Paizo says F-You to 4e and WotC

[CatharzGodfoot]

Actually, I was wrong. Most of the feats don't require that you do something; they just allow it. So everyone is going around with the capability of bull rushing someone with a shield bash (or whatever).

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Having looked at it, I'm not terribly impressed.
The basic design philosophy seems to be fixed= more bonuses

Races suck? Give them more stat boosts

Fighters suck? Give him flat bonuses that fuck the math in the ass

Wizards' don't suck? Give them ridiculous school related bonuses that either suck or make them even more broken. Compare evocation to the 'universalist'. Which is an awkward as fuck name, but instead of +1 damage to evocation spells, he gets free spontaneous metamagic. And wish as a spell-like ability.

And its hard not sneer at anyone who tells me with a straight face that levitate is an iconic wizard spell.

Yeah. I like the idea that they want to power the fighter up, but they probably should have stuck with giving bigger boosts to damage rather than doling out a gradual +25% chance to hit (Holy crap! I'm channelling RandomCasualty now).

I'm still trying to figure out why they felt the need to power up the rogue. Well, okay, if Jason Bulmahn's forword is to be believed, apparently nobody at the Paizo offices ever goes past level 2 of rogue (get evasion and leave). I have no idea why.

Since they also made making people want to stay in the standard classes for 20 levels a design priority, I kind of wonder why they didn't do anything to make clerics think about whether they want to jump to that full-casting PrC just for the heck of it. All they would have to do is reward domain powers based on class level rather than caster level.

This brings us to the wizard. At first glance, it just looks like they want to discourage people from playing specialists. OTOH, the penalty for preparing forbidden spells is kind of minor, since you don't lose the school powers. Specialization would probably mean more if they gave universal wizards no powers and made specialists forfeit their powers for any day when they prepared forbidden spells.

[Prak]

Then again, I just took a look at their boards, and there are already people arguing that Paizo shouldn't change the 3.5 rules at all. There are also people arguing that specialist wizards should get an extra spell per day in addition to their school powers. I'm not sure you'll get much response on the divine spells front, since they want to maximize 3.5 compatibility, but on some other issues it might be good to have a voice for the other side. FWIW, Voss is posting there, so you won't be alone.

They have to make their own version, the 3.5 OGL runs out in 2009, and after that, things have to be fairly different to not get shutdown by Wizards. True20 will likely be a new 3.5 system in the aftermath, this will likely be the other one, but no one's going to have 3.5 exactly the way it was, unless wizards decides to sell it(which may happen).

How can a "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license" run out? I'd like to know where you're getting this from.


K: Though I never went to law school, I think you're completely misreading the OGL. It looks like you're confusing the definitions of Open Game Content and Product Identity. The definition of Open Game Content includes all mechanics and anything else specifically designated as Open Game Content. The Product Identity definition includes things like poses and the descriptions of spells, supernatural abilities, and other things. Basically, you give up your rights to the mechanics but not the name or flavor text. Somebody can use the exact same spell you drew up and call it something else, but they can't call it "[Epic-level Wizard]'s SOD Effect From Hell" or whatever you called it.

Actually, though, you're not really giving up your rights. You're just agreeing to grant an identical "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license" to anyone who reads your new rules.

WotC can't really bend anybody over in court for publishing an exact copy of everything in the SRD because they've already granted that perpetual license to "use" and "Distribute" all that Content. Furthermore, they've designated everything in the SRD as OGC, with the exception of a bunch of trademarked names, thus putting all that material under the perpetual license.

well, I guess I worded it wrong... it won't so much "run out" as "get axed." Wizards is shutting it down after 4e comes out and telling companies that they have until then to finish work on and print their current 3.5 works.

[Voss]

See, I actually like the idea that the generalist isn't a suboptimal moron.
They just don't see to realize how huge the abilities they're handing out really are.
Spontaneous metamagic? Really? At the level you get it (8th) you can quicken both your 4th level spells. Nova some spells that fucking kill people and call it a day. Or you know, kick up a persistent fly/diplacement/improved invisibility. At 8th fucking level.

