Jason Rice's page

I've disagreed with Clark before, but in this instance, Clark's opinion was nearly identical to my own. The name could be better, and the writing was a little over-the-top for my taste.

However, this creature is a contender for my vote.

Whatever the mechanics say, zombies and vampires and ghosts are monsters, even though they're technically templates.

I echo Roguerouge here. While I also get a template vibe, I don't have a problem with it.

Nor do I have a problem with the use of mephits. Since I've never used them in a game, I don't have the preconceived notion of what a mephit should act like. Regardless, if Pathfinder re-invented goblins, why not mephits?

Additionally, limiting the scope of this creature isn't a deal-breaker to me either. Not every monster is found in a forest, and as long as it's more common than the terrasque, I don't see what the problem is.

Someone mentioned slivers. Yes, slivers do this, but I like slivers.

However, I can't help thinking that nailing down a CR will be tough. One of these might be about as tough as an orc. Ten DIFFERENT Lantern Thralls will be MUCH tougher than ten orcs.

You are in contention for my vote, but my concerns about the CR are still an issue in my mind.

However, I also think you missed a major flaw in the concept. Generally speaking, most nature-based religions would see eating an animal as a perfectly valid use of its life. If it was a carcass left in the wilderness to rot and not be used to sustain another life (due to hunting for sport), then you've got a good vengeance basis. I think making the argument that roasting a deer on a spit incurs nature's vengeance doesn't really hold up.

My thoughts as well. Not only does the spit make it look hokey, but it's not in line with the "spirit" (pun intended) of the concept. The spit makes this seem like some sort of "hunter's revenge" joke.

As for the creature walking upright and looking like a deer, I wonder if he wasn't trying to sneak in an Erastil reference.

Sorry, but I don't think this will get my vote.

Scotch Assassin: ACK! the Doppelganger is back!

To the Scotch Assassin: ACK! A Doppelganger!

Now to my opinion:

I normally hate saying something that's already been pointed out, but with so many conflicting opinions, I'll go ahead and give my opinion, re-stating something that has already been voiced.

In my opinion, this item walks a very fine line between item and creature. This submission could have benefited from a stat block to clarify the issue (can you attack it directly?). Unfortunately for you, that's not part of this round.

.

On the side of "item":

It looks like armor
It's worn as armor (a bearer can't wear other armor, can they?)
it "empowers their bearer"
it "grants a dark boon"

These are things that magic armor does. A creature would simply HAVE these powers, not grant them to someone wearing it. It also (probably) takes up the armor slot.

On the side of "creature":

Creatures that look like items have been done before (see: mimic)
It's described as a spider like creature.
It relies on it's host "like a knight her steed".

Using a host like a "steed" seems to imply that the Carapace Devil can utilize feats like mounted combat. That's something living things do, not objects.

.

Lacking a stat block (not part of this round) my opinion is that this is an item. However, the true issue is not really "Is this an item?". The true issue with this submission is that it's too vague with the description to clarify the question of it's role. That's probably not "Superstar".

Sorry. This is a decent idea, but considering it's problems, I don't think I'll be voting for it.

I like this creature, but from viewing the previous posts, I seem to be in the minority. Since you can't comment on your own submission, please allow me to rebut a few of the objections for you...

1) Only mentioning the larva: the rules for this round were to submit ONE monster. The adults have wings (obvious from it's name), the young do not. Wings imply flight. It's a simple assumption to say that adult's abilities are so different from it's young that it should probably be listed as a separate entry. Adults with wildly different abilities than their young are common in nature, especially among insects (see: mosquito)

2) It has mandibles: Again, in nature, creatures commonly possess weapons not directly related to their ability to eat. (see: rhinoceros)

3) You chose larva: I feel this shows both guts and creativity on your part. You took the path less traveled and picked a juvenile creature. Of all the monsters already published, only dragon young seem to have been statted. I've long had the opinion that there should be MORE entries on young monsters. Furthermore, I think choosing a monster's young is a good idea, since if the PC's don't take care of them now, they will only come back bigger and badder than before.

Furthermore, you have a cool landmine-like sand ability, and show you gave some thought to the ecology.

Perhaps I have a soft spot for you here, because of the entry I might have submitted if I had advanced. I had guessed that this year would be a creature, not a villain. The only difference between your submission and mine might have been that mine was a young version of an already statted monster (with different, yet related abilities). Yet, I think it's more than that. I think you have a good creature, regardless of what my almost-ran was. You showed creativity in both the creature and the ability of the creature.

GOOD JOB, and I hope you advance.

I also found a few problems with this submission.

The bit about not being able to speak, yet communicating and understanding language needs to be clarified.

I also don't like that magical healing turns this into a swarm of a different creature.

Why is it attracted to vengeance?

Finally, my biggest objection is that you seem to have gotten caught up in your idea, and failed to see it through to it's inevitable conclusion. This isn't old school basic D&D, where monsters politely stay put in their dungeon room, and wait for the PC's to discover them. Adventure writing has come a long way since then. Monsters move.

If any creature can be the host of an ardorwesp pupa, then what's to keep this thing from flying into a city (like one in the middle of a temperate forest or plain), where there are more people AND familiars than in the wild. A pupa forms into an adult ardorwesp in a single day, and you apparently made the ardorwesp asexual, since every ardorwesp has the ability to implant pupa. Each day, the number of ardorwesps in the city would double. This is world-changing stuff.

Last year, the golden rule for villains seemed to be "don't break our world", but a single ardorwesp in a city would do just that (see: black plague). Only, this would be an intellignet black plague, able to formulate strategy. PC's cant be everywhere at once. They can't fight every ardorwesp in a city, or even in multiple cities. Even if they could, a campaign full of fighting the same creature over and over would be boring.

You didn't do yourself any favors by making this a predator for everything. You should have stuck with magical beasts. If the ardorwesp is high enough CR to defend itself against the masses, then it's going to overrun the world. If it's low enough CR that most city militia can kill it (1st or 2nd level warriors), then it will become extinct when people start hunting these for their metal.

Sorry, it was a novel idea, but I'm just not buying the whole package.

Stone Baby

Aura moderate necromancy; CL 7th
Slot held; Price 39,200 gp; Weight 5 lbs.
Description
A stone baby is the result of a failed pregnancy in which the fetus is not expelled after death and is too large to be absorbed by the mother’s body. The fetus then calcifies, occasionally even fusing with the mother’s own bone structure. Properly enchanted, this item can act as a useful talisman against necromantic magic and the undead, protecting it’s bearer with the life it was denied. Once per day, when the bearer of a stone baby would be the target of a death effect or energy drain, the bearer is immediately granted the protection of the spell death ward. This effect lasts for 7 minutes after it has been activated. While carrying a stone baby, the bearer is continuously under the effect of the spell hide from undead. To gain either of the benefits listed above, the bearer must cradle the stone baby in one arm as if carrying and infant. Whenever within 60 feet of an undead creature, the stone baby will moan softly like an infant stirring in its sleep. This ability functions as detect undead, save that it operates in a 60 foot radius and no additional information can be attained save that an undead is within range. This last ability is always active regardless of whether the stone baby is being carried or not.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, death ward, hide from undead, detect undead; Cost 19,600 gp

Thanks Clark.

