What good things did SKR make?

[Tanuki Tales]

So, this was a line of discussion in that other thread that was never properly addressed. Either in crunch or in fluff, what good things did Sean K. Reynolds produce over the years he was employed by WotC and Paizo?

Please remain objective here; this thread is only about the merits of the mechanics and writing he produced, not about him as a person. Don't stray into any commentary or opinions concerning him as a person, keep it civil and about game design/writing only.

[HammeredWharf]

Factotum and dungeoncrasher, according to the previous threads. Overall, he contributed to Dungeonscape, which was one of the better 3.5 books IMO. Trap encounters, dungeoncrashers, some nifty PRCs, that one barbarian variant that uses Survival as Search, etc. Most of them were probably not made by SKR, but it's still an accomplishment.

[eggynack]

Factotum and dungeoncrasher, according to the previous threads. Overall, he contributed to Dungeonscape, which was one of the better 3.5 books IMO. Trap encounters, dungeoncrashers, some nifty PRCs, that one barbarian variant that uses Survival as Search, etc. Most of them were probably not made by SKR, but it's still an accomplishment.
That's Jason Bulmahn you be talking about.

[HammeredWharf]

Yes, looks like I remembered wrong. SKR isn't even mentioned in Dungeonscape's credits.

[Psyren]

His Books I Wrote (http://www.seankreynolds.com/store/index.html) page lists such notable splats as Ghostwalk, Savage Species, Unapproachable East and Fiend Folio. As for what proportion or which specific entries can be attributed to him, probably the only way to find that out is to ask the man himself (or someone else from the project.)

[Fax Celestis]

Gnomes of Golarion, Guide to the River Kingdoms, Skinsaw Murders, Ultimate Magic, Advanced Player's Guide, Inner Sea World Guide, Anger of Angels, Champions of Valor, Ghostwalk, Unapproachable East, Fiend Folio, Savage Species.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Did he have a hand in creating the Magus class?

[Snowbluff]

Savage Species, Savage Progressions, and Divine Minion are his, and they are ripe for abuse. And by that I mean they are total crap and you should love them like me.

Ghostwalk is rather "meh" in my opinion. Fiend Folio is the same, save for Fiend of Possesion and maybe the symbiont stuff.

I guess it really comes down to how much dumpster diving you are willing to do in order to find something useful.

[nyjastul69]

His contribution to Savage Species was the monster classes.

[Vanitas]

I thought Ghostwalk was Monte Cook's book. SKR probably did some monsters there, that's kind of his thing.

[3WhiteFox3]

He wrote for the Bestiary and Bestiary 2. The monster books are some of my favorite things about Pathfinder. Whether he wrote the monsters I like is an entirely different matter, however.

[Sith_Happens]

Ghostwalk is rather "meh" in my opinion.

You mean the Book of the Glove of the Master Strategist? I just checked, and apparently it actually has 252 more pages than that one. Who knew?:smalltongue:

[Drachasor]

He wrote for the Bestiary and Bestiary 2. The monster books are some of my favorite things about Pathfinder. Whether he wrote the monsters I like is an entirely different matter, however.

That's the real crux of the problem. It's hard to single out what one person is mostly responsible for on a given book -- especially if we don't know the design process and how review and input from others was done.

[Starbuck_II]

His contribution to Savage Species was the monster classes.

The monster classes were a hit and miss, but I can fondly remember him there.

[Snowbluff]

You mean the Book of the Glove of the Master Strategist? I just checked, and apparently it actually has 252 more pages than that one. Who knew?:smalltongue:

That and Rapid Wrath, which is a cheap item to disassemble for double movement speed. The sentiment applies to most of the sources I noted, so I entirely agree here.

[Vanitas]

Ghostwalk is a setting book and it's quite an interesting one at that. Are you guys really saying the book is bad because there is no overpowered material in it?

[Psyren]

His contribution to Savage Species was the monster classes.

Not that I care about Savage Species but do you have a source for this?


That's the real crux of the problem. It's hard to single out what one person is mostly responsible for on a given book -- especially if we don't know the design process and how review and input from others was done.

