|
Well to get back to the topic at hand.
I've always wanted a build-a-pet class and the opportunity to have one is very exciting to me. I tend to play Druids, Necromancers with Skeleton companions and even once made a psion (shaper) with an astral construct with a psi-stone imbedded into it as a companion.
There's something about a class with a customisable pet that appeals to me as a player and a DM.
Worm, I too apologize. I never had any intention of attacking or provoking you. I'm a recently retired attorney who is getting back into gaming at the request of my son who wants to play in my campaign. I used to run this campaign before he was born or when he was too young to participate, but in the intervening years, he managed to get into my notes and decided that he wanted to play. It just wasn't feasible while I was working so now he's cornered me. In fact, it was my son who bought me the Core Rulebook precisely for that reason.
I can't wait for the comments now that people know I used to be a lawyer LOL.
Oh,
Well, now we just have to fire you from the Catapult of Doom (TM).:)
On a serious note though, I think I get why there's some heat back and forth. I think you're used to a courtroom where it's give and take, cut throat, and few holds barred. I have a friend who's an attorney, and he has a similar problem in non-courtroom settings. He tends to go for the throat in any discussion, and it puts people off. Not trying to insult you or anything here, just observing that the profession influences the social interaction.
Welcome back to gaming, and if you'll try to bear with me I'll try to bear with you.
In the first case you cite, in the sense that the campaign world is inconsistent and incoherent as I see it, yes, I said it's patently absurd.But I'm a curious person so I'd just like to ask you to explain why you see it as patently absurd. Why is it important for the coherence and consistency of a campaign world that I allow the players to play evil characters? What makes the world inconsistent if the players are of good or neutral alignment? Especially as I guess that ou wouldn't force your players to play evil characters either?
What I'm trying to say is that my decision to ban evil alignment not from the world but from my player's char sheets is a metagame decision which has nothing to do the world their characters eventually will live in.
My point about inconsistency arises from the scenario we talked about earlier in the thread; precisely, what do you do when, in a world that contains evil, one of your good or neutral characters does an evil act that causes an alignment shift. You responded later in the thread that you would do one of two things: 1) you would allow them to atone and work their way back to an acceptable alignment. Now that I think about it, in essence, you have allowed an evil character into your campaign; or 2)if they are unwilling to change, you would make that character an NPC.
Externally, these are perfectly acceptable and logical since your stated goal is to run a campaign with only good and neutral Player Characters, but internally, I see problems, not the least of which is that you take a character away from a player and turn it into an NPC.
Not to be argumentative, but I think you're remembering a post of mine. I don't remember Worm making a post like that, but I do remember me making a post that made those two points (1 & 2). It's entirely possible he posted the same thing, and I just missed it.
Either way, something would have to give, either in the setting or the mechanics. Cosmetic changes, like above, are easy and PFRPG could be used if you were basically happy to set it in a world where the standard D&D tropes prevailed. But there are degrees of change and to some extent you will end up with either a radically different system or a a different setting.
It's nothing new with PF, though. I do think that PF can be adapted quite a bit, because D&D 3e could be, and was, adapted quite a bit.
|
I can't wait for the comments now that people know I used to be a lawyer LOL.
My old group was half computer scientists, half lawyers. We had a lot of fun and , thanks to the lawyers, we had at least some people who had read the rules. ^^
Apart from that, just one comment: I can't wait 'til my 4 year old son is old enough to corner me about roleplaying games. He's already intensely studying the artwork of my pathfinder issues if he thinks I'm not there to take them away from him. ^^
Externally, these are perfectly acceptable and logical since your stated goal is to run a campaign with only good and neutral Player Characters, but internally, I see problems, not the least of which is that you take a character away from a player and turn it into an NPC.
Therefore I make clear before the campaign starts that my players understand and have agreed to this goal. In fact, I don't mind so much if a character develops into the evil alignment zone for good ingame reason. In these cases, I tend to be a bit more lenient with my players. What I hate is when players build a good/neutral character (as they aren't allowed to create an evil one) and then actively go route evil right from the start. So as far as I'm concerned those two options are more of a second chance before I tell them to look for another GM.
