Are we allowed to use the spells/feats/classes/etc listed in the Advanced Players Guide to create our item or is this limited solely to the Core book? I checked the Round 1 rules and I didn't see this addressed (not to say that it is not there, but if it was, I missed it).
Are we allowed to use the spells/feats/classes/etc listed in the Advanced Players Guide to create our item or is this limited solely to the Core book? I checked the Round 1 rules and I didn't see this addressed (not to say that it is not there, but if it was, I missed it).
I was wondering the same.
Are we allowed to use the spells/feats/classes/etc listed in the Advanced Players Guide to create our item or is this limited solely to the Core book? I checked the Round 1 rules and I didn't see this addressed (not to say that it is not there, but if it was, I missed it).
In a brief glance back, I'm unsure where I heard this said; however, the idea of designers demonstrating awareness and mastery of the evolving game and setting is something the judges have shown appreciation for. I'd think that it would not only be allowed, but even encouraged.
I've asked for clarification on this one. I suspect the APG is fair game, but Vic or Sean will probably chime in shortly.
|
Are we allowed to use the spells/feats/classes/etc listed in the Advanced Players Guide to create our item or is this limited solely to the Core book? I checked the Round 1 rules and I didn't see this addressed (not to say that it is not there, but if it was, I missed it).
I'm more interested if the Round 2 Archetypes will be restricted to Core Rulebook only classes...
Thanks Neil.
|
I'm more interested if the Round 2 Archetypes will be restricted to Core Rulebook only classes...
Archetypes is an interesting category as it is, as Bloodlines and Schools are listed as being something different than Archetypes, in their own writeups, as are Cleric Sub-Domains.
One could probably create Cleric, Sorcerer or Wizard Archetypes (instead of just coming up with a new Domain, Bloodline, or School, or, in the vein of Sub-Domains and Focused Schools, new ways to tweak the pre-existing Domains and Schools), but we haven't seen an official Archetype for those classes, yet, making it more of a guessing game what would be acceptable than for the other classes.
I'm more interested if the Round 2 Archetypes will be restricted to Core Rulebook only classes...+1, That's another question I'd love to know the answer to.
I'm actually less interested in that. Since Archetypes did not appear before the AGP, it would make sense that AGP information would be legal. Plus you've reduced the pool of entries from 100's (possibly 1000's) to 32. So its easier to throw upon the doors as to what they are allowed to do.
Plus, we have to get passed round 1 before we have to worry about round 2. Getting past round 1 is something I haven't accomplished yet.
|
|
I'm more interested if the Round 2 Archetypes will be restricted to Core Rulebook only classes...+1, That's another question I'd love to know the answer to.I'm actually less interested in that. Since Archetypes did not appear before the AGP, it would make sense that AGP information would be legal. Plus you've reduced the pool of entries from 100's (possibly 1000's) to 32. So its easier to throw upon the doors as to what they are allowed to do.
Plus, we have to get passed round 1 before we have to worry about round 2. Getting past round 1 is something I haven't accomplished yet.
I may not even try round one. My interest was as much as a spectator, if not more.
I may not even try round one. My interest was as much as a spectator, if not more.
Everyone should try. EVERYONE!
That is all.
Actually, that isn't all. The question about archetypes for which classes is something you'll have to wait and see. The specifics of later rounds will be revealed when it's time.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
It doesn't hurt to give it a shot at the least. You never know, you might surprise yourself on what you can accomplish. Nobody scaled a mountain without taking the first step up it.
<Teal'c>Indeed.</Teal'c>
Remember, my 2009 entry wasn't supposed to be in the 32. It was supposed to be 'let me toss this out there so I can get it torn to shreds'. Never know what happens until you try.
*SHAMEFUL bump*
All Pathfinder RPG rules content published by Paizo is fair game. This means you could make an item for an alchemist, or a bloatmage, and so on. Ross has updated the FAQ to say this.
All Pathfinder RPG rules content published by Paizo is fair game. This means you could make an item for an alchemist, or a bloatmage, and so on. Ross has updated the FAQ to say this.
Thank you very much.
As long as you keep the Coeurl and the Deep Crow away, that is. ;-)
You mean two monsters that aren't PFRPG rules content? They were published under 3.5. ;)
All Pathfinder RPG rules content published by Paizo is fair game. This means you could make an item for an alchemist, or a bloatmage, and so on. Ross has updated the FAQ to say this.
Does this require explicit attribution? (Something like "AP#31 pg80") Or will we just assume you can dig up our references?
If so, how many words is that? I count anywhere from 2 to 4 in the quotes.