Daily Wish, with no costs at all? Come on. This is amateur level shit.

I don't think they are really trying to discourage specialists (but the knowing but not casting opposition schools makes no sense to me), but they've balanced them so badly that they just come off at idiots. Because really +5 damage to evocation spells at 20th level? Thats a benefit? Its barely measurable.

Its like they want to make 'find shit to break the game' as easy as possible.
About the only noticeably intelligent things they've done is removed divine power from all the domain lists, and bumped some hit dice.

The skill exploit is just bad, though. Want full BAB? Go Ranger 1-> whatever. Get 4 extra, useful skills.

Ah. Fighters again. Devastating blow. Stupid combat feat. Due to having to use the prereq crappy combat feats, you can't use this until the third round of combat. But when you do, if you hit, you auto crit. So... you aren't using a scythe, because...? Get to 20th level, and you're doing x5. So on round 3, roughly a minimum of 250 points of damage.
I know this is an alpha document, but, fuck. He's been working on it since October. It shouldn't be this stupid.

[Bigode]

Prak, please give me a source for "3.5 license axed in 2009". That may be extremely relevant for Dreamscarred Press ... (and it doesn't seem the owners know about it, though I might be wrong).

Ah, yeah: last time I tried to post at Paizo (Flamewarrior, a.k.a. me, made a couple posts already), it seemed extremely slow and prone to error - that being the reason why I didn't join the other Denizens: I got tired of reposting stuff. If it turns out that those computers in particular were crappy, it's another story.

[K]

K: Though I never went to law school, I think you're completely misreading the OGL. It looks like you're confusing the definitions of Open Game Content and Product Identity. The definition of Open Game Content includes all mechanics and anything else specifically designated as Open Game Content. The Product Identity definition includes things like poses and the descriptions of spells, supernatural abilities, and other things. Basically, you give up your rights to the mechanics but not the name or flavor text. Somebody can use the exact same spell you drew up and call it something else, but they can't call it "[Epic-level Wizard]'s SOD Effect From Hell" or whatever you called it.

Actually, though, you're not really giving up your rights. You're just agreeing to grant an identical "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license" to anyone who reads your new rules.

WotC can't really bend anybody over in court for publishing an exact copy of everything in the SRD because they've already granted that perpetual license to "use" and "Distribute" all that Content. Furthermore, they've designated everything in the SRD as OGC, with the exception of a bunch of trademarked names, thus putting all that material under the perpetual license.

Note in the Definitions section what Open Gaming Content is, then look at the defination of Product Identity.

The Open Gaming Content is actually things that can't be copyrighted. Ideas can't be copyrighted or trademarked, so stuff like HPs and wizards are safe. You don't even need an Opening Gaming license to use it, but it is nice that they've essentially agreed in writing to not litigate about it.

Product Identity is actually everything in the SRD. They have reserved those rights in very definite copyright terms, on top of a bunch of trademarked stuff like mind flayers.

What this means is that you can have a spell called Entangle thats a 1st level spell that makes vines that entangle foolios, but you have to have a different text from the SRD or Player's Handbook.

This is why Pathfinder hasn't used any cut and pastes from the SRD for their Alpha release. Races, skills, feats, etc, even use mostly different numbers and names for essentially this reason; thats all Product Identity. Essentially, it looks like Paizo hired a lawyer who told them that they could make a version of DnD and told them what to avoid doing to prevent successful litigation.

[Koumei]

numbers and names for essentially this reason; thats all Product Identity. Essentially, it looks like Paizo hired a lawyer who told them that they could make a version of DnD and told them what to avoid doing to prevent successful litigation.

So they might not have shown that much intelligence with their balance, but they were smart enough to look into "how to not be pestered with a lawsuit."