Well to get back to the topic at hand.
I've always wanted a build-a-pet class and the opportunity to have one is very exciting to me. I tend to play Druids, Necromancers with Skeleton companions and even once made a psion (shaper) with an astral construct with a psi-stone imbedded into it as a companion.
There's something about a class with a customisable pet that appeals to me as a player and a DM.
Unluckily those builds seemd to meet the resistance of my old GM who seemed to have a table: 100 accidental deaths of Wormy's annyoing pets ready behind his GM screen.
So, yeah, summoner sounds fine to me. Though I'm also heavy into playing Diviners and can't wait to see what hides behind the oracle.
I've removed some posts. Name calling is unacceptable. Let's keep this discussion civil, please.
|
Wu Chi, how bout agreeing to disagree about all of the points you refuse to yeild on? Allowing evil PCs might work for you but, as I stated earlier, my experiance has shown me that it causes more disruptions to the game than it creates "unique role-playing situations". Also, from my personal experience, players who want to play evil characters are usually (though I am sure not always) "power-gamers" who want all of the spoils of being a hero without the sacrifices required. For me the players in my campaigns are the protagonists and have a calling to do what others can't do to combat evil. That is the tone of my campaigns and it works for me. Having "evil protagonists" might work for you but not for me. Again agreeing to disagree.
Back to the original subject, I am looking forward to the four classes mentioned. The Oracle is something that I have always wanted for PFRPG! The Cavalier sounds great too. Alchemist and Summoner? Well, I'll wait and see before I judge but right now they don't interest me. As for the "Hidden two" I am hoping that one is an arcane answer to the Paladin and Ranger. The other I can't even begin to guess what that might be.
are we getting more details today?
For crying out loud isnt 11 enough??? I hated the additional core classes in 3.5, and was hoping PFRPG would save us from them, but alas I was wrong.
Note to players reading this in any of my upcoming campaigns, save your breath, it aint happening!
|
Both Misters Mona and Jacobs posted some snippets of the upcoming base classes over at the all-new EN World Pathfinder forum including the facts that 1) the new base classes will be OGC and 2) there will be a open playtest on them in 2010. W00t!
Oh, and what Mr. Byers said. Let's keep discussion civil. ^_^
Kevida, "Agreeing to disagree" doesn't work for everyone. Some people are going to insist that their game is right and your game is wrong; whether to feel superior, to prolong the discussion, or simply for the thrill of getting a rise out of you. It's unfortunate, but sometimes that's just how the internet works.
Your attempts to be civil are commendable, but in this case they're probably wasted. Just let it go.
I like you guys. And it's not just the Omegang Dubbel talking.
PS. Thanks for links.
Someone says:
"Here is my opinion, its different from yours but it works for my game, let's agree to disagree."
Wu Chi only hears:
"Here is my opinion"
and responds as if said poster were trying to start up a fight.
I don't like to get personal or to pick on one poster specifically, but good lord.
I'm not going to engage you directly, but I will say that it would be a lot better if other posters just stop letting you argue with them.
|
Also, note that this book will get its own open playtest. They're playing their "friendly neighbourhood gaming company" card to the hilt.
I think this is a smart move on a number of different levels.
Paizo have very successfully managed a previous playtest with their core rulebook, so they know what they're getting into. They get to test certain concepts among the community and quickly realise if they're onto a winner or whether the community is completely opposed to such a thing, and are able to steer the project in the right direction without running off the road. They benefit from the energy, insight, inspiration of the community.
The messageboards provide Paizo the opportunity to fore-warn of controversial changes, and provide reasons behind those choices, thereby educating the community who will then discuss these changes among their friends and players - who hasn't already had a dozen or more such conversations:
"have you seen what they've done to ..."
"yeah, but have you considered these these reasons ..."
Players like open playtests, it lets them preview the new rules, lets them have input into the final form of those rules, so they feel invested in the process and more likely to check it out when the final product sees print. It's a small thing, but the first thing I did when I received my Pathfinder RPG core rulebook was to flip to the Fly skill and see whether you can take ranks in Fly with only a Glide speed? (Yes, you can, my Raptoran players thank you guys!)
