|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 Recent Posts
[student latinist]Oh by all means. English grammar is irregular enough that there is more rules for what you can do, than for what you cannot do. I say, do away with all those silly 'spaces', 'commas' and 'big or small letters' and let's instead return to good, oldfashioned latin grammar.[/student latinist]
Congrats all, most of all Mike. I look forward to seeing the module. As for the others, I look forward to other spectacular work, congratulations for making it this far.
Well you got a vote, though I'll have to say I find this a little uninspired. I'm lacking something really good. The basics seem fine, but I'm not really eager to run this. However, due to your earlier work and this still be a decent if not exactly amazing entry, I still hope to see you in the top 4.
I didn't get around to any playtesting, sadly, as my regular group was obstinately unavailable for anything beyond previously planned games. However, looking through this, I still feel that most issues that might appear (hard to judge without a specific group in mind) could be fairly smoothly resolved. I really, very strongly, like the idea you're running here. You manage to go for a very unique location and the bog mummy is a nice way to get around the monster limitation while still bringing something interesting. Definitely getting a vote for this. I hope to see you in the top 5.
Foe Acquiring Helm [native Scandinavian fact]Oh, seriously. Vikings DIDN'T have horns on their helmets. That was a Christian later addition to assimilate them with the Devil...[/native Scandinavian fact] That said I don't like the name "Foe Acquiring Helmet" sounds like something out of World of Warcraft. In a bad way. At least, I don't really want to read something called that. It just doesn't sound wondrous to me. The Facing gives too many issues and the effects just seem confused. Your last practice item was much better on clarity. I think you need to be careful with getting lost in "this mechanic that effect, change it like that to get this effect, but if like that then... and so on". The last line seems strange to me. "If both horns are being rotated, any shield protection is also forfeit for that round." Are you talking about shield bonus to AC, deflection "shielding" effects, arrow deflection, or what exactly? And "being rotated" is both passive and weird. Think you want to go for specifying this lot more. Possibly simply have the rotation require the use of one hand per horn, disenabling that hand from doing anything else?
Sorry to see you didn't make it on. Should have liked to see your encounter. I think your suspection of generosity may true... I may have been a little too busy to go in depth with the flaws... guess I'll see you around next year?
One thing you need to mind is that giving monster full class spellcasting is a major trait, and sort of limits the rest of their abilities. And the could get the same from being lower CR with class levels. Another is probably the thematic linking of powers, that you could work far more one. Oh, and I'll still say, I really liked this thing, and I'm still rewriting it, CR'ing it up and stealing it to pester my kingmaker team. Also, NO Mwangi Demon Monkeys... At least, not with that name... maybe corrupted monkeys... also, be careful, sounds like something from Serpents Skull... or, perhaps, check what is in there already for inspiration?
Well, first congratulations on top 8, I'm happy I decided to vote for you last round, for this thing definitely shows the kind of promise I was hoping for. Reality means I'm busy lately, so I won't be able to give you much more than this for now: Best of luck in the next round - keep it up this way!
Hello again, welcome in round 3 and congratulations on making it this far. I really liked you organization idea, and you did get a vote from me, so I'm excited to see if I'm getting something for my vote.
Now, round 3 is for monsters, so let’s have a look at the beastie:
I'll be trying for thorough this round, as those who make it on will have an increasing chance of writing a supplement, which I'll likely have an interest in buying. Therefore both to help me and help you, I'll do my best and fiercest to give constructive critique here.
1) Rules (I want to be reassured that you have your attention to detail and sharpness for rules along here, especially since the organization round tested little on this spot): I fear you’ve gone a little around and overpowered here. The at will dimension door + several feats may be rather troublesome. I like the idea and I love the use of some new feats though. Looks like there’s a few other issue, but monster design is such a bother of fine details.
2) Innovation (I want to (again) see promises of an adventure I couldn’t just think up myself, I want to see great and new thoughts, thoughts that seize my attention and holds it): Hmm, hmm. Well, evil fey are plentiful. The attempt to introduce the Unseelie/Seelie angle is probably the greatest innovation, but I don’t actually think that’s something Paizo wants. That said though, I like it. I like using newer feats, and the game does have a underwhelming amount of male/not-gender-limited-to-female fey. I am a little troubled by the lack of things not already in the game. Sure expected more from you.
3) Creativity (Alike innovation, I want something that isn’t just new, it’s the good kind of new, and awesome at that): I really like where you’re going creatively. If I look away from the power level and the fact that it’ll probably never be canon this is something I’d be very likely to use (soon, too).
4) Writing (I’m a nitpicker for good writing, and I want to see it. This isn’t the most writing intensive round, but that just means I’ll be looking for wasted words, that I really get nothing from, and checking the bits that are ever more carefully): Looks fine. I have nothing to comment on, really. If you want to work on anything the writing could be more evocative. Your item and organization was more carefully done.
5) Golarion (Most monsters can be fitted into my campaigns, but as I mostly run Golarion, I have a keen interest in monster fitting seamlessly with the rest of the world, without expansive details for why they do so): Hmm, well no, this just isn’t Golarion. It could fit, but there’s no First World connection and the entire Seelie/Unseelie aspect would probably need to be cut (which saddens me).
6) CR appropriate (I don’t want a monster pretending to be CR 7, when it’s just not fitting for what my players can reasonably handle at any level near 7, or opposite, won’t represent a challenge even to a level 5 group): Well it’s powerful, but I think it’s fitting enough for the CR as such.
7) Previous work (I’m not just looking for monsters, I’m also looking back at the former rounds, especially since they may well be tie-breakers for my votes, but also because one single round doesn’t show all anyone has to bring): I found your item very well-written and new-thinking. The same goes for your organization. This does not go on in this one. I can hope that this is one slight miss.
8) Promise for Adventure (I want to, as a potential buyer, contemplate how likely I am to buy an adventure written by you – based on your previous RPG Superstar work, your monster and my impression on how well you’ll do with an adventure): I’m getting less sure from this entry, but I’m going to say that based on especially your organization, I’d still like to see you write something.
9) Personal Rating (Sometimes, at the end of it all, there’s things I just like, even if there’s other things that might be better for multiple reasons – now I don’t want to tell you I don’t like something, but I do want to, positively, say that I like a particular piece of work a lot): Well, I definitely like the sidhe theme, and I think your idea and execution with it works, even if it’s not all that shiny.
10) Overall (This is where I try to give my opinion on what to improve on, how I feel about your submission in general, and finally, the thing you really want to hear, if you’re getting a vote or not): Vote given. You should be aware that it’s more a vote of confidence in your previous work, than a vote of excitement for this round.
Congratulations on top 16, good luck on your road to top 8!
Hello again, welcome in round 3 and congratulations on making it this far. I really liked you organization idea, and you did get a vote from me, so I'm excited to see if I'm getting something for my vote. Now, round 3 is for monsters, so let’s have a look at the beastie:
I'll be trying for thorough this round, as those who make it on will have an increasing chance of writing a supplement, which I'll likely have an interest in buying. Therefore both to help me and help you, I'll do my best and fiercest to give constructive critique here.
