|
I treasure my Monte Cook one of those quite a bit. Fantasy Flight Games did something similar, only limited solely to their company with the Mastercraft Anthology. (Each chapter had some neat rule, prestige class, set of feats, race, spells, magic items, or traps from another book in their line, all for 5.00 cover price. That thing was MADE of awesome.)
Yeah. I bought that first, then the rest of the stuff.
Since you know what you're looking for can you send me the Amazon link? Gracias!Try this!
Ah, ok. Legends & Lairs (smacks head) I have a number of those titles here at home (the races mentioned upthread rings a bell as I looked at the Mythic Races book earlier today), but not this. Thanks!
|
Yeah. I bought that first, then the rest of the stuff.
I treasure my Monte Cook one of those quite a bit. Fantasy Flight Games did something similar, only limited solely to their company with the Mastercraft Anthology. (Each chapter had some neat rule, prestige class, set of feats, race, spells, magic items, or traps from another book in their line, all for 5.00 cover price. That thing was MADE of awesome.)
I just discovered I somehow missed School of Conjuration. I am DEEPLY miffed. :) (Well, I'll be honest, also a little excited to have something to hunt down...)
Tricky Owlbear's link is 100% what I followed, although it's got two seperate listings on Amazon, which may be a little confusing. :) Either one SHOULD get you to the awesomeness, though.
W00T!
Actually, yes. 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming is working on "Strategists and Tacticians" with 3.5 Private Sanctuary. From the announcement:
More details are HERE.
Robert Thomson
4 Winds Fantasy Gaming
|
|
More details are HERE.Robert Thomson
4 Winds Fantasy Gaming
From the post:
Strategists and Tacticians introduces new rules and combat maneuvers as well as over 50 new feats, a dozen new prestige classes, and a variety of new spells. With new options like severing limbs and choking, combat gains a new edge.
Hmmm. Sounds closer to Book of Iron Might than Book of Nine Sword. (Which is not a bad thing; I like BoIM.) Could you post an example from S&T similar to the Bo9S maneuvers or stances?
W00T!
Actually, yes. 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming is working on "Strategists and Tacticians" with 3.5 Private Sanctuary. From the announcement:
More details are HERE.
Robert Thomson
4 Winds Fantasy Gaming
I can't wait for it myself
Hmmm. Sounds closer to Book of Iron Might than Book of Nine Sword. (Which is not a bad thing; I like BoIM.) Could you post an example from S&T similar to the Bo9S maneuvers or stances?
Sounds cooler if it does come from BoIM over Bo9S, but that's just me. :)
Sounds cooler if it does come from BoIM over Bo9S, but that's just me. :)
I suspect it is nothing like the Bo9S
Hmmm. Sounds closer to Book of Iron Might than Book of Nine Sword. (Which is not a bad thing; I like BoIM.) Could you post an example from S&T similar to the Bo9S maneuvers or stances?
We do not yet have any previews ready. I will talk with Ryan Costello, the lead designer on the book, and see what previews we can put together.
Robert
Sounds cooler if it does come from BoIM over Bo9S, but that's just me. :)I suspect it is nothing like the Bo9S
I am actually not familiar enough with both books (even though I own Bo9S) to make that comparison. I've actively been avoiding looking at some older products I own to reduce the amount of inadvertent influence.
Robert
Time for a little thread necromancy!
A recent thread on the adjudication of Knowledge skill checks to identify a monster and its abilities makes me think of some things that 3PP could maybe address.
1) Alternate (or at least more detailed) rules for what information is learned on skill checks about creatures. This one is small and focused, so it might appeal more to a publisher like Spes Magna Games, doing small and focused PDFs.
2) Vehicle rules. The D&D 3.x vehicle rules were published in Dragon magazine with permission of Wizards of the Coast, and are not Open Content to my knowledge. Pathfinder does not have specific vehicle rules, so perhaps this is an area where 3PP can play a role.
3) Smaller-scale Factions. The Faction Guide provides a basic framework, but the Factions there are all multi-national. A product focusing on smaller-scale factions (neighborhood gangs, thieves guilds, city watch) and mechanics for adjudicating conflicts between them might be useful.
Anyway, just some thoughts to throw out.
Time for a little thread necromancy!
A recent thread on the adjudication of Knowledge skill checks to identify a monster and its abilities makes me think of some things that 3PP could maybe address.
1) Alternate (or at least more detailed) rules for what information is learned on skill checks about creatures. This one is small and focused, so it might appeal more to a publisher like Spes Magna Games, doing small and focused PDFs.
Sounds like you're talking about Monster Knowledge Cards, which 4WFG has released a series of.
