gurpsgm's page

Hey - do feel free to let me know if this takes a Kickstarter turn...

I'd love to use my collection of Freeport material sometime - I'm thinking of replacing "New Port" with Freeport in my upcoming 13th Age game.

Boy, I can't think of the words that would describe this product except to say that Paizo ought to look here and slide some cash your way for a publication of your work. Absolutely fantastic. Now, if I can just figure out how to print the things for my own use....

Actually, WotC is sorta freeing up their products for PDF on Drive Thru/RPG Now. I agree that this book would make a fine addition to anyone's RPG library, especially since the Paizo logo is plastered on it rather than just the WotC logo. Did whoever buy first rights, all rights, or what? And in this day of electronic editions would a battle ensue (notice the word "sue" here) over who exactly has the E-Rights? It wouldn't take much effort to clean out the TSR/WotC refences and publish it as a straight Pathfinder book...

One thing to remember, this is not just about adding more power to a character. This is about adding depth as well. The character also has a mythic flaw, some of them which can add a heavy roleplaying influence.

Well, now that it's over, maybe we'll see some of our problems with this idea addressed - I hope so.

Bruce

Hi all!

On first read-thru it seems to me that this is just a different way to add more prestige classes to the game. The tier progression is only from 1 to 10 just like a prestige class. There seems to be at least one path to follow for each standard class: Fighter, Mage, Cleric, and Rogue.

There are, however, some really great feats and skills for Mythic characters to use.

The really nice thing is that true heroes (like "Hercules" for instance) have some really good foes to fight. Just look once at the Mythic Hydra.

The Mythic Rewards available in the playtest seem more like artifacts to me.

Although I'm not sure =if= you can do this, but a generic "mythic" template would be nice to add to virtually any monster in the game.

Well, this is only my opinion, and Your Mileage May Vary.

> If I were king of the world, Erik, I would offer selections from
> the Pathfinder basic Game book in three or four smaller
> (64-page) editions. One would have information for arcane
> spellcasting characters. Another, divine spellcasters, and a
> third for everybody else.
>
> If you want to play a wizard, here's a small book detailing what
> you'll need to know for the first several levels.

Here's a couple ideas I'm going to throw in the cauldron to see if they boil...

Booklet 1) Fighters: a quick and dirty way to come up with the details of one of the simplest classes to run and play with. Some few feats and skills that every fighter might normally take.

Booklet 2) Mages: ditto the above with a few of the generally used spells (Magic Missile, Fireball, etc) thrown in in place of the extra feats and skills of the fighter...

Booklet 3) Clerics: also ditto, substituting divine spells and feats for magic spells and feats...

Booklet 4) Rogues: also ditto, replacing the magic/divine spells with material on detecting traps, opening locks, etc...

The material for the sub-classes such as Ranger, Barbarian, Druid, etc., would still be in the big book.

Remember, with these small booklets, the idea is to allow people to learn enough to survive a few sessions - maybe even as far as, say, 6th level. At which point they can decide if they want to get a big book and keep playing or not.

Not to mention that these booklets could be finalized as soon as the playtest period for that class is over.

Pathfinder # 4290

> If I were king of the world, Erik, I would offer selections from
> the Pathfinder basic Game book in three or four smaller
> (64-page) editions. One would have information for arcane
> spellcasting characters. Another, divine apellcasters, and a
> third for everybody else.
>
> If you want to play a wizard, here's a small book detailing what
> you'll need to know for the first several levels.

This has been a major bone to pick with me for a long time. Remember the "little brown books" of original D&D? Examples:

Chainmail = 46 pages

Men & Magic = 36 pages
Monsters & Treasure = 42 pages
Underworld & Wilderness = 36 pages
Reference Guide = 20 pages

Greyhawk = 72 pages
Blackmoor = 60 pages
Eldritch Wizardry = 60 pages
Gods & Heroes = 72 pages
Swords & Spells = 46 pages

Why does this game seem to get more and more complicated as time goes on? With 3.5, I didn't even try to start my daughter on D&D - I used GURPS. There should be a simplified booklet (There! I said a nasty word! I'll say it again - "BOOKLET"!) that can be given to people who have never played before as a starter kit for Pathfinder - or, for that matter, =any= game system that a ... oh say 8 to 12 year old can understand. That's the way to get new people involved - start small.

