Are there any decent rules anywhere for Eberron with the Pathfinder system? Like beefing up or nerfing races or classes, how to handle their feats in Pathfinder? I'm surprised Keith Baker hasn't really done up anything for that.
I just found out about this site today.
I'm not sure that one is very up to date?
Their feats and spells, races and classes and PrC that are specific to Eberron.
Are there any decent rules anywhere for Eberron with the Pathfinder system? Like beefing up or nerfing races or classes, how to handle their feats in Pathfinder? I'm surprised Keith Baker hasn't really done up anything for that.
What would you expect Keith Baker to do? He doesn't own Eberron - WotC does, and its Closed Content. The settings sent in for the contest for the next campaign setting that WotC held became the sole property of WotC (even the ones that didn't win). He can't really convert Eberron to Pathfinder any more than you or I can. We can homebrew stuff, but there won't be any official conversions.
Are there any decent rules anywhere for Eberron with the Pathfinder system? Like beefing up or nerfing races or classes, how to handle their feats in Pathfinder? I'm surprised Keith Baker hasn't really done up anything for that.What would you expect Keith Baker to do? He doesn't own Eberron - WotC does, and its Closed Content. The settings sent in for the contest for the next campaign setting that WotC held became the sole property of WotC (even the ones that didn't win). He can't really convert Eberron to Pathfinder any more than you or I can. We can homebrew stuff, but there won't be any official conversions.
Jesus, even in the far-reaching and high-stakes world of tabletop roleplaying games the corporate assbags appropriate everything that isn't nailed down, then rebrand and walk off with the money when the turdburger inevitably burns to the ground.
And two people's great visions will never see the light of day. Great ballsacks of fire does IP law suck.
I'm not sure that one is very up to date?
Meh. Looks like the most recent updates were almost a year ago. Probably a good start, though. Hard to say if it would be more work sifting through to determine what still needs to be done or just starting from scratch.
|
That guy started that site here on the forums. (Post here.) It's a really great resource. They are still chatting in that thread, last post were less than a week ago. I think the guy is waiting for the ACG before he does a major update, but everything should be usable.
What would you expect Keith Baker to do? He doesn't own Eberron - WotC does, and its Closed Content. The settings sent in for the contest for the next campaign setting that WotC held became the sole property of WotC (even the ones that didn't win). He can't really convert Eberron to Pathfinder any more than you or I can. We can homebrew stuff, but there won't be any official conversions.
That's wrong, Keith Baker DOES still answer all kinds of things for Eberron and give rulings of sorts. You'd know that if you actually read his blog.
That's wrong, Keith Baker DOES still answer all kinds of things for Eberron and give rulings of sorts. You'd know that if you actually read his blog.
Just because he answers questions doesn't make him the owner.
For that matter, I just brought up his blog. And right on the first page:
Are there any plans to make Eberron compatible with Pathfinder or any rules already out?
The vast majority of Eberron material that’s out there is 3.5 material, which is considerably easier to convert to Pathfinder than, say, to D&D Next. If you haven’t read this material, it’s available in PDF form at D&D Classics. As Eberron belongs to WotC, it’s not currently possible for Paizo (or anyone else) to produce new Eberron material for Pathfinder.
As always, these are my personal opinions and nothing more. They may contradict previous or past canon sources.
That's not entirely true. Isn't there a setting out there that uses Pathfinder rules and some of the Eberron races but is not Eberron? I kept being told of some 3rd party setting that had Warforged, Shifters and some of the other races?
Scott, like Jeraa keeps trying to tell you,Baker does not own the Eberron IP, WotC/Hasbro does. Those people NEVER get rid of an IP, which is why they are making money off of GI Joe, Transformers, and My Little Pony decades after their creation.
If you see something that is 3PP with copyrighted Eberron material, please link it here, because they are in violation of the law, and I'd like to see it.
I am not sure what your exact problem is with the site above. I think it is an excellent resource for running Eberron-Pathfinder. What precisely do you mean by "up to date?" Are there any rule issues from current errata that contradict the site or something? What is it that you need that you feel, after carefully going through that site's reams of material, you aren't getting?
