So long as you comply with the CUP, you should be fine. Essentially, as long as you don't use any Paizo art or reference any Golarion-specific text (no idea why you would do either of these things on a character sheet) you should be okay to share.
The full text of the CUP is found here.
Oops! I painstakingly recreated the Pathfinder logo as a vector graphic in the character sheet, so I guess I can't use that. Oh well, maybe I can leave it blank for the meantime. I'll see if I can take the logo out and then post the sheet.
Michael
That leaves you a little room. You might be able to put something useful there, or create a space for users to put a picture of their character on it.
Hi Folks,
I'm a graphics designer (and gamer, of course) and I've created my own custom-designed character sheet for Pathfinder. I wanted to share it on here but I wasn't sure what the rules were for that sort of thing.
Is that appropriate or no?
I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for making a character sheet.
Also, I'm working on a fully Javascript-programmed PDF of the character sheet that automatically tabulates everything for the player - skills, melee and ranged attacks, saving throws, etc.I just wanted to gauge the level of interest before I went any further.
I look forward to seeing it.
|
Oops! I painstakingly recreated the Pathfinder logo as a vector graphic in the character sheet, so I guess I can't use that. Oh well, maybe I can leave it blank for the meantime. I'll see if I can take the logo out and then post the sheet.So long as you comply with the CUP, you should be fine. Essentially, as long as you don't use any Paizo art or reference any Golarion-specific text (no idea why you would do either of these things on a character sheet) you should be okay to share.
The full text of the CUP is found here.
I like the look of the sheet. Can't wait for the auto-fill version!
Also, it's not a vector graphic, but it looks like you could use one of the community use logos from here. (As long as you follow the rules in the Community Use Policy linked above by Archmage_Atrus.)
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Any other feedback?
Michael
I like the fact that it's clean an is only a one page front/back.
The only real gripe I have is the odd-ball Knowledge skills. PFRPG has arcana, dungeoneering, engineering, geography, history, local, nature, nobility, planes and religion. I realize a GM can create more for reasons of flavor, world building, etc. But if I want to use this sheet for all of my gaming (I'm an all or nothing kind of guy), I can't. Society play (PFRPG organized play) does not utilize your new knowledge skills, nor would my two different home GMs necessarily use the same things. Maybe create blank spaces so that they could be filled in (like perform, craft and profession)?
|
Yeah, I agree that the custom Knowledge skills aren't needed. They are kind of redundant actually, since the skills in the Core cover those areas.
For example, Faerie Lore is covered with Knowledge: Nature.
Dragon Lore is covered by Knowledge: Arcana.
and Undead Lore is covered with Knowledge: Religion.
To each his own, but I can't use this sheet.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Look again. Changes have been made.
When I click it, nothing opens. It just goes to a blank page. Is there a different link?
No, it (the PFRPG character sheet) is very bland and looks like it was designed as an afterthought.
I agree. I've been on the hunt for a simple two sided sheet for a while. I like yours and will be trying it out as long as you made the changes to the knowledge skills.
The reason that change is necessary, by the way, is because of playing in different games. Regardless of the usefulness or the added flavor of the skills, they're not in the core book. Organized play will never use them, for instance, and it would have the potential of confusing newer players who might be excited about having, say, Knowledge Dragons, and finding out that that was not legal.
By making it usable generically for all PF games, and merely putting in blank spots for new knowledge skills, you solve all these problems.
By the way, I like a blank spot under Knowledge Local. Suits the same purpose: you can add flavor by making it location specific (something I like to do in *my* home games), but you're not requiring them to choose, as the PFRPG does not require them to choose.
I like it. It's not great, and needs improvement, but I like it.
1) The grayscale really is unappealing to my eye. I understand that it allows the white sections (where you'll be writing things) to pop, but overall it's not pretty. Also, not necessarily printer-friendly.
2) It feels awkward to have CMD be considered "dex-based" when it's not. It's a defense, like AC, and I think it should either be placed with AC or with CMB, not alongside Ranged Attack Bonus.
3) The Languages, Feats, and Special abilities sections are a little disconcerting. I look at them and feel restrained, like "wow. Only room for 8 languages?" A character at level 1 can start with up to 7 with 15 point buy (16 base int (3 languages) + 2 racial int (1 language) + non-human (Common + 1 language)) + 1 rank in linguistics), meaning by then he's essentially out of room. In the same way, I feel very limited on how many feats I can place, and how much room I have. What if it's an obscure feat with a complicated ability and I need a little description? The same goes for special abilities. I know that whenever I play a bard, I like to have a miniature description of what each performance does.
Your sheet doesn't allow that.
Overall, a decent sheet, but I'll be sticking to Neceros for now.
-The Beast
EDIT: Also...why does everyone fall into the trap of the spell section? If you're not going to leave enough room to write more than 4 or 5 spells per level, then why bother putting it on the main sheet? Make a separate spell sheet. Right now, it's just taking up space.
