Drahkan's page

aying "I thank the judges." or even "I thank the judges for their feedback on my submission." is currently clearly and entirely safe. However if the rules was your proposed "During public voting rounds, contestants are prohibited from any public discussion relating to their current submissions." then thanking the judges WOULD be "any public discussion relating to their current submission." It's not thanking the judges for someone else's submission, so it would be a discussion *relating* to yours, and your proposed rule forbids that.

I don't want to draw the line there, and I think that would create more confusion and DQs, not less.

*Head reels*

Hrm. Perhaps so, but if that's the case, then would making the "thank you's" wait until after the round was over be an issue? For round 1 I didn't say anything until after the voting was done, but only because I was caught up with other Real Life stuff for the entire voting time so didn't realize it was even over until getting the email. :) However, if I *had* thought about it, I could see how difficult it might have been to read one of the many comments and make an off-the-cuff statement that didn't seem like a rules violation but in fact was. (Which, most likely, would just have meant that someone else had my place in the 2nd round, as that's most likely what would have happened.)

One of the many problems of running these sorts of contests, I guess. The forum here is filled with sub-forums and topics that are all about critiquing each others' work, engaging in conversation about Game Rule ABC and Doesn't Work Because of Historical Game Canon XYZ...and then suddenly you have to wait with bated breath to say anything you wouldn't be confident in telling an adult while sitting at the kid's table during Thanksgiving dinner.

Ah, well. Thanks for running the contest to begin with; it's been 2 decades since I had anything published, let alone been able to play an RPG anytime recently (stupid Daily Life), so was good to know that I haven't lost my touch entirely. Top 32 is, well...still Top 32, eh?

And I would hate to create a universal ban that could DQ someone for saying "Thank You" to judges, which is been a staple of many contestants for the life of this contest. In this case, we draw the line further away than that.

What about the rules rewording I proposed, then? "During public voting rounds, contestants are prohibited from any public discussion relating to their current submissions." Saying "thank you" obviously falls outside of that (large) container, but I don't think the line you've drawn is more than a couple inches away from "any discussion relating to your submission" given that you actually suggest a contestant avoid saying something as objectively simple and true as "this is my entry for round 2, not for something else".

(Just to be clear, since the DQ has already happened I have no reason to continue discussing this for my own benefit. I'm just assuming that I'm not the only "new arrival" to this contest, so if I can get caught by this broadly defined rule then I'm going to go the route of RPG Rules Lawyer and call it out as the "game mechanics issue" it is. :) )

Brandon, the problem is you clarified that you felt the rules called for something specific AND that you felt your map met that criteria, AND that some people weren't judging it on that criteria.

That's additional information about in what way you felt you met this challenge, and an effort to sway voters with that new information.

So that really is more than "this is my entry for round 2, not for something else," which I STILL wouldn't recommend a contestant posting.

That's where the semantics comes in: I didn't imply any of those "AND"'s in my original post, at least not as you've rephrased them. It was "the rules state that round 2 submissions are for encounter maps, not flip maps; your comment gives the appearance that you didn't know that, and as that's important for any voters to know, here's me correcting that incorrect assumption." Not that it matters - the interpretation of a judge is all that matters - but I still disagree.

Regardless, that last "non-recommendation" alone means that, almost literally, you don't think that any contestants should post anything, period, until after a round of judging is complete...which makes me wonder why contestants are not "banned" from posting on (their) entries to begin with. Not sure that's something currently implemented, but *I* obviously would have benefited from the inability to post; maybe it's something that could be brought up with the site dev team? It just seems counter-intuitive to allow people to inadvertently incriminate themselves, as it were, given the forum-like structure of the contest, especially for something that relies so much on individual interpretation.

Even just rewording the rules to something like this would have made a HUGE difference, as it leaves no room for a contestant to be "suckered into a DQ":

During public voting rounds, contestants are prohibited from any public discussion (...*snip*...) relating to their current submissions. This applies to (but is not limited to) interviews, personal blogs, and messageboard posts on paizo.com or elsewhere, including the paizo.com discussion thread for the entry itself. Any such discussion may result in disqualification, in the sole discretion of the judges and/or Paizo.

