David Lowery's page

I like the apple orchard. I once had an evil, twisted forest in one of my campaigns. How the characters got lost was different, but ...

Why would the PCs go through the orchard instead of the main gate? THe main gate must be trapped (a DM lure). You never know what lurks in the minds of PCs.

The creatures seemed well-linked thematically. The signage (100-lb hammer, etc.) was a nice touch.

I would recommend this for advancement.

I like this lair and would recommend it for advancement.

I feel the lair fits the villain's personality.

I especially like the swinging chandelier and the g-cube trap. The moving bridges seems right out of Harry Potter. The dolls are a nice touch. Touch attacks are much more likely to get through the PCs defenses.

Good map.

You get my vote.

This is much improved from the previous round.

I like that there is a logical method for the head to move (still silent fly). I like that there are four delineated body parts, that each body part restores some of her lost powers. I also like that the details were spelled out. You even included a size increase.

You should have listed the cost of the meta-magic still silent.

The hit points are off, even after the missing body part adjustment.

This is a unique character.

This character gets my vote.

The well-executed stat block and well-executed new-rules-element that fits with the character (both of which too many entries are lacking) is what did it for me.

I like the character concept and the fact that it is a low-level villain. The character seemed a little light until I remembered he was only CR 5.

I really like the new-rules element. An item that fits with the character and the character's background. The elixir give and advantage but also has a serious drawback and one that fits with the "problems" mentioned in the characters background.

The one flaw is a lack of a lab or similar facility.

I don't recommend this submission for advancement.

I like the concept of a wraith-fighter. I don't feel you did a very good job of presenting the character.

I'm not as down on the back story as others appear to be. The PCs would most likely have to be in town to be affected by this character, but that's true of many villains. However, the story should pack more of a punch. The tactics seem lame.

You do not have a new rules element, or at least it isn't properly identified as such. But you have four new rules elements (see previous comments), which is against the rules.

The stats for incorporeal touch are incorrect, as you added unarmed attack bonuses. Another new rules element?

Hit points appear to be off. CR should be level -2.

You are not allowed to post comments re your submission. You lost my vote right there.

I will not vote for this character.

I feel the concept is great, and the concept was improved upon for this round.

I like letting the DM decide whether there really are invaders. You clearly stated this as optional.

However, the stat block is lacking. I like that you gave the air-elemental version and the base version, but the numbers seem off. Since the stat block is not a minor part of this round's submissions, this is a big minus.

The contagious contagion is way over-powered. As stated previously, you can easily kill entire cities, even countries. If you want to keep the basic concept, have the DC get easier each generation, or hav eit contagious for only a certain length of time. etc.

Maybe others will be more impressed.

I like.

I favor villains that aren't near-maxed out, but that's me.

The stats were a lot of work to generate and they look reasonable. The bloodline fits well with the character. Good concept, good improvement over last round, good implementation, good flavor, reasonably tight.

I will not be voting for this character.

Good concept, good description. Then, terrible.

Is this Kar-En-Helit or Moeris or both? From the title and description, I was expecting two sets of stats (and wondering if this is allowed). You appeared to have combined the two, but this is not made clear. Also, the stat block appears to be a mess (see previous comments).

The "create a new rule, ..." section is made for this character. Two sets of stats, or explain the ritual, or something dealing with bloodlines.

I think you could use practice in generating stats for characters.

Maybe next year.

I am probably not going to vote for this character.

It's a good concept but I don't think you pulled it off.

While you did catch the -2 to CR, the stat block has more errors than i would expect (see previous comments).

The character will most likely not be a permanent member of the party. Maybe she provides a clue to an adventure, then acts as a guide for another adventure, etc., but most groups I'm familiar with do not have NPCs as permanent members of the party.

I actually like the fact that the character is "incompetent" in melee combat. I felt you needed to do more in this area. Give me a feel for what the characters plans and does.

Oriental Adventures has honor. I believe AD&D had optional rules for fame or reputation. GURPS had status, reputation, station, etc. I feel reputation fits well with the character concept, but you needed to provide more details. At least give the DM some ideas of how to award reputation. AN what about reputation wearing off? This year's hottest star is next year's has-been.

The overall presentation didn't grab me a well as I expected.

I like this one. On my initial read through the entries, I felt this ws the best to date. I like the "misguided by visions" hook. He's only trying to protect himself. There a re many ways for the PCs to defeat the him. Definitely makes my top six.

I liked the use of a dwarf. I feel 100 years of study is too long. Watch the details in future rounds. Makes my top six.

I like the imagery of "an army of marching headless ..." A good idea, but too many details are missing. This is supposed to be a villain for use in D&D, not a blurb on the dust jacket of a book. Didn't make my final four. Maybe others will see it differently.

