Advanced Player's Guide Classes OGC?


Product Discussion


I noticed that the advanced player's guide classes (alchemist, cavalier, witch, etc) are on the d20pfsrd and heard that they would be added to official paizo PRD in the near future.

That being the case, it means 3PP can use the classes as well, correct? As far as creating NPCs and such goes, anyway.

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

Yes, all 6 of the new classes, as well as all the archetypes, spells, feats, magic items, equipment, etc. in the book are open content.

Shadow Lodge

From what I understand, Paizo intends for almost all of their rules content to be OGC. What they're reserving under their copyright is the Pathfinder campaign setting specific stuff.


This is wonderful. Thank you so much, Paizo.


Mark Moreland wrote:
Yes, all 6 of the new classes, as well as all the archetypes, spells, feats, magic items, equipment, etc. in the book are open content.

The amount of respect and love I have for Paizo cannot be put into words. ^.^


Ashiel wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:
Yes, all 6 of the new classes, as well as all the archetypes, spells, feats, magic items, equipment, etc. in the book are open content.
The amount of respect and love I have for Paizo cannot be put into words. ^.^

HERE! HERE!


Ashiel wrote:

I noticed that the advanced player's guide classes (alchemist, cavalier, witch, etc) are on the d20pfsrd and heard that they would be added to official paizo PRD in the near future.

That being the case, it means 3PP can use the classes as well, correct? As far as creating NPCs and such goes, anyway.

As a practical matter, they have to release the classes OGC, as the mechanics of a class are pretty derivative of the original SRD. WotC could keep classes locked up because it didn't need to conform to the OGL (as the copyright holder), but Paizo doesn't really have that choice.

Essentially, Paizo must behave with Pathfinder as Ryan Dancey said WotC would behave with for D&D 3, back when the OGL and original SRD were first released.

EDIT: Not that Paizo isn't praiseworthy. They aren't doing the "lock down everything as much as possible" trick that you saw with, say, White Wolf (Sword & Sorcery Studios) in its D20 stuff, and deserve kudos for that.


see wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

I noticed that the advanced player's guide classes (alchemist, cavalier, witch, etc) are on the d20pfsrd and heard that they would be added to official paizo PRD in the near future.

That being the case, it means 3PP can use the classes as well, correct? As far as creating NPCs and such goes, anyway.

As a practical matter, they have to release the classes OGC, as the mechanics of a class are pretty derivative of the original SRD. WotC could keep classes locked up because it didn't need to conform to the OGL (as the copyright holder), but Paizo doesn't really have that choice.

Essentially, Paizo must behave with Pathfinder as Ryan Dancey said WotC would behave with for D&D 3, back when the OGL and original SRD were first released.

EDIT: Not that Paizo isn't praiseworthy. They aren't doing the "lock down everything as much as possible" trick that you saw with, say, White Wolf (Sword & Sorcery Studios) in its D20 stuff, and deserve kudos for that.

Wait...are you saying you can't make a character class that's not OGL material and publish it in a book using the OGL?

Shadow Lodge

I think for the APG classes at least, Paizo COULD have kept them non-OGC if they had desired.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:


Wait...are you saying you can't make a character class that's not OGL material and publish it in a book using the OGL?

Take a look at a White Wolf Sword and Sorcery book and check what was defined as open content and what was not. That's a good guideline on what you're allowed to lock down if you're publishing OGL, as they pretty much locked down as much as they could (and had to for cases when they were using licensed IP, such as Blizzard's for the WOW D20 line)

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Mark Moreland wrote:
Yes, all 6 of the new classes, as well as all the archetypes, spells, feats, magic items, equipment, etc. in the book are open content.

For specifics of what's open and what's not, look to the statements of Open Game Content and Product Identity in each OGL product. (For most Paizo products, you'll find those statements on the credits page.)

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

see wrote:

As a practical matter, they have to release the classes OGC, as the mechanics of a class are pretty derivative of the original SRD. WotC could keep classes locked up because it didn't need to conform to the OGL (as the copyright holder), but Paizo doesn't really have that choice.

Essentially, Paizo must behave with Pathfinder as Ryan Dancey said WotC would behave with for D&D 3, back when the OGL and original SRD were first released.

EDIT: Not that Paizo isn't praiseworthy. They aren't doing the "lock down everything as much as possible" trick that you saw with, say, White Wolf (Sword & Sorcery Studios) in its D20 stuff, and deserve kudos for that.

This isn't entirely accurate. A publisher can use the OGL to glean material they like from other sources, change it, publish their new creation, and declare the whole book product identity. There's nothing in the OGL that requires you be as open with your content as those who came before you. The OGL just allows you to republish specific copyrighted elements of someone else's work in your book if they have dogeared those elements as being open content.

As Vic mentions above, check the statements of Open Game Content and Product Identity in each OGL product to see to what degree they've made their content available for other users of the licence.


Mark Moreland wrote:
This isn't entirely accurate. A publisher can use the OGL to glean material they like from other sources, change it, publish their new creation, and declare the whole book product identity. There's nothing in the OGL that requires you be as open with your content as those who came before you.

That's an interesting statement, given that the OGL was specifically intended to serve as a copyleft. I think the definitions of "Open Game Content" and "Product Identity" in section 1 are such that a publisher trying that will find he's in violation of the license (by designating something he doesn't own as PI), and thus subject to license termination and subsequent copyright litigation from upstream holders. But not being a lawyer, my opinion is worth precisely squat.

Now, yes, when using OGL-licensed material, you should avoid anything marked PI. A mistake by the publisher doesn't make the PI fair game downstream. But a publisher who declares as PI something derived from OGC is taking quite a risk.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

see wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:
This isn't entirely accurate. A publisher can use the OGL to glean material they like from other sources, change it, publish their new creation, and declare the whole book product identity. There's nothing in the OGL that requires you be as open with your content as those who came before you.

That's an interesting statement, given that the OGL was specifically intended to serve as a copyleft. I think the definitions of "Open Game Content" and "Product Identity" in section 1 are such that a publisher trying that will find he's in violation of the license (by designating something he doesn't own as PI), and thus subject to license termination and subsequent copyright litigation from upstream holders. But not being a lawyer, my opinion is worth precisely squat.

Now, yes, when using OGL-licensed material, you should avoid anything marked PI. A mistake by the publisher doesn't make the PI fair game downstream. But a publisher who declares as PI something derived from OGC is taking quite a risk.

You're both right. The license doesn't strictly define the difference between something that's merely "an enhancement over the prior art" and something that's an original creation, so there would likely need to be some amount of subjectivity in deciding what can therefore be protected and what can't.

One benefit of declaring pretty much all of our mechanics as OGC is that we don't really have to worry about that.


For Example, If Paizo created say An
Alkenstar Ranger That had class abilities all based on Paizo IP names, say

Resistant to the Mana Wastes
Wastelander [the Alkenstar Ranger has become one with the Mana Wastes, as such he can move through hindering terrain...etc etc etc]
Alkenstar's Finest

None of that would be OGC, thus you'd have the skeleton of a class that would have to be entirely re-written to exclude the IP of Paizo.

Similar to how Paizo had to exclude the specific names of Greyhawk characters from the spells, and deities lists. No Otiluke's Freezing Sphere, just Freezing Sphere.

*note this is not a challenge to either Paizo or Wizard's of the Coast intellectual properties ;)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Advanced Player's Guide Classes OGC? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Product Discussion