[Voss]

It helps that they don't let the designers anywhere *near* the legal documents. Hasbro has a nice big legal team that wanders in and says 'Shut the fuck up and sign this' to anyone that is actually necessary.

Of course, fun note on the GSL. Apparently, while the D&D Experience thing was happening in Arlington at the end of february, some of the documents came through the designers offices after they had all trooped off for the planes. So they mentioned that it essentially had to wait a week until they got back to deal with it. Now, I don't know exactly how they run things, business-wise, back at Wizard's HQ, but every damn modern hotel in the DC area is equipped with these magical machines called 'computers' and 'faxes' and go out of their way to help business travelers deal with exactly this issue (juggling paperwork from across the country). And yeah, having attended other events in the very hotel this was in, they could have handled this shit in under an hour.

But instead it was a useful excuse for why the GSL crap wasn't done. For a week or so, anyway. I don't know what their excuse is at this point. But hey, at least with 10 weeks left before the release date, the books are 'done' and off to the printers. So there might actually be proofs and leaked pdfs in the coming weeks.

[Prak]

Prak, please give me a source for "3.5 license axed in 2009". That may be extremely relevant for Dreamscarred Press ... (and it doesn't seem the owners know about it, though I might be wrong).

Ah, yeah: last time I tried to post at Paizo (Flamewarrior, a.k.a. me, made a couple posts already), it seemed extremely slow and prone to error - that being the reason why I didn't join the other Denizens: I got tired of reposting stuff. If it turns out that those computers in particular were crappy, it's another story.

My source is but a man, so I won't cite him, though I may ask his source next time I see him.

edit: Ok, his source was a guy from Platinum Publishing at wizardworld, so it's really just a rumor, but it does come from a guy whose job may be affected.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

K: Though I never went to law school, I think you're completely misreading the OGL. It looks like you're confusing the definitions of Open Game Content and Product Identity. The definition of Open Game Content includes all mechanics and anything else specifically designated as Open Game Content. The Product Identity definition includes things like poses and the descriptions of spells, supernatural abilities, and other things. Basically, you give up your rights to the mechanics but not the name or flavor text. Somebody can use the exact same spell you drew up and call it something else, but they can't call it "[Epic-level Wizard]'s SOD Effect From Hell" or whatever you called it.

Actually, though, you're not really giving up your rights. You're just agreeing to grant an identical "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license" to anyone who reads your new rules.

WotC can't really bend anybody over in court for publishing an exact copy of everything in the SRD because they've already granted that perpetual license to "use" and "Distribute" all that Content. Furthermore, they've designated everything in the SRD as OGC, with the exception of a bunch of trademarked names, thus putting all that material under the perpetual license.

Note in the Definitions section what Open Gaming Content is, then look at the defination of Product Identity.

The Open Gaming Content is actually things that can't be copyrighted. Ideas can't be copyrighted or trademarked, so stuff like HPs and wizards are safe. You don't even need an Opening Gaming license to use it, but it is nice that they've essentially agreed in writing to not litigate about it.

Product Identity is actually everything in the SRD. They have reserved those rights in very definite copyright terms, on top of a bunch of trademarked stuff like mind flayers.

What this means is that you can have a spell called Entangle thats a 1st level spell that makes vines that entangle foolios, but you have to have a different text from the SRD or Player's Handbook.

This is why Pathfinder hasn't used any cut and pastes from the SRD for their Alpha release. Races, skills, feats, etc, even use mostly different numbers and names for essentially this reason; thats all Product Identity. Essentially, it looks like Paizo hired a lawyer who told them that they could make a version of DnD and told them what to avoid doing to prevent successful litigation.

It is interesting that they worded the definition of OGC the way they did. There is something in the definition of Product Identity that makes me wonder, though. After the big list of stuff that's considered Product Identity, there's the phrase "and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity" (italics mine). The use of the word other implies that all of the preceding things must also be able to be trademarked. I'm not sure what the exact definition of a trademark is, but I'm pretty sure a whole paragraph can't be a trademark. If that limitation is applied to Product Identity, then the last part of the definition of OGC, "and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor" allows the argument that everything in the SRD except for the words and phrases identified in the legal disclaimer OGC, despite what WotC may have been trying to pull.

