Search Posts
Just curious. A Pathfinder specific SRD would be useful for 3pps who'd like to produce materials specifically for the Pathfinder RPG as opposed to generic 3.5e. Obviosly one could use the rules as presented in the Core Rulebook for the system, but an SRD is nice to have.
I just read on enworld that WoTC is reconsidering the GSL and considering making it more 3pp friendly. Here is a link: Here is a quote:
I sincerely hope that even if the GSL proves friendly to 3pp that the Pathfinder RP won't be affected. I have played 4e and it is not for me. True20 is my game and Pathfinder (as a 3.5 OGL property) looks very promising. I'm an OGL guy and I want Paizo to stay that way too.
I have to laugh. I just bought the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book. Very, very nice. I'm happy to support Paizo's efforts. I was reading the book and the name Abaddon jumped out at me...not just because I think its a cool name with a certain historical resonance, but because I, in writing up my own setting, have the name Abaddon included as well and.....its an outer plane of evil. Its not the same by any means, my conception is more along the lines of Abaddon being a replacement for the traditional abyss, but the mere fact that its also in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting makes me laugh. I know that things like this happen because we all share the same world mythology and borrow liberally from myth and folklore. I have always been struck when I discover ideas I thought were mine alone are already published by someone else materials.
Hi All, One of the things I likes least regarding 3.5e was the "christmas tree effect" in which there was a very heavy reliance on magic items on the part of the players who, if not properly equipped, would be slaughtered by creatures of the recommended CR. This is fine if you are running D&D genre fantasy with magic dripping from everywhere and magic shops in town. Uggghh.....that is what took me from 3.5e to Mongoose's Conan D20 and True20. Both of these systems don't assume excessive magic. I am 1000% behind Paizo's Pathfinder effort and am considering using the Pathfinder engine (along with True20) to power the new setting I've been creating. However, because of the nature of this setting and its level of magic (more akin to REH's Hyboria, Middle Earth or even old school Dragonlance as opposed to FR or Ebberron) I was wondering if the Pathfinder rule set will be a viable option. In this setting, magical items are named, quite difficult to create and are not sold...generally speaking. Will I be able to use Pathfinder for such a setting? Is there a low/moderate level magic option in 3.5e that can be used? I'm not averse to adding additional +'s to character's ability scores to imitate the effect of "buffing" items but I was wondering if there is another way.
I just downloaded Experimental Might 1&2 from RPGNow.com. I am interested in how to port some new ideas into my True20 game and my new setting. I am a huge fan of what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder to keep the OGL alive but 3.5e has left me a little cold. Too many rules and DMing a high level game is a pain in the rear. Hopefully Pathfinder can make higher leve gaming more fun...but that is for another thread. However, what I am reading about in Monte's new books might be worth looking into for Pathfinder. The books contain combat schools (Fighting Domains), feat groupings (bonus feats, oblation feats, uberfeats), and this isn't merely adding new feats but adding ways to use feats that are IMO very interesting and would go a long way to making fighters more attractive without making them Wuxia (not my thing, sorry). Then there are clerics, druids and wizards with a full 20 levels of spells which is extremely intuitive.There are spell-user disciplines which are basically spell-like abilities for clerics, druids and wizards. These are an excellent idea and add some nice color to the classes. There us a lot like in there books and I really think that Paizo should take a look at these books and potentially include some of these both as core rules and potententially as optional rules in Pathfinder. Hopefully this will happen with Monte on board. As an aside, looking at what Monte Cook alone could do with some good variant rules for the classes. I have to believe the 4e was largely a money-making endeavor from WoTC. If Monte alone could do overhauls with 3.5e rules I imagine that with WoTC's battery of skilled designers a lot could have been done with the 3.5e rules that didn't require a new addition of the game to fix what was broken. |
