New for TRAILseeker patrons! We've reached our 50th article, in which Carl Cramér introduces a new fighter archetype for the Pathfinder RPG - the fighting familiar! The fighting familiar is a bodyguard and partner to a spellcaster with a magical life-long bond, and the ability to deliver his partner's spells via melee attacks. Illustrated by Rick Hershey.
[h=4]The Future of TRAILseeker[/h]
This message was posted to TRAILSeeker patrons a few days ago. It deals with discussions we've been having about changing the format of TRAILseeker a little:
Greetings, TRAILseeker patrons! We at EN Publishing would like to solicit your input on something we've been chatting about behind the scenes.
First, I'd like to make it clear - we haven't decided anything. We've just been talking, and we felt that your input would add immensely to the discussion.
Right now we have 166 wonderful patrons, and we hope that you've been enjoying our efforts thus far. We do our best to bring you regular, professionally produced Pathfinder material for your games.
Now, one idea we've considered (and only that - vaguely considered) is the idea of focusing on adventures rather than rules material. The reason for that is that we do get feedback that the Pathfinder game has vast amounts of rules material already, and that standalone adventures are more useful.
So this was a hypothetical proposal:
We produce three short linked adventures (making a super-mini adventure path) per month and one related rules article. For example, an underwater trilogy with a rules article about underwater environments, spells, etc. Each adventure would be about 10 pages long. Basically, we'd be trying to provide short plug-in stuff rather than long 6-month adventure paths. Think of it like a certain magazine which produced D&D adventures until a few years ago!
Everyone gets everything, whatever your pledge level.
It's our hope that that structure might appeal to more people than simply rules articles. But we'd love your thoughts on it.
Importantly, this is no more than a suggestion. There are no plans at present to change anything; we just feel that with our 1-year anniversary coming, we should check in with you and see what we can do better in the future.
What do you think? Good, bad?
[h=4]The Future of TRAILseeker[/h]
This message was posted to TRAILSeeker patrons a few days ago. It deals with discussions we've been having about changing the format of TRAILseeker a little:
Greetings, TRAILseeker patrons! We at EN Publishing would like to solicit your input on something we've been chatting about behind the scenes.
First, I'd like to make it clear - we haven't decided anything. We've just been talking, and we felt that your input would add immensely to the discussion.
Right now we have 166 wonderful patrons, and we hope that you've been enjoying our efforts thus far. We do our best to bring you regular, professionally produced Pathfinder material for your games.
Now, one idea we've considered (and only that - vaguely considered) is the idea of focusing on adventures rather than rules material. The reason for that is that we do get feedback that the Pathfinder game has vast amounts of rules material already, and that standalone adventures are more useful.
So this was a hypothetical proposal:
We produce three short linked adventures (making a super-mini adventure path) per month and one related rules article. For example, an underwater trilogy with a rules article about underwater environments, spells, etc. Each adventure would be about 10 pages long. Basically, we'd be trying to provide short plug-in stuff rather than long 6-month adventure paths. Think of it like a certain magazine which produced D&D adventures until a few years ago!
Everyone gets everything, whatever your pledge level.
It's our hope that that structure might appeal to more people than simply rules articles. But we'd love your thoughts on it.
Importantly, this is no more than a suggestion. There are no plans at present to change anything; we just feel that with our 1-year anniversary coming, we should check in with you and see what we can do better in the future.
What do you think? Good, bad?
