Epic Meepo's page

Several years ago, while experimenting with ways to make rules text more concise, I discovered that replacing all pronouns in the PRD with "you" and "your" whenever possible (and changing sentence structure, accordingly) reduced the size of the document by several thousand words.

Quite literally, the PF1 Core Rulebook could have included multiple pages of additional content if it had used "you" and "your" instead of third-person pronouns. In English, the sentence structure you use when speaking directly to the reader can be surprisingly efficient.

Healing has been a part of the fantasy RPG experience forever.

Forcing one player at every table to have no fun because every party requires a dedicated healer was bad game design 40 years ago and it's bad game design today.

If healing is an essential part of the fantasy RPG experience, give every character some baseline healing capabilities (through skills, stamina, wands, or whatnot). Healing spells should be extras for characters who want to optimize their healing, not an unspoken prerequisite for enjoying the game.

*opens rulebook*

ME: "There's a six-page glossary of descriptors! Not really my style, but I suppose it does remove lots of ambiguity from the rules; traits will finally clarify things like what actions require only the use of your mind, allowing you to take those actions while paralyzed."

PARALYZED: "You have the flat-footed condition and can’t act except to Recall Knowledge and act in other ways that require only the use of your mind (as determined by the GM)."

ME: ...

*flips table*

Asking a master blacksmith (level 7) to lend you your tools should be a really hard level 7 task with preregs (being friendly already andcetc)

Asking the same blacksmith to teach you a common formula should be much easier since thats almost a service he already provides.

Why isn't a "really hard level 7 task" just a level 9 task? In other words, why aren't things like "easy" and "hard" just modifiers to the base DC?

All wands should be spell dueling wands. Those are way more thematic than boring PF1 wands.

A few years ago, I felt the English language was incredibly close to embracing singular "they" as an all-inclusive pronoun of unspecified gender. Since then, I've encountered singular "they" being used as a preferred gender pronoun... which means singular "they" is actually gender-specific, in the same way "he" and "she" are gender-specific. Goodbye, divisive system of binary gender; hello, divisive system of trinary gender.

TL;DR: Labels for people make me sad. :(

I get the "some things are extra bulky and that matters more than weight." But that's a corner case.

In a system where armor with numerical modifiers can also have the "clumsy" or "noisy" traits, it seems that an item could have a distinct weight and also have the "bulky" trait if that item has a larger than normal impact upon one's encumbrance.

Doing things that way would make the encumbrance system more complicated, but an overabundance of traits seems to make everything in the game more complicated, so encumbrance would fit right in; and at least then we'd know what everything weighs.

I'm not really understanding the utility of a two-dimensional DC table.

Wouldn't it be easier for GMs if there was a table with just one DC per level, and you simply increase the level if you want a harder DC? There aren't "low-difficulty" and "high-difficulty" level 10 monsters, so why are there "low-difficulty" and "high-difficulty" level 10 DCs?

The playtest rulebook uses the term, "Dent," to measure damage to dealt an object. To me, this terminology produces a fair amount of cognitive dissonance. How, for example, would I "Dent" a rope by attacking it with a sword? How would I "Dent" a piece of paper by cutting it with scissors?

It would almost make more sense if objects took generic "Hits" instead of "Dents," as in: this statue has Hardness 10 (5 Hits). That's slightly closer to plain English than the current terminology which equates "damage" with "dents."

---

Although I'm calling out "Dents," in particular, I think that term exemplifies a larger trend in the game rules. Lots of things are saddled with unusual keywords that don't exactly fit any sort of plain English definition: bulk as a unit of measurement, screening (an apparent neologism), awkward phrases like Focus Activation action, etc.

At times, as in the case of "Dents," the rules seem to read less like English and more like computer code, where the names of variables are assigned arbitrary values as needed, with no regard to the dictionary definitions of the names themselves.

This may or may not be a problem for other readers. I can only speak for myself when I say that much of the terminology in the rulebook comes off as awkward and artificial, so I hope it sees some sort of revision before the playtest process is finished.

There should be no game mechanics tied to gender. In fact, aside from Close Match, there are no game mechanics tied to gender (based on a search of the rulebook for the word, "gender"). Close Match really stuck out like a sore thumb when I read it.

It doesn't allow the Conan type unless they always have their signature weapon on hand. Was there never a story where Conan was captured and disarmed, or had to grab a plain standard sword or axe from a fallen enemy? I think the story would have become far less compelling if he suddenly had to hit everyone 4-5 times as much just because he didn't have his super special sword.

Minor nitpick:

The very first Conan story ever written, The Phoenix on the Sword, takes its title from a magic rune a sage had to place on Conan's sword because only a sword enchanted with that magic rune could harm the demon summoned by Conan's enemies.