Of course, since the legal costs of a suit are a huge pain for any gaming company besides WotC (or maybe White Wolf), it's likely that Paizo doesn't want to take that chance and tried for something so airtight WotC wouldn't even try to sue.

[josephbt]

Frank mentioned something about backgrounds. I seem to have missed that part. Where can i find those backgrounds?

[Prak]

I started playtesting some of the stuff with a standard group of adventurers (elf wiz, dwarf ftr, human clr, halfling rog), I tested them at first level against a group of five orcs, the standard rule of martial characters outpacing casters was true, with the fighter dropping four orcs himself, and the wizard getting dropped turn one. The fifth orc was dropped by the rogue.

However, as this is really the first time I've playtested something, I have no clue how to interpret these results.

I remember a while ago a list was drawn up on the WotC boards to be used to make sure each class had something it could do and could go 50/50 against said challenges, anyone happen to know what that list was?

[Voss]

I started playtesting some of the stuff with a standard group of adventurers (elf wiz, dwarf ftr, human clr, halfling rog), I tested them at first level against a group of five orcs, the standard rule of martial characters outpacing casters was true, with the fighter dropping four orcs himself, and the wizard getting dropped turn one. The fifth orc was dropped by the rogue.

However, as this is really the first time I've playtested something, I have no clue how to interpret these results.

It depends. A single test can have skewed results and doesn't mean very much. Particularly with first level D&D characters. The variance in the d20 rolls can sway the outcome wildly. Any of those characters is perfectly capable of dropping an orc. But of course the wizard can just cast sleep, and after the full round action, drop them all.

[JonSetanta]

It depends. A single test can have skewed results and doesn't mean very much. Particularly with first level D&D characters. The variance in the d20 rolls can sway the outcome wildly. Any of those characters is perfectly capable of dropping an orc. But of course the wizard can just cast sleep, and after the full round action, drop them all.

But as a friend explained, "Wizards can only do that trick a few times each day" to which I replied "Wands." to which he replied "If they can get them."

Plus, it's no guarantee. AC varies wildly with each encounter while saves are a product of class bonus and ability score. AC is difficult for some to bypass at early levels but practically negligible quite soon, while once numerically succeeded by a painfully focused spell DC (feats, high caster stat, item, w/e) the save becomes less of a defense and more of a decoration or afterthought for characters.
Having AC and saves run on different tracks was a big mistake and I'm glad 4e fixes that, but not exactly by using their new method of attack-vs-defense.

[Voss]

True, but at first level, playtesting has always been kind of a joke. You're really throwing a day for roughly a 25% chance at total success or total failure, no matter what you're doing, unless you're doing something really suboptimal. A well built fighter is going to drop an orc with a single greatsword hit. The orcs are probably going fail their will save.

It really comes down to the flat percentages, and orcs fail a will save against sleep on a 16 or less. (assuming a wiz with an 18 int and no spell focus). So unless they can attack him during the full round casting bullshit, 4 out of 5 fail, most of the time. Similarly, the fighter hits orcs on an 8+. You can sit down and crank throw the math if you want, has much better odds (double) of attacking four times of many orcs. The wizard wins.

And this is why Paizo is stupid. They've done nothing to change the paradigm, and have stated that they have no intention of doing so. They're just slathering more stupid shit on a hopelessly broken system. 4e has a lot wrong with it, and there is a lot of stupid assumptions they didn't bother to correct, but damn. At least they didn't assume that just making the numbers bigger somehow fixes things. I'm not convinced they did the math the right way, but at least they recognized that it couldn't stay the way it was in 3e. (Though Mearls is still an idiot for not realizing secondary items really do affect the math).

