Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo / other OGL companies


Paizo General Discussion

901 to 950 of 1,011 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

4th edition had some good ideas, some of which is used in PF2. This is especially true in the Bestiary builds for Monsters.

Healing Surges are something that is sort of twisted and used (in a weird way) in PF2 and I still don't like the heavy nErf(tm) to the wands that was done in PF2.

I still think Defenses should be the default instead of turning the saves to the target rolling it, but it was made into another form of AC in 4th edition, which killed that aspect for future editions and iterations.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wyrmworks Publishing has a very damning jeremiad that is a reprint of the company response to the OGL 1.2v1 survey. Dale Critchley raises the issues of disability rights and quite bluntly accuses Hasbro/WotC of lying. ableism, and lack of respect for publishers and customers. called Responding to the OGL 1.2v1 Survey #opendnd.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
I am no fan of 2e and didn't care for the ways it was encouraged by some fans of the system or how it was promoted by the company. That said I don't know of anyone who swore off paizo entirely because of it.

I know two people, both formerly of these forums. One chose to die on the hill of non-Lawful Good Champions existing, which was apparently a bridge too far.

The other was absolutely insistent that Paizo would be shuttering 2e within two years unless they made the changes he personally wanted to see to the system. Went so far as to make me promise to apologize personally to him for defending the system when it happened. I told him I would if he would do the same if 2e was a success.

Can't imagine why I don't see him around here anymore. XD


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder Facebook groups are full of people who swung from "Paizo is the best company ever, they saved D&D!" to "Paizo betrayed me just like WotC did when they put out 4e, not gonna buy anything from them ever again, have fun going bankrupt Mr. Bullman!!!!" to "Just bought all PF2 core books, Paizo is the saviour of the industry!".

These people operate entirely on emotion and will throw their money at whoever they currently perceive to be respecting their "true D&D gamer" identity.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
The other was absolutely insistent that Paizo would be shuttering 2e within two years unless they made the changes he personally wanted to see to the system. Went so far as to make me promise to apologize personally to him for defending the system when it happened. I told him I would if he would do the same if 2e was a success.

I have a list of "I think PF2 will flop within a year, maybe two" people somewhere :)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Raynulf wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:
Oh, is this an edition war thread now?

No?

PF2 is awesome - it's just something that if you have an entire table of newbies can be a bit brutal to learn.

It's actually very easy of it's new players

The difficulty is players who have a lot of experience in a different system constantly being like "well it should work though way"because it's what they are comfortable with


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Martialmasters wrote:
Raynulf wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:
Oh, is this an edition war thread now?

No?

PF2 is awesome - it's just something that if you have an entire table of newbies can be a bit brutal to learn.

It's actually very easy of it's new players

The difficulty is players who have a lot of experience in a different system constantly being like "well it should work though way"because it's what they are comfortable with

Can confirm. I have players who struggled learning how to play 1e, as well as players who could figure out 1e but were punished by 1e's math, that all learned 2e rather quickly and excel at it.

The hardest part was getting out of 1e behaviors.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly the hardest part for me was parsing the rulebook. Lord does 2e crb have layout problems...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1 being written in natural language (and thus running into various issues out of that, such as "what action is this???") and PF2 being written in technical/legal language. ("Stride once and Strike twice") is probably the biggest barrier for somebody moving from one to another)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

At least for me its not the language that's the issue, it's all organizational. Feats and spells being arranged alphabetically rather than by level, needing to flip between the various appendices to parse out conditions or focus spells, stuff along those lines. All a massive hassle if you're using a book or pdf and makes learning the system horrifically tedious.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it is also worth mentioning that years of 3.X/PF1 mechanic brain programming of how things work can be a pretty big barrier for moving from PF1 to PF2 as well. I adapted pretty well myself but it took MONTHS to unlearn 3.X assumptions about how a lot of things work and to this day I still confuse one sub-system, rule, or mechanic in PF2 for the 3.X/PF1 legacy version of it.

