kyrt-ryder's page

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Michael Sayre wrote:

If you're still playing 5E

Some of us are still playing PF1 :P

I hope I'm not being annoying by repeating my question once, but I would love to get a developer opinion on this.

What would be the most appropriate benefit to give a multi-classed Veilweaver who receives dead binds? A bonus Akashic Feat for which they qualify [considering that Access * Chakra Slot are feats] or +1 point of Essence?

I wouldn't give them anything, in the same way that multiclassing fighter when you're a paladin doesn't let you go in and swap all your redundant proficiencies, or in the same way that you don't stack wizard spellcasting levels with sorcerer spellcasting levels.

Giving them an additional goodie for having overlapping binds is just not a necessary thing to do and it makes multiclassing arguably too appealing from a raw power perspective compared to mastering a single class.

Thank you very much for the insight, I really appreciate it.

I also don't understand it lol.

Pathfinder 1e in general goes so far to discourage multiclassing that it's frustrating as a GM who loves to see characters branch and grow in creative and interesting ways regarding the mechanical framework.

Giving them nothing in place of dead binds is like not giving a character who happens to have levels in sorcerer any new spells per day when they take a level in wizard, just because they have sorcerer levels.

That being said, if you're going to do it anyways-

Not essence; you'll bloat out things that key on the size of your essence pool and those aren't really equivalent resources anyways.

If you're going to make the change, I'd go all the way to the root and replace the non-unique binds of every class with the corresponding Access Chakra feats, kinda like how the zodiac does it base.

This works perfectly. Especially in concert with my houserule where a character who receives a redundant feat can take any other feat for which he qualifies. Thank you Michael.

I don’t understand what the big deal is with having to wait until 7th level for something to come online. A 1st level character is not supposed to be a seasoned and experienced character they are supposed to be beginners that are still wet behind the ears. They are the equivalent of the nerd from the suburbs who has never touched a gun before and just got out of boot camp, not a member of seal team 6. Expecting them to be able to fight effectively with both a ranged and a melee attack in the same round is kind of silly.

Are you implying soldiers straight out of bootcamp aren't expected to be able to fight effectively with a firearm and CQC in the same 6 seconds, should an assailant close on them?

"I want it and I want it now!"

Any goal for the other 19 levels?

If you get everything within the first few levels, you end feeling that your character gets little growth, it is simply a more refined version of what he was at level 1.
Probably you will feel even more envy for those pesky spellcasters that gets new spells every two levels.

So, I'm 7 months late to this reply... but I've playtested a Fighter that got 2 bonus feats every level [one restricted to Combat because Fighter, and the other free choice so long as the character qualified] and at level 15 there were still dozens of feats I wanted.

Tragically, feats just aren't that good. The more of them you have, the more of them you want because they're just incremental improvements in what you're capable of.

A little extra option here, a little bonus there, a penalty removed over here... very few standouts.

If you're still playing 5E

Some of us are still playing PF1 :P

I hope I'm not being annoying by repeating my question once, but I would love to get a developer opinion on this.

What would be the most appropriate benefit to give a multi-classed Veilweaver who receives dead binds? A bonus Akashic Feat for which they qualify [considering that Access * Chakra Slot are feats] or +1 point of Essence?

Somehow, I completely missed that EDIT note lol.

Thanks for pointing it out and making me look even more blind than I really am :P

Too much screen time, yup, that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

Read the rest of my post. :P

I did lol. You suggested allowing sensitive subjects while also trying to control bad actors.

I don't like the idea of any governing body having the right to decide who is or is not a bad actor. That's what the power of our wallets is for :P

As a sidenote, I do cautiously hope that the ORC adopts language similar to the new OGL's about prohibiting blatantly abusive content. We don't need "Myfarog, ORC edition".

Respectfully... I disagree.

An Open License should be universally open. Let the market burn anyone who wants to produce content that shouldn't be published.

The last thing I think most of us want to see is a license that can control creators. While that power can be used for good, there's nothing guaranteeing that it will be.

