Wimblewyrm

[Chris Shaeffer]

Wide eyes brimming with both curiosity and suspicion peek out from beneath the large, spiraling horn that protrudes from the brow of this miniature albino dragon.

Wimblewyrm CR 5
XP 1,600
N Tiny Dragon (earth)
Init +6; Senses dragon senses; Perception +10
----- Defense -----
AC 19, touch 14, flat-footed 17 (+2 Dex, +5 natural, +2 size)
hp 45 (6d12+6)
Fort +5, Ref +6, Will +5
Immune acid, paralysis, sleep
Weaknesses light blindness
----- Offense -----
Speed 30 ft., burrow 20 ft., fly 60 ft. (average), caustic burrowing
Melee Gore +8 (1d4 plus 1d4 acid), 2 claws +8 (1d4)
Space 2-1/2 ft.; Reach 0 ft. (5 ft. with gore)
Special Attacks jumble stone
----- Statistics -----
Str 11, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 17, Wis 12, Cha 10
Base Atk +6; CMB +6 (+10 vs. opponent in rocky, difficult terrain); CMD 16 (20 vs. trip)
Feats Improved Initiative, Stone Read, Undermining Exploit
Skills Appraise +12, Bluff +9, Fly +15, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +12, Perception +10 (+12 in mountainous or underground environments), Sense Motive +10, Sleight of Hand (+8), Stealth +19, Swim +9
Languages Aklo, Draconic, Duergar, Undercommon
----- Ecology -----
Environment any underground
Organization solitary, pair, or crew (3-6)
Treasure double
----- Special Abilities -----
Caustic Burrowing (Ex) A wimblewyrm burrows through stone, dirt, or almost any other sort of earth other than metal with ease. It may choose to have its acid create a dense stone shell where it passes, leaving in its wake a permanent tunnel 2-1/2 feet in diameter. The wimblewyrm also uses this ability to ignore the effects of difficult terrain caused by stones.
Jumble Stone (Ex) Once per day as a standard action, a wimblewyrm can cause the surface of any 5 foot areas of stone it burrows through on the same turn to crack and dislodge. If a surface is a floor, it becomes difficult terrain and any creatures standing on top of it must succeed at a DC 15 Reflex save or fall prone as the wimblewyrm passes underneath. If a surface is instead a wall or ceiling, then stones fall to the space most directly below it. In situations where there are multiple spaces to which the stones could fall, the wimblewyrm chooses a single space. The floor becomes difficult terrain and any creatures standing in the space must succeed at a DC 15 Reflex save or take 2d6 bludgeoning damage.

Notorious liars and thieves, wimblewyrms are greedy even by dragon standards. When not burrowing through the bedrock of Nar-Voth seeking precious gems, a wimblewyrm will spend its time quietly stalking intelligent creatures through dark tunnels, hoping that it might seize valuable goods or precious secrets. If discovered, a lone wimblewyrm will usually make a single attempt to nab the object it most desires before disappearing into a nearby cavern wall. Larger groups become increasingly more daring, however, and will coordinate their jumble stone ability to distract and disable their opponents. They are also a vengeful species, and have been known to create miles-long tunnels simply to flood the homes of creatures that displease them.

Unlike their larger cousins, wimblewyrms are eager traders of the gems, unusual objects, and information they have acquired, and often create extensive subterranean networks of commerce amongst themselves.

An adult wimblewyrm measures roughly 2 feet long from tail to snout, and sports a single heavy horn extending another foot directly forward. The spiral grooves of the dragon’s horn drip with a powerful acid which it uses to bore holes and fend off larger predators. The creatures pale yellow eyes and scales match the appearance of their eggs.

[Mikko Kallio]

Congratulations on making the Top 16 in RPG Superstar! I'm Mikko Kallio, an RPG design blogger, freelancer, and former RPG Superstar finalist. Some of my freelance work involves designing monsters for Paizo's Adventure Path bestiaries. I'll review your monster much like I do when a fellow freelancer asks me to have a look at an assignment they're going to turn in.

