The Witch in the APG has several spell like abilities that can be used many times per day, some unlimited. If you really loved the Eldritch Blast, you can take the Arcane Blast feat. I haven't really looked at the one in the Tome of Secrets.
Creative Director
|
Paizo can't really make a direct port of 3.5 Warlock, as it is closed content.
This.
The warlock, as envisioned by Wizards of the Coast, is not open content. We thus can never make a Pathfinder version of that warlock. And at the same time, we don't want to "overwrite" that class by making up an entirely new warlock, which would mess with things in other ways. The game's compatible with 3rd edition, so you can simply use the warlock from that edition of the game and go from there. We can't print anything about those warlocks, though.
Paizo can't really make a direct port of 3.5 Warlock, as it is closed content.This.
The warlock, as envisioned by Wizards of the Coast, is not open content. We thus can never make a Pathfinder version of that warlock. And at the same time, we don't want to "overwrite" that class by making up an entirely new warlock, which would mess with things in other ways. The game's compatible with 3rd edition, so you can simply use the warlock from that edition of the game and go from there. We can't print anything about those warlocks, though.
There are a lot of reasons why you wouldn't, and shouldn't, but theoretically, wouldn't it be legal to publish a bunch of invocations or feats or alternate class features for it, so long as it said something along the lines of the following?
"For use with the Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 Warlock base class, published by Wizards of the Coast. See Complete Arcane page X for the class itslef."
It wouldn't be leagal, because the OGL prohibits referring to other copyright holders' trademarks.
|
Creative Director
|
Paizo can't really make a direct port of 3.5 Warlock, as it is closed content.This.
The warlock, as envisioned by Wizards of the Coast, is not open content. We thus can never make a Pathfinder version of that warlock. And at the same time, we don't want to "overwrite" that class by making up an entirely new warlock, which would mess with things in other ways. The game's compatible with 3rd edition, so you can simply use the warlock from that edition of the game and go from there. We can't print anything about those warlocks, though.
There are a lot of reasons why you wouldn't, and shouldn't, but theoretically, wouldn't it be legal to publish a bunch of invocations or feats or alternate class features for it, so long as it said something along the lines of the following?
"For use with the Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 Warlock base class, published by Wizards of the Coast. See Complete Arcane page X for the class itslef."
And even if we did it sneaky style and avoided mentioning any actual copyrights or trademarks... it wouldn't be something we'd WAN'T to do. Developing support for our own game is far more rewarding... monetarily, spiritually, and creatively.
Not weird at all. That would be giving an outside force some control and permission to use your product ID. You could lose rights to your own property.
On a somewhat related note, in Tome of Magic there is the binder class, and somewhere online I saw reference to a third party book involving pact magic. I really love the idea of the binder, though I haven't had time to go through the class very closely. For one, does anyone know about that third party pact magic product? and for two, does anyone know how they managed to legally publish it?
As to the original post, I sorta see the alchamist filling a similar role to the warlock. I wouldn't say the one is in any danger of replacing the other, they just have something of the same feel to me.
I totally agree, I was just wondering about the specific legality of what I mentioned, which Ross answered. (Am I the only one who finds that a really WEIRD clause though? You'd think that products making references like that would only help sales of the referenced product.)
Not at all. Otherwise it allows third parties to put "Dungeons and Dragons" (or "Pathfinder") in big print all over the covers of their books, on potentially really shoddy product, which can do things to the value of your brand.
It's designed to allow the existences of other licenses, such as the d20 License or the Pathfinder Compatibility License to explicitly cover that gap.
|
I totally agree, I was just wondering about the specific legality of what I mentioned, which Ross answered. (Am I the only one who finds that a really WEIRD clause though? You'd think that products making references like that would only help sales of the referenced product.)And even if we did it sneaky style and avoided mentioning any actual copyrights or trademarks... it wouldn't be something we'd WAN'T to do. Developing support for our own game is far more rewarding... monetarily, spiritually, and creatively.Paizo can't really make a direct port of 3.5 Warlock, as it is closed content.This.
The warlock, as envisioned by Wizards of the Coast, is not open content. We thus can never make a Pathfinder version of that warlock. And at the same time, we don't want to "overwrite" that class by making up an entirely new warlock, which would mess with things in other ways. The game's compatible with 3rd edition, so you can simply use the warlock from that edition of the game and go from there. We can't print anything about those warlocks, though.
There are a lot of reasons why you wouldn't, and shouldn't, but theoretically, wouldn't it be legal to publish a bunch of invocations or feats or alternate class features for it, so long as it said something along the lines of the following?
"For use with the Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 Warlock base class, published by Wizards of the Coast. See Complete Arcane page X for the class itslef."
Also, WotC doesn't publish any 3.x material anymore. It's not even available via pdf.
Our group ported over from 4E to Pathfinder and we had problems converting our warlock and warlord. We just used a cleric for the warlord (which was similar enough) and there are various alternatives to the warlock, such as modified 3.5 material, certain bloodlines of sorcerer, or going witch (which basically just changes the primary stat and does similar things though with an expanded spell list and a familiar).
If you are facing the same problem I would just say go with whatever keeps the feel of the character they were previously playing, these are just a couple of the options available.
On a somewhat related note, in Tome of Magic there is the binder class, and somewhere online I saw reference to a third party book involving pact magic. I really love the idea of the binder, though I haven't had time to go through the class very closely. For one, does anyone know about that third party pact magic product? and for two, does anyone know how they managed to legally publish it?
As to the original post, I sorta see the alchamist filling a similar role to the warlock. I wouldn't say the one is in any danger of replacing the other, they just have something of the same feel to me.
I have both Secrets of Pact magic and Villains of Pact Magic (which is a bit like a "Complete Pact Magic", i.e. offers new classes, PrCs, spirits, and all that).
I like it a lot. Secrets alone offers 8 different base classes that include pact magic in one way or another, from the spirit binder (who focusses strongly in pact magic and does nothing else) and unbound witch (who does pact magic more intuitively and with passion) to a number of classes that are a combination of known concepts (monk, ranger, warrior, wizard) with pact magic.
Even if you only ever want to use the spirit binder class, you'll get a ton of material.
It also has races (though you don't need those, of course), feats, PrC (like specialised binders that bind celestials, demons or devils as if they were spirits) and, of course, a metric ton of spirits. I've counted over 50 spirits, plus "anima spirits", which are sort of like variable spirits that can have different levels with varying benefits.
The page has some samples on it (some sample spirits, one of the classes, etc.) and also some free extra stuff, including a conversion guide to PFRPG.
I removed a post and a couple replies to it. Please don't advocate piracy on our messageboards.
Honestly to me it lookedlike they were asking why a company would deny its customer base a product they buy, thus frocing someone to resort to less than legal means to aquire said product. They never said it was right which it isn't.
From what I could tell they were discussing it from the perspective of someone who doesn't necessarily like it, but just notating the effect a company's policy had on piracy in general.
That was indeed my intention. The implication is also that Paizo itself has taken a smarter approach.
The reality of being a content based company in the digital age is that there are certain choices you can't, effectively, make anymore.
It's not that different from the way that leaving my wallet full of money on a well-trafficked park bench when I don't immediately need it isn't a choice I can make in a pragmatic sense. Taking my wallet is still stealing, and the person who takes it is still in the wrong, but simultaneously I'm also not smart for making the choice to leave it where I did.