Those Sable Co. guys look wimpy to a Shoanti.
And to small children, Hudak.
(Man, I gotta get myself an avatar with a proper shaved head!)
Once we figure out what we're doing and where we're going, that'll probably change. But we're not there yet, so if something doesn't actually play a HUGE role in an adventure, we'll be leaving them alone and stalling on whether an organization uses new base classes, feat trees, alternate class abilities, prestige classes, or whatever 4th edition uses in their place.But in saying this, those of us that won't be changing over to 4e will still want all of these rules before you do change over. True you may never need to use the rules again, but that doesn't mean alot of your customers won't. At least if you make the rules now, you will have a Template to work on at a later date when you do go over to 4e.
On the other hand, a "toolbag" listing of published material that could suit that purpose wouldn't hurt... Example: Korvosan Guards could use the Tactical Soldier PrC from the miniatures Handbook. I don't mean reprinting it either, just listing useful suggestions that others might not be aware of.
Achem... there's the d20 SRD.
Hellknights could be mostly fighters and rangers (possibly using the Urban Ranger variant), with some blackguards and Prestige Paladins using the Paladin of Tyrrany variant. You could give them access to a feat that allows them to summon an outsider (like the hellhound in the Pathfinder Jounal) to replace their Animal Companion, Fiendish Servant, or Special Mount class feature.
Bloatmages are a bit harder, but a variant wizard (necromancer?) that gives up a familiar and the standard wizard bonus feats for bloodmagic and increased magical power (i.e., cast spells at higher CL by shedding their own blood at 2hp per +1 CL; max +1 at 1st, increased by +1 at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th) as they go up in levels is certainly an option. Possibly adding a feat (or including it as a base bloodmagic ability) that allows a bloatmage to apply metamagic to a spell "on the fly" by shedding blood (2hp + (2 * spell level increase) hp), as well? Or you could just use the bloatmage as flavor text for giving them Spell Points using the Vitalizing variant (incorporating both of the optional variants for Vitalizing Spell Points).
Korsovan guards, as pointed out, don't really need extra rules.
Sin mages have been covered, to some extent, in RotRL. Most of their secrets should remain a mystery or be reserved for individual DMs to develop, IMO.
The faiths could use a bit more fleshing out (like Desna and Lamashtu have received), but I'm sure that will be covered as more Golarion products are printed (Abadar will be getting a writeup PF #8 and Zon-Kuthon in PF #11, plus there's the Pathfinder Chonicles Gazetteer in March and the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting Hardcover in August).
Example: Korvosan Guards could use the Tactical Soldier PrC from the miniatures Handbook. I don't mean reprinting it either, just listing useful suggestions that others might not be aware of.Which unfortunately Paizo can't mention, as the Miniatures Handbook is WotC's intellectual property and not open content.
Are you saying that Paizo couldn't publish a passage under Korvosan Guards saying "GMs looking for more mechanical details to give this organization might want to look at the Tactical Soldier PrC in the Miniatures Handbook published by WotC."
Because if that is correct, then I am not enough of a cynical person, yet.
Because if that is correct, then I am not enough of a cynical person, yet.
Prepare to get cynical.
Those Sable Co. guys look wimpy to a Shoanti.And to small children, Hudak.
(Man, I gotta get myself an avatar with a proper shaved head!)
I saw a Shoanti Brownie Scout wup a Sable Co pogue at arm wrestling.
Contributor
|
Example: Korvosan Guards could use the Tactical Soldier PrC from the miniatures Handbook. I don't mean reprinting it either, just listing useful suggestions that others might not be aware of.Which unfortunately Paizo can't mention, as the Miniatures Handbook is WotC's intellectual property and not open content.Are you saying that Paizo couldn't publish a passage under Korvosan Guards saying "GMs looking for more mechanical details to give this organization might want to look at the Tactical Soldier PrC in the Miniatures Handbook published by WotC."