I'd even go so far as to say that I think PF2 is probably easier to learn for people who NEVER played another TTRPG than it is for PF1 veterans to adapt to but that's just my experience.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thebazilly wrote:
Oh, is this an edition war thread now?

always has been, though the impetus was from a wildly unexpected occurrence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
At least for me its not the language that's the issue, it's all organizational. Feats and spells being arranged alphabetically rather than by level, needing to flip between the various appendices to parse out conditions or focus spells, stuff along those lines. All a massive hassle if you're using a book or pdf and makes learning the system horrifically tedious.

Though both feats and spells were organized alphabetically in PF1 too (and in 3.x, iirc).

There's definitely something about the organization, but I'm not sure exactly what. The group I introduced to it had a lot of initial trouble navigating the process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
PF1 being written in natural language (and thus running into various issues out of that, such as "what action is this???") and PF2 being written in technical/legal language. ("Stride once and Strike twice") is probably the biggest barrier for somebody moving from one to another)

I actually have more problems with PF1 there, since it's written in a mix of natural and legal language, without always being clear about which is being used.

Part of the problem with PF2 though is that legal language, which means you often have to chase through several terms to figure out what something actually does. Until you internalize what the terms mean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
At least for me its not the language that's the issue, it's all organizational. Feats and spells being arranged alphabetically rather than by level, needing to flip between the various appendices to parse out conditions or focus spells, stuff along those lines. All a massive hassle if you're using a book or pdf and makes learning the system horrifically tedious.

Though both feats and spells were organized alphabetically in PF1 too (and in 3.x, iirc).

There's definitely something about the organization, but I'm not sure exactly what. The group I introduced to it had a lot of initial trouble navigating the process.

Indeed. Layout was poor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Thebazilly wrote:
Oh, is this an edition war thread now?
always has been, though the impetus was from a wildly unexpected occurrence.

Ugggh. Could we please not? I don't mind the talk about the differences in the editions, but can we please keep it to that and not start making snide remarks about the other camp people find themselves in?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
At least for me its not the language that's the issue, it's all organizational. Feats and spells being arranged alphabetically rather than by level, needing to flip between the various appendices to parse out conditions or focus spells, stuff along those lines. All a massive hassle if you're using a book or pdf and makes learning the system horrifically tedious.

Though both feats and spells were organized alphabetically in PF1 too (and in 3.x, iirc).

There's definitely something about the organization, but I'm not sure exactly what. The group I introduced to it had a lot of initial trouble navigating the process.

Indeed. Layout was poor.

The key to the trouble seems to be cross-referencing. Whenever 2e puts out a rules mechanic, they often have several specialized rules that use that mechanic. So when you read a rule, feat, or spell, they often reference something else in the book. This saves space and allows you to print more options, but it also means you have a spell or activity that is spread out over different places in the book.

It gets really bad when you start getting to tertiary rules, so the rule in front of you references another rule in a different book, that references yet another rule in the CRB.

From a game design standpoint, it's brilliant and flexible, resulting in a wonderfully modular system. From a gameplay perspective, it is a headache flipping to one page, to get an explanation that requires you to flip to another page or book, and on and on...

Whenever 3rd edition comes out, this is a problem that will need to be addressed.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
At least for me its not the language that's the issue, it's all organizational. Feats and spells being arranged alphabetically rather than by level, needing to flip between the various appendices to parse out conditions or focus spells, stuff along those lines. All a massive hassle if you're using a book or pdf and makes learning the system horrifically tedious.

Though both feats and spells were organized alphabetically in PF1 too (and in 3.x, iirc).

There's definitely something about the organization, but I'm not sure exactly what. The group I introduced to it had a lot of initial trouble navigating the process.

Indeed. Layout was poor.

This I have to agree with.

The amount of time it took me flipping back and forth through the CRB from cross-referenced entry to cross-referenced entry to figure out how Dispel Magic works was absolutely silly.

The end result once you understand it is good - unifying spells like Dispel Magic and Neutralize Poison along with items that do similar all under a single system is great.

But the layout in the CRB was awful.


thejeff wrote:
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
PF1 being written in natural language (and thus running into various issues out of that, such as "what action is this???") and PF2 being written in technical/legal language. ("Stride once and Strike twice") is probably the biggest barrier for somebody moving from one to another)

I actually have more problems with PF1 there, since it's written in a mix of natural and legal language, without always being clear about which is being used.