Monster Knowledge Guide volume I
Monster Knowledge Guide volume II
Monster Knowledge Guide volume III
Monster Knowledge Guide, Animals and Vermin
Monster Knowledge Guide, Pathfinder edition
The factions bit you're talking about really only works in a set game world, and then for specific locations - gangs in one city have a different relationship than in another; in one place they're essentially an orderly part of the local government, while in another they are close to causing it's collapse. Family oriented gangs may be manipulated in one way, more industry oriented gangs in a very different way. While something like that may work for 3PPs with established game worlds, as a general product, that's really the sort of thing that's best done by individual GMs, tailored to their specific campaign - it's too organic a process to just say "This is how you manipulate a gang to fight with their rivals". What will drive one situation's gang to crave blood can be resolved with negotations by another.
And as far as just down-scaling the existing factions, Golarion and all the factions therein are, as far as I know, not Open Content.
Silver Crescent Publishing
|
Also, I may not have the relationship with certain 3PPs where there's a mutual understanding that the constructive criticisms I may have is really about finding the means and/or inspiration to improve their products to hopefully gain more appeal rather than to just trash the product outright. We all have our own learning curve scale; some of us evolve at different paces.
Having just released our first book (the Realms of Twilight Campaign Setting) I know I am very interested in constructive feedback from readers. In fact, I've been trying to get some of the people who purchased the book (either in print or PDF format) to do a review of it. Or at the very least head to the Realms of Twilight website and contact me via email with suggestions if they don't want to do a full review. I've always thought that any good publisher can't survive without having their thumb on the pulse of what players, GMs and customers in general are really interested in seeing. It seems logical to me. After all, while every publishing company does have to make a profit to stay in business, the products still have to be of good quality, and have elements that intrigue and entrance readers and players to be good. But that is just my humble (....?) opinion.
Also, I may not have the relationship with certain 3PPs where there's a mutual understanding that the constructive criticisms I may have is really about finding the means and/or inspiration to improve their products to hopefully gain more appeal rather than to just trash the product outright. We all have our own learning curve scale; some of us evolve at different paces.Having just released our first book (the Realms of Twilight Campaign Setting) I know I am very interested in constructive feedback from readers. In fact, I've been trying to get some of the people who purchased the book (either in print or PDF format) to do a review of it. Or at the very least head to the Realms of Twilight website and contact me via email with suggestions if they don't want to do a full review. I've always thought that any good publisher can't survive without having their thumb on the pulse of what players, GMs and customers in general are really interested in seeing. It seems logical to me. After all, while every publishing company does have to make a profit to stay in business, the products still have to be of good quality, and have elements that intrigue and entrance readers and players to be good. But that is just my humble (....?) opinion.
True. Which reminds me, I've been meaning to remind myself to download the 10 page free PDF you have of your campaign world. Now's a good time as any. =)
Sounds like you're talking about Monster Knowledge Cards, which 4WFG has released a series of.
That's one approach, but some people feel the way the DCs are calculated now does not work, or how much information to give out. If the cards implement the core mechanic, they are not the "alternate" I am referring suggesting some people might like.
The factions bit you're talking about really only works in a set game world, and then for specific locations - gangs in one city have a different relationship than in another; in one place they're essentially an orderly part of the local government, while in another they are close to causing it's collapse. Family oriented gangs may be manipulated in one way, more industry oriented gangs in a very different way. While something like that may work for 3PPs with established game worlds, as a general product, that's really the sort of thing that's best done by individual GMs, tailored to their specific campaign - it's too organic a process to just say "This is how you manipulate a gang to fight with their rivals". What will drive one situation's gang to crave blood can be resolved with negotations by another.And as far as just down-scaling the existing factions, Golarion and all the factions therein are, as far as I know, not Open Content
The factions themselves, the example NPCs, and all other names of places, artwork, and so on are indeed closed content. The rules mechanics for the factions, such as how you earn and use Prestige, are open content. I am suggesting there is space for a 3PP to provide guidance and any rules modifications necessary to scale those mechanics for smaller factions. I am not suggesting that the 3PP provide generic factions, especially on such a small scale. I am suggesting that some guidelines about how smaller factions might be stretched by a PC spending Prestige, or similar concerns, might be a good product. Likewise, the mechanics of faction-vs-faction conflict might be useful content, not the reasons why faction X might want to destroy faction Y.
I hope that makes my suggestions a little clearer. Thanks!
Sounds like you're talking about Monster Knowledge Cards, which 4WFG has released a series of.
That's one approach, but some people feel the way the DCs are calculated now does not work, or how much information to give out. If the cards implement the core mechanic, they are not the "alternate" I am referring suggesting some people might like.