1) Rules (I want to be reassured that you have your attention to detail and sharpness for rules along here, especially since the organization round tested little on this spot): Yes,it looks beautiful It seems I have strange group of PCs. Very few of them dumps Charisma, unless they have a specific wish to play decidedly UN-Charismatic. The only exception is my one player who hates social encounters. And he likes when I (very, very rarely, as I don't like it) kill off or significantly hurt my PCs. So while I agree that this the ability DRAIN is too much... I'm tempted not to reduce it too much. I do want it to be damage. Drain is too mean at CR 7. And 1d8 is unusually high. That said, I'd probably make it 1d4+something or 1d6. And make all those sorcerers and oracles and other 25+ charisma characters I'm pestered by recently HURT. In fact, I'm stealing it for that express purpose in my kingmaker campaign (not like it won't fit), right here, right now... Success! I'm only commenting on the rules elements, and I already want to steal this thing. Rating: 4/5 - The unreasonable Cha-drain looses you the full 5. Sorry. I have to be mean. I'm too fond of this thing. 2) Innovation (I want to (again) see promises of an adventure I couldn’t just think up myself, I want to see great and new thoughts, thoughts that seize my attention and holds it): Hmm, hmm. Well, evil fey are plentiful, but positive emotion draining fey isn't around yet, I think. Anyway, your handling is beautiful, so I'm ready to forget that the idea may not be the newest around. The "kiss" ability is novel enough to make up for it.
3) Creativity (Alike innovation, I want something that isn’t just new, it’s the good kind of new, and awesome at that): Yes, yes, yes. Do I need to say more? This sticks together beautifully, and while it's mean to low or heavy-use Charisma characters, it's not useless against everything else. Gorgeous. It ties together perfectly, and I love your writing (see below). I'm tying an advanced template to this, or class levels or something, just to make them mean enough for keeping around at higher levels. The shadow/undead flavor added to fey WORKS. I've been wanting something like this for a while. Thank you for writing it up for me. The only thing I'm missing is looks, and I know just hów I want these to look, so that's not an issue to me.
4) Writing (I’m a nitpicker for good writing, and I want to see it. This isn’t the most writing intensive round, but that just means I’ll be looking for wasted words, that I really get nothing from, and checking the bits that are ever more carefully): You have something. your writing takes simple and beautiful and makes it come alive to me. I don't really need to see these to know how they're wrapped in shadows, twisted, near-human, yet not... I like this, a lot. Okay, a teensy critique, I have no clue why their name can't sound a little more sinister. I want a slightly more sinister name for my evil goth fey.
5) Golarion (Most monsters can be fitted into my campaigns, but as I mostly run Golarion, I have a keen interest in monster fitting seamlessly with the rest of the world, without expansive details for why they do so): Oh yes, they fit right in, First World and all. Not one word spent, and I'm already assigning a large group of them to at least one of the Eldest of the First World, and wondering if I can't scatter them loosely through-out Ustalav and Nidal, to keep the atmosphere down. Maybe not enough for them to do there.
6) CR appropriate (I don’t want a monster pretending to be CR 7, when it’s just not fitting for what my players can reasonably handle at any level near 7, or opposite, won’t represent a challenge even to a level 5 group): Perfect. Only issue must be the charisma drain.
7) Previous work (I’m not just looking for monsters, I’m also looking back at the former rounds, especially since they may well be tie-breakers for my votes, but also because one single round doesn’t show all anyone has to bring): Okay, here's one thing about you. You seem to be improving in this contest. Your item was interesting to me, and I wanted to like it, but I wasn't won entirely over. Your organization had flavor, much stronger flavor than your item. Your monster avoids the just a little too incredible of your organization. You seem to be keeping your strengths and improving on them every round. Very well done.
8) Promise for Adventure (I want to, as a potential buyer, contemplate how likely I am to buy an adventure written by you – based on your previous RPG Superstar work, your monster and my impression on how well you’ll do with an adventure): Why yes, I want you to write an adventure. I get to enjoy your fine, evocative writing, and your ideas are both delightful and diverse.
9) Personal Rating (Sometimes, at the end of it all, there’s things I just like, even if there’s other things that might be better for multiple reasons – now I don’t want to tell you I don’t like something, but I do want to, positively, say that I like a particular piece of work a lot): You're not fair. You use fey, goth, darkness, shadow plane and you tie it all together very beautifully. This isn't even fair to my chance of not liking this monster. It's too hard to even try to be critical. I want to like this.
10) Overall (This is where I try to give my opinion on what to improve on, how I feel about your submission in general, and finally, the thing you really want to hear, if you’re getting a vote or not): Vote given. Nothing could possibly change my mind here. This may well be among this rounds very strongest submissions.
Congratulations on top 16, good luck on your road to top 8!
Hello again, welcome in round 3 and congratulations on making it this far. I'm sorry I didn't get by your organization last round; I walked into my winter disease period. Now, round 3 is for monsters, so let’s have a look at the beastie:
I'll be trying for thorough this round, as those who make it on will have an increasing chance of writing a supplement, which I'll likely have an interest in buying. Therefore both to help me and help you, I'll do my best and fiercest to give constructive critique here.
1) Rules (I want to be reassured that you have your attention to detail and sharpness for rules along here, especially since the organization round tested little on this spot): Okay, a swarm. Interesting. I like swarms. The abilities generally look fine enough to me. I have no idea where you got the vulnerability to cold from. It's not really a negative for me, it's just kinda weird, hanging around there like that. I don't know but on an average the AC may well be the most glaring issue, maybe that and giving them SLAs. And well, CR 6 will-o-wisp has worse AC, so I'm not going to blame you. Rating: 4/5 - generally this looks good, and I want to like it. I'm just not quite sure that it's really, really awesome, even though it could be. 2) Innovation (I want to (again) see promises of an adventure I couldn’t just think up myself, I want to see great and new thoughts, thoughts that seize my attention and holds it): Intelligent, poisonous, spell-casting, charismatic, speaking-in-human-voice, tactician ant swarm. Yikes. It's new allright. It may be just a little too much new in one place. I hope you tie it together well.
3) Creativity (Alike innovation, I want something that isn’t just new, it’s the good kind of new, and awesome at that): Oh dear, but this is just confusing. The creative glue to patch together these numerous, unrelated things... is not really there for me. I can't seem to feel that this is more than: swarm + intelligent + poisonous + SLAs + burrowing + human voice + cold vulnerability + ... you get my meaning. It's random, unrelated parts, with no real "greater whole". Cutting down would have helped. These are also, definitely NOT CE. They are extremely organized ants, for heavens sake. Their main motive is the betterment of their hive. So, they may prey on humans? A lion does too, you know. They are intelligent, allright, so the evil in choosing to prey on other intelligent creatures may be there, but... The chaotic? Nope, sorry. If anything, these are LE or LN, to me.
4) Writing (I’m a nitpicker for good writing, and I want to see it. This isn’t the most writing intensive round, but that just means I’ll be looking for wasted words, that I really get nothing from, and checking the bits that are ever more carefully): Your writing looks okay, on a general basis, and not exciting enough to make me want to comment more than this. I disapprove the "DIE" in your introductionary text. I don't want you to force me to say "DIE" in a human-mimicking voice, everytime they meet these. If I want them to speak, I can extrapolate myself, thank you. This will just get very annoying and silly. Also "DIE" is not a natural thing for a wild creature to be "saying". Why should they be saying that if they're are bloody well attacking? I think them attacking with no other reason than the characters being present is plenty. Going "DIE" is just silly. I don't have a problem with the name, though. I can live with weird names. My players can't though, so I'd probably never use it anyway.
5) Golarion (Most monsters can be fitted into my campaigns, but as I mostly run Golarion, I have a keen interest in monster fitting seamlessly with the rest of the world, without expansive details for why they do so): Sorry, but why, exactly, do these belong in the Mwangi? Makes no particular sense to me. They could be just about wherever.