Hi GreyMagus
My interest in such a thing? High.
I like the clean look of your sheet. It's pretty heavy on ink though, so I'd probably only use it for PCs (and not the ton of NPCs I stat-up as a GM).
I love the ammunition count beside every weapon block.
Don't get me wrong. I really do like the sheet. I've been looking for something small and clean to use for major NPCs (I don't mind more pages for PCs), and I would use this, since it is small and simple, except for the problems it has.
The bolded is added by me for context.
If I could pin down any particular reason why I chose greyscale blocking, I would say that it was the antithesis of the standard bland white sheet broken up by thin black print. Also, it was designed to really separate the different sections by playing with reversing the shades back and forth. It's the film noir of character sheets - a subtle harmony of lights and darks.
All "art" arguments aside, the grayscale makes the sheet ink-heavy and printer-unfriendly. Those of us without access to a laser printer also have to worry about bleed-through if we wanted to make it double-sided. If you don't find that to be a problem, then don't change it.
And if you really do want to get into the art of it, okay, fine. I get where you're coming from. But if you do want to keep it grayscale, then there is a major change that needs to happen.
In the Ability Score, HP, AC, Initiative, BAB, Speed, Saving Throws, Combat, Weapon, carrying capacity, and spell-save sections, all your white "boxes" within the gray have a black outline. This is a good thing. it makes each space feel self-contained and looks very professional.
However, in the Character description, skill, language, campaign, feats, special abilities, treasure, and spells sections, you forgo this professional, outlined look with a very sloppy "white box, no outline" look. It honestly hurts my eyes to look at it. There's no separator to let us know we're switching from one color to another. It just happens. I would vote that you either go for the outlined-box look for these, or adopt the look you have in the gear section, leaving out all white space and using grayscale instead.
If you want my honest opinion, I say that you should use the outlined boxes anywhere you are putting numbers, and the no-white grayscale wherever you're writing something down. It would feel far more consistent.
Perhaps. That [CMD as dex-based] was my impression based on my limited experience with the new system. I'm somewhat new to Pathfinder, although I played D&D 3.0/3.5 for years and it's mostly similar to that. I could of course change it, but I feel it would lack something if I did.
Something? As it stands, you've got 2 strength-based options (melee attack and CMB) which aren't necessarily strength based. The Agile Maneuvers feat switches str to dex on CMB, and weapon finesse can do the same with melee attacks (with certain weapons).
You also have 2 Dex-based options, one of which is both strength and dex-based, and is also a defense. The current setup is a little sloppy, if I'm being blunt.
Ranged Attack = BAB + Dex + Size + Misc/Str + ___
CMD = BAB + Dex + Size + Misc/Str + 10
Why does it have Str and Misc. in the same block? What if there's both? Just add them together? And why is it after Size? It also puts forth the false idea that you can add your str bonus to your ranged attacks.
This might present a problem when you're trying to make it form-fillable. Does it auto-assign your strength modifier to that slot for CMD? How, then, do you add any miscellaneous modifiers to it?
Very odd that you would say that since I increased the number of lines [for languages, feats and special abilities] by more than double over the sheet included with the book. You can also always double up per line, which is presumably what was intended with the original sheet, what with their mere three lines (as opposed to my eight).
First, the point of my statement was that it feels constricting. It feels like you have 8 "cells" in which to put languages. The paizo sheet, on the other hand, has 3 long, open lines. It feels like you can fit more in the paizo sheet's language section with simple commas. On yours, I feel like I have 8 languages, and that's it. No more, no less.
And as for the feats/special abilities sections, you again go for the "cell" design, and your "cells" are half as wide as paizo's lines. You might have 22 of them, but that's 22 feats without descriptions (16 special abilities, also without descriptions) compared to 12 lines on the paizo sheet, each twice as wide to allow for descriptions or multiple feats per line. And the special ability section is the same way, you have 16 "cells" whereas paizo placed a whopping 20 double-wide lines for special abilities.
Look. I don't mean to be an ass here, but I am one. I want this sheet to be the best that it can be, and, as it stands, it isn't. I could nitpick further (like how the HD and Skill Points Per level sections are pointless because people multiclass, or that PF has no synergy skills any more), but right now I'm just trying to point out what I see to be glaring errors.
There is good, though. For instance, the ammunition boxes are a nice touch over each weapon. And, overall, the weapon section is really well done. It's appealing and efficient, even including weight and size. I also like that you put in 3 separate perform sections (as I like to train in many as a bard), and still had room for 4 extra skills at the bottom (though all the blocky white space there is a unappealing).
I also like that you added in a second column for equipment, and your treasure section is well done, adding in the blocks for gems, jewelery, and miscellaneous valuable stuff.