And here's the next thing - =give= it away. Or make it cheap enough so people can buy it with their (for lack of a better term) lunch money.

Paizo is good at this - I bought the "Crimson Throne" basic book for $2.00 cover! Although it doesn't have a lot of info, it did give me enough info to decide to look for the mods. The same was true for their "Runelords" basic book and mods. If it worked for the mods it'll work for the game.

Pathfinder # 4290

This is =very= true. I've had rules lawyers challenge me on
this before, and I always have the same response = "If you
think you know better you run the game."

> Two player's (or DM's for tha matter) can read the exact same
> paragraph from the SRD and interpret it differently. If Paizo
> changes the language on those paragraphs that are remaining the
> same between 3.5OGL and PRPG, then they will just be adding to
> the problem.

> Translation: if the rule hasn't changed from the SRD, the
> rule text shouldn't change either. Afterall, the SRD is
> almost entirely crunch text; Paizo can add their own flavor
> without changing the rules.

> -Skeld

> Because, as written, the OGL (which the SRD is under) is
> perpetual, and cannot be revoked. And WotC can't legally
> prevent another company from continuing to use it, unless
> that company signs the far more restrictive GSl document.

Hm. That I'd like to see proven. Under the old SRD
License isn't the ability to revoke the license still in
WotC's hands?

And I've seen the new GSl license. Talk about restrictive.

> If WotC could actually "disallow" more 3.5 (or more
> precisely, OGL) content, then Paizo (and every other d20
> publisher out there) would either be doing dramatically
> different rules, or working under 4E.

OK - If the old 3.5 rules are still capable of being
used, then why is every other company but Paizo in a
hurry to 1) get rid of all 3.5 stock, 2A) make a new
game with their own rules or with another less
restrictive rules set or 2B) convert everything over
to 4.0. I've already got the Kingdoms of Kalamar
setting for 4.0 on PDF here.

Pathfinder 4920

> I guess I don't see this as "a big criticism". How could it
> be compatible with 3.5 and not look like the SRD? I think
> the more you read, playtest, and compare PfRPG with the 3.5
> SRD, the more changes and additions will become evident.
> The baseline Paizo position is that the 3rd editions need
> revising, not replacing, as improvement.

My problem with this similarity was that the quotes were

I'll try to come up with some examples this weekend, as my
local gaming group meets on Sun.

Pathfinder 4290

Ah! Thanks for clearing that up. I still wonder about everyone else just rushing to dump 3.0 and 3.5 stuff at bargain prices if the end-of-year cutoff wasn't so seemingly cut and dried, but if the ability of anyone to produce 3.5 compatible merchandise -isn't- over, than we have a lot less to worry about. I suspected that Paizo (who published 'Dungeon' and 'Dragon' magazines) would have done their homework on this question a long time before putting the bucks necessary to have Pathfinder out.

Now a good comment...

It seems to me that multiclassing (exactly the problem talked about in the intro) has gone the way of the dodo bird. I see nothing about multiclassing in the Beta Playtest, and there's a sentence after each class in the Beta that says "Once made this class cannot be changed." If this is true it might be one of the better things to happen to GMs. Heck the book even talks about people not taking fighter after 4th level and/or taking rogue after 2nd level. If this is true it might be one of the best things to ever happen to a GM. I can't tell you how many times I've occasionally struggled with a player that wants to run (for instance) a Rogue till 2nd level and then switch classes to a Ranger so as to get the benefits of both fairly quickly. Or is the multiclassing option one of the things that will be added after the playtest?

Pathfinder 4290

Hi all! Although I'm kinda new here, I'd like to start off with a big criticism.

<please don't flame me mode on> :-)

Is it just my imagination, or does the Beta Playtest look a =lot= like the WotC System Reference Document (hereafter called the SRD)?

I've got copies of the entire 3.5 SRD here on my computer, and it seems to me that some of the material in the Beta Playtest is just direct quotes from the SRD.

Not that this is a -bad- thing mind you - using the SRD to formulate rules is a sure fire way to achieve compatibility with 3.5.

But what happens in December? I had heard that WotC was not going to allow any more 3.5 product after the end of the year. In fact, at least two game stores near me are clearing their shelves of 3.0 and 3.5 stuff as fast as a 50% off of cover will allow them to get rid of it.

<please don't flame me mode off>

In my next post, I promise I'll have something positive to say.

Pathfinder 4290