| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not me I gotta worry about though. It's my GM, and everyone using the SRD that I worry about. Wires gonna get crossed even if there is agreement on using the old stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That or use my first edition book, just a pain to show everyone a pdf haha. Just makes me look forward to Ashiel's playtest more. I mean, probably won't have quickrunner shirts but evidently won't need em, so I can deal.
I feel bad for the poor rogue and slayer in my group though. They just got their first ones and were thrilled. Able to both run up, flank someone and just shank them to death. AND THEN THE PEASENT RAILGUN. BLAM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I liked using the jingasa of the fortunate soldier, it was probably too good for its price. Brawling was also likely too cheap, but definitely not by that much. Courageous weapons basically don't exist anymore, same for quickrunner's shirts and bracers of falcon's aim.
I won't mourn the bracers of falcon's aim, because they were kinda crazy to begin with, but for the rest of that it sucks to be a PFS player. I guess I'll have to copy down the original text for quickrunner's shirt.
>I guess I'll have to copy down the original text for quickrunner's shirt.
Can you post it here? I wasn't quick enough to make a copy, I am afraid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This shirt is made of light, gossamer-thin fabric embroidered with arrangements of winged feet. Once per day as a swift action, the wearer can take an additional move action to move on his turn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been re-reading through this thread, and want to make a point about natural armor being just another armor bonus in d20 legends, so if someone has +5 natural and +5 armor bonus, they only get +5 AC.
Why not make them stack non-linearily?
What I mean is: suppose someone has +A natural armor, +B just armor. That's 2000(A^2+B^2) effective cost=>2000(A^2+B^2)=2000C^2 where C is the final armor value=>C=sqrt(A^2+B^2) (rounded down)
This cuts down on druids getting heavenly AC scores, allows some creatures to increase their AC through armor even though they have high natural armor(I think Icehawk made a point about armor acting as a sort of force-neutraliser for the blow) while not forcing dragons to wear bardings(because their natural armor is so high a non-natural armor bonus wouldn't do anything-Red Dragon, Mature Adult has +24 natural armor, so even if they wear full plate they will only push it to +25.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have been re-reading through this thread, and want to make a point about natural armor being just another armor bonus in d20 legends, so if someone has +5 natural and +5 armor bonus, they only get +5 AC.
Why not make them stack non-linearily?
What I mean is: suppose someone has +A natural armor, +B just armor. That's 2000(A^2+B^2) effective cost=>2000(A^2+B^2)=2000C^2 where C is the final armor value=>C=sqrt(A^2+B^2) (rounded down)
This cuts down on druids getting heavenly AC scores, allows some creatures to increase their AC through armor even though they have high natural armor(I think Icehawk made a point about armor acting as a sort of force-neutraliser for the blow) while not forcing dragons to wear bardings(because their natural armor is so high a non-natural armor bonus wouldn't do anything-Red Dragon, Mature Adult has +24 natural armor, so even if they wear full plate they will only push it to +25.)
Because I know lots of people who still get confused figuring up their modifiers for their full attacks. In the end, the result is more or less the same "Little benefit for wearing armor with a good natural armor".
This does mean, however, that races like lizardfolk, troglodytes, and similar things will be less of an issue if someone wants to build characters out of them. It also means we can be a little more liberal with natural armor values of certain races without worrying about breaking the game.
If we were building a computer game, where players just placed their values and the computer outputs a value (such as when you're stacking things like +hit gear in WoW and it outputs a little +X% value on your character sheet) then that might be a better method.
But in tabletop games, keeping it simple makes it much easier on everyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside, unless the dragon is just trying to show off his swagger, it's usually more cost effective to just cast mage armor. I'm reminded of a thread I was in years ago where some people got up in arms because I mentioned that I had a green dragon (who was a high ranking member of an army the PCs were opposing) was wearing some custom made masterwork studded leather (+3 armor, -0 CP) as a mark of his station.
They complained that it was clearly unfair to the 3/4 BAB classes, especially monks and that putting armor on dragons was unfair, against the rules, unnecessarily antagonistic (especially to monks), etc.
I was like, "Guys...the dragon already has mage armor. The armor is literally for show. The dragon still gets more mileage out of mage armor and it's something it already had".
