They already mucked up the wiki replacing all instances of "half elf" with whatever that incomprehensible nonce word Remaster has adopted is.

As for if it could be done, yes. Such a glossary (should it be just a glossary) would not require any permissions of any sort from Paizo or anyone else. And they got rid of "pit fiend" as a word? Whyyyyyyyyy. Argh.

The OGL vs ORC thing is just a convenient excuse. They are also gutting their Community Use Policy, and now Infinite products can't be released under OGL vs ORC. So they're funneling all their content into Infinite but want to say "mine mine mine".

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.")

This is the final physical product for SF

Thanks for confirming. I didn't know this one was coming and hadn't ordered it. I'll have to see if I missed any others. RIP Starfinder.

This is the last Starfinder AP right? Any other books at all coming, or this it?

It's been a while since I peek in on the discussion on PathfinderWiki. Hopefully they won't be going all in to "erasure" mode of things removed from the setting (like dead gods, the dark elves prior, etc) like some of the editors over there wanted to do.

EDIT: I see PF Wiki's article/canon policy did get set a couple months ago and did not go the erasure route. Phew.

Removed a string of quotes that was off topic and baiting.

I'm sorry to post here, since there's no way to PM -- but you removed a whole bunch of on-topic posts, including mine (regarding the FAQ item about charging). It's pretty off-putting.

You are most welcome. I will note that this sheet is specific to the PF1 version of the rules, so if you're looking for something that works for PF2, I haven't done that.

I wanted to mention, bug found in the UCam Excel version: the edicts area aren't right. The calculation formulas refer to "City overview" (which is a totally busted sheet), and wrong cells. Especially Taxation.

Leon Aquilla wrote:

KyleS wrote:

We've come a long way since Rise of the Runelords...

Well yes, there have been almost 200 AP's released.

What I meant was more the fact that RotR dealt with a lot of adult themes and was pretty open about it lol.

And one could hope that introducing this tagging system could open them to once again exploring the full range of our emotions and experiences.

I would appreciate it if you do not imply that the work people done is not ... well work. ... If you feel that presenting new rules, new character options, new adventures, new NPCs, and the whole host of options on Pathfinder Infinite or Pathfinder Compatible Products could be considered micro-monetization... then I'm not sure this is the thread for you anyway.

I did not imply it wasn't. But I did greatly question whether it's something that should be sold. I remember RPGs before the great "everything must be monetized!" and, frankly, it was better. These $1 things here and $5 things there should be $0 blog posts with a tip jar.

And, as for you telling me to go away: it's of great concern. Since Pathfinder Infinite came along and started locking things up, there are people putting their things only there, even if they needn't or shouldn't be (because they're not using Golarion lore/characters/etc). The topic of this blog post is only going to make it worse.

Just like Paizo set the example of "subscription model" stuff during the era of PF1 (which left many products in stupidly weird states with innumerable sub-editions, or only a couple chapters released and not finished, or with no meshing between chapters), Paizo's setting examples here to make things locked up and tied to closed, and encouraging use of Paizo lore/art/etc to keep it that way.

"In fact, as of the publication of this FAQ, you are expressly prohibited from releasing any content in your Pathfinder Infinite or Starfinder Infinite product as Licensed Material under the ORC."

Um, that's pretty seriously BAD. I knew Pathfinder Infinite was a bad thing and would lead to worse down the road -- and this 100% confirms it. Glad I've done no browsing there at all. Embrace a gosh-darned open system -- the very thing that allowed Paizo to exist in the first place. Trying to become like those Seaside Mages that live just down the road, are you?

Otherwise, I hope people properly abandon Infinite and release things ORC themselves. Or better yet, people return to just posting things free on the Internet for the joy of it without attempting to micro-monetize/turn their hobby into a side-gig.

'Tis a good last hurrah for Starfinder. Shame to see Starfinder dying after this.

D&D 2e's alternate schools systems was one of the neatest things done. It was also dabbled in D&D 3rd edition. I'm surprised Paizo never did for Pathfinder. Tossing out the "Traditional 8" didn't need to be done to explore alternate schools/categorizations of magic.

It's nice to see you exploring it finally though.

(Replying to myself since it'd be multiple others otherwise.)

Yes, I'm aware of the de-OGLification and stuff. The 8 schools aren't really copyrightable anyway, but that's besides the point.