They said there was one submission that went "too far" with the nasty-gross stuff, and I suspect this was the submission they were talking about.

Perhaps my head is just in a different place than yours (I will be a first-time father in apx. 5 weeks), but this item is somewhat offensive to me. I can't think of this item without thinking of all the bad things I would do to someone if they tried to turn my baby into an unliving accessory to carry around. But I'll try and get past that, and give you my other thoughts.

The "golden rule" of 1st dates, which should also apply to first impressions, is never talk about religion or politics. Talking about doing something with an aborted fetus is waaay to close to both the medical abortion issue AND stem cell research issue. Politics. Avoid it.

Moving on to game mechanics,

1)There are no game rules for pregnancy, so therefore no way to rule if a fetus has miscarried (or was medically aborted).

2)There is also no rule defining when a fetus is too large to be absorbed by the mother.

3)There is no "held" slot

4) You don't indicate a way to get rid of this "item", which is INSIDE the character. Following that train of thought, there is also no way for a new character to use this item.

5) Your requirements for making this item are to be a) female, b) pregnant, c) miscarry the birth, d) miscarry late enough in the pregnancy that the baby is not absorbed by the mother, AND e) still meet all of the casting requirements. When is this ever going to happen? In 25 years of gaming, I've never seen any character, in any group I was part of, actually meet these requirements.

Re: Cane of Ages

Ghap

Age too high: Yes, choosing an age too high would have only the con damage effect. Perhaps I should have re-worded that.

Minimum age: Yes, the minimum age bit was difficult to phrase. As I said before, I had something like 10 different versions of that paragraph. That SHOULD have been a red flag to me. Azmahel had a great suggestion for this...

Azmahel

Wordcount: my wordcount was 299, so yes, that was an issue.

Young Template: I just kicked myself. Hard. That would have been MUCH easier. And much easier to understand.

Temporary bonuses: that was pretty much straight out of the spell descriptions that alter stats. I was afraid I would get "dinged" if I DIDN't put it in.

Rod: Someone else (Wicht) compared it to a staff, so perhaps this was an issue after all. I still don't think a cane is a rod (or a staff), but my opinion isn't the one that counts. Next year, I'm avoiding this issue altogether. Whatever I submit won't remotely resemble any other type of item.

Thanks to both of you (and again to Wicht). I'd still like to see what a judge thought, but I think you both helped me understand where I went wrong.

If I seem to be skipping around, it's because I am. I'm just commenting on the ones that catch my eye.

Re: Brand of the Unyielding Tyrant

I'm both happy and sad to see this item. My backup "almost ran" item was a branding iron. While similar to your item (it also applied Arcane Mark), it was still different in it's other effects. So, I'm happy, because someone else thinks a branding iron would be interesting. However, I'm sad because I was going to submit that item next year, but now I'm not so sure I should. It might be viewed as too similar to your item.

I have not seen Clark review your item yet (I may have missed it), but I saw someone else refer to it as a rod. I disagree. Just because it superficially resembles a rod, doesn't mean the item IS a rod. I felt the same way when someone refered to my cane as a staff, or a confection (top 32) as a potion. Using that same logic, one could argue that the brand is also a club, and therefore a weapon, since you could hit someone with the brand. I think the function defines the item, not a superficial resemblance to something else. I'm willing to call it a misc. magic item.

I think your downfall was that your item wasn't easily used, or very useful, by adventuring parties. NPC's? Yes. But not the players.

That's my 2 coppers. Take it for what it's worth, considering I have no design credits to my name, and I'm not judging this contest.

You asked for anyone to give feedback, so here are my thoughts...

Easy Jug
Aura: faint (minor) or moderate (medium and major) transmutation.
CL: 5th (minor), 7th (medium), 9th (major).
Slot: neck.
Price: 2,000 gp (minor), 8,000 gp (medium), 18,000 gp (major).
Weight: 1lb.
Description
From this mithral container that can be stored in a backpack, protudes a thin flexible tube that straps to the neck with a collar, reaching the lips of the holder.

I own one of these in real life (well, a cloth and plastic version anyway). As such, it's not very imaginative as a magic item.

Drinking one dose of the contents of the jug requires a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. A successful Dexterity check while doing so means the action is resolved as a swift action instead.
A check failed by 5 or more means the standard action is consumed without the dose being drank.

A couple of things. I feel you should just pick one. Standard or swift. Also, I'm doing this from memory without the benefit of a book, but I think actions are spent, not consumed.

Filling the jug with one dose of a potion is a full-round action (provided one has everything at hand to do this) that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Non-magical versions of this item are known to exist. Their usage and creation is left to the GM to decide.

These last 2 sentences are unnecessary. I can't think of a single magic item that doesn't also have a non-magical version. In fact, making this very item, but not casting the required spells should produce a non-magical version.

The minor version (DC10) can contain one dose of a potion. The medium version (DC12) can contain up to three doses of the same potion. The major version (DC15) can contain up to three different doses into three distinct tanks and thus has three tubes.

The enevitable question is, what happens when my player pours 3 different potions into the "medium version".

Also, why couldn't you just use the non-magical version to drink your potions. Doesn't a potion consumed from a goblet, vial, flask, or any other container still have the same effect? It's not the container that's magical, it's the liquid. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm finding it hard to see what is magical about this item.

Construction
Requirements: Craft Wondrous Item, Mage Hand, Haste.
Cost: 1,000 gp (minor), 4,000 gp (medium), 9,000 gp (major).

I hope that didn't sound rude. It was intended to be helpful. If you want some revenge, please feel free to comment on my item "Cane of Ages" on page 6 of this thread.

re: Wyrmwyrding Talons of Tiamat

Paizo actually makes use of Tiamat in Dragon's Revisited and in the 3rd book of Rise of the Runelords, anyway as someone mentioned before... Tiamat can't be copyrighted since its a Mythical figure, and along with Zeuz, Thor, Ishtar, an Quetzalcoatl can be owned by anyone.

She is also mentioned in Gods and Magic (page 52) as the mate of Apsu (Waybringer) and mother of Dahak (The Endless Destruction)

However, my thought on the item is that spending 1 charge or spending 5 charges still gives you the use of the feats. I'd rather have the ability 5 times, even at 5d4, than once at 5d12. Consider also that 5 rounds at 5d4 = 62.5 (average) extra damage. 1 round at 5d12 = 32.5 extra damage.

RE: Cane of Ages

My first thought is that this seems an awful lot like a staff.

My second thought is that I had to read some of it about three times to fully grasp it, especially the bit below the minimum starting age. I might just be tired but your writing could probably be tightened up a bit.

Then finally, it seems a bit of a niche item - how many peoplea re actually playing 70 year old fighters?

Thank you very much for the input.

Certainly, I had other uses in mind than only 70 year old fighters (rogues infiltrating, wizards boosting spell DC's, disguise, etc). The bonuses (or penalties) also stack with every other spell and item in the core rulebook.