Because if that is correct, then I am not enough of a cynical person, yet.
That is correct. We cannot do that.
|
Contributor
|
I saw a Shoanti Brownie Scout wup a Sable Co pogue at arm wrestling.
Those Sable Co. guys look wimpy to a Shoanti.And to small children, Hudak.
(Man, I gotta get myself an avatar with a proper shaved head!)
Of course, because of the Shoanti's intellectual "prowess," the Shoanti Brownie Scouts begin training at 23-years-old. Before then, they're not smart enough to figure out the Shoanti Brownie Scout salute (which is just raising one hand with all the fingers splayed out).
That is correct. We cannot do that.
That's...
That's just...
That is just wrong on so many levels. There are so many things I want to express on the subject, and there just aren't the words...
All Shoanti are born with knives held firmly in their mouths. They begin their brownie and cub scout training immediately. They must, within a week of birth, bring down at least a 12 point buck or they face a life of ridicule as a "sable pogue."
Oh..and the brownie salute is to draw the right lower eyelid down with the right 3rd digit and say in a mock Transylvanian accent, "look into my eye."
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is correct. We cannot do that.That's...
That's just...
That is just wrong on so many levels. There are so many things I want to express on the subject, and there just aren't the words...
*shrug*
Keep in mind that for more than a decade, nobody could make any product based off D&D except TSR/WotC. I think people have forgotten with the proliferation of the OGL and SRD that it is a pretty bold step. Instead of being unhappy about what we can't do, we at Paizo try to focus on what we can. And with the OGL, that's actually quite a lot. :)
|
But here I was hoping for Korvosan Guard to be cool. It's unfortunate that they're just Stormtroopers... canon fodder for the heroes.Okay, the other point we're just going to have disagree on here, but this point I cannot allow to pass.
Korvosan Guards are not stormtroopers and any PC who kills one does not deserve to be called a "hero" (PCs don't deserve that title usually anyway, but that's a different discussion). Korvosan Guard members are mostly lawful neutral (with LG tendencies). THEY are the good guys. PCs who kill them are not.
That is why I usually call PCs adventurers... I have yet to even see a Paladin played as a hero
Keep in mind that for more than a decade, nobody could make any product based off D&D except TSR/WotC. I think people have forgotten with the proliferation of the OGL and SRD that it is a pretty bold step. Instead of being unhappy about what we can't do, we at Paizo try to focus on what we can. And with the OGL, that's actually quite a lot. :)
Oh... I get all of that. I do.
But I just can't fathom how pointing your customers towards WotC products could be a bad thing... At least from WotC's point of view. I mean, in my example you (Paizo) wouldn't even be using their property... Just suggesting (perhaps encouraging?) taking a look at it.
I just can't fathom business sometimes... Alright, often.
I wonder... If I am ever cursed/blessed with kids... If I name one Intellectual Property... If that means no one could use his/her name... :-P
|
Keep in mind that for more than a decade, nobody could make any product based off D&D except TSR/WotC. I think people have forgotten with the proliferation of the OGL and SRD that it is a pretty bold step. Instead of being unhappy about what we can't do, we at Paizo try to focus on what we can. And with the OGL, that's actually quite a lot. :)
Very well said, Mike.
Oh... I get all of that. I do.
But I just can't fathom how pointing your customers towards WotC products could be a bad thing... At least from WotC's point of view. I mean, in my example you (Paizo) wouldn't even be using their property... Just suggesting (perhaps encouraging?) taking a look at it.
There may be any number of business or legal reasons for this restriction. A couple that come to mind:
1) to prevent company a) from referring to company b)'s works in a disparaging way;
2) to prevent company a) from attempting to pass itself off as an "official" sourcebook of company b) without authorisation, by cross-referencing;
Remember, this prevents companies from not only referencing WotC's works by name, but also works from any other company (except as required in Section 15). Since the licence opens access to the works of all participating publishers, the licence may have been written this way to protect the interests of all industry players.
