Book of Erotic Fantasy for the Pathfinder generation. Does 5E have a 'morality' clause in their licensing?
5e has the OGL but no compatibility license as far as I know
I'm certainly NO expert on the matter, but I'm guessing they used "3.75" instead of "Pathfinder" exactly because of that, i.e., they cannot use the Pathfinder logo.(This is probably what the post meant... Just thought it wasn't 100% clear on a first reading).
Also, check out their previous KS. I am part of that one, it is WAY late and communication has been... lax. Things may be moving now (we shall see if it continues), but it far from delivered.
Here is the link:https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/962794554/strange-brew-pathfinder-the-ultimate-witch-and-wara bit over 2 years late.
Yes. My fault mostly.The book grew beyond my ability to control it.All doc's are turned in now and in layout.
My concern is less for the tardiness and more the lack of communication for a long while in the middle. True, and to be fair, things have been better the last few months.
I hope I can make up for that.
I think the saxophone soundtrack on that video just ruined D&D for me forever.
I rolled my eyes at this when I first read about it. Then I found out Tim was involved, which made me reconsider. However, I am also a backer of their first and it's lateness makes me not want to back this one. I'm on the fence.
That really is my fault. The book grew to an unwieldy size (550 pages) and had to be trimmed.That and the magic items really kicked my ass.So blame where it is due. But also all the docs are in and in layout. So hoping to see something soon.
One point of correction/clarification. I am not sure how "involved" I am yet. They adopted some of my OGC and then sent me the docs to review. We share a publisher (Misfit Studios) and a couple editors.Likely I will be doing more. Maybe a stretch goal. But yes 3.75 is Pathfinder mechanics but not the name.
Blech. Any such works I've seen before in gaming have been grotesque. Just...no.
I don't understand the need to add mechanics to what are clearly role playing opportunities.
I am a fan of the "Marriage" feats in the book. A nice for two characters to get a mechanical benefit under the 3.x rules.
Do they really need to do a KS to redo the Book of Erotic Fantasy? Are pathfinder players that bad at converting from D&D3e that they need this redo?I just don't get it. I'm 14, I play old Basic D&D or BFRPG, and I have no problem converting between other versions of D&D or other OSR and OGL games. I'm all for KS projects with new, innovative material, but this just looks like a rehash hoping to capitalize on shock value.
It's not really a conversion or an update, but something different.
It's more LGBT friendly, so yeah, totally different, entirely.
How convenient. Kickstarter rules clearly forbid multiple simultaneous projects. But even though the "risks" ection of this project brags about having two other open projects, the KS interface provides no way to cite that as a reason for reporting a project in violation of the rules. Give them their cut and KS will allow anything, I guess.
Do you have a link to that rule? I can't find it at all in their rules. Granted I am only one freelancer hired by the creator, but I can't find anything that explicitly forbids multiple Kickstarters.
https://www.kickstarter.com/help/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&term=post+more+than+once"We rarely permit running multiple projects at the same time, or launching a second project before fulfilling your first one. Having multiple live projects can confuse backers and split support. Running a project is a lot of work, and more than one live project will likely dilute your attention and energy."Like I said, they are pretty clear that they only allow one project at a time, up to and including fulfillment, with "rare" exceptions, but as I also said, they don't enforce their own rules, so do whatever you want, as long as they get their 5%, it's apparently "all good".
I think the rule is you can only have one project "funding" at a time.A project that has completed funding but hasn't fulfilled does not violate the rule.
This comment has been removed by the author.