I can't say that I've ever purchased a Kobold Press product until now, although I've used a large number of their rules that made it onto d20pfsrd.

What I can say is that I am so down to go sailing with them and throw my hat aboard that fleet. {Sorry Paizo, I'm just really not big on PF2 lol}

This EFF article more clearly paints the picture of how easily it theoretically would be to rebuild the SRD content without the OGL, by virtue of rewriting it with independent phrasing.

Obviously the NotCs could and very well may take someone doing that to court [and hopefully the community would rally behind them] but based on the article that should be a losing battle once it sees a judge.

There's a good chance people will flock to familiarity.

In the same way Paizo was once the refuge for those who weren't done enjoying 3.5 style tactical fantasy RPGs, I have a strong suspicion that Kobold Press is going to be the big winner if their new experiment has similar enough texture to 5e D&D.

The difficult part is Hasbro/WotC holds such a huge slice of the market pie, will enough fall off for the pie to be equitable between the various companies squaring up to survive the upcoming changes?

I imagine there's probably only going to be one 'Pathfinder' that rises out of these ashes to snatch up a Paizo level market share.

In the long run the other games are going to either fade away or settle into a 3rd tier niche community.

Xenagog wrote:

Anguish wrote:

Sure. You can roll dice outside of a VTT.

Sure. You can use a paper character sheet and then start typing stuff into an online roller outside of a VTT.

Both of those are annoying. Annoying products aren't used as much as convenient products.

What proportion of D&D/Pathfinder players use VTTs?

I'm not asking that sarcastically to minimize the issue. I'm honestly wondering. I've never used a VTT in my life, and it didn't seem to me like something that was that ubiquitous, but I first started role-playing more than forty years ago so maybe I'm kind of an old fogey out of touch with current ways; I'm getting the impression VTTs are a lot more popular than I realized...

They're very popular, and definitely approaching the mainstream. After all, its incredibly difficult to play with friends on 3 continents without the use of a VTT. Or even just those a few countries over. I personally still prefer play in person, but am very glad VTTs are a big thing now.

Even just a few *Counties* over isn't easy.

I don't know about other nations or regions but here in Washington State it takes at least half an hour to traverse a county border to border

read all of point 9 of OGL1.0a very carefully... now think like you are WotC and want to interpret that to benefit ONLY you...

"9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."

Do you see where the catch is???... notice that the word "authorized" is missing from between the words 'any' and 'version' at the end.

With the wording of what was leaked of OGL1.1, WotC would make OGL1.0a no longer an "authorized" license, and version 1.1 would supersede 1.0a ..... thus they could effectively take ownership of any and all property released under 1.0a because, even though 1.0a is no longer "authorized", it would be property that was published under "any" version of the OGL.

Once WotC updates to 1.1 as it stands, they could effectively give a 30 day notice to cease ALL operations falling under 1.0a or get licensed under 1.1 and sign a contract basically giving them all properties and products you produced and/or released under the old license.

If you sign and give them the rights to your property, then you gave away all your work of your own free will and WotC owes you nothing.

If you close shop and cease all production and publication under 1.0a, then WotC can simply rerelease and publish that material as if it were theirs, keep you from publishing it legally, and there is nothing that can be done about it.

Between point 9 of OGL 1.0a and the wording of what was released of version 1.1, these in affect create an all encompassing loop by which WotC can technically take ownership of EVERYTHING produced under the OGL since the year 2000 while only allowing those they want into OGL 1.1, which could be NOBODY, thus monopolizing an extremely large majority of all ttrpg marketed products since 2000.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it... I am sure this is what...

NotC can try to interpret it however they like. All that clause does is grant Wizards and their agents the exclusive Authority to publish updated OGL versions. OGL updates published by anyone else are unauthorized.

It doesn't grant any power to deauthorize an authorized version of the OGL

I found this, and it makes grim reading.

For me the VTTs are the weakest link.

https://arbiterofworlds.substack.com/p/the-perfidious-treachery-of-wotc?utm _source=substack&utm_medium=email

VTTs with direct rules integration sure.