I dunno...
I guess I'll just never get used to the idea that business is run by grade school rules...
The "that's my name, don't wear it out" clause.
"Teacher! Teacher! Disenchanter said something nasty about me!"
Me: "No I didn't."
"Well... You could have! Teacher, watch him for me. He might talk bad about me!"
I would think (clearly I am incorrect) that companies would be more concerned about making a product that could stand on it's own against disparaging comments rather than someone, somewhere, maybe talking bad about them. I mean, nevermind being concerned if it was warranted first...
What the hell have we become that our businesses are childish?
Bleh...
|
|
I would think that companies would be more concerned about making a product that could stand on it's own against disparaging comments rather than someone, somewhere, maybe talking bad about them.
Maybe that wasn't the best example, and it wasn't what I was really trying to highlight. The idea I was trying to convey was that it may have been a necessary protection WotC built into the licence so other publishers would feel safe releasing their work to the open domain.
Some companies publish work of high standard, others not so much. I recall seeing a reasonably prominent publisher of d20 hardcovers having used the character name "Drizzt" in one of their products - a clear violation of WotC's IP. If I were a publisher, I would NOT want any direct reference to any of my company's products seeing print in that company's products. Most companies take their IP, copyright, logo use, reputations, the way their products are perceived by the public, etc very seriously. Reputations can easily be marred by association or perception, whether deserved or not.
For another view on Open Game Licences, Chris Pramas has recently posted an enlightening and thought provoking article on Open Gaming Licences: Past, Present and Future
For another view on Open Game Licences, Chris Pramas has recently posted an enlightening and thought provoking article on Open Gaming Licences: Past, Present and Future
I was already aware of all of that, although not necessarily directly. But my feeling is, if you published under the OGL, you essentially were aware you were getting into a street fight. If you didn't want the bloody nose, you shouldn't have been there in the first place. No, I don't buy that WotC was being altruistic in their motives. But whatever. I still can't swallow that a license will clamp down on potentially beneficial uses of the name of their IP, just to prevent the possible misuse of that name.
Then again, the FDA required the removal of the only antihistamine to ever work for me because it might cause heart attacks in old women. Neither of which I am.
One line did catch my attention, though:
We've already heard that the new license won't allow such games any more, though it cannot prevent the continuation of games already on the market.
That isn't entirely true.
In the Bye Bye OGL, Hello GSL thread, Sebastian presented a possible (I would say likely) scenario that would allow the GSL to prevent the continuation of games under the OGL. But only if you were to publish under the GSL.
We will have to wait and see how ugly the new scene gets.
|
Contributor
|
I would think (clearly I am incorrect) that companies would be more concerned about making a product that could stand on it's own against disparaging comments rather than someone, somewhere, maybe talking bad about them.
It's not as much a concern about disparaging comments as it is one of quality concerns. If Pepsico didn't protect the name Pepsi so very fully, I could go out and sell water I syphoned from a parking lot and sell it as Pepsi Water.
It's the same reason why WotC doesn't want just anyone calling their products Dungeons & Dragons.
It's confusing at best and ruinous at worse.
|
I would think (clearly I am incorrect) that companies would be more concerned about making a product that could stand on it's own against disparaging comments rather than someone, somewhere, maybe talking bad about them. I mean, nevermind being concerned if it was warranted first...
No one wants their product to usher in disparaging remarks. It's bad PR, which is why Wizards has banned more then one active community member in regards to Forgotten Realms. The fans know more about their product then they do. ;)
I won't even bring up that they closed the novel forums and have banned all discussion of the novels on their forums... oh wait.. I did, nevermind. :)
Anyways, part of the problem you're refering to has to do with Trademarks and Copyrights. If I were to make a character called Drizzt Do'orden who's a dark elf hunter wielding two swords and has a panther compaign, publish it, sell it, and make tons of money off it for a couple of years, Wizards couldn't come after me in court.