Part of the problem with PF2 though is that legal language, which means you often have to chase through several terms to figure out what something actually does. Until you internalize what the terms mean.

Legal language a problem? Well, you should have studied law, like I did!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
The other was absolutely insistent that Paizo would be shuttering 2e within two years unless they made the changes he personally wanted to see to the system. Went so far as to make me promise to apologize personally to him for defending the system when it happened. I told him I would if he would do the same if 2e was a success.
I have a list of "I think PF2 will flop within a year, maybe two" people somewhere :)

I believe this, and this made me smile.

Radiant Oath

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Feros wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
At least for me its not the language that's the issue, it's all organizational. Feats and spells being arranged alphabetically rather than by level, needing to flip between the various appendices to parse out conditions or focus spells, stuff along those lines. All a massive hassle if you're using a book or pdf and makes learning the system horrifically tedious.

Though both feats and spells were organized alphabetically in PF1 too (and in 3.x, iirc).

There's definitely something about the organization, but I'm not sure exactly what. The group I introduced to it had a lot of initial trouble navigating the process.

Indeed. Layout was poor.

The key to the trouble seems to be cross-referencing. Whenever 2e puts out a rules mechanic, they often have several specialized rules that use that mechanic. So when you read a rule, feat, or spell, they often reference something else in the book. This saves space and allows you to print more options, but it also means you have a spell or activity that is spread out over different places in the book.

It gets really bad when you start getting to tertiary rules, so the rule in front of you references another rule in a different book, that references yet another rule in the CRB.

From a game design standpoint, it's brilliant and flexible, resulting in a wonderfully modular system. From a gameplay perspective, it is a headache flipping to one page, to get an explanation that requires you to flip to another page or book, and on and on...

Whenever 3rd edition comes out, this is a problem that will need to be addressed.

I love pf2, but this is true. It's even worse with exceptions. Soothe is a healing effect. Undead are immune to healing effects. Soothe works on undead.


thaX wrote:
I still think Defenses should be the default instead of turning the saves to the target rolling it, but it was made into another form of AC in 4th edition, which killed that aspect for future editions and iterations.

That actually does happen in PF2 also. But only at times.

Mostly with skill attacks. Trip is Athletics vs Reflex DC. Grapple is Athletics vs Fortitude DC. Battle Prayer is Religion vs Will DC.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AceofMoxen wrote:
Feros wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
At least for me its not the language that's the issue, it's all organizational. Feats and spells being arranged alphabetically rather than by level, needing to flip between the various appendices to parse out conditions or focus spells, stuff along those lines. All a massive hassle if you're using a book or pdf and makes learning the system horrifically tedious.

Though both feats and spells were organized alphabetically in PF1 too (and in 3.x, iirc).

There's definitely something about the organization, but I'm not sure exactly what. The group I introduced to it had a lot of initial trouble navigating the process.

Indeed. Layout was poor.

The key to the trouble seems to be cross-referencing. Whenever 2e puts out a rules mechanic, they often have several specialized rules that use that mechanic. So when you read a rule, feat, or spell, they often reference something else in the book. This saves space and allows you to print more options, but it also means you have a spell or activity that is spread out over different places in the book.

It gets really bad when you start getting to tertiary rules, so the rule in front of you references another rule in a different book, that references yet another rule in the CRB.

From a game design standpoint, it's brilliant and flexible, resulting in a wonderfully modular system. From a gameplay perspective, it is a headache flipping to one page, to get an explanation that requires you to flip to another page or book, and on and on...

Whenever 3rd edition comes out, this is a problem that will need to be addressed.

I love pf2, but this is true. It's even worse with exceptions. Soothe is a healing effect. Undead are immune to healing effects. Soothe works on undead.

The imperfections aren't endearing, unfortunately.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Honestly the hardest part for me was parsing the rulebook. Lord does 2e crb have layout problems...

