I have a small question regarding the treatment of trademarks and similar stuff. Let's say you wanted to incorporate a class like the warlock into the Pathfinder setting, how much would you have to change from the original WotC concept to not get into any trouble.
I have a small question regarding the treatment of trademarks and similar stuff. Let's say you wanted to incorporate a class like the warlock into the Pathfinder setting, how much would you have to change from the original WotC concept to not get into any trouble.
I expect it would have to be different enough to arguably be a new thing on its own and not just a warlock with the serial numbers filed off. Now, I think this is a good thing for us as players. Those of us who want to use warlocks in our games have no reason not to use them. Intellectual property is a restriction on publishers, not players. But, this means that the creative staff at Paizo are more likely to come up with new classes that are *really* new and interesting, giving us even more options than before, which I find really exciting. I'd much rather see something new than simply a rehash of an existing class that is "just different enough." And I'm confident that they will deliver.
Contributor
|
I expect it would have to be different enough to arguably be a new thing on its own and not just a warlock with the serial numbers filed off. Now, I think this is a good thing for us as players. Those of us who want to use warlocks in our games have no reason not to use them. Intellectual property is a restriction on publishers, not players. But, this means that the creative staff at Paizo are more likely to come up with new classes that are *really* new and interesting, giving us even more options than before, which I find really exciting. I'd much rather see something new than simply a rehash of an existing class that is "just different enough." And I'm confident that they will deliver.
Everything you say here is absolutely correct. And yes, it's our intent to give you new and interesting classes, feats, and spells, and not just rehash what has come before.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Yep, I'm looking forward to completely new classes as well. As a DM, you can always allow the Warlock class in your game - no problem.
Paizo doesn't want to get into a spitting contest (and litigation) by repackaging something WotC owns. I believe that Mr. McArtor has explicitly stated something to this effect when speaking about guidelines for submissions. i.e. Don't try to include a Beholder in your submission by just calling it something else, or by describing it slightly differently, for example.
I for one am really looking forward to new classes, especially in the case of the Warlock. No, I don't think the Warlock is broken as some people have argued (that's a very subjective term), I just think it misses the mark. Heck, while I'm at it, I think the Sorcerer misses the mark as well, and to some extent, elements of the magic system as a whole too. I don't like a class that can shoot energy blasts at will, with no ill effects, and do little else. But I recognize that that's just my opinion.
Ack...Ok, minor rant/threadjack over.
with similar powers and very similar backgrounds I wonder if the warlock is redundent. As for the other Complete classes it seems from what I've read so far that most of what those classes can do are somewhat covered in the Pathfinder book. Perhaps if it was to become a prestige class.
I think the sorcerer should kill the warlock and take its stuff:
The sorcerer's concept (being a descendant of something powerful and thus gaining magic) can work just as well as someone who makes a pact with some entity to receive magic powers.
Depending on the bloodline you take, you can gain an attack you can use at will and that will deal damage. The elemental bloodline, for example, will grant you an elemental ray for 1d6 + 1/2 level damage.
Maybe all sorcerers should get an ability like that. Call it arcane bolt or something, and give them feats or abilities (maybe depending on bloodline!) to improve it.