My main point is: I'm really surprised Paizo didn't explore this during Pathfinder 1e [the game I still play and prefer]. I really wish they had, and have no idea why they didn't.

D&D 2e's alternate schools systems was one of the neatest things done. It was also dabbled in D&D 3rd edition. I'm surprised Paizo never did for Pathfinder. Tossing out the "Traditional 8" didn't need to be done to explore alternate schools/categorizations of magic.

It's nice to see you exploring it finally though.

Humble believes they identified the issue. This has been resolved when users revisit their download page. If not, the Humble customer service team can help reset your download page.

Can confirm the lower tiers were automatically on my purchases list when I returned to it. Thanks for the quick resolution!

The keys don't seem to be set up right. Humble's only giving one key depending on which tier (rather than 1 per tier), so $25 only got the 19 in the last category, not inclusive of the lowers.

Are your PDFs getting deleted? Are your hardbacks being repossessed? I think not. I also don't think the lore train is stopping anytime soon; delightful adventures and captivating fluff will still come out with the new edition, and you can do the "easier half of the equation" and backwards-convert anything that catches your eye.

Thank you for not reading my post before reply. I was responding to people flippantly saying how basically it will be easy for someone else to swoop in and capture the 3e-PF1-SF1 rule set market.

But, in response to your specific bit: no, it's actually really hard to upgrade content from PF2 to PF1. I'm running Kingmaker from the PF2 redo and, even with the PF statblocks book they released (that covers only 3/4 of the statblocks at that), I'm spending toooooooooooooooons of time converting things. I'm basically writing my own nearly-everything-except-the-plot.

As for Paizo continuing... No, I'm not going to keep buying PF2/SF2 materials. Why should I reward them for moving to a [for me and many] crap system? I did for a bit. But it's a total waste of money. It's too hard to use them. And it's a waste of money to do it just for whatever lore they are adding -- no matter how good it is.

As for people grieving the coming death of the D&D3e-derivative era... I promise you will be fine. Your community is passionate and dedicated enough that you'll inevitably spawn your own OSR equivalent. ...

EDIT: I mean sheesh, Pathfinder was basically produced out of spite for WotC's abandonment of 3.5, so you guys can just do that again. In fact, I think grabbing up SF1 and running away with it to spite Paizo would be very funny. Please, absolutely do that. Pull a Paizo on Paizo itself. Make the gaming industry better for it.

The part you're missing is the Paizo element: The Pathfinder/Starfinder lore is *amazing*. Yes, Golarion is a "Kitchen Sink", but it's a really well-done, lived-in, well-documented, well-written kitchen sink. (In ways Forgotten Realms wishes it were.) Paizo has always excelled in adventure writing. Great adventures.

Paizo abandoning us (for what we perceive as a greatly inferior rule system) adds to that sting. There are already some great games out there. They miss the Paizo element. Their lore/worlds lack, and there isn't the robust support of adventures and community.

The rules system part, while hard, is the far easier half of the equation.

This means I'll finally get into Starfinder, because I had no interest in keeping two similar but not quite rules systems in my head at once.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that they are similar. Starfinder is essentially Pathfinder 1e with shake-up. Which is only related to Pathfinder 2e in name.

This is disappointing. I'd hoped Starfinder would remain its thing and not get "2e"-ified. I really don't like the core design of Pathfinder 2e at all. I guess I'll finish getting what is coming for SF1 and... that leaves me nothing at all Paizo releases anymore except maybe a map one in a while.

It's a shame. :(

I just wish that non-US customers had a better way to get watermarked PDFs along with physical purchases.

Free PDF with physical purchase is basically industry standard except Paizo and WOTC. It's odd that Paizo holds out on that.

Any word on picking up the pace of the 1e POD lineup?

I can also respond in thread if people have questions about my ruleset.

I'd gladly look at it and let you know if we use it, but this currently group sadly is only meeting once a month so it'll be a LONG TIME.

I cannot recall what was different last time. I remember there was more of a benefit for kingdom building in the game than this time around. Players are driven by personal benefit. If it's not there, they'd rather have kingdom in the background.

Indeed. I really don't understand why the 2e Kingdom rules are so completely non-interactive with the player characters. If it needed to another "character", they should have gone all in on it: The kingdom is exactly a full normal character sheet and subject to only the rules necessary to change it (its own set class and feats... but the same normal attributes and skills list, "aid another" rules, etc). Or something, even a reason for appropriate characters when filling leadership roles rather than just "put anyone anywhere so they're filled up".