However, I take your point on the writing for "below starting age", and think you might be right about that being a problem. I had about 10 different versions of that paragraph, as there is nothing in the game that says what a child's stat mods should be. I came very close to just simply saying that you couldn't go below minimum starting age. Perhaps that would have been the wiser choice.

Or perhaps I should have seen that paragraph as a problem that couldn't be solved in the alotted word count and abandoned revising my 2009 entry (Cane of Youthful Vigor) completely.

Anyway, thanks for the evaluation. I'll try not to make that same mistake next year. If anyone else wants to sound off (including Clark), please do so.

Thanks Clark, for doing this. I've seen how many posts are on this thread already and it's only been 2 days. If you don't get to my item, I'll understand, but I really hope that you do. You (understandably) didn't get to my item last year, and I'd like to know what I am doing wrong. Any input from others would also be appreciated.

This year's item was similar to my submission last year (but with changes). The reason for that was that I would REALLY like to see something like this in the game. It's no fun playing a 70 year old fighter. I'll admit that pricing was tough, as the possible benefit was variable. I based it loosly on a Robe of Blending, even though the robe had 2 benefits and took up a slot.

here goes...

CANE OF AGES

Aura moderate transmutation; CL 10th
Slot -; Price 16,000 gp; Weight 3 lb.

DESCRIPTION

This red lacquered walking stick is about 3 feet long, and is crafted from oak. One end is sculpted to facilitate use as a handle, and the other end is tipped in brass. Utilizing the cane as a walking aid bestows the following ability:

* Once per day, as a swift action, the possessor may assume any age within his race’s natural range. To activate the cane, the user taps the cane against the ground and declares a number. The user’s age then becomes the spoken number, bestowing upon the user all associated ability modifiers (Core Rulebook, pg 169). The cane itself becomes gnarled and faded as the user grows younger, and straightens and gains a polished sheen as the user ages. These changes last for 1 hour, or until the user loses contact with the cane.

Choosing an age above a character’s natural age limit expends the daily use of the cane and deals 1d6 Constitution damage. A successful Fortitude save (DC 15) negates the Constitution damage and causes the user to be fatigued for 1 hour.

Choosing an age below the minimum starting age imposes penalties on the possessor, for the duration of the change. Every yearly 10% increment below the minimum starting age imposes a -2 penalty on all ability scores (to a minimum of 1). Additionally, falling below 50% of the minimum starting age imposes a -1 size category.

Spellcasters affected by this item do not gain any additional bonus spells for increased ability scores, but the save DC’s for spells cast while using this item may be affected. This item does not alter a character’s skill ranks.

CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wonderous Items, Alter Self; Cost 8,000 gp

When an Intellect Devourer is inside a host creature, should the abilities of the host be included in the stat block of the Intellect Devourer, or should they be a separate stat block? One stat block implies that it's considered 1 creature, whereas 2 stat blocks seems to imply that it's two creatures. Therefore my inclination is to combine them into one stat block.

Also, should the CR of the Intellect Devourer (not the encounter) change, implying one creature, or should the CR of the host and the Intellect Devourer be listed separately, implying 2 creatures?

I've read the Intellect Devourer entry several times, but either I'm missing the part where it is explained, or the entry seems to give no guidance on how the creature should be presented when encountered inside a host.

That's what we use to determine word count in a product, too, so that's the method we use for RPG Superstar.

Does "That's" refer to the 5 space = 1 word format, or the Microsoft Office 2007 program?

When I get home tonight, I'll proabably be wearing out the right arrow on my keyboard. "Click click click click click, ONE. Click click click click click, TWO."

Have they said what method they are using for counting words? When I was in highschool and took a typing class (on an actual typewriter), they counted every 5 spaces as a word. However, Microsoft Office 2007 counts every group of letters between spaces as a word, or to put it another way, "antidisestablishmentarianism" counts the same as "a".

Item title not in body. It was excused last year... although with the format present on the submission page, it doesn't seem like it would go over quite as well now. Here's hoping.

My heart just jumped into my throat. If I remember correctly, my word count was 1 word under the limit. Since I wasn't sure if their method of counting was the same as mine, I tweaked it slightly. Since the item name was in the title, I think the submitted version had the item name deleted from the body (to give myself some "wiggle room").

PANIC!

I can't remember if it was deleted from the body, and I have no way of checking.

I once made 3 of my players blood relatives.

Someone was looking for a reliable source...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,514028,00.html

It's strange how I can be so saddened by the death of someone I've never met. Then again, perhaps it's not so strange. I owe Dave and Gary a great deal of thanks for the many, many hours of enjoyment I've had playing their creation. And many more hours playing games and reading books that they have influenced.

I've been a fan of their work since I was about 8 years old. I suddenly feel the urge dust off my old books, color in my dice numbers with a crayon, and play Basic D&D again.

Dave, I wish you peace and fulfillment, and hope to meet you one day in the hereafter. Rest in peace.

Thanks guys.

I forgot one too...

there is a continuity error. On page 84, the Feat is called "Craft Wonderous Items" (plural)

yet in the magic items section, all of the magic items require "Craft Wonderous Item" (singular).

The easy fix would be to change the one reference to the feat on page 84.

A lot of your recommendations are quite good. The only problem is, the playtest has been over for a while now, the final rules are complete (other than maybe some minor tweaks here and there), and they're already working on the final editing and layout before they send it to the printers.

Shoot. When did it end? I must have gotten sidetracked by the RPG superstar contest.

This will be a bit long, so I will warn you in advance. Also, I want to say that I think you have a good product, so please don't take this long list as negative feedback in any way. These are strictly my opinions, and I want to help make the best product I can, in whatever way I can. You did ask for feedback. That said, here are my observations:

Issue: Page 13, The new feat progression is too generous. Eventually all characters of the same class will acquire the same feats, as they will have extra feats to spare.
Recomendation: Reducing the feats will require the players to choose, and consequently result in more variety. As they say, variety is the spice of life.

Issue: Page 14, The Designer’s Notes suggest increasing the starting HP for core races.
Recomendation: Don’t change anything. While I like the idea of having a “level 0” HP total to add to your character, this could cause other problems. Specifically, NPCs of the core races will also have more HP. You effectively give them an extra HD. This in turn increases the challenge of NPCs in comparison to monsters of non-core races.

Issue: Page 17, Bards are too front-loaded. They get 7 abilities at 1st level.
Recomendation: I suggest spreading them out.

Issue: Page 22, Channeling Energy needs to be better defined here.
Recomendation: Tell us how much damage is healed/caused, or where to look.