Name and concept

When spoken aloud, the name sounds a bit too cute to my taste, but admittedly its meaning fits the monster well.

I think the wimblewyrm is appropriate for Nar-Voth, but in my opinion, the rascally little dragon concept is a bit tired. There were three mischievous little dragons in last year's RPGSS, two of which were traders & information brokers like this one.

Descriptive line

The descriptive line is good and usable as read-aloud text, but I think the dragon's albinism is the only detail that makes it distinctive from other small dragons.

Stat block

”Dragon” and ”Gore” shouldn't be capitalized. The Perception bonus in stony terrain should be +13 since the feat gives a +3 bonus. The bonus for Sleight of Hand shouldn't be in parentheses. You've used the hyphen in ”3-6” instead of the en dash. Other than that, the formatting looks correct.

It has a lot fewer hp than it should have. Its average damage is also clearly below the target value. Somehow I get the feeling that you wanted to design a dragon with a lower CR but was forced to go with CR 5 because of the CR limitation.

Though it's a dragon, I'd prefer that it didn't have a fly speed since burrowing is its thing and it would make the dragon a bit more distinct from other dragons.

While Stone Read is thematically appropriate, I'd strongly prefer Skill Focus (Perception) since it's more straightforward and takes up fewer words in the stat block.

Special abilities

Caustic burrowing seems thematically very appropriate. My only concern is that it's a bit too easy to break a stone building with the ability. A single wimblewyrm could cause a lot of damage in a matter of minutes.

Jumble stone is a cool ability, though it's really quite similar to the groundbreaker's cloak's effect (RPGSS 2014 R1), and as such, not breaking any new ground. Pun intended.

I do like the ability, though, it's a fun way to inconvenience the PCs.

Description

The description is well-written and gives some useful information for the GM, and it very nicely shows how the dragon uses its burrowing ability, both in and out of combat. I also like it that these dragons can also be used in social encounters. However, the part about their trading items and information sounds awfully familiar, as mentioned above.

I like the bit about it being a vengeful species, though the thought of them flooding buildings deepens my fear that caustic burrowing may cause hazards well above their CR.

By the way, avoid using the future tense ”will”. Also, there's an apostrophe missing from ”creatures”.

Verdict

I was on the fence about this monster. I think the biggest flaw is that the concept doesn't feel unique and original enough. I weakly don't recommend this entry for advancement.

[Owen K. C. Stephens]

I'm not a fan of the name. I see what you were going for, but it sounds like a 5-year-old's stuffed animal, not a creature as dangerous as a Large elemental, basilisk, or megaraptor.

The concept is classic, and going with greed as a strong element helps separate this from other trickster dragons - but it doesn't go far enough. Especially since they are noted as being traders, without suggesting they are anything but evenhanded in their trades. If more of the background and abilities had tied into the idea of being greedy "even for a dragon" I'd have been much happier.

The numbers are just too low. Except for very special circumstances, this isn't even a speedbump for a typical group of four 5th-level adventurers.

I wanted to like this more than I ended up liking it. It's not terrible, but it's not Superstar either.

I weakly do not recommend this monster for advancement to the next round.

[Adam Daigle]

Congrats on making it to this round! May you have the luck and talent to push all the way through to the end!

My Judging Process:

I’m treating these like a pre-development pass.

When I develop a monster for the Adventure Path bestiaries (or anything really), one of the first phases is where I print out the monster entry, and look it over, marking up the page with notes and highlighting any problems that I need to address later when I really dig into it. Much of the time I’m circling things in the stat block or flavor text and leaving a quick note. Most often, this quick note-making pass is performed while I’m writing out art orders for the monsters so I can make sure that the description I give to the artist is what the final monster will be. This is where I make note of any changes I plan to make (some of which I’m sure frustrate some of my freelancers from time to time).