Since they do not use the core system, you may find them to be to your liking. How they work is that you roll an applicable knowledge check, and for various DCs, you get various bits of information, which are on the cards. That sounds like EXACTLY what you're looking for - the information is based on your knowledge check, not the creature's CR. For example, if you have 10 ranks of knowledge: dungeoneering and you roll an 12 on your d20, you can find out that the monster you're facing is (DC 5) called a 'Chuul' and usually dwells in swamps, (DC 10) is known to grab people, especially from underwater ambush, (DC 15) that it's tentacles can cause paralysis, and (DC 20) that it's capable of speaking a variety of common and preys on humanoids. Now, that's not exactly what it says, but that's an illustration of how it works - your result, not the monster's CR, determines what you know.
2) Vehicle rules. The D&D 3.x vehicle rules were published in Dragon magazine with permission of Wizards of the Coast, and are not Open Content to my knowledge. Pathfinder does not have specific vehicle rules, so perhaps this is an area where 3PP can play a role.
Personally, I'm waiting to see what Paizo does with Ultimate Combat. There isn't going to be a base class in there and probably few to no spells. They said its going to contain expanded combat rules. I'm hoping for mass combat rules, expanded flying combat rules, vehicle combat, etc. If Paizo doesn't, JBE might be looking into these. But we would rather Paizo take the lead. They have more resources to do it better than we can.
Alternate (or at least more detailed) rules for what information is learned on skill checks about creatures. This one is small and focused, so it might appeal more to a publisher like Spes Magna Games, doing small and focused PDFs.
That's an interesting idea, but not sure if I'd be up to tackling it. What I wouldn't want to do is go through Bestiary, for example, and write up lists of facts, which I don't think is what you're suggesting. Alternate rules for how Knowledge skills work might be doable, but I also think they'd have be rather generic, which could limit their utility.
Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games
|
Silver Crescent Publishing
|
Just thought of something else. I would like it if a company advertises being PFRPG compatible, then follow the design conventions. Like classes being done with the BAB & HD matched.
In the defense of 3PP, in order to be officially PFRPG compatible we simply have to obey the game mechanics. That does not mean we have to obey any class progression pattern or anything like that. Simply that characters are created the same way, we use the same general statistics for monsters (and other encounter materials) and combat, skill checks and saving throws are resolved the same way. Just because a publisher decides to stray from the BAB conventions doesn't mean it isn't PFRPG compatible. It means that publisher is taking a few liberties with the class they have created. Perhaps they are attempting to make the mechanics reinforce the character concept they are creating.
After all, isn't that one great thing about the OGL and Pathfinder in general? If you don't like something or there isn't a rule or mechanic to do what you want to do, you can simply change it or create a mechanic on your own. That is exactly what a publisher might do in this case.
All of that being said, as a player myself, I do find it easier during advancement if the progressions of BAB and saving throws does follow at least some type of pattern, even if it is not one established in one of the Pathfinder books. But when I raise a level, I refer to the books to verify the bonuses anyway, so whether or not there is a pattern, I am still referencing the book to check what goes up and what doesn't at each level.
Just thought of something else. I would like it if a company advertises being PFRPG compatible, then follow the design conventions. Like classes being done with the BAB & HD matched.In the defense of 3PP, in order to be officially PFRPG compatible we simply have to obey the game mechanics. That does not mean we have to obey any class progression pattern or anything like that. Simply that characters are created the same way, we use the same general statistics for monsters (and other encounter materials) and combat, skill checks and saving throws are resolved the same way. Just because a publisher decides to stray from the BAB conventions doesn't mean it isn't PFRPG compatible. It means that publisher is taking a few liberties with the class they have created. Perhaps they are attempting to make the mechanics reinforce the character concept they are creating.
After all, isn't that one great thing about the OGL and Pathfinder in general? If you don't like something or there isn't a rule or mechanic to do what you want to do, you can simply change it or create a mechanic on your own. That is exactly what a publisher might do in this case.
All of that being said, as a player myself, I do find it easier during advancement if the progressions of BAB and saving throws does follow at least some type of pattern, even if it is not one established in one of the Pathfinder books. But when I raise a level, I refer to the books to verify the bonuses anyway, so whether or not there is a pattern, I am still referencing the book to check what goes up and what doesn't at each level.
One thing to remember with this, is this is how books like 1E Mutants and Masterminds and Black Company were made. They took the basic requirements and turned them on their ear. You have to be sure of what you are doing, if you are going this far, but I am curious to see if someone uses the Pathfinder skeleton to make the next big game...