Issue: Page 36, Trapfinding
Recomendation: I know this is the same as 3rd/3.5, but you changed other things, so possibly you could consider changing this too. I don’t like it when a game says that you absolutely cannot do something mundane, like looking for a trap. Anybody should be able to look. Even an untrained layman can get lucky and do something right accidentally. Even if it’s a trap with a DC of 21. Additionally, I don’t think it’s a good idea to have any single class required in an adventuring party. The “tank” roll can be filled by fighters, barbarians, paladins, or even rangers and clerics. The “artillery” roll can be filled by sorcerers, wizards, or even clerics. The “healer” roll can be filled by Clerics, Paladins, Druids, or Bards. So, please, please, please, don’t make the “sleuth” role ONLY fillable by rogues. Non-rangers can still track. Let non-rogues find (all) traps.

Issue: Page 50, Wizard
Recomendation: You say that “at each new level he gains two new spells…” This seems to imply that they appear from nowhere in his book. Is that what you intended?

Issue: Page 51, Wizard and Sorcerer HD
Recomendation: These 2 classes are easily the most powerful at higher levels. If you increase their HD, please consider taking away from their power somewhere else.

Issue: Page 54, No skills require Constitution. I feel this is a mistake.
Recomendation: Instead of getting rid of concentration, think about getting rid of spellcraft. You already have 2 Knowledge skills that could “fill in” for spellcraft (Arcane and Religion). Knowledge-Arcane could be used for Arcane spells, and Knowledge-Religion for Divine spells. Also, Concentration could have broader uses (Staying awake, ignoring a heckler, etc.)

Issue: Page 54, Editorial suggestions below.
Recomendation: Consider renaming “Disable Device”, “Mechanical Device”. It would mirror “Magical Device” (see below), and serves another purpose as well. Players will not always be trying to disable a device. Several examples include catapults, drawbridges, and elevators. Consider calling “Escape Artist”, “Escape”, for brevity. That’s also how most people refer to it. Consider calling “Use Magic Device”, “Magical Device”. It would also mirror “Mechanical Device”, and serve another purpose. Like “Mechanical Device”, Players will not always be trying to use a magic item. Sometimes they just want to know the best way to destroy it.

Issue: Page 54, Jump is included with Tumble.
Recomendation: Bring back Jump! There are only 2 skills that require strength, and I feel it’s important to have all abilities as equally represented as possible in the skills. In fact, 4th edition had a good idea in that they have an “athletics” skill, for strength challenges.

Issue: Page 52-75, trained only skills.
Recomendation: Consider changing the ruling from 3rd & 3.5 concerning untrained skills. Anybody should be able to try anything. Why can’t a layman cook a meal (Profession)? Why can’t a layman try to disarm a trap (disable device)? Why can’t a layman try and detect a forgery (Linguistics)? Instead of saying that you can’t do it if you are untrained, consider just increasing the difficulty by 5 or 10.

Issue: Page 52-75, Improper capitalization.
Recomendation: Some skills are in normal font (Appraise, Bluff) and some are in all caps (Climb, Craft). All skills should use one or the other format.

Issue: Page 67, Linguistics
Recomendation: Currently, when you gain a rank in Linguistics, you learn to read and speak a new language. However, that’s not really the way people learn a language. 99.9% of us learned to speak our native language before we learned to read it. The opposite is true for several “dead” languages, like Hieroglyphics/Ancient Egyptian. Also, some languages are ONLY verbal. I’m sure there are some languages that are only written. Binary? Consider making a rank in linguistics count as either a spoken or written language.

Issue: Page 70, Cook is an example of a profession.
Recomendation: It should be an example of a craft. As stated in the craft skill, “A craft skill is specifically focused on creating something.” In the case of cook, you are creating a meal. Think of it as edible alchemy.

Issue: Page 104, Flail and Dire Flail.
Recomendation: Flails were designed to bypass an opponent’s shield, not to disarm or trip. The combatant would swing past the defender’s shield, and then the chain would wrap around the edge of the shield, striking the defender in the head or shield arm. Wizards of the Coast didn’t do the flail any justice in 3rd edition, but allowed the flail to be used this way in 4th. Consider making the flail’s property a +1 to attack versus opponents with shields.

Issue: Page 107, 111, 114, 116, 117, Masterwork Equipment
Recomendation: Masterwork Weapons add 300 GP to the cost. Masterwork Armor adds 150 GP to the cost. Masterwork Manicles add 35 GP, Masterwork Artisans tools add 50 GP, masterwork Thieves Tools add 70 GP, Masterwork Muscial Instruments add 95 GP, Masterwork Hammer adds 49 GP and 5 SP… Can you standardize this? Please? I HATED that 3rd/3.5 didn’t simplify this. Why not just say that a masterwork ANYTHING is triple the standard price (and three times the duration to make it).

Issue: Page 114, War Horse and War Pony.
Two Recomendations: 1) Traditionally, war mounts were NOT stronger than draft mounts. They were hardier, better trained, and more courageous. The strongest breed of horse (Brabant) was never a war mount. 2) Wizards missed an opportunity for coolness here. Consider making “War” a template. You could apply it to a horse, pony, dog (the Romans bred a now extinct breed of war dog), or anything. I have 2 words for you: War Griffons!

Issue: Page ??? (Somewhere in a pathfinder product), Quadrupeds are vulnerable to Bleed.
Recomendation: Somewhere I saw a reference to an attack that caused bleeding, but I cant find it again. Now, I like the idea of bleeding. I’ve decided to use it myself before I read your rules. However, it causes an unintended problem for quadrupeds, who can’t perform first aid. All a party needs to do is score a bleed against an animal combatant, then retreat until it dies. To solve this, instead of making it a Heal check, consider making it a heal check OR a Fort Save. Each round, the injured creature could choose the better bonus to try and stop the bleeding.

Issue: Pages 197-289, Missing Spells
Recomendation: I believe you fixed the problem with the web enhancement, and I hope these will be combined in the final product.

Issue: Page 291, Class levels and CR
Recomendation: Subtracting 2 CR from an opponent with PC class levels is too much. Consider a 2 Hit Dice monster with 2 levels of fighter. He would be 4 Hit Dice and a CR of 4. Now consider a 1 Hit Die NPC with 3 levels of fighter. He would be 4 Hit Dice, and only worth a CR of 2. It’s not balanced. It becomes even more unbalanced if you follow the designer’s suggestions on page 14, and add HP to a core race character. Effectively, you are creating a 5 HD opponent, and only calling it a CR of 2. Consider instead, the following; NPC equipped as a PC: CR = PC Class Levels, NPC equipped as an NPC: CR = PC Class levels -1, NPC with NPC Class Levels: CR = NPC Class Levels -2.

I hope this was helpful. If this was not the right place to give feedback, please let me know.

hey... I don't like gnomes... and I like them here... "I get to kill gnomes for true and justice" only killing halflings is better than that :D

The only gnomes that deserve death are a special sub-race of evil gnome. They are hated and despised by all gamers... The "Dice Gnome". They are the ones that walk away with your D8 when you aren't looking. They are related to the "Sock Gremlin" that lives in your dryer.

Congrats on advancing.

Here are some random thoughts...

1) I don't like the name Fellnight. It sounded too familiar. Perhaps I am remembering the "Fell Knight" in Final Fantasy IV, except I never played any of the Final Fantasy games. I don't know, but it sounds VERY familiar.

