Damiel

Twisted Crow's page

7 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS


brad2411 wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
brad2411 wrote:
Also you talk about 2 articles but there are more then 2 articles on the alchemist and once again I will state that they have talked about the Alchemist in almost everything we have seen them do from playtests to interviews.

Part of that issue may be because there are two blog posts, other folks in game journalism have *wanted* to talk about the alchemist. As far as interviews and such go, I've been on a few of them, but I'm as likely to talk about action economy, my love of black and white art (though I admit it might be nostalgia) and Shadow of the Demon Lord as I am about Alchemy.

Shadow of the Demon Lord, yes please!!

Off topic, but I'm excited to see shout-outs to this system (and that a designer with Paizo wrote some support content). I fell in love with the rule simplifications, character progression, and default setting fluff. After a one-off test session several weeks ago I'm finally starting a full campaign with it - excited to see how it plays out.


JRutterbush wrote:
Desferous wrote:

It may be too late, but should there even be classes?

If there is going to be a redesign, how about opening the system to allow people's imaginations to really run?

The class system still boxes people into roles. It seems like systems have danced around it some, but What if there were skill strands based on attributes from which people could learn?

Just like you only have so much time to learn so much, you can be great at one or two skills or mediocre at a few?

Maybe characters could get investment points for particular strands based on primary attributes - intelligence is your primary attribute - you get points for intelligence based skills, same for str, wisdom, dexterity, etc.

I've always believed that things would work better with Adept, Expert, and Warrior determining your base chassis (hit points, skills, and so on), then allowing you to choose sets of class features to build what you want. But Pathfinder got its success by aiming at people who wanted things to stay the way they were, so I never really expected them to do anything even remotely like that.

I think something like Legend's system might work alright for a game like Pathfinder, though. They had a decent sized list of classes, but each class's features were divided into three "tracks" of themed abilities. You could multiclass by simply replacing one of your class's tracks with any one track from another class, and there was one class that had a track that was literally "choose a track from another class".

Shadow of the Demon Lord uses a path system similar to what you describe. Players start with an ancestry and at level 1 they pick a novice class (priest, warrior, magician, rogue). Then at two more points they select an expert and master path which can allow further specialization or open up new options.

With additional source books, there's something like 60 expert paths and 120 master paths available. Very flexible, but not sure if it's a good fit for something that should be the second iteration of Pathfinder.


The first campaign I was GM for ended when the party decided to try using dimension door in an alcove that had a door blocked by a collapsed wall. They specified to just go 10 feet in the direction of the blockage which put them in the area's "boss fight" chamber without the added benefit of having cleared the rooms prior.

The whole time they had been meticulously clearing the place room by room so I'm not entirely sure why the sudden impatience with a blocked door when it was far from the only option available.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Benchak the Nightstalker wrote:
One of my players recognized the viol, but to be fair, that player was Jim Groves, who wrote book 6.

You know meta gaming is out of control when a player actively authors the ending of the adventure their on.


Set wrote:

I've been reading through the last couple Bestiaries (I'm not a monster guy, generally, so apart from the art, I've rarely had much use for Bestiaries), and noticed the Deep Ones and Deep One Hybrids, which, IMO, are so much sexier than Skum or Gillfolk, and with some flavor and mechanical tweaks, I think I'd prefer the Deep Ones and Hybrids in those roles.

Over in the Strange Aeons board, Adam Daigle mentions that he would have preferred using Deep Ones to Skum had the former been available in the past when Skum were established as residing in a certain location.


Eisenbaer wrote:
So, what happens if Oathsday pulls off her bluff, and gets escorted to the safe zone? Bide her time until the heroes actually figure things out and set everyone free?

I guess ultimately GM discretion. In the survivor descriptions, it states that one of the patients is subject to being replaced by a doppelganger who seeks to destroy the Desnan shrine blocking bad dreams. If not that, then she could be interested in picking off survivors one at a time or, as you said, just wants to lay low until escape is possible.


I have recently been getting into the Golarion setting after playing for a couple years in homebrew worlds. I have picked up a few of the Campaign Setting books and really enjoy the content but I was wondering if there are any instances of older material being made obsolete by newer releases?

For example, I heard that the old Dragons Revisited isn't the most up-to-date information on the subject. If that's the case, is there a "more correct" book that contains that information? Furthermore, are there any other instances where this occurs? I would like to learn more about the setting while avoiding conflicting (or repeated) content.