Thank you for the replies. The Vance list, somehow I had missed before, seems to cover most of it and seems to be well-baked. The only thing it doesn't cover is player role/stat importance (but that wasn't a goal of it).

Is it me, or are the Kingdom rules just... useless? Even basically playing with it on a scratch pad makes it obvious how off they are. And then I see threads about the feats all being broken, and others agreeing with how math gets out of whack.

I'm playing this AP, the Kingmaker 2e revision, but with PF1e for all the characters/combat/normal Pathfinder play. I decided to go with the Kingmaker 2e rules since it was one less thing for me to convert and I thought, "well, they'll have improved it, right?" -- having heard about some or problems the 1e version had and liking the expanded events list.

But my players are already boring of it. The kingdom is still level 1 after 2 sessions. They're maybe half-way to 2nd level, and most of that is only because I moved Grigori to a 1st level encounter (and considerably dropped his DCs -- not that even a 4th level kingdom has a reasonable chance of winning the DC 22 trial [minimum it can be dropped to by the rules, itself a huge endeavor] when you're going to have about a +8 to the check if you're lucky and have one of the relevant skills for that trial. (Extraordinary unlikely to have boosted one of those to Expert by 4th level).

The town can't grow beyond the first 4-squares until kingdom level 3. Which is forever away.

Adventuring doesn't really give kingdom XP enough to make up for it. But even if it did, it's just making it so in the future they'd have to sit back and wait for the kingdom to catch up.

Kingdom XP sources are basically non-existent (1000 XP to level up; 10 XP per turn claiming a hex -- they'll sooner have claimed every hex on the map than having leveled up much) and 30 XP per event (50% chance a turn). They're basically out of things they can spend RP on for any benefit at this point, so let's assume that all goes into XP too so about 10+15+16 (that's +1 hex, 50% event -- sometimes it goes longer, but then there are a couple hexploration ones that give it, and 4d6 RP, plus 4 from sold commodities every turn, minus a couple from incidental expense)... so about 41 XP a turn.

That's TWENTY FIVE turns to level up. There are a couple trickles of XP from "firsts", but they're effectively inconsequential, especially in the grand scale of things. EDIT: We get about 5 turns in per session, in between actually playing Pathfinder, RPing the events ever so little, and how much overhead there is for this.

The math of DCs going up while your ability to do things don't really go up much. Other threads fix this by throwing away kingdom checks and having PCs and NPCs count as having the skill. You *need* most of the skills too, since untrained checks are total wastes. Even at 1st level.

What should I do? Doing the "Kingdom Building" was part of why we wanted to play Kingmaker. But it's extraordinarily badly done, from the XP/leveling, the skill limitations, to the DCs, and the town development too. And it's a bore since it's not involving the characters (let alone the players except the one who's managing the constant erase-rewrite).

Do I read, learn, and convert to the 1e rules (and convert the 2e AP stuff to appropriate... so much conversion already! Any fixes to the 1e rules somewhere?) Is there enough of a fix to stick with these somewhere? Anyone else annoyed that no only were they not playtested, but they weren't even "napkin math" tested?

p539 mentioned "RP for the turn", but also refers you to full details on p525, which says that you're selling commodities to get increased RP *next* turn.

Which is it? Preparing for next turn, or selling for immediate use?

(And has anyone compiled a list of errata/etc? I didn't see one. Paizo sadly has a bad habit of never posting/collecting these and expecting everyone will read every post in every forum.)

Personally, I feel that this is all happening because of Hasbro and their directives to WotC. So they're really the ones at fault.

Nothing from that area is making Paizo make a new edition of the game. They've just CHOSEN to do that. They could -- should -- have taken the slow path of "de-OGLing". And de-OGLing doesn't require major rules changes and rebalances to things. This is 100% Paizo's poorly-timed choice.

They can't just call it "Pathfinder Second Edition". This is an edition change from everything discussed in the live stream. It might retain backwards compatibility, but it is an edition change. It's not just errata and formatting changes.

This is entirely akin to what WotC is doing with their "backwards compatible certainly is not sixth edition" D&D thing. They just think that announcing an edition change is too damning to come out and say so.