6) CR appropriate (I don’t want a monster pretending to be CR 7, when it’s just not fitting for what my players can reasonably handle at any level near 7, or opposite, won’t represent a challenge even to a level 5 group): Er, maybe slightly high-power, but it's not critical, I think. I don't know, it seems all right to me. But not really sure it's better than that.
7) Previous work (I’m not just looking for monsters, I’m also looking back at the former rounds, especially since they may well be tie-breakers for my votes, but also because one single round doesn’t show all anyone has to bring): Okay, so your item I had little feeling for. It seemed like a fine idea, but not really anything more, to be honest. Your organization, however, bothered me no end. It wasn't setting-fitting, it was boring, it wasn't something I wanted to use, and it wasn't, really, realistically antagonistic. It was merchants, for heavens sake. You definitely gone out there and wild this time. Far more new and creative stuff going on here. I don't know though. You previous work kind of doesn't help this one, to me.
8) Promise for Adventure (I want to, as a potential buyer, contemplate how likely I am to buy an adventure written by you – based on your previous RPG Superstar work, your monster and my impression on how well you’ll do with an adventure): Sorry, but no thanks. I don't actually want a very, super-simple adventure, and that ´seems to be your strongest spot, looking at your item. Also this thing kind of suggests to me that you don't really know how to tie different things into a meaningful whole. I don't want that in an adventure. My players will blame me for it, and I'll not want to run it, especially because I'll have to be defensive about why all the time.
9) Personal Rating (Sometimes, at the end of it all, there’s things I just like, even if there’s other things that might be better for multiple reasons – now I don’t want to tell you I don’t like something, but I do want to, positively, say that I like a particular piece of work a lot): You haven't hit any of my personal favourite things and honestly, this is ind of a "could be neat, but is too busy being a lot of other things" monster to me.
10) Overall (This is where I try to give my opinion on what to improve on, how I feel about your submission in general, and finally, the thing you really want to hear, if you’re getting a vote or not): Overall, this tries to be too much, and fails.
Congratulations on top 16, good luck on your road to top 8!
Hello again, welcome in round 3 and congratulations on making it this far. I'm sorry I didn't get by your organization last round - I can't seem to remember getting to comment it; I walked into my winter disease period. Now, round 3 is for monsters, so let’s have a look at the beastie:
I'll be trying for thorough this round, as those who make it on will have an increasing chance of writing a supplement, which I'll likely have an interest in buying. Therefore both to help me and help you, I'll do my best and fiercest to give constructive critique here.
1) Rules (I want to be reassured that you have your attention to detail and sharpness for rules along here, especially since the organization round tested little on this spot): Hmm, okay, so all the emotion draining effects seem clear enough to use, though they may get bothersome in large combats and -1 or -2 could make the difference between survival and death for any number of players in any number of situations. It seems a little too complex. Whether you're being daring and innovative or just making things harder, I'm not quite sure. The entire thing seems somewhat over the top in power level. I don't really get why it needs rend or electricity resistance, anyway. A lot of the things just seems like bird mashed with cat with negative emotion effects. I don't really get the feel of why. Rating: 3/5 - decent, but I think things doulc stick together better and be more balanced. 2) Innovation (I want to (again) see promises of an adventure I couldn’t just think up myself, I want to see great and new thoughts, thoughts that seize my attention and holds it): The devour hope bite is innovative, all right. I'm getting just a little worried about your own ability to differentiate your subject: your item dealt with negating control (enchantment spells), thereby focusing on social/emotional aspects of the game. You organization dealt with taking people away from negative emotions, using dreams as a drug (illusion and enchantment stuff) and your monster deals with applying negative emotions. Either you're subconsciously sticking to a theme, you're overly interested in this theme, you're consciously trying to make a red thread in your work or - my concern - you're just too fond of this theme to do something not related to it, which will, eventually make your work repetitive. As for the monster itself, the idea is innovative enough, though mashing it into multiple forms and such just confused the fine essence, where it should have been distilled.
3) Creativity (Alike innovation, I want something that isn’t just new, it’s the good kind of new, and awesome at that): I don't know. You have a really innovative element in the "negating positive emotions" rather than the usual "applying negative emotions". But you kind of ruin it for yourself by gettign unfocused and going a little this direction and then a little in that direction. I'd love to see you focus more on bringing out the creative in ab "emotion removing" monster.
4) Writing (I’m a nitpicker for good writing, and I want to see it. This isn’t the most writing intensive round, but that just means I’ll be looking for wasted words, that I really get nothing from, and checking the bits that are ever more carefully): I don't know but your writing seems a little confusing and uncentered to me. I'd like a little more solid in places. I get a tactic for this beast which I'll mostl likely not be using. It seems to me you need to prioritize your writing to focus on more than just one situation, instead telling me about a monster. It seems a little to me like you've envisioned one particular situation, and made a monster based on that, rather than made a monster and then envisioned what it is, does and possibly thought of this one situation, among many others. Really, magic item relief is hardly the strongest emotion about.
5) Golarion (Most monsters can be fitted into my campaigns, but as I mostly run Golarion, I have a keen interest in monster fitting seamlessly with the rest of the world, without expansive details for why they do so): Uh, er, the Eldest/First World/Fey angle. Once again, would have worked if you focused it. Specialize them is gnomes bringing them to the bleaching by depriving them of excitement. As of now, you have a magical beast, who wants to be a fey, and speaks gnome, but is a different kind of chimera, but is really just preying on emotions, which is probably why it's not really fey. Basically it feels to me like you wanted a Golarion tie in, picked fey for some, to me unknown, reason, but couldn't quite fit it in with the monster.
6) CR appropriate (I don’t want a monster pretending to be CR 7, when it’s just not fitting for what my players can reasonably handle at any level near 7, or opposite, won’t represent a challenge even to a level 5 group): Okay, I'm not positive. This could be really dangerous against some groups. Group focused towards superior maneuverability and ranged attacks/spells, with no bard, would probably not take too much issue. This is kind of an anti-bard. I don't like it. As if the poor bard aren't disliked enough by their parties for not dealing the same kind of damage as the rest. The sonic damage troubles me. It just seems viciously high compared to any sonic damage spells. It's the very least resistable damage-type. I don't really like putting this much of it against the PCs, while making the only sonic focused class kind of negated. The best way to deal with this might well be to have the CMB character grapple it in a Silence area, negating it's sonic damage, grappled to keep it from attacking. And then, slowly but surely, kill it. Sure, it could annoying, but annoying isn't good. Challenging is, but I'm not sure that's what this is.
7) Previous work (I’m not just looking for monsters, I’m also looking back at the former rounds, especially since they may well be tie-breakers for my votes, but also because one single round doesn’t show all anyone has to bring): I kind of liked, but didn't really favourite your item. I didn't really like, but didn't entirely dislike either, your organization. I don't know. My biggest concern is probably your emotion theme, and a slight lack of focus and fully-done feel to your two last submissions. Try and work with that.
8) Promise for Adventure (I want to, as a potential buyer, contemplate how likely I am to buy an adventure written by you – based on your previous RPG Superstar work, your monster and my impression on how well you’ll do with an adventure): Oh I don't know. You seem to have the good idea down, but lack the finishing touch. And, I don't really want an adventure centered about emotion effects. I'm going to dare to say that while I wouldn't mind an adventure written by you, it's not really what I want, either, and you don't quite come across as ready for it, to me.