This issue is something that plagues RPG's in general. I see it all over the place in particular to PF2e and VtM 5th ed. I thought the D&D 5e book had a bad layout (that could simply be that I was being roped into it after being spoiled by PF2E though). It makes me wonder what other RPG's the commenter has played, and what the differences in the books and layouts are. Sometimes I think the issue is something that would easily be solved by a more complete index.

I know it's tangential, but I've been seeing that comment over the past few years and I always want to ask, what's a good layout for RPG's then?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Onesiphoros wrote:
I know it's tangential, but I've been seeing that comment over the past few years and I always want to ask, what's a good layout for RPG's then?

I don't think there is one. Organization is one of the Wicked Problems.

Specifically we have contradictory requirements of:

Keeping redundancy low and lowering page count by centralizing definitions of common rules and terms.
Keeping related concepts in close proximity to avoid the page flipping problems that MaxAstro mentioned.

Organizing things in the order new players are going to experience them.
Organizing things by topic so that they can be found quickly.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd say PF2 is harder to learn than 5E and easier to learn than PF1 (the organization doesn't help), but once you know it, it's much easier to run than either.


breithauptclan wrote:
Onesiphoros wrote:
I know it's tangential, but I've been seeing that comment over the past few years and I always want to ask, what's a good layout for RPG's then?

I don't think there is one. Organization is one of the Wicked Problems.

Specifically we have contradictory requirements of:

Keeping redundancy low and lowering page count by centralizing definitions of common rules and terms.
Keeping related concepts in close proximity to avoid the page flipping problems that MaxAstro mentioned.

Organizing things in the order new players are going to experience them.
Organizing things by topic so that they can be found quickly.

Thank you breithauptclan. For me the question was more rhetorical but I know I asked it in a way to get answers. I've been playing RPG's for many years and read more systems than I've ever played (if I can ever get a group together that's large enough and interested in the Amber Diceless RPG I'll be able to die happy [pun unintended but I'm pleased by it]). The repeated commentary on the layout just irritates me, and I know I've said it about different systems before as well, but the repeated refrain can convince someone new not to try the system and I would much rather encourage people if it's something that interests them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ah, sorry. I don't always notice rhetorical because Autism.

For me one of the things that bugs me is similar - the constant refrain that the game devs are screwing things up because they can't do the impossible.

"The game should be 100% complete and able to handle anything that the players can imagine up. There should also be 100% consistent with no undefined terms or incorrect assumptions. The organization of the rulebooks should be perfect and everything should be able to be found in seconds. And if that isn't the case, then the system is horrible and no one should play it."

Me: *facepalm* Do you realize how many formal logic proven laws of information theory that sentiment violates? And that isn't counting the foibles of human nature such as the Wicked Problem.


Onesiphoros wrote:
if I can ever get a group together that's large enough and interested in the Amber Diceless RPG I'll be able to die happy.

Ditto. Though I don't think I'm up for running Amber, I'd love to be able to play it again.


Now THERE'S a name I haven't heard in a while.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

Ah, sorry. I don't always notice rhetorical because Autism.

Definitely don't worry about it. Just because it was more meant as a rhetorical doesn't mean I'm unhappy that you replied and backed up your reasoning. Maybe at some point someone can figure it out and make everyone happy...but I don't ever see it happening.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I'd say PF2 is harder to learn than 5E and easier to learn than PF1 (the organization doesn't help), but once you know it, it's much easier to run than either.

Easier to run than 5E. That surprises me. It reads like it would be harder just because of all the conditions and traits.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Onesiphoros wrote:
if I can ever get a group together that's large enough and interested in the Amber Diceless RPG I'll be able to die happy.
Ditto. Though I don't think I'm up for running Amber, I'd love to be able to play it again.

Speaking of Amber, everyone see we might be getting a tv show? A year ago, I would have been discouraged, but after Sandman, I have some hope.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I'd say PF2 is harder to learn than 5E and easier to learn than PF1 (the organization doesn't help), but once you know it, it's much easier to run than either.
Easier to run than 5E. That surprises me. It reads like it would be harder just because of all the conditions and traits.

I'd say it's close, but 5e is way more dependent on the GM's skill. PF2's conditions are exceptionally simple, especially with a VTT or someone (GM or otherwise) with an internet connection to quickly look one up. I haven't memorized most of them, but it's so easy to check AoN that it's no issue.