You don't need an SRD baked into a VTT, all you need is an interactive map that can accept your tokens you made or bought.

Heck you can offload the dice rolls to discord, there are several good dice bots (admittedly one of them is linked to D&dBeyond, but that's only one of them.

This seems like a perfect case for why Government intervention on anti-competitive practices is good.

It would be great if we can get the government involved since what Hasbro is trying to due is effectively monopolize an entire industry given how prevalent the OGL 1.0a is.

The government is also invested given that this can and will reduce tax revenues and increase unemployment.

Funimation and Crunchyroll were allowed to merge. Anti-monopoly policy is dead in the US

Oh, was 250,000 a typo? Makes sense, assuming over 80% profit was crazy lol

^If your revenue is $1,500,000 and your expenses are $,250,000 (including paying federal and state and maybe even local taxes), you aren't going to be earning income under the OGL 1.1 -- you're going to be losing $50,000 each year (or $75,000 if you didn't sign onto their corrupt bargain with Kickstarter).

Meanwhile, WotC/Hasbro has the right to make any amount of income from what they so dishonestly say that you "own", and they don't owe anything to anybody except federal and state and maybe local governments (assuming that they can't figure out how to worm their way out of those obligations as so many big businesses do).

Also, note (in what purports to be the full document linked well above) that when you sign onto OGL 1.1, you waive your right to a jury trial.

Math is off. WotC is only taking their cut on the revenue above 750,000.

If expenses were Only 250,000 that person would profit over 1 million before taxes.

But an 84% profit margin is unheard of in this industry lol

EDIT: Not that the math actually matters given a license that can be changed on a whim with 30 days notice

I might strongly disagree with some of Paizo's decisions and the way they used to swing the FAQ like a hammer...

... but the core of Paizo as a company and the people running the ship are amazing and this hobby is so much better for having them.

I've emailed Paizo, Kobold Press, Green Ronin Publishing, Goodman Games, Troll Lord Games and offered to contribute $100 monthly to a class action lawsuit against WotC. Want to bet I can find a hundred other people willing to do the same? That's $120,000 a year in lawsuit funding. Who's with me?

I'm down for a one time 100$ dono

Static HTML is static media [no clue if those sites are built that way, but it is an option]

But yeah, the terms of 1.1 are criminal, morally speaking if not legally.

I wonder if Paizo's recent about-face on errata has anything to do with this?

-Skeld

What about-face? {I've been out of the loop with Paizo for a while, PF1 is my game}

It's kind of late to try to get all those signants onto a new petition Dabus.

As you said, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Even Evil can work for a Good Cause now and then.

Leon Aquilla wrote:

Divinkitty wrote:

Isn't Pathfinder 2e and Starfinder (definitely not Pathfinder 1e) mostly using the OGL as a formality and safety net for homebrewers and 3pps at this point? You can't really copyright game mechanics themselves, but some things might need to be renamed (drow (only d&d to my knowledge associated drow with elves as they are otherwise a type of troll) and Tarrasque (it uses two r's instead of one r like the mythical creature)) and redesigned (the Pf Tarrasque looks pretty similar to the D&D Tarrasque). In theory they might need to also rename ability scores (strength, dexterity, constitution, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma) but they can go for similar names and even some repeating ones (strength, agility, endurance, logic, intuition, and charisma). But for the most part they should be in the clear, yeah? Sure they'd need to reprint things and wouldn't be able to...

Michael Sayre said that PF2e mostly has the OGL 1.0a so it has access to 'traditional' names (e.g. magic missile) and in case freelancers or other parties inadvertently inject 3.0 SRD material into Pathfinder 2e but that otherwise PF2e uses no SRD content.

Starfinder however copy-pastes rules from the SRD in several sections.

Well that definitely sucks for Starfinder then. Also sucks because that's the one my IRL group plays the most between the two. Well, thanks for the info and fingers crossed the revoking of 1.0a doesn't go through at the very least.

Even PF1 can technically be divorced from the 3rd edition SRD and in doing so from the OGL.

The problem is it's a system that's out of print and it's by far the most monumental challenge among Paizo's three systems. Honestly not worth it imo.