9) Personal Rating (Sometimes, at the end of it all, there’s things I just like, even if there’s other things that might be better for multiple reasons – now I don’t want to tell you I don’t like something, but I do want to, positively, say that I like a particular piece of work a lot): I like bards. Stop negating my favourite class. I won't have it in my games. Also, I like your base idea, but I think you got distorted - and too busy negating sonic damage too, just to bother the poor bard further.
10) Overall (This is where I try to give my opinion on what to improve on, how I feel about your submission in general, and finally, the thing you really want to hear, if you’re getting a vote or not): You had the idea, but lacked the focus and finish. Also, leave the poor bard alone! No, seriously, I'm actually getting increasingly concerned that your idea with this started out as "negating those annoying bard morale bonuses" and escalated to an anti-bard monster.
Congratulations on top 16, good luck on your road to top 8!
Hello again, welcome in round 3 and congratulations on making it this far. I'm sorry I didn't get by your organization last round; I walked into my winter disease period. Now, round 3 is for monsters, so let’s have a look at the beastie:
I'll be trying for thorough this round, as those who make it on will have an increasing chance of writing a supplement, which I'll likely have an interest in buying. Therefore both to help me and help you, I'll do my best and fiercest to give constructive critique here.
1) Rules (I want to be reassured that you have your attention to detail and sharpness for rules along here, especially since the organization round tested little on this spot): Oh dear, another kill it = you die ability. I hate those. I want to reward my players for being successful, not punish them. This kind of ability seems spiteful to me, and I frequently consciously nerf their damage into literally nothing or at least significantly less than they used to be. Additionally, this is a blasted plant. Plants. Don't. Explode. Well, my parents are both bilogists/botanists, and trust me, plants don't explode. It's just not really logical. They don't actually have any blood-circulation or such, that can stop and trigger the explosion. An explosion doesn't coem out of thin nowhere. Sorry, I'm in my logical corner. I want a reason, and I'm not getting it. Liquids that are this volatile should, reasonably be triggered all the time. Nothing about a plant *dying* really changes how volatile the flower is. Mark me confused. That said, there's a number of problems here and while my inner mean side GM wants to unleash this on my players, this monster worries me too much that I'm likely to so. Unless I want someone dead, real bad. Some of the abilities are really neat, but they are not really making the insecurities up to me. Rating: 2/5 - too many problems, too little logic and way too much damage sneaking in between those two. 2) Innovation (I want to (again) see promises of an adventure I couldn’t just think up myself, I want to see great and new thoughts, thoughts that seize my attention and holds it): An alchemical fireflower. It's new, I think. Haven't seen it before. I very much like the alchemist use, I very much don't like the idea of a plant having "habits". Even a magically intelligent plant is and does things because of its survival. That has nothing to do with "habits".
3) Creativity (Alike innovation, I want something that isn’t just new, it’s the good kind of new, and awesome at that): Hmm, I sense creativity here, there's a lot ideas that could work. Forgive me if I steal the concept and rewrite it. I need something to punish a player for making an industrial revolution on a cursed island. I have an urge to make this useful, and that means it's working for me.
4) Writing (I’m a nitpicker for good writing, and I want to see it. This isn’t the most writing intensive round, but that just means I’ll be looking for wasted words, that I really get nothing from, and checking the bits that are ever more carefully): Oh dear. The grammar monster is VERY unhappy. Subject/verb incongruence, plant "legs" clicking, plants with "habits", sap being coaxed. Your choice of words makes the grammar/linguistics monster inside very, very upset. And here it was about to find sleep. "Pyreblooms resembles a squat, uprooted flower" AAAAAAA... the pain. "A pyrebloom resembles a squat, uprooted flower" or "Pyreblooms resemble squat, uprooted flowers". Also, why do they "resemble"? If they "resemble" this, then what ARE they? My point is, your writing makes me, as a non-native English speaker, quiver with instinctive pain. I almost hope this is a draft, because if this is your reviewed writing, then this is enough that I probably can't read a full page of text you've written without crying.
5) Golarion (Most monsters can be fitted into my campaigns, but as I mostly run Golarion, I have a keen interest in monster fitting seamlessly with the rest of the world, without expansive details for why they do so): Nex, huh? You could have just said alchemists, there's loads of other countries more famous for alchemy, but okay, this strikes me more as magic experiment mishap, than alchemy, to be honest. it's not bad, it's just not really good either. I like that you let it spread. Else the threat would have been long ago exterminated, I think. Good logic there.
6) CR appropriate (I don’t want a monster pretending to be CR 7, when it’s just not fitting for what my players can reasonably handle at any level near 7, or opposite, won’t represent a challenge even to a level 5 group): Hmm, probably overpowered in most cages, though I don't worry too much over it. I think you wanted a lower CR or higher CR, and sort of misadjusted for this one. It doesn't really matter, that much, to me. I'm not using them as written, anyway.
7) Previous work (I’m not just looking for monsters, I’m also looking back at the former rounds, especially since they may well be tie-breakers for my votes, but also because one single round doesn’t show all anyone has to bring): I sort of liked your flask, but your organization was a disappointment to me. This has the same creative as your flask, but I feel worried about mechanics, and super-worried avout language. Generally your writing looks better in the other instances, but I think it's something to pay attention to.
8) Promise for Adventure (I want to, as a potential buyer, contemplate how likely I am to buy an adventure written by you – based on your previous RPG Superstar work, your monster and my impression on how well you’ll do with an adventure): Not entirely sure here. I could like an adventure you could write, but it depends on a lot of improvement on your side. I see creative potential, and I like that, but I don't know if it's enough.
9) Personal Rating (Sometimes, at the end of it all, there’s things I just like, even if there’s other things that might be better for multiple reasons – now I don’t want to tell you I don’t like something, but I do want to, positively, say that I like a particular piece of work a lot): Hmm, okay I don't know. The language bothers me no end. But the idea is really rather neat. I'm split here. Mechanics and language points down, flavor, idea and creativity point up.
10) Overall (This is where I try to give my opinion on what to improve on, how I feel about your submission in general, and finally, the thing you really want to hear, if you’re getting a vote or not): Wauw, I thought I'd dislike this more, but I like the name and the idea. I'm concerned by other points.
Congratulations on top 16, good luck on your road to top 8!
Hello again, welcome in round 3 and congratulations on making it this far. I'm sorry if I didn't get by your organization last round, I can't seem to remember that I did; I walked into my winter disease period. Now, round 3 is for monsters, so let’s have a look at the beastie:
I'll be trying for thorough this round, as those who make it on will have an increasing chance of writing a supplement, which I'll likely have an interest in buying. Therefore both to help me and help you, I'll do my best and fiercest to give constructive critique here.
1) Rules (I want to be reassured that you have your attention to detail and sharpness for rules along here, especially since the organization round tested little on this spot): Hmm, there's some concerns. The Thunderclash ability is neat, but a lot of the other things have small issues. The worst thing is probably the "living bag of holding" issue, but I'm tempted to let it slide as my PCs will tend to use a handy haversack no matter how many bags of holding i throw at them. It's however fairly decent treasure to have flying about (that one was intentional). The Greater Steal thing might be over the top, but well, my players would be sure to kill the thing as soon as they could then. They would probably be swift to get a great bit of electricity resistance and exterminate every one of these. The DR 5/silver makes no sense to me. Rating: 4/5 - I like most of it. I may be partial to it, I always liked weather/storm themed things, and I usually run campaigns for 6 high-power players, so being a little in the high end of the CR doesn't bother me enormously. Watch out for the details in the future. They matter. 2) Innovation (I want to (again) see promises of an adventure I couldn’t just think up myself, I want to see great and new thoughts, thoughts that seize my attention and holds it): A flying bag of holding is novel, allright. I don't know that I like it. A flying stealer, that's really just a crow, isn't it? Give me less bag of holding and more stormcrow or some such. I know, storm bird is a done theme, but the stealing would be the novelty, and a pelican kind of gullet could have handled storage.