I figured the best way to judge this round is to treat it like my normal day-to-day work and do what I mentioned above. I’m going to judge this round in a similar manner to how I’d treat a monster I ordered from a freelancer if I asked one of my freelancers to just send me something within the same parameters that you’ve been given. Some of the things I comment on might seem nitpicky or overly critical of a small element, but I blame that on my job. I’ll probably even use terms that aren’t that familiar outside of publishing. :)

One thing to keep in mind is that nothing in my review here is personal, and since tone is difficult to communicate online sometimes, imagine my comments and critiques read in a friendly and nudging way. To heighten the experience, imagine all of these comments scribbled in purple ink on a sheet of paper containing your monster.

I start by googling the name to make sure that it isn’t something already existing, a weird term that could mean more than one thing, or isn’t secretly offensive or illegal.

Then I read the flavor line under the monster’s name.

Then I work my way down the statblock looking for anything that stands out or is in the wrong place or is formatted wrong. Most of these comments are just things that jumped out at me from a glance and are super easy to fix while I’m developing a monster. (I don’t get annoyed at my freelancers for these little typos and oversights unless it gets really sloppy or persistant.) During this I also look at how much the stats match up to Table 1–1 and how different elements of the design account for numbers that are off the average. During this part I often have questions about why a decision was made or why the creature has this element. I jot these down. Many times I figure out the decision once I read the flavor text and go back and scratch those notes out.

This leads me to the flavor text. This is the part of the monster where I get to see how well the designer can write. (One of the reasons I often test new contributors with monsters is that it pairs up design and writing in a nice compact package.) I also look at how the designer used the tight wordcount. This round’s rules used pretty much the same wordcount that we’d use for one of those monsters, and it can be difficult finding the right balance of flavor text and statblock. Too much flavor can sometimes result in a boring creature mechanically, but when 90% of the turnover is statblock, the GM doesn’t have much to go on for how to run the critter.

In judging, I also go back and evaluate some of my critiques and revise after looking at the monster again with fresher eyes.

I notice that I say “probably” a lot in my reviews. When I use that word I pretty much mean that I’d either really think it over and research a few things more than I normally would before making a particular change. This would certainly include me turning around in my chair and getting feedback from other developers (including any editors that heard me in the next cube over).

Even though most of my comments are very “stream of consciousness,” I spent a good amount of time with each of these monsters, typically an average of 30 minutes on each submission. Some more than others. I also did all of my reviews blind without seeing the other judge’s comments. I didn’t want what they had to say influence me. I apologize ahead of time if we end up being repetitive.

And now onto the monster!

• Thanks to googling the name, I discovered a new word.

• The decription totally made me think of a unicorn, so I’m trying not to think of a draconic Uni for the rest of this read. (Don’t take this the wrong way, when it comes to me you can only do so much with a spiral horn. I’d probably think of a unicorn if someone was describing a narwhal to me.)

• I think its weird that you didn’t give it darkvision. I feel like this was an error you probably didn’t intend to make. All (mostly all) dragons get darkvision and low-light vision as part of the creature type, but you didn’t include those in the senses line. Using dragon senses is only something that is done with true dragons that have age categories. Every other creature with the dragon type lists out these senses. I’ll note that if you would have included the senses correctly, your entry would be over word count and you’d have to find a few places to trim before submitting.

• Its hit points are low for a CR 5 monster, and its AC is only 1 higher than the average. Bumping its Con up to 14 would get its hit points to 51 and help get its Fort save closer to the average for a monster’s good save. That said, its other saves are a bit low.

• Its damage output is low for a creature of this CR.

• In the parenthetical after CMD, I don’t understand exactly if that comma is saying in “rocky and difficult terrain” or if rocky is there to describe the type of difficult terrain. If that’s the case, why does it get a bonus on CMB when the caustic burrowing ability says that it can ignore the effects of difficult terrain caused by stones? I probably would have broken this part of the ability out into a separate special ability and then put it in its defense line.