>_>
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough. I suppose not everyone has a logarithmic ruler on them at all times)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside, unless the dragon is just trying to show off his swagger, it's usually more cost effective to just cast mage armor. I'm reminded of a thread I was in years ago where some people got up in arms because I mentioned that I had a green dragon (who was a high ranking member of an army the PCs were opposing) was wearing some custom made masterwork studded leather (+3 armor, -0 CP) as a mark of his station.
They complained that it was clearly unfair to the 3/4 BAB classes, especially monks and that putting armor on dragons was unfair, against the rules, unnecessarily antagonistic (especially to monks), etc.
I was like, "Guys...the dragon already has mage armor. The armor is literally for show. The dragon still gets more mileage out of mage armor and it's something it already had".
>_>
Ah yes, that thread. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ooo, I should look that one up.
Sharing is caring guys, can you give a link to the aforementioned thread for everyone else to look up?)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooo, I should look that one up.Sharing is caring guys, can you give a link to the aforementioned thread for everyone else to look up?)
There's actually a few due to cross-posting and references between members who participated in those threads. Here's a few threads where it pops up.
- MAD Monk, Big Deal, Just be still ya'll.
- Am I the only one who hates monks?
- What do you mean the dragon's wearing armor!?
Some specific posts where it came up in those threads:
This one, this one, and another one. There's a pretty good mix of arguing over monsters using the treasures they're assumed to be carrying (that's always fun too).
Also, because the search brought it up, here's a post about why Fighters are undiluted fail and why Rangers are better than virtually every Fighter that existed at the time (and I'd dare say still to this day). Included for the lulz.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair mundane armor totally does provide a mechanical benefit to the dragon-it's completely mundane, so dragon's AC won't drop by 4 if hit with a Dispel Magic, it will drop by 1 at worst. Not to mention being effective 24/7, even if the dragon is sleeping, and thus still providing it's benefits in an ambush.
Also, hey, coolness points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, hey, coolness points.
That's what I'm sayin'! :P
He just wanted to look dapper in his military uniform. Q_Q
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the biggest advantage might be having pockets. It's a very underappreciated invention-having a place to put stuff you might need later without holding it in your hands/claws is really really nice. Especially if you are a commander of an army, and you might need such weird things as, like, maps and military intelligence reports.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the biggest advantage might be having pockets. It's a very underappreciated invention-having a place to put stuff you might need later without holding it in your hands/claws is really really nice. Especially if you are a commander of an army, and you might need such weird things as, like, maps and military intelligence reports.
True dat. :o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A little armored dragon birdie told me that you play on a HEX grid. How does that work? What form do templates take? How do you calculate things that say "line" and such?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A little armored dragon birdie told me that you play on a HEX grid. How does that work? What form do templates take? How do you calculate things that say "line" and such?
I like it a lot, actually. There's no need for the silly 1:2:1:2:1 movement thing for diagonals and honestly templates and stuff are pretty easily handled as well. Gimme a bit and in my next post I'll show you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A little armored dragon birdie told me that you play on a HEX grid. How does that work? What form do templates take? How do you calculate things that say "line" and such?I like it a lot, actually. There's no need for the silly 1:2:1:2:1 movement thing for diagonals and honestly templates and stuff are pretty easily handled as well. Gimme a bit and in my next post I'll show you.
...what 1:2:1:2:1 thing?
*Googles* *Starts laughing*
This is how it is supposed to work? O boy, that is hillarious. My group has just been counting it as always one square. Wouldn't that slow down every movement action to a crawl?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For this demonstration, I'm going to have a PC/NPC of mine, Alina (a vampire vitalist), and our NPC friends Alexander, Johan, Alexi, and Fredrick, demonstrate hex grid combat and exploration. While they're all around 1st-3rd level, I'm going to lend them some magical doodads for our demo. :D
Meet our lovely assistants. Give 'em a hand. :)
Note The templates are square in this mostly because MapTools doesn't know any better, but it's actually even easier on tabletop. :D
Burst/Spreads/Emanations
Alina's going to use a pretend fire wand (it's all just SFX, no knights were harmed in the making of this demo) to cast a 5 ft., 10 ft., 15 ft., and 20 ft. radius burst at the center of the knights.
5ft. radius burst.
10ft. radius burst.
15ft. radius burst.
20ft. radius burst.
Cones
Next, we'll give Alina pretend prismatic spray wand with an adjustable nozzle. When targeting with lines and cones, you can choose your own space or any adjacent space as its point of origin.