3) Creativity (Alike innovation, I want something that isn’t just new, it’s the good kind of new, and awesome at that): So, is this creative enough to make it shine. I don't know. I want to like it, but somewhere it just doesn't quite get me up and amazed. The name's a bother for me. Gosh but do I want it to be something else with that name. The aberration type doesn't work for me, I know, it isn't, but I want a magical beast here. There's just no real reason why this is an aberration. End of the day, it's neat, but sadly, I just don't get excited. I'm worried your last submission went too far, and this one just went not quite far enough, for me.
4) Writing (I’m a nitpicker for good writing, and I want to see it. This isn’t the most writing intensive round, but that just means I’ll be looking for wasted words, that I really get nothing from, and checking the bits that are ever more carefully): Strangely, I don't much like the introduction text. It's just hard for me to image, the yes around the mouth don't make sense to me (why are they there, and why are they important - this thing is not about seeing stuff. I don't know your writing is generally good, and I don't see any flaws, but it doesn't really grab me.
5) Golarion (Most monsters can be fitted into my campaigns, but as I mostly run Golarion, I have a keen interest in monster fitting seamlessly with the rest of the world, without expansive details for why they do so): I don't really like the Eye of Abendego thing. Even if they originate there, what stops the malicious things from spreading. Trust me if any group of mine gets near the Eye of Abendego, they better be high enough level not to be concerned by these things and even if these monsters became a concern, it would be the least of their concerns in no time, or I would have to bring out numerous dragons of ancient and lightning spewing variety. Preferably really mean dragons. It's not that they can't work in Golarion, as I run it, but it IS that they can't go away from one specific, and really rather high-level inviting, area-
6) CR appropriate (I don’t want a monster pretending to be CR 7, when it’s just not fitting for what my players can reasonably handle at any level near 7, or opposite, won’t represent a challenge even to a level 5 group): They're not off CR per se, but they are very specialized and that makes them either a huge threat, or an neglible walk-over. Honestly, I'm bent towards the last, as few people would go to the Eye of Abendego (or anywhere near it, say) without protection against typical storm hazards such as lightning. Ergo: likely encountered when players are prepared for it, and likely at a level where it's not significant. I think this monster wants to be higher CR, possibly outsider and different looking.
7) Previous work (I’m not just looking for monsters, I’m also looking back at the former rounds, especially since they may well be tie-breakers for my votes, but also because one single round doesn’t show all anyone has to bring): Honestly, your item was a neat idea, which didn't like, and your organization was over the top much. They are, sadly, party to me wondering if you're really quite ready to go further here.
8) Promise for Adventure (I want to, as a potential buyer, contemplate how likely I am to buy an adventure written by you – based on your previous RPG Superstar work, your monster and my impression on how well you’ll do with an adventure): Honestly, I'm not aure. I don't have consistent feeling for your ability to write a great adventure. I think it depends a lot on the limits you're given, and the idea you get. Sadly, that maes my wish to see an adventure you've written somewhat conditional.
9) Personal Rating (Sometimes, at the end of it all, there’s things I just like, even if there’s other things that might be better for multiple reasons – now I don’t want to tell you I don’t like something, but I do want to, positively, say that I like a particular piece of work a lot): What's with this. I wanted to love this, it's storm, it's Golarion, it's even a scent Lovecrafty if I choose to read it like that. But it doesn't catch me. I'm maybe tired, and it's just my opinion, no matter what, but this is not catchy.
10) Overall (This is where I try to give my opinion on what to improve on, how I feel about your submission in general, and finally, the thing you really want to hear, if you’re getting a vote or not): I think you need to focus heavily on realism and on going far out creative, without going too far. No I can't tell you were the border goes.
Congratulations on top 16, good luck on your road to top 8!
Well, I'd like to give both my respect to the judges for making the decision (I'm sure it's never easy to make the choice), compassion to Bob with the disqualification and most of all remind all the other top 16 (15) to be very, very careful in everything they do on these boards. Consider every post, both for wording, politeness and for "is this really worth the chance of even potential disqualification?" as long as the round in question is running. Stay careful, all of you.
Hello again, welcome in round 3 and congratulations on making it this far. I'm sorry I didn't get by your organization last round; I walked into my winter disease period. Now, round 3 is for monsters, so let’s have a look at the beastie:
I'll be trying for thorough this round, as those who make it on will have an increasing chance of writing a supplement, which I'll likely have an interest in buying. Therefore both to help me and help you, I'll do my best and fiercest to give constructive critique here.
1) Rules (I want to be reassured that you have your attention to detail and sharpness for rules along here, especially since the organization round tested little on this spot): I'm not the best at this, so I'm relying a bit on Neil especially here. His look at your mechanics indicate something seriously off with the power level. Now I'm the type of person who gets curious and goes back to check your item, and check if power level was a concern there too, or if this is simply a lone incidence. It looks like the item was totally in order, and as monster balance is a whole-lot-of-complex, I'll assume that it was a one-time thing. Rating 1 to 5 (5 is awesome, 1 needs serious attention!): 3 - I assume that you simply didn't have enough to check against and wanted something just a little more awesome, and most of the numbers can be explained, to me. 2) Innovation (I want to (again) see promises of an adventure I couldn’t just think up myself, I want to see great and new thoughts, thoughts that seize my attention and holds it): A fey knight? Sure can't recall seeing that before, and I should know most fey lore, as fey tend to be among my favourite monsters. I don't now how well knight adds to fey for me, but I'll get to that.
3) Creativity (Alike innovation, I want something that isn’t just new, it’s the good kind of new, and awesome at that): So why is the fey lord a knight themed monster? I would have, I guess, had they been larger. As it is, I think they'd be a slight joke in my group - (look, the cat-size man wants to play at knights!) They're just too small to effectively work as what I want them to. There's definitely creative stuff, but I thin you should have focused away from the lance, or upwards in size. This guy is literally pricing people with a needle. And even if the needle hurts bad (too much for my taste), it's still kind of silly.
4) Writing (I’m a nitpicker for good writing, and I want to see it. This isn’t the most writing intensive round, but that just means I’ll be looking for wasted words, that I really get nothing from, and checking the bits that are ever more carefully): First, expectation! I wanted a lord of fey, not a diminutive knight of fey. Also change Sidhe to Fey (which, in Golarion, I think you can do smoothly, even more credibly) and the name is Fey Lord. Don't bore me, please? I appreciate that you chose Sidhe over Fey, but it still comes down to the same.
5) Golarion (Most monsters can be fitted into my campaigns, but as I mostly run Golarion, I have a keen interest in monster fitting seamlessly with the rest of the world, without expansive details for why they do so): First World tie in, check. References look in order.
6) CR appropriate (I don’t want a monster pretending to be CR 7, when it’s just not fitting for what my players can reasonably handle at any level near 7, or opposite, won’t represent a challenge even to a level 5 group): Uh-oh. Fast healing all right. DR to cold iron, of course. Why the SR? It's flimsy. It's down before it's fast healing gets significant. Yet it does superior damage. Is this a glass cannon, I wonder. It seems so. It could be CR 7, but I don't know, it really depends on the group composition how well this works out.
