| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello again,
I have a few questions for all you wonderful third-party publishers, as I am trying to finalize a project and had a few things occur to me.
1.) If I have in my project let us say an alternate rogue and it has the Trapfinding ability, how is best to represent this?
Should I reprint the trapfinding ability in full?
Should I simply use the ability Trapfinding (Ex): and have a statement after it (As the rogue ability, please see the pathfinder CRB)?
How would this change if say this trapfinding only worked on necromantic based traps? My current idea was to use the trapfinding text in whole and add a line at the end "this ability only applies to necromantic traps.
In short what do you do when you only make small tweaks to existing abilities?
What if the ability is longer such as say a wizards spells or spell book ability?
I want to be both legally right and polite in this case, as I respect both Paizo and the third party community too much to knowingly give offense.
2.) Could anyone recommend a lawyer/office I could contact for writing my section 15 for the back of my project?
Publisher, Raging Swan Press
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'd reprint the whole rule to save the reader from flipping back and forth between books. I'd also include the tweak at the start of the entry not the end. Othrwise, people msy see "Trapfinding" think they know it and move onto the next entry.
Good luck with your project!
Personally, I'd reprint the whole rule to save the reader from flipping back and forth between books. I'd also include the tweak at the start of the entry not the end. Othrwise, people msy see "Trapfinding" think they know it and move onto the next entry.
Good luck with your project!
Thank you very much.
What I had done is that this project has a strong theme and several of its abilities are altered version of existing abilities with different names.
I looked at it and realized that some, not all, of it was the original text from the paizo books and did not want to do anything illegal/give offense.
However with your response and some other research it seems like this should not be a problem as long as I have a correct OGL section 15.
I do very much appreciate the response.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to section 15, simply copy the entirety of the section 15 Paizo itself has to use to be compatible with the Wizards of the Coast OGL, then add in all of the products whose content you used. Remember, if part of that product itself cites another source and you use that part, you have to cite backwards to the primary source.
Let's say you use a Purple Duck Games Poryphyra product for some of its content, and that PDG product itself cites... oh, Ultimate Magic. You'd have to cite both if the part of the PDG product you are using happens to be one of the sections that requires the UM citation on PDG's part. If you aren't sure, cite it anyway. You won't give in trouble for giving too much credit.
Also, I'd do something like this for your class ability, though it is a little clunky in this early state.
Necromantic Trapfinding: A *rogue* adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate magic traps containing one or more spells from the necromancy school and to Disable Device skill checks made to disarm such traps (minimum +1). A *rogue* can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps containing one or more spells from the necromancy school.
Remember, the OGL was designed to make sure that corporate evil couldn't strangle the creativity in the game we love, which is what Hasbro pretty much tried to do with 4th edition, and is the trigger that eventually brought about Paizo's ascendancy. If you make a mistake, they won't send the lawyers after you. They'll tell you how to fix it, give you plenty of time to fix it, and send the lawyers after you only if you fail to fix it. People make mistakes, and Paizo isn't a big, evil company. Heck, they make 25 cents of every dollar we make. Why would they want to be mean to us? Share your work! Make them some money! It pays for them to be supportive, so you can be sure they *will* be that way.
When it comes to section 15, simply copy the entirety of the section 15 Paizo itself has to use to be compatible with the Wizards of the Coast OGL, then add in all of the products whose content you used. Remember, if part of that product itself cites another source and you use that part, you have to cite backwards to the primary source.
Let's say you use a Purple Duck Games Poryphyra product for some of its content, and that PDG product itself cites... oh, Ultimate Magic. You'd have to cite both if the part of the PDG product you are using happens to be one of the sections that requires the UM citation on PDG's part. If you aren't sure, cite it anyway. You won't give in trouble for giving too much credit.
Also, I'd do something like this for your class ability, though it is a little clunky in this early state.
Necromantic Trapfinding: A *rogue* adds 1/2 her level to Perception skill checks made to locate magic traps containing one or more spells from the necromancy school and to Disable Device skill checks made to disarm such traps (minimum +1). A *rogue* can use Disable Device to disarm magic traps containing one or more spells from the necromancy school.
Remember, the OGL was designed to make sure that corporate evil couldn't strangle the creativity in the game we love, which is what Hasbro pretty much tried to do with 4th edition, and is the trigger that eventually brought about Paizo's ascendancy. If you make a mistake, they won't send the lawyers after you. They'll tell you how to fix it, give you plenty of time to fix it, and send the lawyers after you only if you fail to fix it. People make mistakes, and Paizo isn't a big, evil company. Heck, they make 25 cents of every dollar we make. Why would they want to be mean to us? Share your work! Make them some money! It pays for them to be supportive, so you can be sure they *will* be that way.
Thank you for the info!
That is basically what I did, for existing abilities, just modify text where it was applicable.
Are you saying that a lawyer is not necessary for a section 15?
I really appreciate you taking the time to help me.
A lawyer is not necessary for your Section 15. Folk will tell you that not consulting a lawyer is to be done at your own risk. Outside of the US we tend to be somewhat more relaxed.
A lawyer is not ever necessary except where you need to play "who has the most money" in an arbitrary meeting between you, your lawyer, somebody else, their lawyer and and some other person you are likely never to have met and are unlikely to ever meet again again yet is somehow in a position to decide which amount of money bought and brought the best lawyer.
A lawyer is not necessary for your Section 15. Folk will tell you that not consulting a lawyer is to be done at your own risk. Outside of the US we tend to be somewhat more relaxed.
A lawyer is not ever necessary except where you need to play "who has the most money" in an arbitrary meeting between you, your lawyer, somebody else, their lawyer and and some other person you are likely never to have met and are unlikely to ever meet again again yet is somehow in a position to decide which amount of money bought and brought the best lawyer.
Ah, understood.
That is why as this is my first project I was interested in consulting an IP lawyer. However I have had no luck in locating a lawyer with OGL experience as none of them seem to mention it in advertisements or websites.
My thanks for the response and time.