5e's bad encounter balancing? The expectation that you bust out some improv whenever the PCs go beyond the fairly minimalist system? The lack of any coherent crafting system or guidance for when PCs should get which magic items? Those are a lot more challenging for me.

I think we forget that rules-light doesn't inherently mean "easy". Lined paper is easier to write on than printer paper.


AceofMoxen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Onesiphoros wrote:
if I can ever get a group together that's large enough and interested in the Amber Diceless RPG I'll be able to die happy.
Ditto. Though I don't think I'm up for running Amber, I'd love to be able to play it again.
Speaking of Amber, everyone see we might be getting a tv show? A year ago, I would have been discouraged, but after Sandman, I have some hope.

I did see that. Colbert is apparently involved and a fan.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I'd say PF2 is harder to learn than 5E and easier to learn than PF1 (the organization doesn't help), but once you know it, it's much easier to run than either.
Easier to run than 5E. That surprises me. It reads like it would be harder just because of all the conditions and traits.

I'd say it's close, but 5e is way more dependent on the GM's skill. PF2's conditions are exceptionally simple, especially with a VTT or someone (GM or otherwise) with an internet connection to quickly look one up. I haven't memorized most of them, but it's so easy to check AoN that it's no issue.

5e's bad encounter balancing? The expectation that you bust out some improv whenever the PCs go beyond the fairly minimalist system? The lack of any coherent crafting system or guidance for when PCs should get which magic items? Those are a lot more challenging for me.

I think we forget that rules-light doesn't inherently mean "easy". Lined paper is easier to write on than printer paper.

Ah yeah gotcha. I dont use technology at the table and grew up with rulings on the fly, no such thing as RAW. So i guess 5E would be easier for me but not for many.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I'd say PF2 is harder to learn than 5E and easier to learn than PF1 (the organization doesn't help), but once you know it, it's much easier to run than either.
Easier to run than 5E. That surprises me. It reads like it would be harder just because of all the conditions and traits.

I'd say it's close, but 5e is way more dependent on the GM's skill. PF2's conditions are exceptionally simple, especially with a VTT or someone (GM or otherwise) with an internet connection to quickly look one up. I haven't memorized most of them, but it's so easy to check AoN that it's no issue.

5e's bad encounter balancing? The expectation that you bust out some improv whenever the PCs go beyond the fairly minimalist system? The lack of any coherent crafting system or guidance for when PCs should get which magic items? Those are a lot more challenging for me.

I think we forget that rules-light doesn't inherently mean "easy". Lined paper is easier to write on than printer paper.

Ah yeah gotcha. I dont use technology at the table and grew up with rulings on the fly, no such thing as RAW. So i guess 5E would be easier for me but not for many.

Depends on what you have more trouble with. Keeping the rules details straight or improvising when things aren't covered.

Different styles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I'd say PF2 is harder to learn than 5E and easier to learn than PF1 (the organization doesn't help), but once you know it, it's much easier to run than either.
Easier to run than 5E. That surprises me. It reads like it would be harder just because of all the conditions and traits.

I'd say it's close, but 5e is way more dependent on the GM's skill. PF2's conditions are exceptionally simple, especially with a VTT or someone (GM or otherwise) with an internet connection to quickly look one up. I haven't memorized most of them, but it's so easy to check AoN that it's no issue.

5e's bad encounter balancing? The expectation that you bust out some improv whenever the PCs go beyond the fairly minimalist system? The lack of any coherent crafting system or guidance for when PCs should get which magic items? Those are a lot more challenging for me.

I think we forget that rules-light doesn't inherently mean "easy". Lined paper is easier to write on than printer paper.

Ah yeah gotcha. I dont use technology at the table and grew up with rulings on the fly, no such thing as RAW. So i guess 5E would be easier for me but not for many.

Depends on what you have more trouble with. Keeping the rules details straight or improvising when things aren't covered.