7) Previous work (I’m not just looking for monsters, I’m also looking back at the former rounds, especially since they may well be tie-breakers for my votes, but also because one single round doesn’t show all anyone has to bring): Your item was great, not a favourite, but I liked the idea and your design really worked. Your organization was, honestly thin, not much but mercenaries, who acted like mercenaries. I think you've went far more unexpected both here, and with your item, and the fact that your item was fairly solid design helps settle some of my concerns for the power level of this thing. Yet, that said, on an overall view, a strong item, but a weak organization doesn't really give you that much of an advantage when the votes are falling.
8) Promise for Adventure (I want to, as a potential buyer, contemplate how likely I am to buy an adventure written by you – based on your previous RPG Superstar work, your monster and my impression on how well you’ll do with an adventure): I wouldn't mind seeing an adventure written by you as you seem to be capable of many different things - you've shown me an item that deals with undeads, an organization of mercenaries and now a fey knight. It seems diverse, and I like that.
9) Personal View (Sometimes, at the end of it all, there’s things I just like, even if there’s other things that might be better for multiple reasons – now I don’t want to tell you I don’t like something, but I do want to, positively, say that I like a particular piece of work a lot): Uuuuh, fey, sidhe, illusion, enchantment, First World. Gosh, but you've got a whole lot of things I want to like. Sadly, you totally miss-sized them (how am I to charm the heart out of a female PC and then break it viciously with a guy the size of her foot? Nah, right?
10) Overall (This is where I try to give my opinion on what to improve on, how I feel about your submission in general, and finally, the thing you really want to hear, if you’re getting a vote or not): You need to think just a little more. Oh come on, the image of a knight at this size is just kind of ridiculous. I'd be forced to let wwhatever mean fighter, monk or anything else with a good CMB literally squeaze this thing in his fist. That's not amusing to me.
Now you have my viciously evil (still ill, forgive me if I get mean because I'm growing tired of it) opinion, use it as best you may, and remember that there's loads of people with different opinions! Congratulations on top 16, good luck on your road to top 8!
Okay, I haven't had time to go through and comment, but you're getting a vote, so now you're getting comments. I like your work here because:
You probably need to work on your amazement factor, but you've got pretty much everything else down. Here's thinking you have the imagination for more amazement, if you try for a little less safe and well-known ground. I'd like to see that. Best of luck!
Vote given, despite doubts.
How many temples? At 3 per temple we get 111, at 12 per temple we get 28, either way, that is a lot of temples for one region. No more 666 and no more too-many-succubi-syndrome/too-many-temples-per-square-mile though. You organization is creative and motivated. And I think I'll throw it at my sister, she wants to play a high-level Tian campaign... "Revenge of the Sit- err, Succubi!" No, I liked this a lot, and I end up voting for it based on your far more realistic item, your good idea and most definitely not on your succubi-related math. I think the best piece of advice is to try to walk the path somewhere your item and organization in how much is needed. I hope you haven't used all your ideas for monsters yet! Best of luck!
And, no surprises here, vote send of. I hope to see a little less niche and a little less over-the-top, but that's just the most of advice I can give you. I really hope to see and inspired (and not fey-demon-pirate-cannibal-and-just-to-go-a-little-further-dinosaur-look-a-l ike) monster from you - stay inspired, try for a little teensy bit more careful. The very best of luck...
And, vote given, as promised. Your strengths are in creativity and daring to play a little less than safe.
Best of luck, I hope to see a great monster from you...
Congratulations, I somehow ended up feeling that one of my votes should go here! A lot of my voting in the organization round is based on seeing if there's actually a chance for real and truly exciting ideas here. This is were you won me over. You organization stands out. Your concept's not overly new, but it's creative and with the right spin, I can come to imagine that this organization can even turn antagonistic enough. I like it more for it's "suspicious ally" potential, but I can imagine it fulfilling the criterea for the round as well, as that's important too. If you advance, I hope to see great improvement in:
You have room for a lot of improvement if you make it to the next round, but you're getting a vote of confidence anyway, with the belief that you have skill to make these ideas a little more smooth and well-written. This is probably the vote I'm giving away the most for "trust in the good idea, need to see improvement in the rest". Best of luck.
Vote given. Good luck, hope to see you in the next round. A short note on my reason to vote for you: You seem to have fine grasp of fulfilling the task you're given.
Where I see room for, and hope to see, improvement:
I hope you can use this in the future rounds, and I hope you get there. I leave it to your organization, item and luck now:
Congratulations and good luck again. Latinist/Graecist Moment commenting and translating Aegis Praxis:
Sorry, but I have to: The inner latinist/graecist had to check: Name is NOT latin. First word is latin, second is latinized greek. Quick translation has got to be something like "Defense Business/Issue". The two wrods do not match well. Links to good latin/greek dictionary pages: Aegis Praxis.
Inner Graecist/Latinist is not happy for messing words together with no inherent connection between them. It also does not get how the name is related to druids, even city druids who are all about defense. I deeply and honestly think you would have served yourself better with an English name, as latin doesn't actually exist in Golarion... and I'd probably have to translate the name for my players anyway, and while that doesn't take me more than a few seconds, provided I have internet or my dictionaries, I'm sure it'll be a bother for people without knowledge of the languages. That said alternative druids is a good idea, which could have worked out really well. Your item had a fine idea, so I was inclined to forgive for using a greek/latin name (though I still think it's a poor choice). But these people just aren't antagonists. They're just not. Except maybe to super-over-nature-taking-back-the-entire-world-druids. Who are kind of antagonistic themselves. I just don't think you fulfilled the assignment very much. Sure they have a few nasty methods - though those are rather well-concealed methods it seems to me. And they don't actually intend anything foul, so the people the force/replace probably did. Or they would be more likely to work with them. Basically: this group is probably more likely to hire the PCs than oppose them. Also, I still don't quite the latin/greek name (ab-)use. I'm overly touchy about those languages though, so it's probably just me. All added up though, the only thing I can say is: Good luck in the voting, I'm sorry, but I can't send a vote this way.
Well, personally (and fully conscious that my personal opinion is not really all that significant) I think that making an item do something visually makes it more likely to snap my players back to the game... the first few times. I generally like a visual component that's really close entwined with the actual actions, partially because it makes it easy on me as a GM to do a slightly deeper description on an exciting item (any item that qualifies as "Superstar", should, in my opinion, have enough awesome-factor that describing it's visuals at least once is worthwhile).
Just some thoughts...
Here we go again, congratulations and the best of luck to you Ahhh, but I wanted to love this for the name. I do love the name. But. The language/spelling/grammar monster does NOT approve of changing character names (especially as I'll have to spell them out a dozen times for my "write-stuff-down-to-remember-it" players. It is also, really, really, very much angry and not going to relent about this Absolom of yours. It doesn't like this much passive voice either. And the title you attach to your leader... Not happy grammar monster.
All in all, I can't justify giving you a vote purely for having probably my favorite organization name or at least one of them. And there's just not much to the rest of the organization. Sad thing that. Nidal and the Shadow Plane excited me. Best of luck in the voting!