I don't disagree with your overall point, but you didn't pick the best example when calling out an iconic character who doesn't depend on magic weapons.

I'll go one further and say I'd like to see the word "gender" removed from all game mechanics.

In fact, a quick search of the rulebook shows that the Close Match feat is the only rules text that contains the word, "gender." The gender-based penalty on disguises mentioned in Close Match feat doesn't actually seem to exist in anywhere else in the rules, making the Close Match feat the only instance in the game of gender having a game mechanical effect on one's character.

The following are a few random questions I had while reading the rogue class.

Footpad’s Focus: Why isn’t there any sort of synergy between this feat and Bludgeoner?

Battle Assessment: How does this differ from a Recall Knowledge action? And, assuming there is a bigger difference than I am seeing, why is this a rogue feat instead of a fighter feat?

Dread Striker: Why isn’t this also a fighter feat?

Poison Weapon: Where is the simple poison generated by this feat coming from? Shouldn’t this feat involve some sort of rules for crafting a simple poison instead of just handwaving its existence?

Dispelling Slice: Is it intentional that you can use this on an ally to end a harmful spell whose effect is worse than the damage you would deal with Dispelling Slice?

Perfect Distraction and Reactive Distraction: How are these feats not powers? Isn’t every class ability that produces a spell effect supposed to be a spell in PF2? And even if they somehow aren’t spells, shouldn’t these feats have the same descriptors as the mislead spell they are duplicating?

Implausible Infiltration: How is this feat not a power? And even if it is somehow not a spell, how does it not have any descriptor indicating that moving through a solid object is a magical action?

The following are a few questions I had while reading through the paladin class

Oath Feats: Should you lose the benefits of these feats if you fail to follow your paladin’s code? As written, these feats are “other paladin abilities” that are not lost if you fail to follow your code, which seems a bit silly for something that’s supposed to be a sacred vow.

Armored Fortitude: Why does this grant you a bonus on saving throws against things like poison and disease, but only when wearing armor? Why is your immune system dependent upon (the non-magical properties of) the armor you wear?

Vengeful Oath: This feat says it cannot be used to determine a creature’s alignment, so what happens if I try to use it to damage a creature I believe to be evil but which is not actually evil? How does the feat fail to deal damage in such a way that I do not know it failed? There is literally no game mechanic which makes the “no determining alignment” restriction workable in that situation.

Loyal Warhorse: What do critical hits have to do with Retributive Strike?

Second Ally: Shouldn’t this list righteous ally as a prerequisite (since multiclassed and fallen paladins might not actually have a first righteous ally, let alone a second)?

Sense Evil: How long, exactly, does it take to sense an evil aura?

16th-level paladin feats: If you didn’t pick righteous ally (blade) on 3rd level, it is entirely possible you may not qualify for any of these feats on 16th level. Shouldn’t there be at least one feat on this level with less-stringent prerequisites?

The following are a few assorted questions I had while reading through the barbarian class.

Totems: Why are the names assigned to barbarian totems not called totem themes, the same way names assigned to bard muses are called muse themes? It makes more sense to have a totem with a fury theme than a totem that is literally named Fury, for example.

Giant Totem Anathema: Is it intended that giant totem barbarians who refuse contests of strength suddenly forget how to use oversized weapons? The anathema for other totems are arguably reasonable, since other totems with anathema produce magical (or anti-magical) effects, but the benefit of the giant totem has no descriptor to indicate it is anything more than extraordinary weapon training that applies even when not raging. How can that suddenly go away?

No Escape: What happens if the triggering foe uses a movement type you cannot use with the Stride action granted by No Escape?

Cleave, Great Cleave, and Whirlwind Strike: Why do these feats have the rage descriptor? Aren’t these just adaptations of non-rage feats from PF1? Why add new restrictions on their use?

Animal Rage: Is this an action you can take while raging to modify your rage, an action you can take while not raging to start raging in a different way, or a continuous ability that modifies your rage? The feat has an action icon, but the first sentence in its effect describes a benefit that always applies when you rage, not an effect which occurs when you perform an Animal Rage action. Also, shouldn't this ability have a minimum duration that applies even after your rage ends? Otherwise, animal totem barbarians keep turning into animals and back again every 6 to 18 seconds, which seems weird.

Come and Get Me: For clarity, shouldn’t this say “until you stop raging” instead of “while you are raging”?

Dragon Totem Wings: For clarity, shouldn’t this say “until you stop raging” instead of “while you are raging”? Alternately, shouldn't this ability have a minimum duration that applies even after your rage ends? Otherwise, dragon totem barbarian will have wings that keep appearing and disappearing every 6 to 18 seconds, which seems weird.