Different styles.

indeed, the style differentiation apparent in the pf2 vs pf1e debate is especially jarring and can also lead to the factionalization decried above.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

And different styles is what the OGL supported so well. We need different systems and different creators to maximize the players abilities to find their game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Onesiphoros wrote:
breithauptclan wrote:

Ah, sorry. I don't always notice rhetorical because Autism.

Definitely don't worry about it. Just because it was more meant as a rhetorical doesn't mean I'm unhappy that you replied and backed up your reasoning. Maybe at some point someone can figure it out and make everyone happy...but I don't ever see it happening.

Benjamin Franklin said that it's impossible to please all of the people all of the time. You can't make a roleplaying game that appeals to everyone (I didn't get PF2 because I didn't like some of the design decisions to make it).

I figure my world (Phaeselis, Middle Kingdom, and Orcs of Kara'kar) was made with inspiration from World of Warcraft and Warcraft 3. I don't expect it to appeal to everyone, because everyone has different ideas about orcs, or psionics, or fantasy China. WotC's hubris is making the changes to the OGL, and Paizo responded with the ORC.

I may not like PF2, but I love what Paizo is doing.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My solution was to steadily re-write large chunks of PF1/3.5, deal with the niche cases and generally attempt to do to PF1 what PF1 did to 3.5. Or (like with the grappling rules) decide that neither sysrtem got it very right re-write entirely. (Closer to 3.5 than PF1, but also akign sure ALL the relevant universal monster abilities were explictly IN that sectiob as well.)

PF1 still had the problems that the rules were not all in one place for some things - often legacy bits from 3.5, so I did a lot of compiling.

Mind you, what I run is very emphatically NOT a rules-lite, freeform sort fo game. Though at this point, it's bloody well cross-checked and thorough, and well indexed (in terms of spells, feats etc), at least.

But I suspect most people have a panic attack when I say "at last count, 1600 pages" and that was before the v2.1 revisions...! (In fairness, that's because I went through VERY throughly and there is increasingly little left in the core rule books - and only a few of the 3.5 splats - that's not been copied up. But I was rigorous when I did t; anything that was even a minor change, copied into the new set. In particular, any spell that was "as this spell but" had the copied spell moved as well, so that spell chain is all in once place. Net result, the spells document runs to 300 pages, but there is only CR1, Spell Compendium and (3.5) PHBII aside from it to look spells up in. That was where is starte way back, though - to pare down 3.5's burgeoning splatbooks into the bits we'd actually use, and leave the chaff we didn't behind so I'd have less material to take down the club.

That I have a very full 90 litre backpack still might argue on one hand, I didn't succes terribly well - but on the other, two foot of hardbacked 3.5 splats sitting on my shelves says that, yeah, I kinda did on the other.


Onesiphoros wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Honestly the hardest part for me was parsing the rulebook. Lord does 2e crb have layout problems...
I know it's tangential, but I've been seeing that comment over the past few years and I always want to ask, what's a good layout for RPG's then?

My gold standard for layouts these days is Lancer (and resets my general counter for shilling for Lancer here). Fantastic layout, extremely clean, and very diegetic for new folks. You couldn't straight port the style to PF, but still.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Honestly the hardest part for me was parsing the rulebook. Lord does 2e crb have layout problems...

OMG does it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Honestly the hardest part for me was parsing the rulebook. Lord does 2e crb have layout problems...
OMG does it.

I was literally just posting about this elsewhere on the boards today. The page flipping is endless.

And, pretty please, can someone please direct me to the exact text that explicitly states that monsters/NPCs get three actions? I mean I think I know they do, but where is it actually stated? I’ve looked in the CRB, the Bestiary and the GMG, but I can’t find the actual text anywhere.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Honestly the hardest part for me was parsing the rulebook. Lord does 2e crb have layout problems...
OMG does it.

I was literally just posting about this elsewhere on the boards today. The page flipping is endless.

And, pretty please, can someone please direct me to the exact text that explicitly states that monsters/NPCs get three actions? I mean I think I know they do, but where is it actually stated? I’ve looked in the CRB, the Bestiary and the GMG, but I can’t find the actual text anywhere.

Encounters, Core Rulebook pg. 10:

"The players and GM roll initiative to determine who acts in what order. The encounter occurs over a number of rounds, each of which is equal to about 6 seconds of time in the world of the game. During a round, each participant takes a turn. When it’s your turn to act, you can use up to three actions."