Several companies have d5s, d7s, and d16s on the market (along with d30s and d60s).

DCC uses that. Sadly, it's very "OSR" in styling, so I don't play it. But it's designed around the full gamut of dice sizes. Prices have come down a lot on the weird sizes, but they're still up there. I think it's still fair to focus on the standard "poly 7" set.

So I really doubt Paizo would pick up that kind of thing in just an "errata and licensing" update.

Let's hope this doesn't hit Starfinder.

"slightly different mix of monsters, spells, and magic items, the rules remain largely unchanged"

That's some weasel wording there. Why a different mix? There shouldn't be. Either it's changed, or it's not. "largely" is also an out for "ok, so there are changes [beyond errata]!"

Also, generally not a fan of a Player and GM split on books. Paizo's always done right with the CRB being one and all, then separate bestiary only. Now if you pull out the bestiary, you have all the extra baggage that isn't monsters, for instance. The "GM" book is a system-hacking baseline, and how-to-manage-people guide, really its own thing. Et cetera.

Removing alignment is also a mistake.

Ourevel wrote:

If only it were coming to a better platform and/or distribution channel. Why Steam? Ugh. With Paizo's strong support of Open Gaming, it's sad to hear the games are only available through the DRM factory...

Sorry mate, that's a battle for a higher level party. Small game publishers are in no position to die on that hill.

Owlcat's games have been distributed (with great success) on friendly platforms like GOG, outside of the Steam anti-consumer system.

But looking at BKOM's website, it looks like they specialize in licensed, mostly mobile device, cashgrabs, so maybe it won't be a loss.

Some great suggestions in here, thanks! I think the NPC will be have Cavalier's "Tactician" from one of the sources, and then ease into Student of War. Good fit. I'll dig some "int-based diplomacy" in there (housecraft a feat if necessary) and call it good.

Claxon: Yeah, I know about the BAB-drop broadening a lot, but full BAB is necessary for this one.

(If you're curious, if we were playing 13th Age for this game, I'd have easily done Commander class with Strategist talent.)

Slayer...

Thanks, I will dig into Slayer more for it. I did find the Seasoned Commander Fighter or Tactician archetypes keeps medium armor, so maybe that. Vanguard didn't sound right from the "one sentence" blurb, I'll actually read it.

The rapier is a problem... I do want the dude to use a halberd or pole arm type weapon. And the Swashbuckler probably is still dexy (which will be this NPC's dump stat) and I personally really don't like how Deeds work.

I'm looking for a class/archetype suggestion and I'm not having good luck. What I'm looking for:

Full BAB
Decent skills
Able to make use of intelligence
Medium armor, martial proficiency
Not a Dex/finesse fighter
"leader" or "commander"-y type powers would be good, but not required

Of the Pathfinder stuff... I don't know, slayer's almost there, but I'd prefer more "social" to it. Ditto ranger. Swashbuckler's out, unless there's an archetype that really redoes it for INT and.

I don't know, I guess in media it'd be "Aragorn" a fightering king and knows things type (which is not at all represented by ranger, which is all animal companion and nature and spells).

Perhaps I've overlooked the right archetype? A few fighter archetypes look like they increase skills to 4, but they all seem to go down to light armor only.

This is for an NPC that will be come-and-go for a while, so, while balance is good, it doesn't have to be perfect. Third party is OK, so long as it's not faaaar out there like Spheres of Might (that's a big can of worms).

There are lots of ways creative gamers turn their creativity into income.That sort of harassment is reserved for the storytellers, actors, professional gamemasters. It's time it stopped.

There's a big difference. It's just like the same exact scorn I give to those who join fraternities in college: it's buying friends. Playing an RPG is something one does with a group of friends, or at least acquaintances, for fun.

I will continue to deride paid GMing at every opportunity, because it should not be a thing, and should not be accepted. It's inappropriate for anyone to participate.

And that's without the other approach of the perils of ruining hobbies with a "side hustle".

I can't say I'm a fan of Paizo being so open toward paid GMing. :(

I hope this doesn't mean "demo of Starfinder 2e, Starfinder is ending soon" like Pathfinder Unchained was.

Really happy to see Quinn! I hope to get some of his personality finally. He's long been my favorite iconic design. (Though, like for most of them I prefer the PF1e rendering... but his is only nominally changed.)

EDIT: I guess I missed Runescars?!