In Pathfinder, we wil see updated versions for:
- Psionics/Wilders/Psionic-based classes
- Dragon Shamans
- Beguilers
- Shadow casters
- Truename Mages
- Incarnates
and BINDERS? If not, can we carry these older classes into the updated rules system.
well the first one anyhow the others are not open content they should work fine as is though . In fact the new classes will prob be more even with them.
well the first one anyhow the others are not open content they should work fine as is though . In fact the new classes will prob be more even with them.
AAARRRGGG! There are days I could spit lightning on the OGL/OGC.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
While the specific classes mentioned (other than the psionic ones) aren't OGL, several of them touch on archtypes that aren't copywritable, and therefore Paizo can create their own versions - such as a true name based magician, or one who binds spirits (vestiges are probably not possible).
While the specific classes mentioned (other than the psionic ones) aren't OGL, several of them touch on archtypes that aren't copywritable, and therefore Paizo can create their own versions - such as a true name based magician, or one who binds spirits (vestiges are probably not possible).
That's true. Stuff like true names as a source of magic power, or the binding of spirits is basically stuff wizards has "stolen" themselves.
And who needs vestiges?
- Psionics/Wilders/Psionic-based classes
- Dragon Shamans
- Beguilers
- Shadow casters
- Truename Mages
- Incarnates
- BINDERS?
My thoughts on those:
Psionics: well, they're open content, so they could use the stuff in their books, or even make their own psionics book with new versions of the psion and so on.
The rest is closed content, so they can't just use it. Of course, the classes will still be playable in PFRPG, since it's basically a modified 3.5 that is supposed to be compatible.
As for new versions of these: I don't know whether they have the time and inclination to redefine all that. I doubt that they'll do it all - or even much. Though I could be wrong - they said they would be doing their own rules-heavy books down the line, and they might want to use concepts they like.
Dragon Shamans: I'd say not very likely. Very specific thing, that. Might be possible as a variant to something else they'll be doing. They had auras, right? Maybe the Paladin will have auras in PFRPG (certainly would fit the holy warrior)
Beguilers: I'd say that you can emulate one with sorcerer - we already know it will have bloodlines. I'd take a wild guess and say that there's a fey bloodline in there, and it will be heavy with charms and enchantments. Could be close enough for government work.
Shadow Casters, Truenamers, Binders: I can totally see Paizo doing their own "Tome of magic" where they incorporate popular magical concepts, like binding spirits, using true names, or drawing upon shadows and darkness. Might not be fully new classes, but PrC's or class variants, maybe even feats are a possibility I'd say.
Incarnates: Don't see it happening (the concept of potential souls or whatever that book is about as the Blue Power Source for weird pseudo-magic items? Too out there, and personally I'd rather see other concepts first).
By the way, there's a book about pact magic
I have it already.