Turn, Core Rulebook pg. 13

"During the course of a round, each creature takes a single turn according to initiative. A creature can typically use up to three actions during its turn."


Aotrscommander wrote:
My solution was to steadily re-write large chunks of PF1/3.5, deal with the niche cases and generally attempt to do to PF1 what PF1 did to 3.5. {. . .}

Sounds like we need for you to be a content publisher . . . .


Ezekieru wrote:
OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Honestly the hardest part for me was parsing the rulebook. Lord does 2e crb have layout problems...
OMG does it.

I was literally just posting about this elsewhere on the boards today. The page flipping is endless.

And, pretty please, can someone please direct me to the exact text that explicitly states that monsters/NPCs get three actions? I mean I think I know they do, but where is it actually stated? I’ve looked in the CRB, the Bestiary and the GMG, but I can’t find the actual text anywhere.

Encounters, Core Rulebook pg. 10:

"The players and GM roll initiative to determine who acts in what order. The encounter occurs over a number of rounds, each of which is equal to about 6 seconds of time in the world of the game. During a round, each participant takes a turn. When it’s your turn to act, you can use up to three actions."

Turn, Core Rulebook pg. 13

"During the course of a round, each creature takes a single turn according to initiative. A creature can typically use up to three actions during its turn."

Aaaahhhhh!!! Thank you Ezekeriu!!! In the sections on Playing the Game, and Key Terms. Which I clearly never bothered to read.


Aotrscommander wrote:

My solution was to steadily re-write large chunks of PF1/3.5, deal with the niche cases and generally attempt to do to PF1 what PF1 did to 3.5. Or (like with the grappling rules) decide that neither sysrtem got it very right re-write entirely. (Closer to 3.5 than PF1, but also akign sure ALL the relevant universal monster abilities were explictly IN that sectiob as well.)

PF1 still had the problems that the rules were not all in one place for some things - often legacy bits from 3.5, so I did a lot of compiling.

Mind you, what I run is very emphatically NOT a rules-lite, freeform sort fo game. Though at this point, it's bloody well cross-checked and thorough, and well indexed (in terms of spells, feats etc), at least.

But I suspect most people have a panic attack when I say "at last count, 1600 pages" and that was before the v2.1 revisions...! (In fairness, that's because I went through VERY throughly and there is increasingly little left in the core rule books - and only a few of the 3.5 splats - that's not been copied up. But I was rigorous when I did t; anything that was even a minor change, copied into the new set. In particular, any spell that was "as this spell but" had the copied spell moved as well, so that spell chain is all in once place. Net result, the spells document runs to 300 pages, but there is only CR1, Spell Compendium and (3.5) PHBII aside from it to look spells up in. That was where is starte way back, though - to pare down 3.5's burgeoning splatbooks into the bits we'd actually use, and leave the chaff we didn't behind so I'd have less material to take down the club.

That I have a very full 90 litre backpack still might argue on one hand, I didn't succes terribly well - but on the other, two foot of hardbacked 3.5 splats sitting on my shelves says that, yeah, I kinda did on the other.

Do you have it available? I'm interested

Sovereign Court

Just a thought, but the 1.0a OGL said you could use any version of it right? I may be misunderstanding something, but if WOTC does manage to deuathorised 1.0a, doesn't 1.0 still then exist to be used?

I'm sure I must be missing something if everyone seems to have not mentioned this.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ellias Aubec wrote:

Just a thought, but the 1.0a OGL said you could use any version of it right? I may be misunderstanding something, but if WOTC does manage to deuathorised 1.0a, doesn't 1.0 still then exist to be used?

I'm sure I must be missing something if everyone seems to have not mentioned this.

That's something that would need to be found out in court, since the OGL is more of a "gentlemen's agreement not to sue" and not a real legal document. WotC would likely threaten legal action against those who cannot financially afford to, but thankfully Paizo has said they're willing to fight WotC in court, so maybe we'll find out!

901 to 950 of 1,011 << first < prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo / other OGL companies All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.