2) The Queen's Crook (sounds like the "Queen's Rook") could be in her posession for 2 reasons. The first is, that she needed it to unlock the prison. The second is that it just happened to be in her posession when she was imprisoned, and she couldn't get rid of it. In either case, I'm ok with her having it, but it does seem slightly convenient.

3) GNOMES GET NO LOVE! I don't know why. They didn't even make it to the 4th edition PHB. Several people here hated that there were gnomes. They are not simply "short dwarves". Gnomes and Dwarves don't even have the same background. Dwarves are from Norse mythology (yet for some reason, most people speak with a Scottish accent when roleplaying them). Gnomes are either German or Irish, depending on which tale D&D borrowed them from. Gnomes are not even the smallest race, but I suspect all the Hobbit and Kender fans out there keep Halflings from getting picked on. LET THERE BE GNOMES! I, for one, am glad that Neil added them, and hope that he does them justice if he wins.

4) While I'm talking about gnomes, can anyone point to the pathfinder reference about Gnomes and Bleaching? I can't find it.

5) More on Gnomes... Neil, I don't know if you are trying to say that Gnomes are fey creatures (Tenzekil went into the first world), but they are not. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Beta Rulebook simply says that they are "linked to the fey" and says that some dwell with the fey. They are not fey themselves.

6) Fey get no love (but more than Gnomes). I am glad you included them.

7) I never liked that only female elf maidens could ride unicorns. Requiring three separate variables (race, gender, and virtue) seemed a little extraneous. Kind of like...

8) ...how a Gossamere Wraith requires a) a nixie, b) be killed by a chaost beast, and c) be vengeful after reforming. So, Kudos for allowing PC's to ride unicorns, but bad form for the creation requirements of a Gossamere Wraith. It's too random. Why on Golarion does a nixie get special treatment if it's killed by a particular creature (but only if it's vengeful)?

9) The preferred term for a beekeeper is an Apiarist. But I'm willing to let it slide. Perhaps it was an hornets, I mean honest, mistake. (OK, that pun was a stretch) I'll bee-hive from now on. :)

10) There was an objection to a drunk treant? You say you don't even know if they CAN get drunk? Then what, may I ask, is the purpose of WOOD ALCOHOL (methanol)? :P

Over all, I think you did a good job. It may sound like I'm a little nitpicky (I am), but I just wanted you to consider these things in case you do win, since this is my last opportunity for advice.

I will say that my initial impression was that this was the best submission, but Roguerouge brought up a few points I hadn't considered. I don't agree with all of them, but I do agree that if you "ding" one adventure for a TPK, you have to "ding" them all. Ditto for the liberal use of the term "palace", since that will likely be too ambitious for a 32 page adventure that includes all of the other stuff you mentioned. You are still a contender. I'll have to think about who gets my vote.

Last year, the adventures submitted did not force the Superstars to use their villain as a basis for their proposed adventure. Heck, Christine didn't even use the encounter she did for the fifth round in her sixth round adventure path. (And that encounter was AWESOME.)

So, if you're voting for a person because you want an adventure with that villain... well, you may not get that even if they win. So do you really want to make that a primary voting criteria?

Good point.

For my part, I've tried to keep the rounds separate, and have voted differently each round.

*edit*

At least the S M U R F avatar didn't follow me.

*edit #2*

Oops! Thought I was safe with the spaces.

It doesn't help that I just can't bring myself to type sm...

Man. I want to. I want to let go and be fun. But I just can't say it!

I am over the post after defending my favorite game companies, though. Just not into the little blue guy phenomenon.

EDIT: And by quoting you, I have jinxed myself. TO add insult to injury, on a day that I feel pretty old and run down, I got the Papa.

Rats. : }

LOL!!!

Here I go!

*closes eyes*

smurf

Jason Rice wrote:

I've played an encounter in a one room cavern, roughly this size. Half the party was on one map (on the table), the other half of the party was on the other map (on the floor). NEVER AGAIN.

Why didn't you just put everything on the floor?

ummmmm......

*looks around*

Bad knees? <:)

Seriously, I dont know why we didn't. It MIGHT have been due to the fact that some of us wanted to sit on a chair, not the floor. Or maybe we didn't have anywhere to put the table so it would be out of the way. I don't really remember, but I HOPE it wasn't just because we just didn't think of moving the whole thing to the floor.

I still stand by my comments that this is both too detailed for an 8.5x11 page, and too big for minis at the game table. At 9 feet across, it doesn't leave space in the (real world) room for things like furniture, and the gaming group.

I say again. Print out ALL of the maps on an 8.5x11 PAPER before you compare them. That's how you are going to buy it.

Before I begin, let me say congrats on advancing.

I have tried to keep my comments related to issues which no one has mentioned. The one exception being that I CAN'T pass up a good debate (see above post). I hope it's more helpful than receiving the same comment a dozen times.

Additionally, I have tried to keep each round separate, critiquing each submission on its own merit. I liked your round 2 submission, but was not a fan of your round 3 submission. Conversely, I hated one contestant's round 2 submission, but loved their round 3 submission. So, that said, let me get to the point...

The more I think about this lair, the more I like it. It's currently in my top 2.

Here is what I like:

1) I feel that there were 4 submissions that really captured the personality of the villain. This was one, and therefore that puts you in my top 50%.

2) Your lair was interesting. It wasn't a boring rectangle (most real buildings are), and yet the shape made sense. It followed the contour of the body. It was perfect for a fantasy setting. Ignore the nay-sayers that try to tell you the "inside the statue" is overdone. Well, don't ignore them if they are paying you. However, there are many, many, many more adventures that take place in any one of the following locations: dungeon, caverns, castle, city, sewer, forest, jungle, desert, and underwater. At this point, I can’t think of a location that HASN'T been done. D&D has even done outer space. Write what YOU like. You'll be happier.

3) You kept the medium you were designing for (a single 8.5x11 page) in mind while you designed. Some of these maps look great, until you print them out. One of my "top 4" fell into that trap. Your map still looks good on the printed page, and is still easy to read when printed. You were given a set of instructions and had the self discipline to work within those guidelines. Nice work.

4) There were 4 multi-level lairs submitted (hard to do on a 8.5x11 page), and you made the best use of the 3rd dimension, both in floor plan design and in illustration.

5) I like the harpy. Great choice to use a creature with a personality as bad as Hecataeus's. Also, as mentioned before, I like the inside joke about the harpy's feelings toward Hecataeus. Inside jokes to the GM were one of my favorite parts of GM'ing "Paranoia." I love that stuff.

The Bad:

Not much.

1) More variety in the creatures would have been good. The inclusion of the harpy was nice, but a few more (different) constructs would have been appreciated. He is supposed to be the "Master of Constructs."

Over all, a very solid submission. You were either my favorite, or in the top 50% in almost every category I was looking at.

Thank you Jason, Sean, and all for the extensive feedback on 1 of the 2000 words in my entry. I heartily encourage you to provide equally extensive feedback on the 1999 remaining words. ;-D

LOL

Now that's funny!