See, if you don't protect your trademarks and copyrights and allow other people to roam freely with them unlicensed you lose your right to that "property."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, if you don't protect your trademarks and copyrights and allow other people to roam freely with them unlicensed you lose your right to that "property."
Another example is the comic book industry.
These days, Captain Marvel (sometimes thought of as Shazam) is fairly popular. Or his variants, or his spin-off characters.
In the Eighties, that wasn't the case. Nevertheless, DC *had* to dust him off and use him in some titles, or otherwise lose the copyright.
As Mike and Urza said, "Use, defend it, or lose it."
|
|
The other thing I could imagine happening is, say Paizo printed a Fey Gnome variant in a Pathfinder product - a third-party publisher might reprint that variant in their own book, citing product name and page number, and then add their own Fey Gnome feats, such as "butterfly wings", or "fairy dust", directly implying these are a good fit for Paizo's fey gnomes, when in fact they might run completely against Paizo's grim alien-minded version of fey, let alone any quality or game balance issues.
There are already issues of varying quality and game balance among different D20 products, and it is up to the GM/players to decide what works for them. However, allowing companies to reference the works and products of other companies by page reference or name, throws everything open, and creates a false implication that "this product works with this campaign", despite the desires of the original creator. Companies need to have some control and ownership of their creative works and the direction they wish to take them.
Sometimes, as a player, it would have been really useful D20 requirement for companies to cite product and page reference when they re-use content from another source. However, I really don't see this as some insane restriction WotC lawyers added to the Licence to screw anyone over - rather I see it as a necessary protection for all publishers.
Okay. Now we are splitting off in two different directions.
Although I am getting the impression that is because I expect too much from the legalese.
Apparently my example with the Korvosan Guard falls under the same section that covers calling your product by another's name, and such.
I didn't realize that. I always took it as given that you couldn't pass your product off as another's, or claiming to be a subsidiary, etc....
I thought "promoting" (in use, if not license compliance) another's product would fall under another section.
It just further reinforces that I am living in the wrong era...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
EDIT EDIT: And Mike, as with all of your work I LOVE the idea of the Sable Company... now that is an Organisation that I can see me making a Character for, with the express path idea to joining them.
Ask and ye shall receive...
NEW FEAT
SABLE COMPANY MARINE
You graduated from the elite Hippogriff riding school of the Endrin Military Academy. Not only can you ride a Hippogriff with great skill, but you may also bond with one.
Prerequisite: Ranger Level 4th
Benefit: You gain a Hippogriff as your Animal Companion.
You gain a +2 bonus on Ride Checks made when riding your Hippogriff Animal Companion. Whenever you are within 20 feet of your Hippogriff it gains a +2 bonus on Saving Throws made against Fear Effects.
Awesome! Just... Awesome!
|
|
It's not as much a concern about disparaging comments as it is one of quality concerns. If Pepsico didn't protect the name Pepsi so very fully, I could go out and sell water I syphoned from a parking lot and sell it as Pepsi Water.
Someone has discovered the secret recipe of RC Cola!
I have to agree with the silliness of it though, you're already referencing Monster Manual, PHB and DMG. Wouldn't it help WotC if you told people to go buy Frostburn instead of pretty much negating the entire book in a few pages at the back of Pathfinder 6?
Whatever, the GSL is probably going to be garbage and force you guys to stick with OGL unless you want to risk punishment for mentioning orcs raping people to make half orcs because it doesn't fit WotC's family friendly garbage.
|
Contributor
|
I have to agree with the silliness of it though, you're already referencing Monster Manual, PHB and DMG. Wouldn't it help WotC if you told people to go buy Frostburn instead of pretty much negating the entire book in a few pages at the back of Pathfinder 6?
We're not referencing the Monster Manual and the other core rulebooks, though. We're not even allowed to call those books by name (which is silly enough as it is), but we must refer to them as MM, PH, and DMG. In fact, we can't even say "Dungeons & Dragons." Thus the use of "the world's most popular roleplaying game."