Here, Alina chooses to shoot a 5ft. cone directly beneath her (it starts in the space next to her and extends 5 ft. forward, and 5 ft. to the sides, for 4 spaces total).
5ft. cone.
Then a 10 ft. cone (mostly looks like a box).
10ft. cone.
A 15 ft. cone looks more like a cone.
15ft. cone.
Alina turns up the juice and tosses a 30 ft. breath-weapon sized cone towards the knights.
30ft. cone.
Lines
Next, Alina tries out a pretend lightning bolt wand. Now admittedly, Maptools gets kinda confused with this one, but only when marking strait lines (go figure) but it does crooked lines just fine. The tabletop rule is simple, draw a line from the interior of one hex to the interior of another hex and every hex the line crosses is in danger.
Reach and Threatened Spaces
Finally, Alina and Alexander will demonstrate how smooth melee combat and dealing with reach is with a hex grid. In this image, Alina is fighting with her decorative sword (a refluffed sickle) and threatens in a 5ft. radius. However, Alexander is using a polearm and threatens a 10ft. radius. Alina is really thankful she's got a little damage reduction and fast healing right now.
The delightful thing about a hex grid is if you're in doubt, just count the spaces and pretend you're moving through them to your destination one hex at a time. Most children can eyeball it correctly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A little armored dragon birdie told me that you play on a HEX grid. How does that work? What form do templates take? How do you calculate things that say "line" and such?I like it a lot, actually. There's no need for the silly 1:2:1:2:1 movement thing for diagonals and honestly templates and stuff are pretty easily handled as well. Gimme a bit and in my next post I'll show you....what 1:2:1:2:1 thing?
*Googles* *Starts laughing*
This is how it is supposed to work? O boy, that is hillarious. My group has just been counting it as always one square. Wouldn't that slow down every movement action to a crawl?
Yes. It's god levels of awful. Hell, it becomes even more nightmarish when trying to deal with how reach weapons work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meet our lovely assistants. Give 'em a hand. :)...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, here's a drawing I did for a friend at work.
Dwarfbro Brodwarf.
Done in standard mechanical pencil and some line-inking done with a ball-point pen. He really liked how it turned out. I was working on it between tasks, so I think all in all probably took around 10-30 minutes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meet our lovely assistants. Give 'em a hand. :)..."So, you like Castlevania, do you?"
And Azure Dreams too. :P
EDIT: There's something kinda humorous that despite being a vampire slayer, I'm using Shanoa's picture for my vampire's portrait.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For this demonstration, I'm going to have a PC/NPC of mine, Alina (a vampire vitalist), and our NPC friends Alexander, Johan, Alexi, and Fredrick, demonstrate hex grid combat and exploration. While they're all around 1st-3rd level, I'm going to lend them some magical doodads for our demo. :D
Meet our lovely assistants. Give 'em a hand. :)
Note The templates are square in this mostly because MapTools doesn't know any better, but it's actually even easier on tabletop. :D
Burst/Spreads/Emanations
Alina's going to use a pretend fire wand (it's all just SFX, no knights were harmed in the making of this demo) to cast a 5 ft., 10 ft., 15 ft., and 20 ft. radius burst at the center of the knights.5ft. radius burst.
10ft. radius burst.
15ft. radius burst.
20ft. radius burst.
Cones
Next, we'll give Alina pretend prismatic spray wand with an adjustable nozzle. When targeting with lines and cones, you can choose your own space or any adjacent space as its point of origin.Here, Alina chooses to shoot a 5ft. cone directly beneath her (it starts in the space next to her and extends 5 ft. forward, and 5 ft. to the sides, for 4 spaces total).
5ft. cone.Then a 10 ft. cone (mostly looks like a box).
10ft. cone.A 15 ft. cone looks more like a cone.
15ft. cone.Alina turns up the juice and tosses a 30 ft. breath-weapon sized cone towards the knights.
30ft. cone.Lines...
Sorry, I got confused by those square boxes on a hex grid. Do I understand it correctly that bursts work like this?
Red=20ft, green=15ft, blue=10ft, purple=5ft with light blue being the center?