• I worry that this thing could make swiss cheese out of a fortification in no time.

• Since it tunnels through walls and pulls of smash and grab thievery, I can totally imagine certain passages near it lair to just be riddled with little holes and tubes and I really like the devious floodings they are mentioned to pull off.

This is a neat concept and I actually like the critter (Dig-Dug dragon!), but I think this could use a bit more polish. The rules language isn’t particularly tight, even though I completely understand what its saying. I don’t recommend this monster to advance.

[Lucus Palosaari]

Tiny Rock Dragon. I want a dozen. I would so Improved Familiar the crap out of this dragon. I know a friend that his wizard is why we have this damn thing because it was his perfect solution.

Every time I see a new dragon in Pathfinder I have sighed. I think WotC overdid them in Dungeons and DRAGONS <might have had a reason, namesake and all> but Paizo has consistently made new and interesting dragons that I want to play with. They've kept a horse from even feeling dead, let alone beating it.

You've done just that here, and I think it's really cool. I might tweak a half-dozen little things, and I'd question how the acid thing works but I can guess from the mechanics you presented.

Loving it.

[Cthulhudrew]

The description of them as "liars and thieves," "greedy even by dragon standards," stalking intelligent creatures to steal from them, and "vengeful" make this sound more like a NE creature than a N one to me.

The abilities fit the theme, and I like the strategic applications of its jumble stone ability. It makes for some very interesting encounter possibilities for PCs to have to work through.

I'm a little on the fence about this one at the moment.

[Maurice de Mare]

15th monster I have seen.

Likeable, but not quite special enough.

Your rank is 8th.

[Browman]

I struggle to find a situation where I could actually use this creature other than a completely random encounter.

I also don't like that it can burrow and fly and Caustic burrowing should probably have a limit on how much it can be used.

[Feros]

Congratulations on making the Top 16! :D

Interesting imagery here; sort of a cross between a unicorn and a pseudodragon. I like that they are still principally an adversary that might occasionally be negotiated with. That allows for a number of different scenarios.

Warrens and tunnels could make for very interesting ambush encounters in the game. The main problem with this creature is that aside from the acid dripping horn it’s all been done before. There is a whole book of drakes from a 3PP that covers creatures like this very well. How many mischievous little dragons exist out in the world and why can’t we fill in encounters with the established minor drakes instead?

As such, I will not be voting for this entry.

[Curaigh]

Chris Shaeffer wrote:

Wide eyes brimming with both curiosity and suspicion peek out from beneath the large, spiraling horn that protrudes from the brow of this miniature albino dragon.

Wimblewyrm CR 5

Nice work Chris,

I can always find more room for dragons. The stats do not jump out at me (good or ill). I found the new abilities easy to read and clear. I even found them a little inspirational (wanted to play them). The caustic burrowing does offer a little disconnect to the acid damage for me, acid eats things away not binds them together. I think I know what image this goes for (melting snow into water then letting it refreeze to form a shell). I have never seen a version of stone for that, but I have seen slurry piles solidify so why not? :)

EDIT: After reading the judge's comments I agree on the flightless and darkvision which I kind of expected. Perhaps this tunnel could collapse in 1d6 days to remove the seige-breaker threats.

No minus's, a couple of plus's, going into the keep pile.

[R D Ramsey]

Name- Wimblewyrm. A little too cutesy sounding for me. But I know what to expect.

Description- Sufficient. Art would be easy to create from it, might not be as unique in appearance as it could be. Probably should mention the acid dripping from the horn.

Special Abilities- Burrowing underground creatures are pretty common. At the same time, these abilities seem very strong against stone structures, maybe too much so. These guys could cause massive damage. The abilities do make sense for thieving little earth dragons.

Nar-Voth appropriate- Sure. They're right at home in the environment and make sense interacting with the existing creatures there.