Starfinder will require more effort than PF2 to be sure, but it's doable. Just a secondary priority due to the tight timeline and greater manpower requirement.

Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:

This is relevant. Roll For Combat is hosting questions at 4:00 EST today. Bottom line is that fears of OGL 1.1 are probably overblown:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ6iTzeiNY8

Edit: time error

That's opposite the impression I got from Stephen's commentary.

Same. This is not the time to be passive and go quietly into the night.

The leaked OGL 1.1 is basically an attack on the tabletop landscape that's been a defining feature of our hobby for the last twenty years.

Philo Pharynx wrote:

From RollForCombat's video: there is now a site taking signatures against this. opendnd.games

Link doesn't work. And I can't find the site via a Google or Bing search.

Working Link

[Turns out, the forum software automatically turns links into internal ones if they don't have the http:// at the start]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Xyxox wrote:

Harles wrote:

I downloaded all my PDFs from Paizo and have them safely stored on physical media.

I'm debating getting the official PDFs of things I normally access on Archives of Nethys [Dark Archive, etc.] - but that would get really pricey over the course of just a few days. (I wouldn't mind if I had a couple months to spread out the purchases.)

I used HTTrack to mirror Archives of Nethys locally.

Do HTTrack hyperlinks point out to the original pages or to the internal pages within the mirror?

The internal pages within the mirror unless they point to a different domain and I used a choice that questions what to do with those links so I could download in such a way as to get complete SRDs for Pathfinder 1E, Pathfinder 2E and Starfinder. I then told it not t mirror other external links.

Very nice, thanks. The program I used for d20pfsrd retained the external links, but I'll use this for Library of Metzofitz and Archives of Nethys now and redo d20pfsrd once I get through those.

Appreciate it

Harles wrote:

I downloaded all my PDFs from Paizo and have them safely stored on physical media.

I'm debating getting the official PDFs of things I normally access on Archives of Nethys [Dark Archive, etc.] - but that would get really pricey over the course of just a few days. (I wouldn't mind if I had a couple months to spread out the purchases.)

I used HTTrack to mirror Archives of Nethys locally.

Do HTTrack hyperlinks point out to the original pages or to the internal pages within the mirror?

I imagine Paizo are already doing something similar, albeit on a much grander scale.

probably.

would be a shame to lose PF1, but if they don't want to fight that battle that's their call to make. The time and cost would be staggering.

Eeveegirl1206 wrote:

Coridan wrote:

Most likely it's whoever in charge of WotC wanting to impress their bosses in Hasbro. This happens a lot in game studios where a studio head will be in a meeting with the big boss (like EA) and the big boss starts singing the praises of one branch who brought in x money with microtransactions and live services, them goes to the other studio head "so what have you guys got coming up" and the guy who heads a studio known for epic single player RPGs then comes up with Anthem on the spot

This sounds exactly what happened when corporate busy bodies who know nothing of the industry decide they want to increase profits.

I hope this fails.

That 1980s cartoon had way more DND feels than this generic movie. They should bring back it.

Or Record of the Locosss which was a DND campaign.

what is that?

Record of Lodoss war is a Japanese multi-media franchise that started out as a Replay [textualized retelling of a roleplaying game session/campaign, there's actually a market for it] of a Basic+Expert DND campaign.

It eventually spawned the premier fantasy roleplaying game in Japan, Sword World. Which runs on a 2d6 system.

I mean I'd rather crowdfund a legal fund to shut down WotC's attempt to overwrite the OG OGL with an Oppressive Gaming Leash.

But to each their own lol.

Before people get too panicky, it might be good to remember that business don't like spending money.

Panicking won't do any good, but neither will casually letting things develop according to course.

It's painfully obvious what WotC's intentions are here, and the d20 community needs to rally over this. Make some noise and vote with your wallet.

I know PF and 5e fanbases have rivalries. But this is not the time to accentuate those rivalries. Many 5e players still love Paizo and PF (I know I still do, even though I don't play as much anymore).

I any case, let's turn our hatred towards Hasbro!