For my part, I liked the word. Not only is it the preferred word in medical texts, but it fits with H's personality to use the "correct" word. Much like the room titles fit his personality. And extra points from me for making me look up a word. Roleplaying is awesome like that. Most non-gamers don't know the definition of "charisma". I'll bet most of us do.

Word use is very dependent on where you live. America's "flashlight" = England's "torch". America's "trunk" = England's "boot". Even pronunciation varies (schedule, jaguar). I'm assuming that Pathfinder is available outside the US, and therefore I'm OK with the plural variant.

Finally, some people use tact-tiles or multiple maps. I certainly don't require that modules all be able to fit on one of my dry-erasable maps. I have to say that I give you props for even thinking of that objection, however.

I've played an encounter in a one room cavern, roughly this size. Half the party was on one map (on the table), the other half of the party was on the other map (on the floor). NEVER AGAIN. It's worse than splitting the party. You esentially have to run 2 separate combats, at the same time, because the party is in the same room and can potentially interact. And Heaven help you if a player wants to hang out on the "crease".

Besides, did you print the map on an 8.5x11 paper? Everything is too small and gives me a headache.

Here's what I'd say: "Make a check. Ah. Well, Jason, if you had put ranks in Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering instead of Acrobatics, you'd know the answer to that!" Probably the correct answer would be something about the rocks and bearing loads and not sliding off the mountain or something. Not a big deal to me.

Actually, my ranks are in "Knowledge: Time wasting techniques" and "Profession: nitpicker". I'm maxed out. And even have a +3 bonus due to them being "Gamer" class skills. :P

As to Iron Golem carrying out excavation work, I would have given it an adamantine pick (maybe enchanted) which it can excavate with or use as a variant from the usual 'golem crush' in combat.

However, that's me, not the OP.

it's not a question of "Is he strong enough?"

Its a question of "How high can he reach?"

Some of this shorthand is lost on me. What's an "OP"?

Before I begin, let me say congrats on advancing.

I have tried to keep my comments related to issues which no one has mentioned. I hope it's more helpful than receiving the same comment a dozen times.

Additionally, I have tried to keep each round separate, critiquing each submission on its own merit. One of my favorites in round 2 was one of my least favorite in round 3. Conversely, I hated one contestant's round 2 submission, but loved their round 3 submission. So, that said, let me get to the point.

Issues in discussion thread:

1) The vampire template (again): I was one of the critics of Vashkar in round 3, and this was one of the reasons. However, I am not going to ding Randy for the template for two reasons. He didn't create the improper template issue in the first place, and I'm not carrying over previous concerns to all future rounds. I'm judging each entry on its own merit.

2) The missing Succubus: I suspect it's missing because of word count. Which is probably the same reason Matthew Stinson got rid of the "bearded lady" for Rustin Harp. I don’t see the missing succubus as a bad thing.

The Bad:

1) In area 5, you said:

"Living creatures in the darkness take 10d6 negative energy damage each round, with a DC 20 Will save for half, while undead heal the same amount. Destroying the idol in area 6 permanently dispels the effect."

If that’s the case, then why would Vashkar leave the necessary ingredient for his permanent "heal" out in the open??? Not to mention the key to the darkness surrounding the manor AND protection against intruders while he was in his coffin? The idol has 3 MAJOR uses for Vashkar, and yet it's not in the most protected area (area 8) where anyone (adventurers) trying to destroy it first have to take damage? Oh, sure, he has a consort "protecting" it. But really, how much can you trust a demon? Especially a new employee. Perhaps that’s why the succubus is dead?

2) This doesn't feel like a palace to me. Even one badly in need of repair. Where are the fountains, ball rooms, baths, dining halls, kitchens, pantries (he has slaves), cellars, bedrooms, servant’s quarters, armories, treasury, libraries, stables, barracks, laundry, etc.? SOME of that can be explained as being in another building, but this is a barren building. It needs more. MUCH more.

3) A similar problem as #2. Where are the windows? I get that Vashkar is a vampire, but if this is the same palace that he had when he was living, then there should be windows overlooking barren gardens and courtyards. If you boarded them up/bricked them over, then you should have mentioned it, and given stats for someone wanting to hack through the obstruction. Also, only 1 door for a building that size? Strange.

The Good:

1) Whatever map program you used, it looks nice.

2) I appreciate that you tried to tackle a complex lair in so few words.

3) The map size was acceptable, relative to the page size (8.5x11).

I hope that you take these comments in a constructive way, and consider them in the next round. Good Luck.

Before I begin, let me say congrats on advancing.

I have tried to keep my comments related to issues which no one has mentioned. I hope it's more helpful than receiving the same comment a dozen times.

Additionally, I have tried to keep each round separate, critiquing each submission on its own merit. One of my favorites in round 2 was one of my least favorite in round 3. Conversely, I hated your round 2 submission, but loved rounds 1 and 3. So, that said, let me get to the point.

The Good:

1) You have shown that you don't have to have a fancy mapping program to pull off a lair people will vote for. It was a concern of mine (if I had advanced), and now next year (if there is another contest), I don't have to worry. Thank You.

2) The Gibbering Mouther in the box is priceless. Show me the party that doesn't have at least one adventurer dying to open a box like that!

3) He has a female flesh golumn in his bedroom? CREEPY with a capital EW!

4) I like the shape of the house. Good choice not to use a boring square.

The Bad:

1) From an architectural standpoint... there is a set of stairs that go from the 2nd floor bedroom to the basement? Without stopping at the 1st floor? I could see Bracht designing something like this, but not he original owner. (Since this is a condemned building, I assume it's been around a while).

2) I know I try to keep my comments to things not previously mentioned, but I noticed this as I was reading the lair and immediately Googled the name. It turns out I'm not the only one to notice it:

I wonder if the names Evelyn and Bateman refer to Dr. Evelyn Bateman: http://www.anesthesia.utoronto.ca/about/awards/bateman.htm

It doesn't sound like a coincidence, since the award is for "excellence in anesthesia", and the magistrate in your submission is currently "heavily sedated". If it is, then you should have considered Clark Peterson's advice in round 2 (Gibnem thread). There is no reason to tempt legal trouble, however unlikely. I doubt many at the University of Toronto, or those in charge of Evelyn Bateman's estate would consider her a villain. Better names should have been chosen.

Despite that, the good outweigh the bad. You once again are a contender for my vote.

That pun was not intended. I wish it was. "constructive way" "Hecataeus, Master of Constructs".

heh

Before I begin, let me say congrats on advancing.

I have tried to keep my comments related to issues which no one has mentioned. I hope it's more helpful than receiving the same comment a dozen times.

Additionally, I have tried to keep each round separate, critiquing each submission on its own merit. One of my favorites in round 2 was a dissapointment in round 3, and one of the submissions I hated in round 2 became a favorite in round 3. So, that said, let me get to the point.

The Good:

1) Whatever mapping program you used looks nice.
2) I like the shape of the manor. Symmetrical is usually (but not always) boring.
3) I feel that you have really captured the personality of Hecateus.
4) It's already been mentioned, but I need to say it anyway. Good gag for the "crane game" chandelier. Awesome.