As stated above, I do like it. But there are some major errors that need to be addressed if you really want it to be taken seriously.
-The Beast
I definitely like interactive sheets, but I'd probably never use this one - I strongly prefer character sheets which break down the calculations for each weapon's attack bonus the same way AC, saves, and the generic attack bonus are broken down. When I have a general +8, but I have a +3 longsword I have greater focus, and three steps of weapon training with, and a +2 handaxe I have focus (but not greater) and two steps of training, but I have weapon finesse, that's going to get pretty complicated. Admittedly, it's also a very contrived example, but not an impossible one.
I'm not suggesting making changes, since it'd require a redesign of the whole sheet, just throwing my opinions out there.
Your character record sheet looks solid. But I mean what I said - it looks a bit heavy and it kind of hits you like a ton of bricks at first sight (well, more like a ton of concrete due to the grayscale :)
It looks very practical, but it is so busy and uniform that I would find it difficult to quickly retrieve vital information. A little colour and embellishment could go a long way, especially if you don't want to drop any elements of calculation off the sheet. But "embellishment" takes a lot of space, I know... I also don't mean any of that silly cyan and magenta colouring used on many (custom) character sheets and (official) governmental forms.
If at one point you're looking for a future project, a simplified sheet referring to a second (or third) calculation sheet might be an interesting project, especially with an automated sheet where cross references are done automatically and without errors.
90% of the time, it suffice to know that you have 5 ranks in Swim and that your skill check bonus is +8, regardless of any modifiers. Obviously these modifiers need to appear somewhere in order to calculate the said skill bonus, but that might not need to be on the front page. Interestingly, you already do that in the "attack bonus" part of the sheet where the breakdown is omitted. Yet this breakdown is the most likely to change and/or be scrutinized in-game in my experience.
Also (and this is a pet peeve of mine), feats always appear on the back page of a character sheet but (especially combat related feats) really ought to be on the same side as attack bonus and other combat info.
Again, a superb layout job, but it looks more like something that ought to be on an accountant's desk than around a gaming table...
'findel
[edit] despite the harsh criticism, I still prefer it to the default Pathfinder sheet.
My feedback. It doesn't reflect on you at all, you've created a fairly nice aeshetcially pleasing character sheet. My feedback is mostly for the content, which was created by Paizo. But you have the chance to revise it!
I'd make the following changes.
1) Instead of having a big PF logo, I'd have a spot for a character portrait and a much smaller logo.
2) Burrow? Fly? WTF, who thought "Burrow" would be useful?
Remove Burrow and Fly and replace with Stealth and Jump (if you can't reclaim the area altogether).
Then switch base speed and armor speed around... it's armor speed we use 99% of the time.
3) Skills
We don't need 3 slots for Crafting, we don't need 3 slots for Perform, we don't need 2 slots for Profession. One of each is enough. If someone has a crazy character concept, then that's what the 4 (soon to be 9) extra slots at the bottom are for.
4) Combat Maneuver Defense: This is a little misleading since it's Str + Dex bonus. I'd make the total area smaller and include another box for Str and Misc. Can never have enough Misc boxes.
5) Campaign: I wouldn't waste space with the campaign line. Players can always write that into the margins.
6) Gear
Personally, I'd like to see the gear sorted, sorted by body slot area and what magic item you have there. So:
Head:
Headband: (have no idea why PF split them up)
Neck:
...
Feet:
7) Favored Class. On most character sheets it's obvious but it's still something that would be nice to squeeze in somewhere.
That's what I'd like to see in a character sheet.
Head:
Headband: (have no idea why PF split them up)
So the stat boosting items didn't share a slot with anything else, without getting rid of some of the iconic helmets.
Although I have yet to see the latest version, I really appreciate the one you sent me, GreyMagus. The only two problems I had with the form-filling version are that the text is often very small and thus hard to read, and the "kerning" of your font (or more properly, your typeface) tends to "squeeze" the letters too close together, so that, under Alignment, for example, CN looks more like a dipthong, O combined with N. If you can adjust the kerning a bit wider, you'll probably solve that problem!
Other comments: I have no problem with the gray-scale. No color is good, and while some might have a beef with all the gray costing them more ink, especially if they print out loads of sheets, I don't see that as really irksome. Save this sheet for your PCs, or important NPCs, and print out plain page versions of the minor NPCs.
While I certainly understand how difficult it would be to create a sheet suitable for all multiclass characters, there are a few things that you could do to make this sheet a bit more multiclass-friendly: instead of the single block for "Class(es), followed by "level", you could make the first block labeled Class(es), Level(s), followed by a block for Character (ie. total) Level. Then the sheet would read: Class(es): Barbarian 5th, Ranger 8th. Character Level: 13th
Overall, this sheet is very professional indeed. Thanks for giving it to us, and for all your hard work!