At the end of the day, all d20 players are one family. We may fight or argue now and then, but we're all descended from a couple of wargaming grandpas who gave us a hobby worth fighting for.

Coridan wrote:

First, as amusing as that would be, it's almost certain that KotOR had a separate agreement with WotC, as at the time Wizards held the RPG license for Star Wars. I doubt their agreement had any reliance on the OGL.

Second, they're not trying to fine you for driving yesterday, but the fear is that they'll try to stop people from continuing to sell more copies of stuff previously published under the OGL.

A lot of people are panicking though over something that is really really gonna go poorly for WotC in court, and probably wasn't their actual intention. It was likely meant to be a poison pill clause like the GSL but phrased differently. Or someone with no concept of caselaw on open source licensing thought they could get away with it and is probably getting an education right now in between the leak and the official release (which is supposed to be on the 13th according to the leak)

The fault in your position is assuming it will ever be argued in any court of law. Nuclear Lawfare is conducted by companies that know they stand little chance of winning a case decided in a court by a judge, but use their financial position to wear down the opposition so much they either go bankrupt or must walk away from litigation due to the extreme cost of legal services before the case is EVER argued in a court.

Which is why this whole mess has to get big, big, BIG, BIG

It has to get so big that it damages WotC's bottom line. MTG players are an adjacent community to the RPG industry, I don't know what else WotC is involved in, but this has to be blown up so big that DND becomes something Hasbro loses interest in.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Onkonk wrote:

I saw an interesting post from Michael Sayre about PF2 and the OGL (it was made 9 months ago so not a comment on the leak).

...

Now that is interesting.

If Pathfinder 2 can be legally published without the OGL due to significant differences as a game (I'd still expect WotC/Hasbro to challenge it), then while it means taking PF1 products off the store (and likely Starfinder), they could potentially continue to sell and produce products for PF2, without getting plundered by Hasbro.

It also means that if Paizo were inclined*, they could replace the OGL text with a pathfinder game license and allow third parties to continue to develop products for PF2, completely independent of the WotC shenanigans.

*Given Paizo is a company made up of and run by people with a deep love and respect for the hobby, my guess would be on them being so inclined. But legal matters are tricky, so I wouldn't begrudge them moving cautiously in these times.

The real question is if the OPGL {OP lol, but Open Pathfinder/ Open Path} could be used in a manner similar to publish PF1 material similar to how the OSR guys were able to use the OGL to rebuild TSR editions.

It's murky water, but if it could be accomplished that would be an amazing middle finger to Hasbro.

If they want to create a new license [which shouldn't be called an OGL, because it ain't open] that's one thing. Rock on I guess.

If they can somehow find a way to force 1.1 to be applied to 5th edition content, whatever. There's probably some legal room to maneuver there.

But to try to overrule 3rd edition's Open Gaming Status, and suddenly claim exclusive control over that OGL content and content derived from it?

I can't imagine a legitimate court in the country that would honor that lol.

Vardoc Bloodstone wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Also, Vardoc, we've linked two accounts now from lawyers who seem extremely concerned. They're a good read, and an informative watch.

Look, I’m not saying don’t have an interest, or don’t follow the story. But frankly, most these folks don’t know what they are talking about. I love Ron as a content creator and member of our community, but he is not an expert in these fields.

So my message is to ease the panic, but if that doesn’t sit well with you then by all means, you do you.

And for what it is worth, I am fairly confident that none of these fears will come to pass and that Paizo can continue to Paizo. Like 80-90% certain.

Edit: typo.

I certainly hope you're right.

Paizo will be fine regardless. They have multiple options here.

It's the rest of the community who loses if this fight is sidestepped rather than won.

Obviously it would be better if the victory could come in the form of the court of opinions where WotC realizes that trying this would ruin their public image and damage D&D's revenue.

But most likely they're going to go full corporate on this and demand submission or an actual legal battle.

Not saying Paizo has an obligation to participate, they don't. There are absolutely reasons they would probably be better off avoiding that battle.