Indeed - nor should it really matter. Every book is a collaborative effort. As many bad ideas got killed as good ones, I'd bet.

[Seerow]

His Books I Wrote (http://www.seankreynolds.com/store/index.html) page lists such notable splats as Ghostwalk, Savage Species, Unapproachable East and Fiend Folio. As for what proportion or which specific entries can be attributed to him, probably the only way to find that out is to ask the man himself (or someone else from the project.)

I thought the goal was to list good things SKR made?

[Psyren]

I thought the goal was to list good things SKR made?

Whatever your personal opinion on the splats I listed, I've seen them brought up enough here and at BG to know that they're fine. Take it up with the other optimizers, not with me.

[Snowbluff]

Ghostwalk is a setting book and it's quite an interesting one at that. Are you guys really saying the book is bad because there is no overpowered material in it?

Gloves of the Master Strategist isn't an overpowered item. Otherwise I agree with you. Ghostwalk is a setting book for a setting I will probably never play in, and therefore is useless to me unless it has some interesting items for me to use.

I really don't use any of SKR's stuff unless it's messed up in some way. All of the material I pointed to is very easy to abuse, and that's pretty much all it's good for.

[Fax Celestis]

You mean the Book of the Glove of the Master Strategist? I just checked, and apparently it actually has 252 more pages than that one. Who knew?:smalltongue:

It also has Sherem-Lar Sorcery!

[Larkas]

Like brought up in the other thread, his point-buy system for feats is awesome. The pricing, not so much.

[Talya]

Seriously, Champions of Valor (Forgotten Realms 3.5) is one of my favorite books ever written for d20/D&D.

Anger of Angels (Sword & Sorcery d20) has been used a lot in campaigns I've been in, too, to help flesh out angelic/celestial species and character options.

[eggynack]

Like brought up in the other thread, his point-buy system for feats is awesome. The pricing, not so much.
True enough, though the pricing is, as you noted, bad to the point of distraction. It's a rather inexplicable thing.

[Jeff the Green]

Seriously, Champions of Valor (Forgotten Realms 3.5) is one of my favorite books ever written for d20/D&D.

Absolutely. There are awesome ACFs and some exalted feats that are actually worth taking.

Ghostwalk is seriously one of my favorite books. I'd really like to play in that setting; I just haven't found a DM willing to run it.

[Fax Celestis]

Absolutely. There are awesome ACFs and some exalted feats that are actually worth taking.

Ghostwalk is seriously one of my favorite books. I'd really like to play in that setting; I just haven't found a DM willing to run it.

I would play in it too.

[Vortenger]

I think that Pathfinder (the whole thing) can be left in his camp. He made significant contributions to keeping my game alive. That gets points from me. Granted, he's just a team member, but without that team...

[nyjastul69]

Not that I care about Savage Species but do you have a source for this?



Indeed - nor should it really matter. Every book is a collaborative effort. As many bad ideas got killed as good ones, I'd bet.

Don't know if I can find a quote. But I frequented his and Monte's messag boards until the end of 3.5's run. I remember him mentioning that his credit should have been moved from 'contributions' to cover credit. He did the Minotaur class first. The writers liked it and asked he produce more. He then did so. Maybe I'll search his boards when I get a chance. I don't know how far back the archive goes. I haven't visited his site in few years though.

ETA: I also recall, I believe from Monte's boards, that Ghostwalk was a collaboration between Sean and Monte. Monte did most of the fluff and Sean did most of the crunch.

[Rubik]

Absolutely. There are awesome ACFs and some exalted feats that are actually worth taking.

Ghostwalk is seriously one of my favorite books. I'd really like to play in that setting; I just haven't found a DM willing to run it.Problem is, the ghost options suck. I'd never want to play a ghost in Ghostwalk, which is a problem, given that they're the focus of the setting.

[eggynack]

Absolutely. There are awesome ACFs and some exalted feats that are actually worth taking.
Those exalted feats are a bit disappointing, though I suppose they're marginally better than the dregs you'd otherwise end up taking on a VoP character. The sanctified spells in that book are kinda sweet though. Animate with the spirit is particularly awesome.