Thanks, in advance, for all of your clarifications.
I mean he hasnt converted all the material that's been put out. It seems the project he was doing is unfinished.
And there is another setting that uses warforged I'm told, it just doesnt call them warforged.
Kobold Press's Midgard has Gearforged, and as mentioned above Dreamscarred Press's stuff has Forgeborn. But neither are "Warforged just not called Warforged" in any way other than filling the same niche of "intelligent humanoid-shaped construct".
If you see something that is 3PP with copyrighted Eberron material, please link it here, because they are in violation of the law, and I'd like to see it.
1. Why bring that mess over here and possibly get Paizo involved?
2. In a just universe, IP lawyers would spontaneously combust.
If you see something that is 3PP with copyrighted Eberron material, please link it here, because they are in violation of the law, and I'd like to see it.1. Why bring that mess over here and possibly get Paizo involved?
2. In a just universe, IP lawyers would spontaneously combust.
1. Because I don't believe he found something that was put out by a 3PP, that was called Warforged. Just like Orthos said, I'm pretty sure he means the Forgeborn.
2. We get it you think people shouldn't have the right to defend their intellectual property in court. People like Paizo work very hard to create interesting, well-integrated worlds for us to play in. It is how they make their living and without those protections to ensure some level of income, we wouldn't have those companies.
Scott, you say he hasn't converted all the material that's been put out. Again, can you tell us exactly which books do you think are vital to your game that haven't been converted on that site? You aren't being specific. Please let us understand what you feel is missing.
There is a free conversion of most everything Eberron on this site: https://sites.google.com/site/eberronpathfinder/. I think he is under the radar because he is not trying to profit from the material.
I mean he hasnt converted all the material that's been put out. It seems the project he was doing is unfinished.
And there is another setting that uses warforged I'm told, it just doesnt call them warforged.
If Keith does anything on his own he can not use the name Eberron or anything else that is official, if he intends to make money. That is basically what is being said. Anyone can use something as inspiration or make a similar product, but that is not the same as using that product. I can create shifters for profit, and call them "fur-people", but if I use the name shifters I may get a cease and desist letter.
Two other sites:
Eberron in Pathfinder
Eberron To Pathfinder
Also, if you use Hero Lab, there is a fan created Eberron file for Pathfinder.
2. We get it you think people shouldn't have the right to defend their intellectual property in court.
Not at all what I said. I'm not hostile to the concept of intellectual property law per se. I may not even technically be opposed to much if any of the written rules on the subject.
What I am is vehemently opposed to how the unwritten rules function; those who have no actual need for the protection are the only ones who can effectively exercise it.People like Paizo work very hard to create interesting, well-integrated worlds for us to play in. It is how they make their living and without those protections to ensure some level of income, we wouldn't have those companies.
"Paizo" is not "people." Jason Bulmahn, Lisa Stevens, and her employees are people. Losing track of that distinction creates the environment for entities like Mitch Bainwol to arise and plague the living.
Without IP laws, all settings would be about 99.95% crap, because any moron with a computer could throw out an "official" product for that setting. Golarion would have a million modules, and at least a few hundred would be for the FATAL system.
People who care about telling good stories shouldn't care if that story is "official" or not.
Without IP, "official" is precisely whatever you wish.Fraud and impersonation were illegal long before copyright law, and given that the staff at Paizo maintain their good name by telling excellent stories rather than having a legal monopoly on a profitable name, I'm sure they would do well.
IP law punishes the creative in favor of whoever happened to get there first or have the most money.
For Christ's sake, roughly 15% of your body mass is a violation of someone or other's intellectual property, though the likes of Genentech and UCLA are bright enough not to sue you over it.
Thelemic_Noun:
You said that IP lawyers would combust in a just universe. That is most certainly an aggressive stance and indicative of someone hostile to IP law.
Your point that I said Paizo was "people," instead of naming the owners/employees is purely pedantic and I believe you are aware of that. Saying that anyone wanting to protect their intellectual creations, their primary source of income mind you, are equivalent to massive music companies that can't accept the coming of he internet and try suing kids who download too many Selena Gomez albums is ludicrous. Do you honestly believe there is no grey area? That all IP protections are bad?