The Bad:

Before I get flamed, I invite everyone to print out ALL of the maps on PAPER, and compare them. Don't compare them by computer images because that's not how you are going to buy the adventure.

1) Despite the use of the mapping program, the map is extremely difficult to read. Sure, it looks good on the computer screen, but I think you forgot the medium you were supposed to be designing for. The map was supposed to fit on an 8.5"x11" (max) sheet of paper. Presumably because it's supposed to fit on the inside cover of an adventure. At this size, your squares are EASILY the smallest of any submission, and would give me headaches trying to read it if I didn't have the computer image.

2) Related to the above, the size of the lair is huge. I counted 106x68 squares. At the standard 1 inch = 5 feet scale, that’s 8.8 feet by 5.7 feet, 2/3 of which are part of the same room. Too big for most game tables.

3) If room C3 is supposed to be the exit, why is the construct burrowing AWAY from the edge of the mountain. Wouldn't it make more sense to excavate the (roughly) 50 feet of rock in the NE corner if you wanted a second exit? Better yet, just build the manor a little to the left and use the opening at area C1. I'm sure Hecataeus could have disguised the existing opening and saved himself a lot of trouble and time.

4) How does a lone 18 foot tall creature (with no scaffolding or equipment) excavate an opening big enough for a (100?) foot tall construct to exit?

Over all, I see this as an improvement over the previous rounds, but I'm not sure if it's enough to get my vote. Still, I think that you will advance anyway, based on the number of your supporters. I hope that you take these comments in a constructive way, and consider them in the next round. Good Luck.

I've just reviewed all the submissions. This was my favorite. Way to improve. You will get my vote.

No... but I am going to write stories that tie in with my players' characters.

So if one player were to build a character who focuses on constructs, I am going to write adventures about constructs from time to time, just like I'm going to write adventures about devils for a Sorcerer with an infernal bloodline, or adventures about a cleric's particular church - in other words, make the adventures relevant for the PCs. That's not "appeasement", that's just doing my job as a DM.

...and watch as this player breazes through these encounters. Apples and oranges. You cant compare a rule element with a story plotline. The feat is broken. It's either wildly overpowered or not useful at all.

As for "powergaming": Considering a player would have to spend no less that three feats to get here - and item creation feats, too, which my players at least tend not to be too keen on - I don't really see that this is a particular obvious candidate for powergaming.

Granted, the old item creation feats were not great. The XP cost was almost never worth the benefit. However, the new item creation rules don't suffer from this. Pathfinder magic items don't cost any XP.

After reading the discussion on Arcane Poison, I'm of the opinion that it's over powered as written. While you may or may not think it's a good idea, the round to vote on ideas was round 2. Round 3 is about execution.

In addition, the feat isn't well matched with the villan. I would have prefered something that dealt with those severed heads she carries around. You said "Heads of scholars hang from her saddle ready to supply knowledge and offer council." How are they able to do this? Why would they want to offer advise?

I still like the headless army idea. However, this is probably not going to get one of my votes.

Even without the artifact the gear comes in at a total appropriate to an NPC four levels higher so I'm prepared to assume that the CR of 11 for a character with 11 class levels is a result of the much higher gear allowance.

I believe that's correct. It was noted in other threads that you can outfit an NPC as a PC at the cost of +1 to the CR. It was also noted that PC classes don't count 1-for-1 with the CR. However, right now I can't find the reference page for either one. I'm inclined to assume that the gear is correct.

Between my 3rd ed experience (I JUST stoped playing 3e), my currently learning 3.5 (I JUST converted to 3.5), and reading the new pathfinder rules, my brain is fried. Sorry I can't find the reference.

I was looking forward to your post more than any other. Specifically because I wanted to see how you pulled off your proposed abilities. I think you got lucky in that Paizo allowed a new rules element. You would have been hard pressed to do what you proposed without it. So, lets see how you did...

...You called it Craft Arcane Fleshgraft and Craft Arcane Flesh. Two names?

...The name implies that only arcane spells can be grafted, but the feat's rules don't have any restriction. Are divine spells allowed?

...If limited to Arcane, did you intend for only sorcerer's to be targets? Your background implies that, but the feat doesn't say that.

...What is the deciding factor that determines which organ holds which spell?

...What happens to a dead donor that is the subject of a Raise Dead or Resurection? Does he permanently lose his spell? Note: Raise Dead doesn't restore missing body parts.

...Does "cast it without materials" mean "material components", "focuses", or both.

...you allowed bite attacks if you grafted a mouth and the donor had that attack. I think that opens a door better left closed. If that's allowed, why not gaze attacks if you graft an eye?

Or, alternately, get rid of the ability to graft spells and only allow special abilities/attacks to be grafted. I think I like that better. If you want a claw attack, look for a creature that has one and "borrow" his hands. Want better hearing? A few extra ears should do the trick.

I voted for you last round, despite my worries about if you cold pull this off. I'm not sure I'm going to vote for you this round.

I've had several negative posts, so I feel I need to re-state my position.

It's the new rule that I dont like. The overall submission is an improvement over last round. Specifically the adventure hooks. And I really appreciate that the fact that Randy toned down the respect angle.

This is still a "possible" for my vote.

Can't agree with that. I think a good DM should provide challenges that offer opportunities for the PCs to actually use their abilities creatively. Keeping certain elements entirely out of the game specifically because the PCs took certain abilities to counter is - well, that's just bad DM-ship in my opinion. Not least because the PCs are in fact paying an opportunity cost for having those particular abilities.

If I'm DM'ing, I'm not going to change an entire adventure path, or alter a story, just because a single player picked one specific abusable feat. I'm just going to disallow the feat. Problem solved. I'm trying to tell a story, not cater to one min-maxed game element. When a rule gets in the way of the story, there is a problem with the rule.

How many published adventures have constructs? Yes, there are some, but not many. Are you going to add/subtract constructs in an adventure, even if they have nothing to do with the story arc? Just to appease a player that had other oprions but chose to power game? In my opinion, this feat flawed on many levels.

I am not sure a test of wills between a PC and NPC over who the golem whomps is a bad thing. Seems tens, if you can describe it with flavor.

Actually, the opposed wills wouldn't happen. The construct would simply follow the last order given (the last person to touch him). I really don't like the image that conjures. It essentially de-escilates an encounter to a schoolyard game of "tag".

As I said, I knew I was going to be in the minority. I'm actually surprised someone agreed with me (thanks roguerouge).

As noted in the discussions above, it's not this iteration of the feat that's awesome, it's the idea. You can raise the DCs,observe that a construct 'boss' is unlikely to be affected, and make it publishable. But the idea behind the feat is good design and good flavor.