[Fax Celestis]

Problem is, the ghost options suck. I'd never want to play a ghost in Ghostwalk, which is a problem, given that they're the focus of the setting.

No, the Eidolon and Eidoloncer classes suck. The ghost options are pretty good, especially considering if your DM uses equivalent exchange LA options (everyone's playing LA +3, just pretend no one has it!).

[Talya]

dragonloads of substitution levels, too (the precursors to PF's archtypes).

As nice as the mechanical aspects were, though, the "fluff" aspects are so much more useful.

Why do people play Forgotten Realms? (No, i'm not being sarcastic or rhetorical.) It's because of the abundance of fleshed out world - fluff for everything. Tens of thousands of years of detailed histories - dozens of cities and countries with detail on each, an entire book full of gods, custom religious orders for each one of them, details on rivalries, alliances... and COV delivers all these things and more. I love it.

[Psyren]

Problem is, the ghost options suck. I'd never want to play a ghost in Ghostwalk, which is a problem, given that they're the focus of the setting.

In addition to what Fax said, you also have to answer the question, "suck compared to what?" Because a MM ghost, with its +5 LA and lack of Con, is a much worse option most of the time than being a Ghostwalk ghost.

[Lord_Gareth]

Seriously, Champions of Valor (Forgotten Realms 3.5) is one of my favorite books ever written for d20/D&D.

Anger of Angels (Sword & Sorcery d20) has been used a lot in campaigns I've been in, too, to help flesh out angelic/celestial species and character options.

I was actually really saddened by Anger of Angels. The direction it took celestials, especially half-celestials, was just sorta...shallow. I suppose I should've expected it (not Because SKR, just Because D20) but it was still a letdown.

[Rubik]

No, the Eidolon and Eidoloncer classes suck. The ghost options are pretty good, especially considering if your DM uses equivalent exchange LA options (everyone's playing LA +3, just pretend no one has it!).IIRC, if you're a ghost, you have no choice but to level in eidolon or eidoloncer, which ruins any number of builds, since the classes themselves, as you say, suck.

Unless I'm mistaken?


In addition to what Fax said, you also have to answer the question, "suck compared to what?" Because a MM ghost, with its +5 LA and lack of Con, is a much worse option most of the time than being a Ghostwalk ghost.Except you can take the savage progression class and buy off each level as you take it, since you only ever have +1 LA at a time, and being a ghost is one of the very very very few options at anywhere near +5 LA that just might be worth it, which is pretty amazing, overall.

[Talya]

I was actually really saddened by Anger of Angels. The direction it took celestials, especially half-celestials, was just sorta...shallow. I suppose I should've expected it (not Because SKR, just Because D20) but it was still a letdown.

I would argue that the direction it took Celestials in general was far more... modern.

This board's rules of discussion make talking about the fluff behind Anger of Angels rather hard to do without violating those rules, but suffice it to say that AoA felt like it belonged in medieval and renaissance europe and the middle-east. As such, I find the fluff less appealling than regular D&D by a long shot.

With that said, it still had some very nice options for building celestial-typed characters.

[Person_Man]

D&D/Pathfinder books often have 3-10 different writers, with the credits buried in the fine print unless you wrote at least 30%ish of it. In particular, monsters, Feats, magic items, spells, NPCs, etc. are often written by freelance writers, and often without knowing each other. Any part of a book can and usually is edited or rewritten by the editor, occasionally without the original writer's approval or foreknowledge.

So it's almost impossible to figure out who wrote what, unless you know the editor or all of the writers involved. The caveat is that if there is a public playtest, the writer will almost always be very active in whatever thread(s) there are about it.

[ksbsnowowl]

His credits include Unapproachable East and Fiend Folio?
Well, that's my all-time favorite D&D book, and my favorite of the monster manuals. So... yeah.

[Darrin]

It also has Sherem-Lar Sorcery!