Giant’s Lunge: For clarity, shouldn’t this say “until you stop raging” instead of “while you are raging”?

Contagious Rage: For clarity, shouldn’t this say “until you stop raging” instead of “while you are raging”?

Quaking Stomp: Where on the map do the permanent fissures created by this feat appear? If the answer is “GM’s discretion,” isn’t this essentially requiring the GM to create an alternate version of every tactical map in every adventure, each representing an existing tactical map with added fissures that will inevitably be created once the barbarian starts fighting?

Why not use the ordinary Pathfinder homebrew forum and just mark it as PF2?

I can only control where I post things. I can't control where dozens of other homebrew enthusiasts post suggested changes to the playtest rules. And, based on what I saw during the first-edition playtest, I expect to see lots of posts about proposed rule changes showing up in the playtest forum. Why not direct them towards a specific subforum to keep them separate from posts about actual playtest data?

In fact, haven't several of the more recent Paizo playtests divided their forums into a "playtest feedback" subforum and a separate "playtest discussion" subforum? I think it would be useful to have similar signposts in this latest playtest: "Post your Doomsday Dawn playtest feedback over here, post your suggested rule changes over there, argue about alignment and goblins over yonder." Something like that, to make the threads in the playtest forums easier to navigate.

So the optimal half-elf build is now a full elf with Adoptive Ancestry (human), because that build gets pretty much everything a human with Half-Elf gets, plus some additional elf stuff, right?

If paladins are going to hold a special place in the game world as recognizable champions of righteousness, the paladin class needs to be narrowly defined. Adding non-traditional class features to the paladin chassis cheapens the value of that chassis by making it unrecognizable as a paladin. Non-traditional features should be reserved for archetypes or for other, more-generic classes.

A paladin is and always has been a knight in shining armor. Unless we abandon that theme, the abilities of the paladin class need to reflect it. Like the worthiest Arthurian knights, paladins tend the wounds of the righteous and smite the wicked in hand-to-hand combat. They ride noble steeds and wield magic swords. They say prayers, uphold ideals, and go on quests to retrieve holy relics.

No part of the Arthurian ideal involves, for example, sprouting angel wings or shooting beams of light at enemies. Magic of that sort has nothing to do with the source material of the paladin class, and completely redefines the role of paladins in the world. If someone wants to play an angel-winged warrior that fires beams of light, they should be able to do so with some other class that better accommodates that role.

Unless and until the traditional concept of the paladin is completely abandoned, the paladin class should include only abilities that are appropriate for idealized Arthurian knights in shining armor.

My first character in the PF2 playtest is going to be a CG paladin.

Not a house-ruled, variant paladin. Not an alignment-removed, optional-rule paladin. A rules-as-written paladin who is LG at the time of character creation and immediately thereafter converts to CG. It's possible, if not likely, that his character sheet will list “CG” as his alignment and “paladin” as his class (not “ex-paladin” or “fallen paladin” or “paladin 1/fighter X”; just plain “paladin”).

His in-character motivation is to prove by example that being righteous is about more than following strictures and keeping company with celestial beings. He eschews the alignment restriction in the paladin’s code and parts ways with his righteous companion so he can walk a more humble path: demonstrating to the common folk that even those who fall short of a traditional paladin’s exacting standards can triumph over evil.

My goal with this character will be to test how viable it is to play a rules-as-written playtest paladin who strays from the LG alignment and never atones. Per the paladin preview blog, this paladin will lose his spell point pool and his righteous companion, so I will choose every class option I can that makes no reference to these abilities. I will then attempt to play this suboptimal paladin in level-appropriate adventures to see how well (or how poorly) he is able to meaningfully participate.

So your level 2 soldier takes a critical hit from a level 2 ember flame doshko. The attack deals 4 points of damage, all of which is dealt to your stamina. Then you fail a save against the weapon's critical hit ability and the doshko severs your arm... without having dealt any hit point damage. Monty Python level hillarity ensues.

Bummer.

Open playtests and RPG Superstar were what initially drew my attention to Paizo back in the day and were two of the main reasons I remained interested in Paizo and its products throughout the years. Now both have gone the way of the dodo.

I perfectly understand Paizo's reasoning, though, and I don't hold it against them.

Can one of you flip the images and do mirror images of each monster?

Then we get MORE MONSTERS! :-D

I've re-purposed my 198 stat blocks. They use the same illustrations that Threeshades is using, but I've given each of them a twist that should make it different from other adaptations of the same monster.

When I eventually finalize my page layout and rewrite my flavor text, you'll get MORE MONSTERS!

I didn't know he was going to be a father soon. Tragic.