Congratulations on top 32, good luck in the voting! Obscurity indeed. You mystical "Variations" may be the most exiting thing around. Sadly, I can't tell if they are. Now, I like mysteries and I may well detail this out in one-hundred-thousand words and pester my PCs to no end telling them no mote than you've told me here. Sadly, giving me all the work makes you less needed in the process. As a GM I can usually write up whatever I like just fine. I use prewritten things when I need already shaped, finished and swiftly ready to play things. This is not that. Your gloves were not a favorite of mine, and sadly, that may be what ends up discarding this fine idea and writing for something a little more substantial and definable. I'll probably still use the idea (at least, one of the dozen I get out of it). As for now, your place for a vote is categorized under: "Maybe, if I have spare one, and can't find another entry with a good idea and more detail" Now for the fun of it, a "Variation" is:
I'd like to know which, though.
Okay, it's time for the reveal soon, so I'll be sure to wish you good luck! Also, no matter the results, remember that the top 32 are, according to what has been said, around the top 2% of all the people, who submitted! It's well done, and congratualtions on it, no matter what happens here. That detour apart, let's look at you organization. My perspective on this round is a little more stressful that on the items, as I'm busy in this period, so my reviews won't be as detailed. I wasn't a huge fan of your item, so I didn't really expect to like your organization - strangely though, I liked the idea. The good parts in your design is clear here. The idea is both flexible, yet well enough defined that I can use it without extensive work.
The thing that bothers me the most about this organization is probably that I can't quite figure exactly what they're up to. The goal of "destabilize a nation to get more customers" just asks the question of "and why do they even want customers in the first place? What are they gathering resources for?" I don't think you give me quite enough there, but what is there will work well enough for a shorter campaign with the organization. Generally you have a good idea here. I might well send a vote this way, as the organization so far strikes me as one of the stronger entries of this round. I'll probably have to double-check your item and the rest of the organizations to make a choice here, but no matter what it's a good bit of work. Best of luck.
Congratulations again and good luck! I liked you item rather well, and I feel about the same way about this. I like the choir angle, the Shelyn use (you have good eye for using different deities than the majority, it would seem), the sublety.
Good luck!
Congratulations again, and once more, good luck in the continued contest. I didn't like your item much, but strangely, a lot of my disliked items gave me much more likeable organizations. This is one of them. The idea isn't huge or new or vastly inspired. But it's there, and I haven't seen it in this world before, despite it's obvious place here. That alone gives you a number of points. Second, you incidentally (I'm sure it wasn't mind reading, across an ocean and all) hit upon something which kind of fits a way to turn a rather liked (but good aligned) PC of mine I never got to play (campaign cancelled) into a vicious NPC to use against my players. Now, I'm sorry, but it's just not a whole lot of organization, though.
I wish you the best of luck.
Congratulations and good luck in the voting. I wasn't a fan of your item. I'm entirely different on this one. I really, really want to like this. Hell, I kind of like the idea. But I have to agree that there's too many weird things. That said, I'll probably turn a thief on the base idea "sewing circle of hags/witches" and add a number of deviously hidden plots, including loads of changeling children.
Good luck in the voting.
Yeah I agree... in the end, that's why I let go of it, to put it here. About halfway through some of the idea started to feel a little too good. I consciously failed to develop it further, since I would than have had a hard time letting go. My process, had I finished, would have involved a lot of rules checking, price checking, re-ruling, re-writing, proofreading and simplifying (since it started at 500 words, I knew I was shooting to far with number of abilities) and some of the tihngs it does could probably have been cut smoothly. I think you're right about the feat, actually. I'm not checking the book now, I'm supposed to be translating poetry, but I think I read the wrong line. I might still re-write this a bit, though I just had another idea to put here for this training period, a little more fitting for the price category, even. Anthony, hope you're getting better fast. Don't go missing round 2 commenting now... Wishes of Swift Recovery (a magic elixir of remove disease?) your way... Thanks for the ripping apart so far... it's good to see that I shouldn't start submitting 2 hour items.
Well, congratulations again, and good luck. This one is meeting some resistance. Your item wasn't the best, but... I liked the idea. I'm the same situation here. This could have been a neat idea, it could really... but sorry to say, you don't quite give me enough motivation. Sadly, for me, the main reason is that I'd have to beat my PCs into opposing these guys. Several of my main players will literally fight to rescue kobolds, goblins etc. Hell, one of them wants to play a kobold 90% of the time, no matter how many times I mention it being "really not a good idea here". Evil PCs might kill these guys... if the were racist evil. The rest of my PCs would probably ally with them, or try to correct their mistakes (without opposing them), or try to manipulate them. Or try to make them protect the recent favourites: dinosaurs and dragons. As you see, I'm out of way to make this the antagonists. They're just too friendly minded and yet funny-weird. Exactly the thing my players will respond well to, unless I tell them to actually create "slightly racistic" characters. And they'll hate me for that. Such group never work, because I'll never get all of them to play humans in the same campaign. I've tried. That said, I'll probably steal it for an allied organization. I just think you shot a little past the goal here. I need a lot more antagonism. This is just kind of... cute. I'll probably end up having a dozen "rights of the kobolds", "right of the dragons" and "rights of the dinosaurs" organizations founded by my players, if they hear about this. At the end of it, damn it, but I want to like you ideas, you just execute them too little for me. I need more. The ideas are so very fine. I want to have a place for them. But they just aren't what I need here. You're still under consideration for a "good idea" vote... if one of my votes wander of and can't find something else to do. This is the last one you'll be getting on that basis though. I'll need to see a VERY solid monster. Good luck further on.
Congratulations again, and the very best of luck... that said, onwards, I'm trying to get through a lot of organizations today, so I'll be swift here. I was in-between on you item. There were some unclear things, and the whole idea didn't inspire me quite enough. I like your organization more than your item, I'll say at once. Let me explain: I really like the sublety and social kind of thing so you're getting huge bonuses with me for that.
That said, you have really good idea, and I can appreciate that. My votes are not yet decided, but you still do have a chance at one. I'm not positive yet though. Best of luck from here.
Congratulations on top 32 and recommendation from all 4 judges. That's some achievement. Good luck in the voting and (likely, it seems) further on! I liked your item, though it had some issues. I like this quite a bit too. This too, though, has some weirdnesses: Most of all, what's with the leucrotta thing? I'm in-between on the name. "Foulgrip" sounds good, though I'm not quite sure where it comes from, which annoys me. "Rangers", others have given objections to, and mine are some of the same. "Rangers" strongly suggest a class, which I'm kind of hoping is not the intention.
That said, you've got a fun and flexible organization. I'm probably going to find a vote for this, but I have some doubts I need to figure out for myself first... Until then, and no matter how that turns out, the best of luck to you.
Congratulations and good luck, again. You had a neat item, and I'll admit I like the basic idea of this. I do like the thought of an exiled organization.
I don't like the 666 thing (now that's not really a killer for me, it's bloody easy to change, but you should've known better than something that Obvious)
Generally, there's too much of the good thing, much too much. You may still get a vote, but I'm doubting it. The best of luck in rounds to come, though.
Congratulations and good luck in the voting, first of all. Now, I really liked you item. It was easily in my personal top 5. This however, has me doubtful. I like that it's not a straight otu hostile organization - I don't mind the PCs actually having to think to find out that somethings up.
I don't feel like you got quite enough wrung out of the word count here, though you may still find your way to a vote, but presently, it depends a lot on how I end up evaluating the rest of the entries. Good luck, though.
Honestly I'm aware of most of those problems. I just didn't really feel like doing more out of it right at the time. Your note on CL, DC and spells actually makes sense. I'll probably end up keeping it at this CL anyway. I don't really like the idea of super-low saves. They're such a waste of effect. As for the lingering effects, I'm really not super-concerned over the performance part - as you noticed yourself it's really a seriously downgraded version of lingering performance. I d
Oh, a reveal: This item was at nearly 500 words before I cut down.