And cones threaten like this?
light blue=caster, red=5ft, green=10ft, blue=15ft, orange=30ft?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah pretty much. :)
EDIT: The weird squareness is mostly 'cause Maptools gets confused when trying to use the template tool w/hexes. But as I said, since there's no 1:2:1:2:1, it's as easy as just seeing if you can move from the point of origin to the destination in X steps.
It actually sped up our tabletop games a ton.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how do you convert various maps that use squares by default into hex? I imagine there have to be some problems with the cells near the walls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how do you convert various maps that use squares by default into hex? I imagine there have to be some problems with the cells near the walls.
I mostly make my own maps since I usually run my own games, but in the case that the hexes don't line up with walls all that well, you just use the nearest hex (much like when squares don't line up perfectly with walls, actually).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooo, I should look that one up.Sharing is caring guys, can you give a link to the aforementioned thread for everyone else to look up?)
I saw it was an argument with 3.5 Loyalist and didn't want to inflict that on anyone else.
But hey, like the rest of the forums, there I am arguing in that thread. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ooo, I should look that one up.Sharing is caring guys, can you give a link to the aforementioned thread for everyone else to look up?)I saw it was an argument with 3.5 Loyalist and didn't want to inflict that on anyone else.
But hey, like the rest of the forums, there I am arguing in that thread. :)
It's like a time capsule. ^-^
Next we need the thread about how monk is such a great class because it exists to handle minions while the party fights the enemies that matter (and fail at fighting minions, of course). :D
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monk is a great class-it perfectly encapsulates exactly what buddist monks are about, that is to say, pacifism and respect for life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that d20 legends will change quite a lot of things, how would you handle conversion between 3.5, pathfinder and d20?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that d20 legends will change quite a lot of things, how would you handle conversion between 3.5, pathfinder and d20?
Well, honestly, that's something I've to think about for a while and the perhaps painful fact is that there probably won't be any strait forward methods for converting things to d20 legends when it's ready, and it's not for just one reason either.
Naturally, it's biggest obstacle would be the core system changes. It won't have things like full-attacks (which are a massive part of the system for martial characters), skills will function and be balanced differently, and magic is getting a few overhauls (spells will go up to 10th level, require concentration checks, the dynamics between prepared and spontaneous casting are changing, and of course spells are changing), and largely the very way that classes exist renders existing Pathfinder classes more or less incompatible (for example, Pathfinder classes are largely balanced around how good their HD/BAB/Saves/Skills/Etc are, while in D20 legends, those things are not related to your class{es} at all).
However, perhaps the even larger hurdle is the fundamental difference in design goals. Paizo's design goals and efforts when it comes to their mechanics are largely alien to mine. I mean, JJ literally thinks that caster/martial disparity is a myth made up by people out to get something, and even some of the rule changes from 3.5 to Pathfinder kind of ooze with design goals that are alien to those for D20 Legends (like making it so you can't sneak attack with acid flasks).
Because of these fundamental differences in design theory, I strongly believe that when d20 Legends is ready, that porting content should be less of a conversion and more of an inspiration for a homebrew piece. Because mechanics in one system were designed with a certain goal in mind, and the mechanics in the other are designed with a completely different goal in mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ouch, that's going to hurt popularity. Pathfinder has a lot of free content, which attracts people to it. You should probably seriously consider making a standardised algorithm for conversion-something that would work, even if it wouldn't produce the best possible results, so that if someone wants to run a 3.5 AP in d20 legends they wouldn't have to homebrew pretty much everything by hand.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, one of the design goals that's present at the current time (and will remain so) is that the core classes should be quite flexible in terms of making a character that you want. I've developed a completely different class (and multiclass) system for this purpose, and there is a lot less "hardcoded" fluff for the core classes in question. Because of this, many, many, maaaany classes that exist in Pathfinder would be wholly redundant (same with archetypes).
A sort of "more, with less" mentality. Entirely new classes will generally exist to facilitate some sort of mechanic and/or resource. For example, Rogues are strongly tied to their Cunning Strike ability (think sneak attack who's been lifting weights and studying for tests), while Champions (a Cleric/Paladin type class) use a Divine Power resource to power a number of their abilities. Rangers are the animal companion class. Druids wildshape. Alchemists have "Concoctions" which are used to create various consumables, bombs, and so forth. Bloodborn (think sorcerers) are the Bloodline class. Currently, Mages are looking at having a number of similarities with Arcanists, Magi, and Wizards (for lack of a clear Pathfinder analog off the top of my head).