Another gem in there: Torturous weapon enhancement, DC 12/17 Fort save vs. stunned for 1 round on every hit.

Three new Figurines of Wondrous Power, Clear Teardrop Ioun Stone, Phaant's Luckstone, and the bonerattle spell are all nifty. I'm also quite fond of the fetid breath spell and Message Arrow in the Web Enhancement.

[Axinian]

Wait, he helped on Unapproachable East? But there's actual nice things for martials in that book... nah! I don't believe it!

[Just to Browse]

The setting of Ghostwalk had the players play Ghosts in the city of ghosts, except they lost their ghost powers and were a lot like mortals saddled with LA +5.

I would enjoy a ghost campaign, but not a Ghostwalk one.

[Person_Man]

In his defense, being a successful pulp writer (games, fantasy, sci-fi, comic books, or anything else where you're not paid well unless you're a big name) is all about volume. It's unclear exactly what he's written, but he's clearly written a lot of it. That's no small task.

[Fax Celestis]

IIRC, if you're a ghost, you have no choice but to level in eidolon or eidoloncer, which ruins any number of builds, since the classes themselves, as you say, suck.

Unless I'm mistaken?

You're not, but there's a variant provided (pg 12) that literally everyone I've discussed using the book with has chosen to go with.

The Eidoloncer is basically whatever casting class you want to walk into it with, plus bonus ghost feats. Enter as a wizard and you even get a HD upgrade.

Eidolon itself messes with a bunch of builds, but you also can do a bunch of interesting builds with it itself. It's the same sort of setup as the fighter (just trading Fort for Will), and a bunch of the ghost feats are actually worth taking. Agony Touch/Enervating Touch/Shriveling Touch with Touch Attack Specialization, Ethereal Sidestep, Witchlight/Greater Witchlight, all have some interesting build connotations that no one's really explored.

[Jeff the Green]

IIRC, if you're a ghost, you have no choice but to level in eidolon or eidoloncer, which ruins any number of builds, since the classes themselves, as you say, suck.

Unless I'm mistaken?

No, you're right. Preferably a DM would houserule this.

Speaking of, anyone else interested in a PbP Ghostwalk game? Maybe we could find a DM for it.

[Kudaku]

Gnomes of Golarion

Gnomes of Golarion was good? No blue text implied or intended here - it's just that the only thing I ever see referenced from that book is the Bewildering Koan feat, which is... Well, ridiculous is about the most charitable description I can think of.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

Theres also that weapon modification that makes a sword into a chainsaw.

[Coidzor]

I would argue that the direction it took Celestials in general was far more... modern.

This board's rules of discussion make talking about the fluff behind Anger of Angels rather hard to do without violating those rules, but suffice it to say that AoA felt like it belonged in medieval and renaissance europe and the middle-east. As such, I find the fluff less appealling than regular D&D by a long shot.

You seem to be contradicting yourself by saying it's modern and then saying it belongs to the dated period of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. :smallconfused:

[Fax Celestis]

Speaking of, anyone else interested in a PbP Ghostwalk game? Maybe we could find a DM for it.

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees

[Talya]

You seem to be contradicting yourself by saying it's modern and then saying it belongs to the dated period of the Middle Ages and Renaissance. :smallconfused:

Well, compared to D&D's inspirational sources of ancient greece, norse mythology, pagan ireland, etc., Medieval/Renaissance Europe/middleast is more modern.

[Alent]

Well, compared to D&D's inspirational sources of ancient greece, norse mythology, pagan ireland, etc., Medieval/Renaissance Europe/middleast is more modern.

The ancient middle east is also a very different animal from it's more modern form. For example, I've seen several sources that imply dust devils in the middle east were the origin of some forms of middle eastern angel beliefs and djinni both.

The modern interpretations of angels are just a narrow slice of the pie.

[ksbsnowowl]

Theres also that weapon modification that makes a sword into a chainsaw.

Fleshgrinding? That ability was described in novels prior to 3rd edition (Tangled Webs, 1996)

[Psyren]

The setting of Ghostwalk had the players play Ghosts in the city of ghosts, except they lost their ghost powers and were a lot like mortals saddled with LA +5.