But it would sure be nice if they did.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Even if WotC isn't touching the OGL, and all the leaks are somehow wrong, it's never a bad thing to keep them afraid to touch it in the future. I say, keep the torches and pitchforks coming.

And also, abandon the OGL in favor of an actual open content license that doesn't have this type of loophole in it in the first place.

Re-releasing the PF2 CRB without it wouldn't be a bad plan.

There is no real loophole.

Some corporate schmuck just noticed that modern licenses use "Irrevocable" where licenses of the time said "perpetual" and fired up the machine.

WotC's odds of winning this in court are less than 20% from everything I've been reading. All the precedence is stacked against them.

Xyxox wrote:

I think they underestimate the fan base, especially where the loyalties really lie.

I'm not so sure. Folk posting on this forum were already skewed against WotC, as evidenced in the 'Do you also play D&D?' thread, where everyone shat on 5e.

Most people who started roleplaying since 5e hit its stride, and who - in all likelihood - play nothing but D&D5e, won't care one whit what happens to Paizo or other smaller 3P creators.

I doubt the majority of those players are even aware of what is happening right now with the OGL.

As someone on the EN World forums said, WotC will get maybe a month of moaning online, then it'll be back to business as usual.

Obviously that doesn't account for any other predatory practices that are still in the pipeline for 2023 and beyond.

The Youtube Content Community is making sure they all know what it is and the gravity of it.

This thing is blowing up on Youtube

Valid points Dancing Wind, thanks.

I would recommend phrasing all discussion about Hasbro and not WotC. I think most people believe this is coming from Hasbro corporate, thus if you want to try to start a PR campaign, it should be towards Hasbro and not WotC.

There was once a time where that distinction was worth making.

But at this point the administration [for the most part, may still be a few honorable people involved] of WotC has been molded into exactly that sort of margins over morals type of corporation Hasbro wants them to be.

Companies can be pressured into backtracking. A lot of people thought the November 2021 outcry wouldn't amount to anything, either.

What was that about?

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Belafon wrote:

The people who come up with these plans are the real-life equivalent of RPG “rules-lawyer” players.

Isn’t that what all Lawyers are supposed to do? At least corporate lawyers. Figure out loopholes so they can save 0.2 cents by dumping toxic waste in the ocean.

Please don't lump rules lawyers in with this sort of excrement.

It still isn’t good because even if Pazio can continue smaller companies without the resources to fight against Hasbro’s legal team.

They should be challenged in court by people with resources instead of SLAPs on small companies.

Because if you learn more about Critical Legal Theory you would understand that the laws are made by powerful and rich people so that they keep being powerful and rich.

I am in agreement. IMO the best result for the industry at large would be for Paizo to participate in this fight and WotC to get their asses handed to them in court.

AFAIK, they have the strongest case by far, not exactly a guarantee but quite close.

Problem is the time and finances required to wage that war, and whether or not Paizo is prepared to do it.

The people who come up with these plans are the real-life equivalent of RPG “rules-lawyer” players.

Please don't lump rules lawyers in with this sort of excrement.

Note to self: start backing up the PF1 sections.of Archives of Nethys, D20pfsrd and Libraryofmetzofitz just in case Paizo decides to bail on the OGL rather than defend it.

I couldn't blame them if they took the path of least resistance, court battles are incredibly expensive and it's not like 2E absolutely needs the OGL to exist, though it would require serious revision.

Much like when the D&D movie poster stole Paizo's proprietary art and they killed the discussion instantly, I suspect this will not go too well either.

Anyways, I have all the books on my shelf. Let Hasbro come in and try and burn 'em.

That's the biggest blessing for other 3rd party publishers. If they can't touch Paizo, then that gives a big defense in court afaik.

Not a lawyer of course, so I could be mistaken on this.

What a stupid necro. The thread, itself, is stupid cheese BS... trying to get something for nothing, but in reality, just proving you studied at Derek Zoolander's Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good... the ability says give up one attack, get one parry... not give up multiple attacks to get multiple parries. It is absolutely just the bucket of snails all over again, just stupid-er. This sort of nonsense deserves to die, and stay dead. How hard is it to read the freaking date, anyways?