My current projected core classes include...
Alchemist, Bard, Bloodborn, Champion (Cleric/Paladin), Druid, Mage, Ranger, and Rogue.
We're discussing the state of Barbarians (I like Barbarians :D) and how to best include them, and we're looking to create a replacement for the 'Fighting Guy' (currently, I'd like to replace them with a class that functions a little more like Warriors from WoW, where instead of losing resources for combat, it actually sustains you, and uses different stances and such to change your mode of operation).
Besides some really ugly early drafts, there has been very little that has been done with the classes because I think it's a bad idea to design the classes while I'm actively revising and editing the D20 Core, because it'll add a lot of unnecessary bugs (changed terms, missing rules, etc) and everything will need to be balanced against everything else (and how can you properly balance classes that have options for improving your magical abilities when you don't even have the magic chapters complete yet? D:).
We've also been trying to figure out what to do with "wasted" magic potential. You can advance martially or magically as you gain levels, regardless of class. We're also going to be making how your magic works more flexible (if you want to have a cool bloodline but carry a spellbook, good news; if you like druids but really hate prepared casting, more good news!), but we've been trying to figure out a good way to make the "mundane hero" a thing (because early drafts were looking at the least magical characters either being Paladin/Ranger sorts or just getting stiffed).
An idea I'm currently really fond of is in fact making mundanes a sort of super item specialist option. One of the feedback things I've heard on the forums about Fighters and those that like them is they like doing things like collecting gear, using gear, having their magic +5 sword and being the guy that just uses equipment really well (be that real or imagined), so I pitched the idea of making a "super mundane" option where rather than advancing a magic tradition, you instead get a sort of heroic spirit that lets you get more mileage out of magic items.
This means being the dude who has to rely on magic items more than anyone else in turn gets to be better with those items than everyone else, being able to do things like use x/day items more than usual, or increase the benefits received from the items, or gain bonus item slots, and so forth. So if your ideal character is the mundane guy who has no magic but is the sickest Christmas tree on the block, that...might actually something to write home about.
EDIT: Oh, and monk. We'll have some sort of monk thing. Somewhere.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ouch, that's going to hurt popularity. Pathfinder has a lot of free content, which attracts people to it. You should probably seriously consider making a standardised algorithm for conversion-something that would work, even if it wouldn't produce the best possible results, so that if someone wants to run a 3.5 AP in d20 legends they wouldn't have to homebrew pretty much everything by hand.
Well, honestly, it might be a cross that I'll have to bear. Part of the reason that I started working on D20 Legends was an immense dissatisfaction with the state of my favorite RPG in recent years (with a steadily more cynical view of it as time progresses, as more and more faith is lost in once-heroes).
I started it because I wanted something better for my players and I. Looking back, I feel like Paizo's being anchored to 3.5 beast made it catch many of the fleas from it (and even early Pathfinder criticisms were often framed based on how poorly the changes interacted with existing 3.x material).
I'm not out to become the next big thing. My dreams are a little less ambitious. What I am out to do, however, is provide the best thing that I can. Some of my ideas for the best things aren't exactly lending themselves to profitability, because as a design goal I'm trying to build the system explicitly to...
- Not require a bunch of base classes.
- Not require a bunch of archetypes.
- Not require a hundred feats to pick your nose.
- Not require a spell for everything.
- Not require a new splatbook because someone wants to wield a katana.
All of which is really counter-productive if your intention is to design games like WotC/Paizo, or to make a profit by pooping out a major crunch book every few months.
However, I do foresee there being a potential to be profitable, but in a different format. Because the game is modular. Rather than adding a lot of new classes and such, 100% of classes are built up of themed abilities that you can pick, most of which build off their core mechanic in some way. In many cases, rather than releasing new archetypes and/or classes, new collections of talents can be produced instead. Think kind of like how the Advanced Player's Guide included things like new rage powers or rogue talents or cleric domains, stuff like that.
Sourcebooks will probably be small (and cheap) books that cover a specific subject. Like a Bard's handbook or a guidebook for military campaigns, and stuff like that. These books would not require a quota of feats and spells or try to have "something for everyone" because they aren't intended to, and are intended to be collected at your leisure for maybe $2.00-5.00 per PDF.