This might be the first submission we disagree on. How can you criticize one submission for having a good idea with poor execution, but not another? Based on the judges comments, it appears that the round 1 submissions were full of good ideas with bad execution, and they were rejected. I seem to recall you having a similar sentiment about other submissions. The place for a good idea with poor/no execution was in round 2 when we were voting on concepts. This round I expect play balance. The fact that it could be changed to make it more balanced doesn't change the fact that it's too powerful NOW. A roughly 50% shot (Joel Flank's math) to take out a powerful adversary with one action is just too big. Joel also forgot the stat-bumps, racial adjustments, and Fox's Cunning spell. With that, we are looking at a 75% success rate. Add in one of several magic items that boost intelligence, Bardic help, and Skill Focus, and you might be looking at a 95% success rate. If you happen to roll a "1", just try again. There is no consequence for failure. In many ways, this is the exact opposite of Vashkar. He was ridiculously hard, this is ridiculously easy.

There are other issues. If I tell it to "guard" a door, does that include from me? Am I an "other"? Is the construct's creator? Imagine a Homonculus familiar (Improved familiar feat) attacking it's own master. What if that familiar was delivering it's master's touch attacks. This feat swings from useless to overpowered every encounter, depending on if that encounter has any constructs in it.

Maybe a die roll takes an iron golem out of the combat, but then maybe you waste a round and get the golem's attention if you blow it. Then the golem erases you.

Lots of ways to avoid that. Gaseous Form is probably the best one. You can't attack while gaseous, but this feat requires a standard action, not an attack. If you make the feat require a touch attack, then you open the door for spells that allow you to make touch attacks at range.

A 95% sucess rate, and no consequence for failure? No thank you.

Thanks Charles Evans.

However, I still hope the "non-playtest" version will have it when it comes out.

Jason Rice wrote:

I've always ignored that rule, for every edition of D&D, and I just assumed I was still ignoring a rule. Turns out I was actually following a rule. Heh.

I've played with you. I could see how you'd be surprised you were following a rule.

: }

LOL

Just for that, you're not getting my vote at Iron DM this year. (Of course, I've never actually sat at your table, but that's beside the point).

CLEARLY I'm in the minority on the new rule. I don't like it, for several reasons:

1) To me, a feat should be more universal than this. It should be usable by multiple characters, not just the NPC here. A PC that takes this feat runs a risk of never using it.

2) When it is useful, it's too powerful. Knowledge (arcana) is the most used Knowledge skill, hands down. Most Wizards are going to have it maxed out. By simply choosing the "Move" command, and pointing at a distant object like a mountain, you can effectively remove a powerful monster from a fight with a single die roll (max duration of 6 hours). You'll have a decent chance to do that because "move" (and "stop", and "work") is not at a -5, and if you fail, you can try again.

3) My strongest objection is that it can be used against intelligent constructs, like Homunculi and Warforged. I'm sure there are other examples. This makes it unbelievably powerful against certain opponents and NPC's.

4) While it clearly applies to your villain, the effect fits a spell more than a feat, especially considering the intelligent constructs issue above.

Again, it's clear I'm in the minority on this, but perhaps others haven't thought of these issues.

As for the rest of the submission, this is an improvement over last round. I won't repeat issues that have been mentioned several times by other people. Except to say that while I still don't like the respect angle, you have toned it down and introduced better adventure hooks than last round. I would be willing to use this villan (minus the feat) now, with your changes.

You are a "possible" for my vote. I still have a couple more to read.

As for the new rules element, I like the feat that builds off the bloodline, but since you can take it at 1st level, I should note that you get nothing out of it until 2nd, which is a shame.

To be fair, you actually do get something at 1st level. "You also gain Abyssal as an additional spoken language."

However, while I personally like feats that can only be taken at 1st level, I don't like feats that do more than one thing (such as energy resistance and a free language).

Also, you shouldn't say it's a "spoken" language. If you know a language, you can speak and read it. Pathfinder even got rid of Illiteracy for barbarians.

Finally, unless I'm missing something, I believe you failed to account for something with your new feat. Remember Humans gain an aditional feat at 1st level, so it's possible that a human sorcerer would choose this feat twice, and choose different energy types. You did not tell us if this was allowed. I believe this should have been mentioned in the Special section. If it's not allowed, that should be mentioned too. See Improved Critical, Skill Focus, and Weapon Focus for a few examples of feats that can be taken multiple times.

PS, For my part, I found it humorous that you "killed" your round 2 submission for this re-write.

Actually, that's not an ignored rule in 3.5. Anyone with a spell component pouch is assumed, by the rules, to have any material component that doesn't have a gp cost. It's in the description for spell component pouches :)

So it does. Thanks for pointing that out. I've always ignored that rule, for every edition of D&D, and I just assumed I was still ignoring a rule. Turns out I was actually following a rule. Heh.

Is this the same in Pathfinder Beta? I hope so.

Note to developers: Can we have an index in the back of the next book? The Beta playtest (I have the PDF version) doesn't have one. The Glossary and Table of Contents are great, but an index would be very helpful in looking up minor rules. Thanks.

Actually, no villain in any of the Pathfinder modules has more than one spellbook, either. Even the ones with "every spell in the PHB, except for <prohibited schools>. Feel free to add a few spells from other sources as well". It's the most commonly ignored rule in existence. Yes, it's still a rule, and it should probably count against him, but I don't consider it important enough to even track, personally.

To be fair, I think the most commonly ignored rule is the use of material components. Most games I've played, it's just assumed the spellcaster has 'em. They never have to buy or search for them (unless there is a listed GP value), and no one ever tracks if he runs out. However, I do agree that most DM's just require 1 spellbook. I don't have a problem with Gulga having only one.

I am suprised that Gulga Cench is a wizard. Sorcerer would have made more sense to me, especially with the new pathfinder bloodline coolness (Aberrant? Abyssal?). Also, there are not many spellbooks floating around in the sewage for him to have gotten his start as a wizard, and the damp environment has got to be hard on his current spellbook(s).

I'm not a fan of the feat. In terms of power, it seems more like a feat-and-a-half. Beyond that, however, it just doesn't feel like a feat.

Finally, I'm not clear on how he is experementing on other otyughs to make them more intelligent. Polymorph doesn't change mental stats. Neither does your new feat, and even if it did, I wouldn't call spending time with someone an experiment. You said he had "arcane knowledge of transmutation to enhance the average intelligence of the otyugh species", but I don't see it. I know the focus of this round was the stats, so perhaps you could address this in a later round? You teased us with a promised ability, and I'm still waiting for the payoff. I think it was a mistake to not make that the focus of your new rule.

Despite all that, I still feel you are a contender. You didn't change much, but then you didn't need to. Your round 2 submission was stronger than several others that advanced. You may get my vote, but I still have a few more to read...

Jason Rice wrote:

5) His minimum starting age is 47. Add 100 years training, that makes him 147, and middle aged for a Dwarf. Middle aged modifiers don't seem to be applied.

And I brought that up as advice to the OP in last round's thread on this very character. I can't believe that I forgot to look for that. Good catch.

I cant take credit for the catch. I mentioned you (and someone else) in the last sentence of problem 5. I only remembered it this round because I thought at the time that you posted it that his age didn't have to be a bad thing. However, it should be accounted for.