Taking Duelist is certainly not nothing.

Heck, high level Duelists ate a pretty big cut to its defensive ability compared to 3.5 where Elaborate Defense was Elaborate Parry and gave a +1 per Duelist Level bonus to AC.

the xiao wrote:

Michael, are there any special rules for multiclassing Akashic classes? I looked at my Akashic Mysteries book and Akashic Trinity, and couldn't find anything. I guess essence just stacks, and you choose your veil ability modifier when you multiclass, like manifesters, but what about veilweaver level? What about veil lists? Veils shaped? Maximum essence capacity increments? Chakra binds?

Essence, veilweaver level, veils shaped, maximum essence capacity increments, etc. give exactly what they say they give when you pick them up from each class. That means a multiclassed guru/vizier will have a broad range of essence and veils to pull from and the same veilweaver level as a single-classed character of the same level, but that will then be balanced out by the fact that they've delayed their bind progression. If you get the Hands bind from two sources, the second source is just "dead" as it provides no further benefit.

Dead Binds is such a shame for such otherwise interesting classes that are so much fun to blend.

Surely it would be appropriate to give a multiclassed Veilweaver who receives a bind they already have something in return, right? Perhaps an additional Veil [considering they aren't progressing veils in two classes at the same time, just progressing a separate chart depending on which class they took a level in] or at least a point of Essence?

Honestly I was stunned I didn't find a multiclassing feat to support bind progression, but that's not a decision I would claim to understand the system enough to debate lol.

MrCharisma wrote:

(which is sometimes contentious)

Hello there, time traveler! I notice you've jumped forward from sometime before 2016 when the FAQ was released, presumably to gain insight from the highly advanced society of 2021.

FAQ wrote:

Bloodrager Bloodlines: Can a bloodrager use abilities that require sorcerer levels and relate to sorcerer bloodlines like robe of arcane heritage?

No. Some hybrid classes, like the brawler, have a class feature allowing them to use items related to their parent class, but the bloodrager doesn’t.

===

As your GM has changed how the Robe of Arcane Heritage interacts with the Bloodrager, I propose that you bring up any weird ramifications of that decision with them directly.

Also, replace Staggering Strike with a Bloodline Familiar if you don't get any use out of it.

How is it that like 90% of FAQs Paizo puts out are just dunking on things that were nice for characters who hit things? {Sorry for the late reply, but it's less than two years and I'm in the process of preparing a character looking stuff up and a bit sick of Paizo's garbage FaQ-rata}

Negative Party Prognosis wrote:

Claxon wrote:

I disagree, but I don't care to argue with you on this topic.

I've already agreed with how the rule should be interpreted and we agree on that.

See my post above, then assume hypothetically.... the enemy/villain is a swashbuckler. Same rule?

If for some reason you're using PC class enemies, you should maintain the same rules for both (generally speaking, I do usually give enemies max HP for example because PCs tend to melt enemies otherwise).

So yes, if I changed the rules for how Opportune Parry works, it would also change for any NPC Swashbuckler I might use.

Personally, I would say Opportune Parry can downgrade a nat 20 from a crit (assuming confirmed) to a regular hit and I would still allow a riposte (resolving after the enemy attack), but not a complete hit negation.

I really don't like negation mechanics as a GM. PF1 is already very lopsided against a GM (when following written APs or keeping enemies in the "standard" CR range), negation mechanics make it even more challenging.

Why wouldn't it be lopsided against the GM? Take a 5% chance the GM can win. Statistically that would mean out of 20 encounters the party is expected to wipe at least once.

I wouldn't want to GM a game that harsh.

Think it through. Do Catfolk normally have claws? Yes, but only some of them. Those with the claws racial trait.

I dont think "can only be used by catfolk with a specific racial trait" is a strict reading.

It's the only way to read it.

Anything else is homebrew GM permission.

3 years late, but you're taking a very hardline approach to reading it.

That line can just as validly be read as 'the only catfolk who can use these are catfolk with Claw Attacks'