And if its popularity reached a point where it was practical to do so, we'd probably consider hiring writers for adventures and stuff, but we're very picky when it comes to the mechanics (can you tell?), so major crunch books would have to be overseen very carefully and edited by Aratrok and I (and maybe a select team of white-hat powergaming munchkins).
I do project that it could be made profitable, but it won't follow the route that WotC and Paizo have taken. Even if that route means I'll have to find some basement to live in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All that said, I don't think that it would be super hard to use inspiration from existing material to create new material for the game. Let's use monsters for an example.
In D20 Legends, we have no intention of continuing the tradition of "hit dice". Levels are a bit more uniform. You will not have stuff like creatures that are CR 10 with a bajillion hit dice (looking at you golems). Similarly, a lot of universal monster abilities aren't really that special in D20 Legends (for example, pounce is kinda redundant in its PF-form since any martial can charge into you and begin laying down the smack like it was going out of style).
These sorts of things mean that a strait conversion would be a fruitless endeavor. However, that's not to say that looking at a creature in the Pathfinder Bestiary and using that as a model for making a creature in D20 Legends wouldn't be a pretty simple process (if I have my way, it'll actually be pretty easy, since I really want to clean up creature creation and make monsters and PCs much more similar in function if they're the same levels, which is also because a lot of my players enjoy playing monstrous creatures, so having a smooth transition would be bueno).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've also been discussing a practice for how to handle FAQs, Errata, and updates to the rules (because it'll inevitably come up) and we know a few things already.
1) We're going to have a wiki-style reference document (though not editable by the general public 'cause that would be horrible).
2) We're going to keep FAQs and Errata 100% separate. We're going to keep the FAQ on the wiki as well. FAQ things will literally be explaining things in casual terms without the legalese of rules text, not changing rules.
3) Errata will be released a certain points regardless of the printing (if any) of the manuals the content was from (PDFs will be updated accordingly). We see part of the benefit of having an official online resource being the ease of access to updates, clarifications, and support for the product you got.
4) We'd like to keep a dated changelog, similar to a piece of software, noting changes to existing material.
>An idea I'm currently really fond of is in fact making mundanes a sort of super item specialist option. One of the feedback things I've heard on the forums about Fighters and those that like them is they like doing things like collecting gear, using gear, having their magic +5 sword and being the guy that just uses equipment really well
I think I PMed you a similar idea a while back)
>I started it because I wanted something better for my players and I. Looking back, I feel like Paizo's being anchored to 3.5 beast made it catch many of the fleas from it (and even early Pathfinder criticisms were often framed based on how poorly the changes interacted with existing 3.x material).
I am not saying "you should inherit everything from pathfinder", I am saying "making a map from pathfinder/3.5 stuff to d20 legends seems prudent".
Something like "If pathfinder material says %PF class name%, replace it with %d20 class name% with following talents taken. If PF says %feat%, replace it with %talent/feat from d20 legends%." Map that would, roughly, convert rogues into rogues, melee fighters into melee fighters, primary wizard-like casters into primary wizard-like casters, and high-CR creatures into high-CR creatures. That should make conversion less painful and GM-fiat intensive.
It is obviously a late-term project, something that can only be attempted after the whole thing is finished, but I think it is still something to think about.
You have mentioned that you don't want to post mechanics on paizo forums because of legal concerns. What would those be?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo can use anything posted on their forums without recompense.
It's in the terms of use for the messageboards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
>An idea I'm currently really fond of is in fact making mundanes a sort of super item specialist option. One of the feedback things I've heard on the forums about Fighters and those that like them is they like doing things like collecting gear, using gear, having their magic +5 sword and being the guy that just uses equipment really well
I think I PMed you a similar idea a while back)
Your tinker, right?
>I started it because I wanted something better for my players and I. Looking back, I feel like Paizo's being anchored to 3.5 beast made it catch many of the fleas from it (and even early Pathfinder criticisms were often framed based on how poorly the changes interacted with existing 3.x material).
I am not saying "you should inherit everything from pathfinder", I am saying "making a map from pathfinder/3.5 stuff to d20 legends seems prudent".
Something like "If pathfinder material says %PF class name%, replace it with %d20 class name% with following talents taken. If PF says %feat%, replace it with %talent/feat from d20 legends%." Map that would, roughly, convert rogues into rogues, melee fighters into melee fighters, primary wizard-like casters into primary wizard-like casters, and high-CR creatures into high-CR creatures. That should make conversion less painful and GM-fiat intensive.