R.E.S.P.E.C.T. Or more appropriately. L.I.K.E. His personality is sufficiently flawed that no-one likes him. So he has retreated into his own world, populated by his own creations. Yet, when he creates one with a personality just like his, neither can stand the other. He really is not a likable guy. He doesn't try to change is personality (not easy to do)? Is he becoming depressed? Does the PC bard try to help him with his personality? Can the PC paladin, in good conscience, kill him? A definate keeper.

I like the use of otyugh. The entry seems well thought out. Definitely makes the top six.

I like, but the entry has flaws. Does the dream world really exist? If so, where is it and what is it? As per other comments, do PCs align with this character? Entry is not through or not clearly presented. The task is to design a villain foe use in D&D, not write a blurb for the dust jacket of a book. I think many entries fell into this trap. This will not make my final four, but maybe others will see it differently.

"Jigsaw Man" in D&D. Body parts. Clientele who are willing to pay. And look the other way. Presents the characters/players with real-world like moral decisions. A definite keeper.

I prefer the 3.5 specialist wizard over the pathfinder alpha option. In 3,5, a specialist wizard gets an additional spell per level. Easy to keep track of, and provides flexibility. In Pathfinder, the specials wizard has another list to keep track of. Many of the abilities are wimpy. A second-level Evoker gets 1d4 + 1. Not even close in comparison to a magic missile, and it requires an RTA to boot.

Wizards may now select an object as a familiar. What about the "no familiar" options mentioned in Dragon magazine? Its even a Paizo product, but they are not included in Pathfinder. Why?

Being able to cast 0-level spells at will is a BAD idea. Very bad. Cure minor wounds had to be done away with. What about repair minor? Maybe the entire party should be comprised of Warforged. With create water and purify food, hunger and thirst are no more.

Thanks for listening (reading).

Skill points.

At this time, I prefer the 3.5 method.

If you are going to create a party of NPCs to rival you PCs, you should spend the time to do it. If yu are vcreating generic cookie-cutter characters, well ...

Quick and dirty method. A PC has its level in skill points applied whatever skills it is likely to have. Done.

Skill points for the Rogue-2 Wizard-6 Fighter-2 Arcane Archer-4 (CL14).
Rogue 8x5 = 40 divide by 4 gives 10
I don't know how many skill points an arcane archer gets but say 2
2x12=24 divide by 4 gives 6
16 skills with 4 ranks each. trim to 8 skills with 8 rand each.
Int 16 (+3) x 14 = 42 divide by 8 gives 5 and a half (say 6) more skills
Total 14 skills at 8 ranks ea. or 7 skills at 16 ranks ea.
I don't see this as difficult.

Thanks for listening (reading).

First, thanks for staying with 3.5 and not converting to 4.0. There are numerous 3.5 edition books, etc. and I do not want my investment to go to waste.

Comments are based on the downloadable alpha rules with any revisions.

Upon first perusal, I though there were too many changes. Upon further reading, I still think there are too many changes, but to a lesser extent.

> XP required for Level Advancement
Please don't change the level advancement xp progression. The current progression is very easy to understand. The amount of xp to advance increases by 1,000 each level, the amount of xp to advance to the next leve equals your current level (x 1,000), and the total xp needed for a given level is the sum of 1 through current level.

For a faster or slower progression, the GM should increase/decrease the xp award by one-third. You don't need three tables, easier to adjust on the fly if the desires of the players change.

>0-Level spells
I do not think 0-level spells should be castable at-will. You already had to remove cure minor wounds. What about repair minor? I think I'll play a warforged and be fully healed every thine there is a spare 5-10 minutes. A cleric can create 2 gallons of water every six seconds so thirst is no longer a problem. Same for hunger as long as you are near a garbage dump or a stash of rotten food. You get the idea.

>Presentation comments
It would be beneficial if you indicated why you are making a particular change. The brief comments in the beginning were a good overview, but please add more detail for each category of change.

How do Pathfinder deities relate to other deities?

If you are going the change races and classes, you will also need to change monsters. Please give a few examples. (For example, on the subject of hit points, I would guess Ettins, Ogres, etc. would be like barbarians, other melee-oriented monsters would be like fighters, normal animals would be like rogues, and mind-flayers, grell, etc. would be like wizards.)

>Skills
I like grouping spot, listen, etc under perception, but there should different sub-skills for each sense (like knowledge(...)).

>Feats
For now, group all of the "improve skill" feats together. This would make it much easier to compare with existing feats, determine what feats are missing, etc.

Improved Trip grants a +2 bonus instead of a +4. Why? What happened to the melee-attack after successful trip? Knowing the reason for the change would be helpful in making similar adjustment elsewhere.

Combat feats only last one round Why? I simply invoke it at the beginning of every round, so it is, in effect, continuous. Am I missing something?

I apologize for any typos and any comments that may be unclear.
Thanks for letting players have a say.

Sincerely,

David