I would enjoy a ghost campaign, but not a Ghostwalk one.

Ghostwalk ghosts don't have LA - the web enhancement has the 3.5 version of the template.

[Endarire]

SKR, on the Pathfinder boards, made a call for me that taking 10 on a check required as much time as rolling the check once. Necessary for Arcane Mastery and Psionic Mastery, feats which allowed taking 10 on caster level checks (for arcane spells) and manifester level checks.

[Seerow]

SKR, on the Pathfinder boards, made a call for me that taking 10 on a check required as much time as rolling the check once. Necessary for Arcane Mastery and Psionic Mastery, feats which allowed taking 10 on caster level checks (for arcane spells) and manifester level checks.

My first thought: Oh, SKR made a ruling on the Paizo forums that didn't screw mundanes!
My second thought after reading the rest: Oh, it was being asked because it would benefit casters. That explains it.

[Psyren]

What "ruling?" That's RAW. Taking 20 is the one that changes the time.

[Seerow]

What "ruling?" That's RAW. Taking 20 is the one that changes the time.

We are talking about SKR. I would not be surprised to hear that he ruled taking 10 takes as long as making 10 checks, RAW be damned. I was commenting that it was nice that he got one thing right, at least.

[stack]

No, you're right. Preferably a DM would houserule this.

Speaking of, anyone else interested in a PbP Ghostwalk game? Maybe we could find a DM for it.

Tried that awhile back, no takers for dm.

[Tanuki Tales]

Guys, please stop with the bashing. This thread is supposed to be objective.

[Rubik]

Guys, please stop with the bashing. This thread is supposed to be objective.From what I've gathered, that is objective.

[Psyren]

Guys, please stop with the bashing. This thread is supposed to be objective.

I thought people got tired of dancing on his grave before Roland six-gunned the last thread but apparently not.

[Seerow]

I thought people got tired of dancing on his grave before Roland six-gunned the last thread but apparently not.

You act like the guy's dead, and like acknowledging he got a ruling correct is some horrible act. The guy is well known for giving bad rulings ignoring rule and defending them to the death. Acknowledging that while acknowledging he got some things right isn't 'dancing on his grave', it's being honest.

[Psyren]

You act like the guy's dead, and like acknowledging he got a ruling correct is some horrible act. The guy is well known for giving bad rulings ignoring rule and defending them to the death. Acknowledging that while acknowledging he got some things right isn't 'dancing on his grave', it's being honest.

It's an idiom. Of course he's not actually dead :smalltongue:

For example, "give a dog a bad name and hang him" - another saying relevant to this thread - does not literally refer to executing canines.

[nyjastul69]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Seerow]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Just to Browse]

And if you draw anything from Seerow's post, it's that SKR did something that was good, and Seerow liked it. SKR did a thing, and Seerow thought that thing was good (even though he was expecting something bad). That's totally on-topic, and the only thing dragging it off-topic is people complaining about the underhanded jabs that characterize half the posts involving Pathfinder anyways.

Nothing to see. Move along.

[Zaydos]

I didn't know he did the monster classes. I mean they were a really neat idea, a lot of Savage Species were neat ideas but mechanical failings and the monster classes were hit or miss, but they brought things together and a lot of the miss was due to being saddled with LAs balanced towards being weaker than an unoptimized fighter.

[Larkas]

I didn't know he did the monster classes. I mean they were a really neat idea, a lot of Savage Species were neat ideas but mechanical failings and the monster classes were hit or miss, but they brought things together and a lot of the miss was due to being saddled with LAs balanced towards being weaker than an unoptimized fighter.

Most of the problems associated with monster classes are due to them having to adhere perfectly to the monsters themselves, which means that they couldn't innovate. The idea itself is good, and with a little work, perfectly salvageable.

[Snowbluff]

Most of the problems associated with monster classes are due to them having to adhere perfectly to the monsters themselves, which means that they couldn't innovate. The idea itself is good, and with a little work, perfectly salvageable.