It is obviously a late-term project, something that can only be attempted after the whole thing is finished, but I think it is still something to think about.
Oooooh, that's what you meant. Sorry, I thought you meant something like conversion rules for porting stuff directly (there was something kind of like this for 3.5->PF when it launched).
If you mean more like a player's guide for building character archetypes, we'll definitely be doing that. In fact, given the way the new multiclassing system works, I'm actually pretty excited about seeing the different combinations and themes players decide to use to create their characters, and we're going to include stuff like kits and templates for characters as well to make creating characters easier for new players (so we'll have some premade progressions, starting equipment packages, etc).
You have mentioned that you don't want to post mechanics on paizo forums because of legal concerns. What would those be?
What Kryzbyn said.
Say hypothetically d20 legends surprises me and turns into the next big thing (despite not being marketed as the next big thing), I don't want to end up any legal battles because Paizo published something from my early drafts and then decides to start something when my game is officially published. I'm not saying Paizo would, but it's better to not invite trouble.
>An idea I'm currently really fond of is in fact making mundanes a sort of super item specialist option. One of the feedback things I've heard on the forums about Fighters and those that like them is they like doing things like collecting gear, using gear, having their magic +5 sword and being the guy that just uses equipment really well
I think I PMed you a similar idea a while back)
Your tinker, right?
>I started it because I wanted something better for my players and I. Looking back, I feel like Paizo's being anchored to 3.5 beast made it catch many of the fleas from it (and even early Pathfinder criticisms were often framed based on how poorly the changes interacted with existing 3.x material).
I am not saying "you should inherit everything from pathfinder", I am saying "making a map from pathfinder/3.5 stuff to d20 legends seems prudent".
Something like "If pathfinder material says %PF class name%, replace it with %d20 class name% with following talents taken. If PF says %feat%, replace it with %talent/feat from d20 legends%." Map that would, roughly, convert rogues into rogues, melee fighters into melee fighters, primary wizard-like casters into primary wizard-like casters, and high-CR creatures into high-CR creatures. That should make conversion less painful and GM-fiat intensive.
It is obviously a late-term project, something that can only be attempted after the whole thing is finished, but I think it is still something to think about.
Oooooh, that's what you meant. Sorry, I thought you meant something like conversion rules for porting stuff directly (there was something kind of like this for 3.5->PF when it launched).
If you mean more like a player's guide for building character archetypes, we'll definitely be doing that. In fact, given the way the new multiclassing system works, I'm actually pretty excited about seeing the different combinations and themes players decide to use to create their characters, and we're going to include...
>Your tinker, right?
I prefer to call it "My blabbering wall of text")
But yes, the main idea there was item and tamed animal management.
>Paizo can use anything posted on their forums without recompense.
It's in the terms of use for the messageboards.
That's...kinda evil. I can see why they would make such a rule, but it's still kinda evil. Were there any incidents where paizo started legal wars over something like that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's more to protect Paizo from shenanigans.
Imagine a dev reading the boards and runs across what he thinks is a kinda cool idea, and does nothing for a year or two, then comes up with an idea that he believes is his own, but was clearly influenced by what was seen on the boards, and now there's a potential legal battle.
That one clause saves them from that, and lets people like Ash know not to post stuff here that they themselves want to profit from later.
I think it's more to protect Paizo from shenanigans.
Imagine a dev reading the boards and runs across what he thinks is a kinda cool idea, and does nothing for a year or two, then comes up with an idea that he believes is his own, but was clearly influenced by what was seen on the boards, and now there's a potential legal battle.That one clause saves them from that, and lets people like Ash know not to post stuff here that they themselves want to profit from later.
That's what I thought was their reasoning too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. It's pretty much to keep Paizo safe from people trying to abuse legal actions, but it also opens a new avenue of legal abuse from a different direction, so I think it's better to just leave the potential for abuse out of the equation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, some friends of mine are working on a persistent world campaign that's going to be open in the near-ish future, and I've been asked to help. As a result, I've been writing some stuff for the campaign, so can I get some feedback on a few spots I'm responsible for?
Wyrmspire City and Sylvantha the Darklands.
EDIT: I don't think they're accepting public applications at the moment (I think the forum on the site's mostly dead at the moment). Just thought I should note that. o_o;