Mojo- It does all feel familiar. It's all logical, and probably some fun to be had, but nothing really surprises me here. Maybe instead of Jumble Stone, something more focused on the thieving aspect.

Will players remember in 6 months- More than most, this one depends on how it's used. It could be just another encounter with a wily dragon, or it could be the monsters that flooded Derroville. That latter would be remembered for sure.

[RJGrady]

I like the name and some of the thematics. But it seems weak in combat, but perhaps too strong at causing wanton destruction. It's CR seems about right, but as a compromise on a grab bag of abilities. It's built nearly at the strongest recommended for a Tiny creature. It's extremely intelligent, greedy, and dangerous... so what kind of lairs do they make? I think, in keeping with the dragon theme, I want them to have a breath weapon, maybe a toxic gas that nauseates or something.

This is one of my favorites at this point. It needs work, but there is a lot to like about it.

[Thunderfrog]

As you are one of my favorite contestants, I was excited to come check this out. Then I saw the name and groaned.

It's a cute monster, something like a mix between a Wolpertinger and a Xorn, but not something I could see myself using much in the grimdark environments most players I know seem to want.

I dont like the special abilities much.

I liked their personalities until "notorious liars and theives." I would have liked something a little more light-hearted to match the theme.

Creativity and Theme: 3/5

Running this monster as a DM: 3/5

Encountering this monster as a complex/story encounter: 1/5

Encountering this monster as a random encounter: 3/5

10 / 20 pts.

[frank gori]

Criteria:

The Monster round is my favorite in the competition as it generally exposes the designers in a way previous rounds do not. 300 words is enough to make an impression but does not tell me much about you as a designer.

The monster round tells me about your gaming ascetic, your attention to detail, and if you have the creative chops to be different. Anyone can make a boring monster it takes a special kind of mind to make a Chimney Troll or a Yellow Tongued Hulk. IS it fair to compare you to my favorites from prior years? Probably not but I'm going to do so anyway.

Format you'll find familiar but shorter than my item reviews. I'm combining bad and ugly and I'm going to be harsh even on the things I like, this is because compliments don't make you better.

Good Little details show me a glimmer of promise in the same way your map did. I like the cone horn and I like its personality.
Bad and Ugly You picked last year's trope where we had 3-4 of these... It makes me more critical and not as likely to vote for you as you could have just used the feedback from those to improve your own. What kills it s all the little errors like the low HP and saves, a party with a summoner at 5th level can summon small magma elementals and completely own this thing.
Overall I got 4 votes, this might have won me with a marginal 8 votes as I loved your map that much that with 8 votes I'd just vote for you anyway... I'm corry this is a -C minus for me as it draws comparisons to a couple monsters I loved last year (guttersnape)

[Jeff Lee]

This is the 10th entry I've read thus far. Initial impressions are mixed. A tiny dragon, Chris? After last year's monster round? I can't tell if you're taking a risk or trying to play it safe. Interesting earth theme. Let's break this down and see what's here.

Name: I too learned a new word. Still, not crazy about the name.[/b]

Description: It works. Clear visual.

hp: Low for its CR.

AC: Slightly high for its CR.

Attack: On the low end for its CR.

Damage: Way low for its CR.

Primary Ability DC: On target for its CR.

Saves:These are way low, and the math is wrong. Dragons get good saves across the board and as a 6HD creature its base save is +5. With the stat array you've given it, the saves should be Fort +6, Ref +7, Will +6. Even then, they're low for its CR.

Feats: I applaud you on your use of unconventional feats to really cement the theme and tactics of your monster. It would have been the icing on the cake if this were up to snuff as a CR 5 monster.

Skills: Skills are on target.

Special Abilities:

Caustic Burrowing: It uses its acid-dripping horn to burn tunnels through the earth. Cool. Now why does that very caustic acid which can melt stone only do 1d4 damage on an attack? That's less than a flask of acid. Upping the damage would have helped put it on par with other monsters of its CR.