It doesn't hurt to give it a shot at the least. You never know, you might surprise yourself on what you can accomplish. Nobody scaled a mountain without taking the first step up it.<Teal'c>Indeed.</Teal'c>
Remember, my 2009 entry wasn't supposed to be in the 32. It was supposed to be 'let me toss this out there so I can get it torn to shreds'. Never know what happens until you try.
Same here. I just kind of came up with something I thought would be nifty for a character I was playing then didn't have time to come up with anything better. Let me tell you when I saw my name on the announcement there was nothing that could bring me down for the next month. It was fun, and awesome seeing what other people came up with. I'm just worried that work is going to get in the way if I try again this year.
Nothing in the rules or FAQ say that you have to provide sources for your rules content.
This is probably a stupid question- but exactly what does Paizo mean by an archetype? I haven't got the APG yet, will I need it to design an archetype?
This is probably a stupid question- but exactly what does Paizo mean by an archetype? I haven't got the APG yet, will I need it to design an archetype?
Do/Did you have the Complete Warrior from Wizards for 3.5? If you do/did, you'll probably remember the spellless ranger. That's an archetype. Its a set of alternate class features around a central theme to specialize the class some. While WotC dabbled in it in 3.5 (but ultimately decided that Prestige Classes was what they preferred and we ended up with 10,000 PrCs with Evasion), the APG took the concept and brought it to a whole new level. All the base classes have multiple archetypes and none of them are X class feature brought over to Y class.
This is probably a stupid question- but exactly what does Paizo mean by an archetype? I haven't got the APG yet, will I need it to design an archetype?
Do/Did you have the Complete Warrior from Wizards for 3.5? If you do/did, you'll probably remember the spellless ranger. That's an archetype. Its a set of alternate class features around a central theme to specialize the class some. While WotC dabbled in it in 3.5 (but ultimately decided that Prestige Classes was what they preferred and we ended up with 10,000 PrCs with Evasion), the APG took the concept and brought it to a whole new level. All the base classes have multiple archetypes and none of them are X class feature brought over to Y class.
If you genuinely believe that you will make the top 32, I highly suggest you get the APG (either in print or PDF) so you can see what's been done already. Otherwise, you might submit an archetype that currently in print.
This is probably a stupid question- but exactly what does Paizo mean by an archetype? I haven't got the APG yet, will I need it to design an archetype?
Basically it's an alternate version of one of the existing classes that swaps out some of the standard class features for different class features.
For example, there's a two-weapon focused variant of the Fighter class that gives up the armor training abilities for different abilities at the same levels.
I don't know if you need the APG, but I'm thinking it would be pretty helpful to have at least read the existing archetypes to get a feel for the kind/scale of changes the PF designers feel are appropriate for one.
To kick in some extra questions for Team Paizo:
1) Are other class alternates that aren't exactly archetypes as mostly seen in the APG appropriate or not? For example, the APG provides different wizard specializations and different sorcerer bloodlines -- I wouldn't have thought of those as being archetypes, exactly, but they're in place of that kind of content for those classes.
2) Are archetypes for the new APG classes appropriate?
Some of the archetypes have made it in to d20pfsrd.com, such as the barbarian.
Also, you can grab the latest PCGen (currently 5.16.4 RC5), which has nearly complete (and rapidly marching toward completion) support for the APG, including archetypes.
1) Are other class alternates that aren't exactly archetypes as mostly seen in the APG appropriate or not? For example, the APG provides different wizard specializations and different sorcerer bloodlines -- I wouldn't have thought of those as being archetypes, exactly, but they're in place of that kind of content for those classes.
While alternate Bloodlines, Schools, and Domains are not, strictly speaking, Archetypes, I don't know if they will be allowed in the second round. I expect that this will be clarified in the Round 2 Rules and/or FAQ, so don't expect a definitive answer before then.
I expect that this will be clarified in the Round 2 Rules and/or FAQ, so don't expect a definitive answer before then.
This. :)
While alternate Bloodlines, Schools, and Domains are not, strictly speaking, Archetypes, I don't know if they will be allowed in the second round. I expect that this will be clarified in the Round 2 Rules and/or FAQ, so don't expect a definitive answer before then.
Fair enough. I'm just never to sure what degree/detail y'all have crunched this out.
Chief Technical Officer
|
If you genuinely believe that you will make the top 32, I highly suggest you get the APG (either in print or PDF) so you can see what's been done already. Otherwise, you might submit an archetype that currently in print.
All of the information needed to create an archetype will be freely available to contestants well before the second round begins.
But getting yourself a copy of the APG certainly wouldn't hurt.
That means that APG won't be added to the PRD before the round 1 ? /sadpanda
[magic8ball]Reply unclear. Check back later.[/magic8ball]