I'm certainly not defending the way Siembieda, as an example, has treated fans of his in the past, but he has a right to do so. WotC paid Baker for Eberron. It is their property. I don't remember him complaining about it. He went on to create other games using the cache created by his association with WotC to help those new products launch, and more power to him for having done so.
I find a rant on how important protecting intellectual property is on a website devoted to a game based on deliberately unprotected intellectual property kind of ironic.
Without IP laws, all settings would be about 99.95% crap, because any moron with a computer could throw out an "official" product for that setting. Golarion would have a million modules, and at least a few hundred would be for the FATAL system.This exact argument could be and probably was made against the OGL. Except with rules and game systems instead of settings.
What we're discussing is the setting info, not the mechanics. You're correct, the mechanics for 3.5 and Pathfinder are OGL and anyone can use them, but the specific world information in which you wrap your mechanics is protected. Please take a gander:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
EDIT: Sorry, not sure how to hyperlink. :)
thejeff:
"No. I get that. I understand it completely.
But it's the same argument. There's tons of stuff in the D&D intellectual property that couldn't be duplicated without the OGL, despite the inability to copyright actual game rules.
Paizo's entire business model is based on WotC's intellectual property. Philosophically, it's no different making "official" game products for someone else's game and making "official" setting products for someone else's setting.
It makes as much sense to say "With the OGL, D&D would be about 99.95% crap, bacause any moron with a computer could throw out an "official" product for D&D. D&D would have a million splatbooks, and at least a few hundred would be <insert despised concept here>)."
Obviously the details of how game mechanics and settings are covered under IP law are different, but the basic concept of protecting or releasing intellectual property and the arguments in favor or against it are quite similar."
Me:
How can stuff in D&D IP not "be duplicated without the OGL?" For instance, I can create a Beholder or Mind Flayer in GURPS or FATE Core or whatever and it would be a violation of the literary creation of those creatures without at all touching the mechanics in OGL.
Paizo's business model is not based on WotC's IP. You can't copyright game mechanics, plus the OGL basically says "Go ahead and make things as long as you don't try and take/alter certain proprietary items of ours. Create without the threat of lawsuit." It is different, to make something emulating someone's mechanics vs. something emulating someone's setting. I can't patent/copyright you rolling dice to determine the outcome of an event, because that's too broad and the origin or randomized outcomes in gaming goes back to the beginning of civilization. If I invent Drizzt Do'Urden with a very specific backstory/setting, you can't take that to sell your product because that is a unique artistic creation.
As to the 99.95% thing, I would like to point you to the d20 glut from the early 2000's. There was a HUGE amount of sub-par creations for d20. However, those creations were based on WotC's rules, not their literary creations, e.g. settings and characters.
Thank you for clarifying your point, Jeff. I essentially agree with your arguments, as they are stated above. You are right, not everything covered under the OGL is mechanical, such as some monster/spell/feat names and basic descriptions. Although, I would hesitate to call what Paizo does an exception. The OGL is basically an open contract, so what Paizo and other d20 publishers do has been granted to them rather than them exploiting a grey area. However, that could be seen as being nit-picky. Good points!
Thank you for clarifying your point, Jeff. I essentially agree with your arguments, as they are stated above. You are right, not everything covered under the OGL is mechanical, such as some monster/spell/feat names and basic descriptions. Although, I would hesitate to call what Paizo does an exception. The OGL is basically an open contract, so what Paizo and other d20 publishers do has been granted to them rather than them exploiting a grey area. However, that could be seen as being nit-picky. Good points!The exception I referred to is the OGL. Not an exploitation, but an intentional exception to the normal IP rules.
Much like open source copy left licenses are intentional exceptions to normal copyright.
Private corporations cannot make an "exception" to any laws. The OGL is WotC making a contract with whomever follows their rules and places a copy of the OGL in the book. Printing product that violated the OGL either by not following it as written or failing to include it in their product could (and perhaps has) result in lawsuits.
Here's a good question: Can anyone point to a C&D being sent out by WotC or any lawsuits initiated due to OGL infringement?