So yeah, thats my opinion on Paizo's alpha document. Its so stupid, it makes 4e design look well thought out and potentially... almost good.

The skills in particular make me angry. 4e annoys with me with the 'you gradually get better in everything shit'. But Paizo one-ups them on the stupid shit with skills. You literally go from knowing *nothing at all*, no ranks, just pure stat bonus, to *max ranks* for your level (because you gain a skill at every even level). So, from 0 to potentially 23. Instantly. For no apparent reason whatsoever. And this happens 10 times.

And somehow, spending a feat to use your str bonus instead of charisma bonus is worthwhile to someone. A feat. Thats all it does. Really, make an exception for intimidate (chr *or* str). Thats just damn insulting. Paizo has been working with 3e material for how many years? And this guy has been working on this document since october and this is the best he can do? Fuck. I'd have so much confidence in their complete and utter failure right now, but I know that most gamers are terribly stupid and equate 'good design' with 'brand loyalty'.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

That and most of Paizo's customer base is so radically anti-4e that they'll stick with anything similar to their beloved 3.5. But really, Paizo's trapped into some semblance of 3.5 compatability by the fact that their main product is these epic multi-part adventure paths. Who wants that series of modules you just enjoyed to become obsolete because a new edition came out right afterward? That's a lot of material to convert if you ever want to do that adventure path with another group.

And to be fair, not everything they did totally sucks. I actually like the idea of giving fighters a reduction in ACP. The problem is that they paired it up with the incredible escalating AC bonus and made them choose a kind of armor. They really should just give them the scaling ACP reduction no matter what kind of armor they wear.

[Prak]

I actually didn't even bother with the variance of rolls, figuring average roll was the best way to test the system.

[Voss]

That and most of Paizo's customer base is so radically anti-4e that they'll stick with anything similar to their beloved 3.5. But really, Paizo's trapped into some semblance of 3.5 compatability by the fact that their main product is these epic multi-part adventure paths. Who wants that series of modules you just enjoyed to become obsolete because a new edition came out right afterward? That's a lot of material to convert if you ever want to do that adventure path with another group.

And to be fair, not everything they did totally sucks. I actually like the idea of giving fighters a reduction in ACP. The problem is that they paired it up with the incredible escalating AC bonus and made them choose a kind of armor. They really should just give them the scaling ACP reduction no matter what kind of armor they wear.

But negating the ACP is so incredibly irrelevant its not worth being a class feature, particularly with their skill hack. Past about level 5 you won't care, because mathematically it doesn't actually matter.

[JonSetanta]

About the skills-equal-to-level thing: it occured to me today that one could do away with the whole success/failure system of skill check (using a level-appropriate bonus) vs. DC (also level-appropriate) by lowering/removing the bonuses of both skill ranks and DCs.
One has only situational modifiers, item and spell bonuses, and ability score bonuses left.
Of course, preventing a L1 from accomplishing tasks a L20 alone should succeed in would require some effort, but seriously.. how many really good shipwrights, blacksmiths, or jewelers in a fantasy setting are questing and fighting to advance their art?

Skills should be tied to time. Time gives situational bonuses independent of level.
Only in-combat skills should be worth considering, and even then it wouldn't be skills per se as much as flat-out level appropriate abilities with the pass/fail system.
So saying that Rogues, for instance, are skill-dependent would be changed to "Rogues get abilities that provide more options in combat".

[Voss]

That doesn't really change it that much, though- if you drop the skill ranks and the DCs, you really haven't changed it at all. And its fairly close to the 4e system too, which is pretty much just adventuring skills.

Its a lot like going back to the 2nd edition system

[JonSetanta]

Yeah but without ranks there's much less bother with distributing points and more worry about how long you're doing the task, how much time/effort you've done similar task in the past, and the situation modifiers.

Nothing sadder than a decent non-Rogue putting tons of cross-class skill ranks into Spot and Listen for a measly little 1-3 ranks.