Wauw, thank you for the detailed linguistic commentary. I know it's wonky in places, this is my work as it looks without prrof-reading and from random messing about for less than 2 hours though, so I doubt a lot of the general wonkiness is prone to appearing in things I spend a little more time actually focusing on. As for commas, quite for seriously, I'm used to a laguage swhere we have 3 different rules for how to do them. I'm a fanatic follower of the one with the most commas, considered somewhat old-fashioned and very rules oriented. I never comprehended English commas. There's no constant rules. I'm also a student of languages, that can, literally, do sentences with 20 hypotactically placed sentences, while retaining perfect order and saving the main verb for 20 lines later. I've translated pieces like that so I'm really not kidding. And I've noticed that my writing is getting fairly influenced by my increasing training in translating these pieces with as few changes as possible. Honestly, I can actually see that this item was writing in the middle of doing some rather tedious greek poetry translation assignment. All those participle forms sneaking in... But I do so love them. Note to self: Kill particle forms in my writing.So thanks, a lot, for the comments. I'll remember to look through future projects for these kinds of mistakes. Now, haven't you been told to stay of this place? Aren't you supposed to be staying completely silent rather than getting accused of trying to steal votes? You already had one of mine, but stop this or you may loose it to disqualification. Behave! No, seriously, be careful. The judges don't seem too patient with any kind of sidestepping this year.
Congratulation, again, again. So, you have the support of 3 out of 4 judges, and I absolutely loved your item. You pretty much had a vote before you even submitted this. Anyway, I'll still endeavour to look at it, with some perspective as to how you can improve. I like:
I'm missing/doubtful about:
This added to your item, which was probably my absolute favorite of the last round, you've basically stolen a vote so successfully, I can't imagine what you could do to not make it into the next round and quite possibly all the way. Vote granted. Good luck further on.
Also, I realize I didn't stick to the price requirement. I wanted to initially, but it seemed too cheap for this. I can also see I forgot to change CL to 5th, which it was intended for. Damnable. Bloody 2 hour-items. I'll modify this once I get some ripping apart. My main practice exercise is killing my darlings anyway, though. And working in new ways. And making something not based on any spell I can find.
The entire based-sound-effect thing has been a darling of mine for some time, so to practice letting go of my darlings, here goes. I actually came to love this quite a bit during creation. I hope I won’t regret letting go of it. Rip it to pieces. It’s written up in about 1 to 2 hours, so I expect a huge amount of flaws… if they're not there, I'm going to cry. I almost had "can't-post-this-it's-almost-good-enough-for-submission-issues" with this one. I'd like you to prove me wrong.
Reverberating Echo Flute (294 words, after a word counting method which in my experience is fairly identical to the submission tool’s):
Reverberating Echo Flute
Aura faint illusion and evocation [sonic]; CL 9th Slot —; Price 15,000 gp; Weight ½ lb. Description This finely crafted flute is made from ebony and has three elongated note-shaped inlays in ivory. Sounds from this flute linger strangely in the air. Playing the flute requires both hands and prohibits all verbal actions and takes a standard action. Using bardic performances, while playing the flute, causes them to linger for one round after the performance is ended. 3 times per day upon activation it plays strange sounds akin to words, which can replace the verbal component of a spell and the movements of playing to act as the somatic components. If using the flute for this purpose, the user may choose for any spell to linger for one additional round, even if instantaneous. The spell uses a spell slot one level higher than normal, else sounds linger ineffectually. The flute holds 3 charges daily which can be used, while using the flute for spellcasting, by touching one or more ivory inlays as a free action. The charges change the spell cast as follows: One charge: One enemy target of the spell hears a load sound. He must succeed a DC 17 Fortitude save or be deafened for one round. Two charges: An ally affected by the spell, gains a +1 morale bonus to any one roll within the next round. Three charges: The damage type of any spell cast by affected allies within the next round deals half sonic damage. If a spell, which already deals sonic damage, is cast, it acts as if one caster level higher. Construction Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, Lingering Performance, Intensify Spell or Extend Spell, ghost sound, sound burst, any bardic performance; Cost 7,500 gp Designer’s Notes:
Okay, so the price for this is complete gut reaction as I’m doing a couple of things that there’s no clear formula for pricing I know of. So, in short terms the most serious of the effects seems to be the three charge ability, allowing all allies affected by some spell to cast spells for half sonic damage. I don’t know how often it’ll be used though, as it requires a spell to be cast of spellcasting allies within one round of a point, where they’ll need to use a damage spell. It only works once per day, and only under very restricted conditions, and it uses up all the charges. The other charge abilities prevent this from being chosen, meaning which charge is used is always a meaningful choice. The ability to extend spell cast with it slightly is neat, but hardly anything huge as it costs the same or comparatively more than a Metamagic feat. Yet, it doesn’t cost a feat, which may make it worthwhile. If I’d have more words I would have expanded a bit on that as there’s probably some considerations I should have taken into account. Anyway, it seems to me to be a lot of neat, small effects. It’s mostly a bard item, but it could, theoretically find use by a non-bard, as all must the performance extension effect is useful to other spellcaster classes. I’m going to price it at a tentative 15,000. It’s limitations just seem too serious for anything higher, yet letting everyone in a party deal half sonic damage for even just one round with any spell could get pretty mean in some situations, so I won’t have it at lower. I might have put it higher if not for the limits.
Why the charges and 3 times per day uses. Well, in fact I was inspired by a comment from one of this year’s top 32, saying that he liked effects that built upon each other, so I wanted to experiment a little with that design choice. It’s seriously word requiring. But I like it. It’s neat, and smoothly sneaks around the worst SAK tendencies of multiple ability items. I’d wanted to do a bard item for a while and it just wound up being this. The spell choices are fairly random. Ghost sound is for the general sound extending theme and sound burst was simply chosen sort of at random among eligible evocation, sonic damage spells, as it seemed low enough level to work decently. I wanted “any bardic performance” not to limit it too much as it’s really more there for the specific feeling of bard theme to all of this. As the item is not based on any one effect or spell, it was honestly a nightmare to choose price, construction etc. for. I simply went with momentary feelings. Please correct me fiercely on this. Format should mostly be neat enough, but I’ve got to admit I didn’t fret too much over it.
Congratulations again! Now, my usual overly wordy look at things. First of, though, an admission. I'm going to start in the places I like, because it is more essential to me to give people whose work I consistently like a chance to improve. That said, I'll get around to everyone eventually, but being this wordy takes time (for people who aren't Neil Spicer, anyway). Now, you submitted one of my favorite top 32 items. And you look to be having an organization in my personal top 5 of those as well, so I think you have stolen one of eight votes. Congratulations. You should be ashamed. Now there's only seven left for the others. I kid, of course. Really, I rather like your work here. And, you have 3 out of 4 judges recommending you to advance. Good work! The Good things about "The Unfettered":
The bad: I agree with Sean. You do need to be more careful that you have thought what you're heading into 100% through. That's not easy though, and a lot of it comes with training, I believe. I still think you can make it here.
Overall: You had a good chance at my vote from your item alone. I like your organization too, and those things added together makes me give vote. You're probably in my personal top 3 for who'd prefer to go all the way. Best of luck with your monstosity! Get back to work! I strongly expect to see you in the next round.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