Jumblestone: A clever ability, and I like it. However, it seems the damage should increase if, say, the wimblewyrm drops the rocks from the top of an 80 foot cavern ceiling as opposed to just 5 or 10 feet up.

Background: I like the background, and it seems a good fit for Nar-Voth.

Overall, I'm a bit disappointed. While its tactics are clever, it's still underpowered for a Darklands monster, especially one of the dragon type. Obvious errors on the saving throws when it's already underpowered just add to the problem. I'm not sure if the mojo of it outweighs the problems, especially since we saw so many tiny dragons last year.

[Jacob W. Michaels]

OK description. I expect some will object to being able to tell it’s both curious and suspicious, but it doesn’t bother me much. I like it being albino, but it almost seems more cute than scary, perhaps because of its name.

Write-up’s OK – I can see how to use this creature as a GM. I like that it’s got a personality and isn’t just an opponent for the PCs, which reminds me of what I tried to do with my guttersnipe last year, but I wonder if just having it be a super greedy dragon’s enough. I love dragons, but I think they may need something more to make them Superstar. Now, the bits about working together – and creating tunnels to flood enemies’ homes – have my attention, since I think communal dragons DO feel unique. But when I went up to check how many can show up together in the organization, I was a bit disappointed to see it was the same as the guttersnipes, even with the “crew” nomenclature. I think that was a missed opportunity as that name is a really good way to add a little personal touch to a monster. Let’s see what the stat block shows, since I think that’s going to make my decision on this one.

hp -
AC =
Atk =
Dmg --
Saves --

The stats seem off a bit, with all the saves well below par, low HP and low damage output. I do like undermining exploits a lot as a feat choice, though (once I looked it up and saw what it did!).

Caustic burrowing doesn’t seem that different than just a regular burrow speed to me. The tunnels could leave a neat effect, but I’m not sure how often it’s going to run into difficult terrain issues, considering it can both fly and burrow. I like jumble stone more – that’s the centerpiece of the creature – but I think you nerfed it a bit by making it once/day. Why couldn’t it just do this all the time? I think that was really a missed opportunity.

Sorry, Chris, you’re one of the people I was pulling for in the contest, but I don’t think there’s enough here for me to vote for this critter. I’ll certainly be pleased if voters advance you, though.

[Lady Firedove]

This was the fifth monster I read.
I'll just be giving my initial impressions:
I really like this one!
I like the idea of a cute little greedy albino mini-dragon with a big, spirally, acidic horn creating vast networks of tiny tunnels for trade with other wimblewyrms!
Personally, I love the name, too!
I don't know if people will think this has enough of a cohesive mojo-heavy theme and mechanics to be Superstar, but I sure want to include these little guys in my game!
My only nitpick is that the word creatures in the last line should have an apostrophe.
So, in other word, nice job! Neat monster! :)

[mplindustries]

Disclaimer:

I'm probably not your "typical" judge of monsters. When I GM, I tend not to use pre-generated creatures and statblocks, preferring instead to build custom foes for the PCs (this is because my houserules remove, most significantly, magic items, excessive wealth, and instant, permanent debilitating effects, like instant death, ability drain, energy drain, permanent curses, etc.). However, I do, occasionally mine extant creatures for ideas, and adapt them to suit my needs.

I would say that at least 75% of the foes my PCs face are intelligent, social creatures with class levels, as I always prefer it when, 1) there is a logical reason for an encounter (I dislike illogical filler encounters when 1d4 darkmantles drop on you just for the hell of it) 2) there are multiple ways to overcome a challenge (such as parley, escape, manipulating the environment, etc.). So, for an actual, legitimate monster to interest me, it needs to have logical reasons to interact with the party beyond "they're close by and it attacks for reasons," and ideally, it needs to create a memorable interaction thanks to a strange ability or behavior pattern.