Brandon Thorne wrote:

Just to clarify (without typing anything that might disqualify me...I hope): This is supposed to be an encounter map (according to round 2 rules), not a flip map. Pointing that out as I'd like to be fairly voted on/judged by my peers based on the contest rules and not on a misinterpretation of what we were supposed to be creating. :)

Brandon! NOooOOoo!

The Contest Rules wrote:

During public voting rounds, contestants are prohibited from any public discussion that could be considered as adding to, expanding upon, or clarifying the content of their current submissions. This applies to (but is not limited to) interviews, personal blogs, and messageboard posts on paizo.com or elsewhere, including the paizo.com discussion thread for the entry itself. Any such discussion may result in disqualification, in the sole discretion of the judges and/or Paizo.

It doesn't matter if others misinterpret or even misunderstand the rules and vote differently than what they believe the round's assignment called for. You're NOT allowed to comment on your entry to clarify (or correct) others. You have to let the voting public interpret it for themselves. There'll be plenty of others here to correct them or support them or foster further discussion.

My statement was meant to "clarify" the round 2 rules only, not the content of my submission - hence my use of the words "supposed to be" instead of something more explicit. It's obviously a matter of semantics and judicial interpretation, but if the wording of my post had literally been "this is my entry for round 2, not for something else" - which I think contains the same amount of information - I can't imagine that would be a disqualifying statement, would it? (...and I do understand that if the answer is "actually, yes; it would be," that I'm definitely DQ'ed at this point.)

Great Encounter Map

Bad 24X30 Battlemap, aka Flip MAp.

To much Wasted Space..Continuity Issue with Split Levels..

Just to clarify (without typing anything that might disqualify me...I hope): This is supposed to be an encounter map (according to round 2 rules), not a flip map. Pointing that out as I'd like to be fairly voted on/judged by my peers based on the contest rules and not on a misinterpretation of what we were supposed to be creating. :)

@Lucus - Given the explanation of what your "Superstar" rating represents, combined with the rest of your comment, I'll respond with "you've already got a Call to Arms for 'mantles,' but back in the day I did write a couple articles about the Deadlands RPG for Shadis Magazine...so shoot me a PM if you're thinking about writing a supplement covering the myriad of smelly and generally unpleasant things you can do with a saddle blanket, as I'm your man."

@meloriel - Thanks for the kind words! (Including the corrected spelling, especially given that I probably spent more time typing "(sp?)" then it would have taken to google it...le sigh.)

@meoriel/@Browman/@Neil - I'm going to stand by my choice of making it a cloak with your support...and because of the (il)logical argument that no proper adventurer would wear a saddle blanket wrapped around their feet, so the item obviously had to be a cloak (or similar), right?

I had this item as a keep as I love the flavor of it. I am however surprised to see it in the Top 32 as I agree with many of the others that the mechanics are quite muddied.

Some Questions this item makes me think about trying to use it:
While it doesn't stack with spirited charge, does it stack with the mounted lance multiplier?

I don't know how to resolve the gust of wind when a creature moves out of a square but before the attack of opportunity as the attack happens before the creature leaves the square.

The description is good, the wind theme is good, but I think it has mechanical problems, a +40 ft. bonus to speed is +80 ft. on a charge (as you move double your speed), This seems to be way too much especially as it works on every charge. This triples the charging range of a medium or heavy armor wearer (that alone would probably be worth the price).

All that said:

Congratulations and Good Luck

Thanks for the luck - I can use it!

The mechanics get more muddy the more I read them, unfortunately. Se la vie (sp?) I guess, I made it to the Top 32 and that's that. I think the concept is what got me there, not so much the mechanics - I could definitely straighten them all out with more time. For instance:
* Change the damage multiplier to something like "whenever the character charges (on foot or while mounted) they count as having the Spirited Charge feat even if they do not meet the prerequisites"
* Change the gust of wind effect to either simply state that it affects any creature that could make an attack of opportunity against the charging character (regardless of if they do so or not), resolving the gust before the AoO, and/or that the item is actually activated as a full-round action (or standard if full-round is unavailable), first creating a gust of wind spell with a line of effect as long as the character's charge speed, after which the character can charge any creature along that path assuming they meet the usual requirements for a charge. Those two would both resolve a ton of rules issues, I think, as long as their actual wording was succinct enough to not be cumbersome.