Open playtesting also keeps Paizo messageboards a flurry of activity. Drawing people to the messageboards ensures people are talking about the process, the new classes and Pathfinder, both on the messageboards and among their circle of friends offline. Drawing people to the messageboards also keeps them to Paizo's website keeping them in the loop regarding all of Paizo's other wonderful products.
It's a win-win for everyone!
What's with all the hostility on this board?
We're all family here, so let's show some love.
I couldn't be happier with the way Paizo is choosing to run their business.
Yea, your books have to make money if you want to keep making books, but they're proving that one can do that while still remaining very close to their fanbase.
|
|
Either way, something would have to give, either in the setting or the mechanics. Cosmetic changes, like above, are easy and PFRPG could be used if you were basically happy to set it in a world where the standard D&D tropes prevailed. But there are degrees of change and to some extent you will end up with either a radically different system or a a different setting.It's nothing new with PF, though. I do think that PF can be adapted quite a bit, because D&D 3e could be, and was, adapted quite a bit.
True - there's nothing preventing you from playing a D&D setting with PFRPG, otherwise what would be the point of backwards compatibility?
Yea, the PFRPG was designed to serve the Pathfinder product line, but the Pathfinder product line was in turn designed to serve 3.5.
I don't feel that the final version of the rules have any strong leaning setting-wise, though it may have a bit more of a pulp-action-movie vibe (with the crazy and evocative new feats and class features).
|
|
Someone says:
"Here is my opinion, its different from yours but it works for my game, let's agree to disagree."Wu Chi only hears:
"Here is my opinion"
and responds as if said poster were trying to start up a fight.
Come on, now, let's not be unfair. Wu Chi has already shown that this isn't true. He even had the class to apologize and people just looking for a fight don't do that.
As I'm somehow responsible that this thing even started I'd really appreciate if we all could let this matter drop. Wu Chi is as entitled to his opionion as we are and there's no good in needlessly fueling the fire.
Hm, I'm whondering if the alchemist will be able to transmute awall of lead (spell in the APHB) into gold.
Come on, now, let's not be unfair. Wu Chi has already shown that this isn't true.
I was referring only to the exchange between Wu Chi and Kadiva (in which case, yes, that's exactly what just happened. Kadiva was trying to disengage/agree-to-disagree, but because he restated his opinion while doing so Wu Chi took his post as a challenge). I wasn't saying that ALL his posts could be characterized as such, just that one.
That said, yes, I'm as sick of talking about other posters as anyone here and would love to get back to talking about games.
|
|
I don't think that's true, it seems Paizo can, and have, published closed content creatures at least in the following two instances:And I'd start expecting the Second Coming of Jesus the day Paizo starts designating their rules stuff closed content. All the Pathfinder rules are OGC (and with Pathfinder I mean all the Pathfinder).
Since the Pathfinder RPG is based on the Open Game License, I don't think they can designate any of their rules for new base classes as "closed content." If it's a base class that's based on the Open Game License (i.e., you roll it up following the standard procedures, and it gets HD and skills and stuff as you advance in level, etc.), then it's automatically open content.
AFAIK, the only "closed content" rules they could create would have to not be based on anything that's already part of the Open Game License (for example, if they decided to create rules for determining weather changes of your campaign world), but those rules couldn't reference anything already existing as part of the Open Game License. And, that would just be weird anyway. It would be confusing to have "open" and "closed" rules.
As a rule of thumb, I think the only stuff that stays "closed" is story-based elements (aka "fluff").
They will indeed be open content. Pretty much everything we do when it comes to crunch is open content, with the exception of things like deep crows and coeurls.
Both were statted up in different Pathfinder APs.
1) Deep Crow: This is a scary giant underground four-legged ancient eldritch crow monster we statted up from Penny Arcade's awesome web comic.