Whatever, the GSL is probably going to be garbage and force you guys to stick with OGL unless you want to risk punishment for mentioning orcs raping people to make half orcs because it doesn't fit WotC's family friendly garbage.
Half-orcs come from when an orc gives a girl a flower. Everyone knows that. ;)
Half-orcs come from when an orc gives a girl a flower. Everyone knows that. ;)
Happy Valentine's Day!
|
|
That is why I usually call PCs adventurers... I have yet to even see a Paladin played as a heroit's why I change any use of the word "hero" unless it's used in character. They are adventurers, characters, or PCs. They are rarely heroic.
I prefer the title "wealth redistributer".
The only reason I save the world is because I keep my stuff there. }; )
The only reason I save the world is because I keep my stuff there. }; )
Hey! You're paraphrasin' the Big Blue Guy!
I AM MIGHTY! I have a glow you cannot see! I have a heart as big as the moon, as warm as bathwater! We are not two men... we are TEN men!
(I take my handle from the Evil Midnight Bomber what Bombs at Midnight. SURF'S UP, SPACE PONIES! I'M MAKIN' GRAVY WITHOUT THE LUMPS!!!!!)
It would be great if the messageboards/community created a bunch of WotC-style affiliations for the most interesting organizations. As a DM, I love that set of mechanics (it's something that I've wanted for many years).
I'd be quite fine, though, not seeing any feats or PrCs for these organizations (especially when something as simple as an Affiliation will do, instead of using up a limited resource [feat slots and/or levels]).
Good, because the organization rules from Comp. Adventurer and the Affiliation rules were just make-work for game designers, IMHO. In practice, they were too regimented for standard game utility.
:(
Do we really need a prestige class for every job available to every person in a campaign setting? Where do we stop? Besides, the point of the Korvosan Guard is that they ARE "just" normal army soldiers. Only with a spiffy name. Sable Company marines are just rangers (elite because they use the elite array and are usually higher level) who can take a feat at 6th level that gives them hippogriff animal companions. *shrug* That's pretty much it.
Mike, in general I agree we don't need prestige classes for every job. I would argue in this case prestige class is important for Sable Marines due to the specialist training and unique relationship to their mounts but that's not really what I want to talk about.
Also, before I start whining, I just want to say that I love the Sable Company concept, but details of the Sable Company Marine feat are really bugging me.
As written this is really an "Hippogriff animal companion" feat and has zero to do with Sable company. A Shoanti ranger from way up in the Cinderlands who's sworn to return Korvosa to its pre-Chelaxian state qualifies.
What I really want to talk about is why 4th level ranger as a prereq? They can't take the feat until 6th level. Is it just that you want to give players wriggle room for a little multi-classing before getting the feat. Is it the animal companion? If the animal companion, then what's wrong with druid as a prereq?
Should graduation from Endrin Academy or membership in Sable Company be a prereq?
Mike?
|
Contributor
|
Mike?
Yes? It was Sunday afternoon when you posted that, and contrary to popular belief, I do occasionally pull myself away from these messageboards. ;D
To answer your question, though: Yes, I made it 4th level so you could multiclass ahead of time. Also, 4th level is when a ranger gets an animal companion, so it made sense thematically in that way.
You're absolutely correct that it's a Sable Company feat in name only, and now that I look at it I should have also put in the prereq of "must be a member of the Sable Company." Mea culmpa. I would heartily recommend making that a prereq for the feat in your campaign. :)
Where there other questions, or did I hit your major ones okay?
Yes? It was Sunday afternoon when you posted that, and contrary to popular belief, I do occasionally pull myself away from these messageboards. ;D
Just thought I'd better bump the thread so you'd see it Monday morning.
Where there other questions, or did I hit your major ones okay?
That covers it, thanks Mike. It has been a busy day for you hasn't it?