From the PC side of the table, meanwhile, I'll be judging on how fun it would to encounter this creature. Now, I don't mean "how easy it would be to defeat," I mean how dynamic and exciting facing it would be. There are tons of filler creatures already that you just beat on until someone falls over. I want something involving unusual tactics, but that wouldn't just be frustrating.
Now, on to the monster!

I really dislike this one. A tiny greedy dragon is just weird and silly to me. I can't imagine how I'd use this. The PCs get stalked by a tiny greedy thing? The PCs...trade with a tiny dragon merchant? I can't see this not being ridiculous.

Its tactics don't even make sense. If discovered, it makes a single attempt to nab the goods, but, uh, it has no special ability to do that whatsoever--not even Improved Steal.

When played be a typical GM, this thing is a joke, with really low stats for a CR 5 monster. When played optimally, this thing is impossible to fight because it wouldn't ever engage directly, just use its burrowing to create ridiculous hazards. I mean, as the description even says, it can drown the PCs with easy in subterranean tunnels, but that's not even the only possibility.

This is the second creature in a row that I've seen like this--a joke when fought straight up and impossibly frustrating when used to the best of its abilities.

[Christopher Wasko]

Brief critiques as I prep for the possibility of advancing, focusing on feedback that is hopefully new and constructive to future designs.
Not a good name, and the “sneaky little dragon” concept is a little tired after last year’s contest, as mentioned before. To its credit, this is the first monster I have ever seen use burrowing as an actual tactical strategy in a compelling way (including the purple worm and bulette, which can burrow but don’t stand out as using that ability as a form of maneuverability or battlefield control), which is cool and certainly setting-appropriate. Like Jeff, be careful with non-core feats.
I hope to see some more original, tighter designs from you next round should you advance. Good luck!

[Chris Shaeffer]

Not much to say this time. I originally thought of doing a "Wimble Imp" because I liked the way it sounded, but I wasn't aware of any other devils that are native outsiders. So I conjured up a dragon on the fly without remembering all those ones from last year. Just didn't do my homework. Still, I like the guy overall, and I think it's way better than the Bristlecraw, at least. :)

Besides all the smaller errors, my big one was the average damage per round. I accidentally aimed for 10 instead of 20. I can only blame sleepiness for that one.

One thing, Mikko: You are incorrect on the perception bonus. If the source you were referring to is the non-Paizo PFSRD, then that one is actually higher than the original version for some reason. Really, it's my fault for using an obscure feat!

Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions! I highly doubt I'll get through to the top 8, but that's okay. I'll be back! *SHAKES FISTS*

[Mikko Kallio]

Chris Shaeffer wrote:

One thing, Mikko: You are incorrect on the perception bonus. If the source you were referring to is the non-Paizo PFSRD, then that one is actually higher than the original version for some reason. Really, it's my fault for using an obscure feat!

I stand corrected! I couldn't find the feat on the prd (search attempt) and didn't realize the d20pfsrd version had a typo in it.

Quote:

Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions! I highly doubt I'll get through to the top 8, but that's okay. I'll be back! *SHAKES FISTS*

Whether you make it to the Top 8 this year or not, you should consider contacting 3PPs (and/or Paizo, if you're feeling lucky) about freelance work. Also, consider joining the Freelance Forge, a community of freelancers, many of whom are former, present, or future Superstar finalists.

[Lady Firedove]

Ah, little wimblewyrm, I mourn your passing. You were one of my favorite critters in this competition, and you earned my vote. May you rise again to see the light of day (or perhaps the gloom of Nar-Voth) in use at the gaming table by those of us voters who liked you! :)

[Chris Shaeffer]

Thank you for your encouraging words and overall coolness, Ms. Firedove. I'll be sure to fix this critter up a bit for you now that I am free from my other design obligations. ;)

And my other entries too. I'm pretty much done redrawing Treant's Crossing, and I have some ideas for the item I made. Also some stuff from previous years I want to fix. I'll just release a pdf here on the boards.

I'm also working on... new stuff. ;)