2) Coeurl: This is a black catlike tentacled monster invented by Sci-Fi author A. E. Van Vogt back in the middle of the 20th century in his story, "Black Destroyer." The coeurl was the inspiration for the displacer beast. We got permission from the author's estate to do the stats.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one because, in my opinion, substance trumps form every time.You can probably only say this because you never had to study thousands of lines of uncommented programming code. ;)
It's hard to write, so it should be hard to read!
Those couldn't possibly be designated as open content by Paizo because they're someone else's IP.
I think that much of what they are doing is open content by choice- I don't think you NEED to designate everything as open content simply because you use the license. In particular, creatures and characters are among the things which the OGL specifically calls out as falling under "product identity" (which is to say, a new monster or character write-up CAN be OGL, but it doesn't have to be, even if it was created using OGL rules).
But, as they say around these parts: I, ANAL
I could be wrong.
Tangent, but when and for what did Paizo stat up the Deep Crow?
I think that's completely awesome. Maybe now I should stop cursing Gabe and Tycho thrice at each moonrise for throwing their filthy lot in with 4e.
What's with all the hostility on this board?
We're all family here
I think you gave your own answer right there. There's a statistic that proves that most violent crimes are commited within the family.
I don't think that's true, it seems Paizo can, and have, published closed content creatures at least in the following two instances
Well, those were special cases, since they just didn't have the right to make that stuff open content. But if they can make stuff open, they will.
|
|
Tangent, but when and for what did Paizo stat up the Deep Crow?
I think that's completely awesome. Maybe now I should stop cursing Gabe and Tycho thrice at each moonrise for throwing their filthy lot in with 4e.
Deep Crows are in Pathfinder #16, pages 80-81.
And as far as the closed content in an otherwise OGC book, anything copyrighted is automatically exempt from the OGL, and Deep Crows are copyright Penny Arcade, 2008.
|
|
I don't think that's true, it seems Paizo can, and have, published closed content creatures at least in the following two instancesWell, those were special cases, since they just didn't have the right to make that stuff open content. But if they can make stuff open, they will.
I realise they were special cases, I wasn't saying "OMG! Those closed content bastards!" I was providing a couple of examples to the previous poster who claimed that somehow all content had to be open because they were using the OGL. People read things on the boards and then repeat them as "fact" elsewhere when they're not - just setting the record straight. I really applaud Paizo's whole-hearted embrace of the OGL.
Characters = names and identities, not classes.
Paizo products make use of OGL classes, both base and PrC (eg. the Scribbler and the demon girls from SotS)
In the case of monsters, however, it seems that "product identity" can include the stats of the creature itself (even when that creature uses types, mechanics and abilities that are OGL). Why would it be different for characters?
For instance, I know that the wizard, rogue and fighter classes are OGC, and I also know that "Elminster" is PI. But where falls the long stat-block for a poorly built epic wizard/rogue/fighter/archemage which appears in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting?
Huh. That makes the whole OGL thing a little less "open".
Actually, it makes it more open. You have more choice on the matter - will you designate something as open or not?
Anyway, I never heard the ruling that you have to declare all classes open because they are derived from other classes (in that they use the "class mechanic").
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Tangent, but when and for what did Paizo stat up the Deep Crow?
I think that's completely awesome. Maybe now I should stop cursing Gabe and Tycho thrice at each moonrise for throwing their filthy lot in with 4e.
Deep Crows are in Pathfinder #16, pages 80-81.
And as far as the closed content in an otherwise OGC book, anything copyrighted is automatically exempt from the OGL, and Deep Crows are copyright Penny Arcade, 2008.
Um, not so much. Anything you write is technically copywrited (at least in US law) so you can use copywriten content. However, you have to put it in section 15 if it's not yours (for OGL)
Now that said, it is the discression of the writer to release rights to allow other people to use their work. Litorians are copywrite Monte, but he allows others to use them, just get permission first.
That's why the Deep Crows are specifically called out as *not* OGC.
IANAL
What's with all the hostility on this board?
We're all family here
I think you gave your own answer right there. There's a statistic that proves that most violent crimes are commited within the family.
Does this mean we'll end up on the Jerry Springer show?
The Paizo two-hour television special.