Those changes would keep the flavor intact but straighten out the rules quite a bit. Whether or not it would result in an item that people liked enough for Top 32, I don't know...but it doesn't mean we shouldn't improve upon the item for those who are thinking about using it in their campaign, eh? :)

Huzzah - got my 2nd round entry in. Unfortunately it's with only 4 hours of sleep in me, and barely more than today to work on it...so not at the quality I would have liked. Sigh. Then again, when I think "quality" for something visual in nature, I expect it to be "final product"-good...which isn't what Round 2 is about. So maybe I'm worrying too much. :)

Anyway, back to this item. Now that I have some time, I'd like to address specific comments as I think a lot of the "confusion" is due to my trying to keep the rulings as short and crisp as possible...for an item that I knew could be abused (or simply not understood, rules-wise) without proper explanation. Apparently I failed on that, at least to an extent, so here goes:

* The 40' charge is due to the speed of a phantom steed at CL5. Although it seems overpowered - especially so since it has "unlimited charges" - note that it only applies *during a charge action*. It sounds powerful at first, but if you run through the scenarios where it would actually be used, a lot of that falls away. First, very few characters make more than one or so charge attack per combat: after the first they are usually up against the enemy where full attacks and standard moves make more sense. Yes, it pretty much ensures that they *can* charge each combat, but so can a mounted character...except that there are a lot of circumstances in which a mounted character can't even use their mount, which is the primary reason this item came into being (to allow mount-centric characters to continue to act similarly even without their mounts while still benefiting from being on them).

* The intent of my wording for the gust of wind effect was that 1) it wouldn't harm the item's wearer (that's actually in there), 2) as the character is charging past opponents, they would be hit by the gust *before* they got to swing at the character (if it was the other way around, the ability would lose a lot of it's potency), and 3) the charged opponent couldn't be "blown away" before the charge attack was resolved. In other words, you resolve the gust of wind while the character is moving from square to square, one square at a time, until they reach their target.

* Back to the "why a cloak" thing: as a couple commenters noted, it ties in with the High Plains Rider Clint Eastwood character...who rides in on a horse barely visible through heat haze. That and the visual connection between wind gusting a cloak *towards* a charged target rather than *away*, all as part of an obviously magical offensive action that (if you want to go all the way) lifts the character off the ground somewhat, dust swirling around them in a hazy outline of a warhorse, just before the explosive gale thrusts them forward with the wailing of the violent winds accompanying them.

(Which makes for what, 1000 words? I guess only giving me 250 was reasonable...)

First: thanks all! I appreciate the congrats and especially the feedback.

Speaking of which, re: repeated comments/item issues/"why a cloak, and why gust of wind?"/etc -

This item actually started out with air walk rather than phantom steed, the idea being that it would literally lift you up and blow you across the battlefield (or above the battlefield, I guess), resulting the the gust's effects plus a 60-foot charge in any direction. This proved extremely difficult to word, especially with all the possible rules issues, so after bouncing it off a friend it turned into this charge-like ability.

...and that's when things started going a little wonky. For a variety of reasons (which still remain valid, and are seriously threatening my chance of getting my map in by EOD today; the time to make this post being an exception, BTW ;P ) I had to work on the item in small time chunks, rewording and then moving onto something else before being able to come back to it, etc. Plus I had pretty bad writer's block for part of it, which didn't help. This ultimately resulted in me keeping a lot of the original ideas and "forcing" the new mechanics into them rather than simply starting anew, which created most of the issues you (plural) have brought up. I'm not sure how it would have turned out if I had gone the "redo route", (would it have become a lance? Maybe..?) but that's hindsight and hey, I guess it didn't matter in the end.