*shakes head* Reread the rules. You have to finish all of the class levels to multiclass. That's a major flaw. Draconomicon handles it better.

[NotAnAardvark]

At least no one made a "He made his way out the door" joke.

[Chronos]

*shakes head* Reread the rules. You have to finish all of the class levels to multiclass.
Which is exactly what's good about them, compared to the Draconomicon ones. If you only take one of the five, or seven, or ten levels of a monster class, what are you? You're not a minotaur... Are you a half-minotaur (in which case what's the other half)? A baby minotaur (that never grows up)? Allowing single-level dips in monster classes causes far more problems than it solves.

[DR27]

For example, "give a dog a bad name and hang him" - another saying relevant to this thread - does not literally refer to executing canines.Tell that to the Spaniards this time of year: http://www.vice.com/read/its-greyhound-murder-season-in-spain

[Larkas]

*shakes head* Reread the rules. You have to finish all of the class levels to multiclass. That's a major flaw. Draconomicon handles it better.

That wouldn't be unreasonable IF the classes were reasonable. It's kind of a circular problem, I think.

[Jeff the Green]

Tell that to the Spaniards this time of year: http://www.vice.com/read/its-greyhound-murder-season-in-spain

Ugh. That should have a trigger warning on it. I thought it was a symbolic hanging, like tossing a goat out of a church steeple. Nope. :smallannoyed:

[Snowbluff]

Which is exactly what's good about them, compared to the Draconomicon ones. If you only take one of the five, or seven, or ten levels of a monster class, what are you? You're not a minotaur... Are you a half-minotaur (in which case what's the other half)? A baby minotaur (that never grows up)? Allowing single-level dips in monster classes causes far more problems than it solves. At level 1 you're a medium minotaur. At level 3 you're a slightly bigger minotaur with a gore attack. That's not the issue, and it's easily solved.

The multiclassing rule severely limits the options available to a monster player. Almost all of the them are entirely terrible, which is no different from the old monsters.

Larkas, what if I wanted to play a minotaur warblade? I'd have to wait a bunch of levels. Even if it was reasonable, I wouldn't do it because I can't choose how much minotaur I have to take.

[nyjastul69]

{{Scrubbed}}

I fully understand that. Because people often act inappropriately doesn't make it any less inappropriate. I see nothing wrong in calling OT OT. That's all I did. I just pointed out the obvious. You are free to ignore my comments.

[Tanuki Tales]

From what I've gathered, that is objective.



My first thought: Oh, SKR made a ruling on the Paizo forums that didn't screw mundanes!
My second thought after reading the rest: Oh, it was being asked because it would benefit casters. That explains it.

This.


We are talking about SKR. I would not be surprised to hear that he ruled taking 10 takes as long as making 10 checks, RAW be damned. I was commenting that it was nice that he got one thing right, at least.

And this, are not objective. They're the kind of comments that got the last thread locked.

I'm not here to really defend SKR, because I don't like him at all, but I don't want this thread locked before it has run its course.

[Chronos]

How can a question like "what's good" ever be objective?

[Jeff the Green]

Tried that awhile back, no takers for dm.

That's a shame. Well, I'll PM you and Fax and we'll see what we can do about finding one. With three reliable players already signed on, the probability of finding a DM is a bit higher.

Anyone else who's interested should PM me.

[Drachasor]

Well, to be fair to SKR, good things are harder to notice. A good solid mechanic doesn't lead to people complaining about it most of the time or asking for clarifications or the like. And so it doesn't lead towards awkward conversations.

The bad stuff is what gets noticed and remembered when it leads to arguments.

[Tanuki Tales]

How can a question like "what's good" ever be objective?

Explain to me how you can't objectively state what the gaming community mostly reacted positively to from SKR. There are things they liked, there are things they didn't like and then there are mixed bags. All of that can be outlined without throwing in SKR bashing.

An objective approach to Seerow's comment would have been something like: "Oh, he ruled in that way? That's good to hear, since he has a precedent to rule otherwise."

That's completely objective.