Steve's sister posted the following in a comment on this blog:

The thing that scares me the most is that Steven’s (and Miranda Russell) baby, who is due this winter, will never have the opportunity to know what an extraordinary person his/her father was.

I have been overwhelmed by the outpouring of love, compassion and concern everyone has shared for Steven. So many of you have shared memories and stories you had with him. I look ahead to the future and wish I could remember them all so we can share them with his son/daughter.

I have set up a gmail account for anyone that would be willing to share stories/memories/thoughts of Steven so when Miranda feels the time is appropriate, she can share the account with their child. I’m hoping this will give him/her a small glimpse into the amazing life his/her father lived and what a caring, giving, creative, loving person he was.

babyrussell2017@gmail.com

I never had the opportunity to meet Steve in person, but I had the pleasure of working with him a few times, and I can say without a doubt he was one of the most enthusiastic and supportive people I've ever met. He had a way of making everyone he talked to feel like the most important person in the room, and he was genuinely interested in seeing everyone around him excel.

I still remember our first conversation from a few years back. I was pitching an idea for a product and I mentioned, as part of introducing myself, that I had written several articles for Dragon magazine. Out of curiosity, Steve asked their names, so I rattled them off. The list included an obscure pair of articles I had written some ten years earlier.

Imagine my surprise when Steve not only recognized those two titles, but cited his favorite part of the first article off the top of his head. As it turns out, Steve, gaming enthusiast that he was, kept a binder filled with photocopies of all his favorite Dragon magazine articles for ease of reference. To this day, knowing that I contributed to that binder remains the biggest compliment I have ever received as a game designer.

But the great thing about Steve was that he did that for everyone he worked with. He could cite all of his freelancers' best work, and he could push them to produce more of it, because he wanted everyone around him to succeed. He was an amazing collaborator, an amazing publisher, and an amazing man.

This week, the industry lost a muse and quite a few people lost a friend.

I find the whole Aroden's-death-is-forever-going-to-be-a-mystery thing really, really irritating. This one doesn't bug me, for some reason...

Spoiler from Starfinder AP #1: The PCs discover proof that Aroden traveled forward in time and died as a direct result of whatever events took place during the gap in history.

I'd dislike seeing vancian magic make an appearance...

I'm glad someone brought this up. I was starting to get worried when I didn't see Vancian magic mentioned on page 1.

For 30+ years, every time someone put psionics in a D&D or Pathfinder product, a vocal group of objectors would complain, "Psionics is too sci-fi. Power points are too sci-fi. All these pseudo-scientific power names are too sci-fi. It's too different from the feel of the game's traditional magic system."

Now we have Starfinder, and Starfinder is sci-fi. The most sci-fi fi that Paizo ever claimed was fi about sci. And it's a stand-alone game. There is absolutely no excuse for Starfinder to use anything other than psionics as its default magic system. Actual psionics, not Vancian magic with the serial numbers filed off. Psionics with power points that make narrative sense from a pseudo-scientific perspective.

If you aren't making use of non-OGC world content from WotC, then the Dungeon Master Guild is almost certainly a bad deal for you, but fortunately the OGL is still there.

If you're trying to join WotC's stable of 5e freelancers, the DM Guild is arguably a better deal than entering RPG Superstar. The "voters" in the DM Guild vote for up-and-coming freelancers with actual dollars, so you might make a few bucks even if you don't crack the Top 32 DM Guild bestsellers.

---

The third party reference site isn't going to be making revisions to core rules, it'll just be hosting additional 3rd party content alongside the official SRD rules. Exactly like they do with Pathfinder.

Like nature, OGL designers abhor a vacuum. I've already stumbled upon an online discussion where designers were debating the best way to replace the rules omitted from the SRD with similar but differently-worded 3pp content, to be hosted on the same website as the official SRD.

Incentivizing designers to create a reworded PHB knock-off that will be more widely available in an electronic format than the actual PHB can't be good for D&D as a brand. You want to create a situation where third parties generate familiarity with the core rules of your game, not one where third parties create potential confusion by blending a fraction of your official rules with reworded rules written to fill an intentional content gap.

In these quotes taken from a Reddit discussion, the D&D folks at WotC have confirmed that they have no plans to add more content to the SRD aside from a few mistakenly omitted items. So, thanks to the content gap in the SRD, the biggest third-party "5e" reference site will inevitably become a D&D clone competing with (instead of complementing) D&D. *sigh*

On the plus side, the D&D staff say the folks running DriveThruRPG are working on a solution to the problem with artwork in the DM Guild, and expect that the concerns folks here and elsewhere have raised should be addressed in the near future.

I think the problem here is that they left a "content gap"—that is, anything that isn't in the SRD and isn't also in the statement of Product Identity is currently not covered under the OGL (as I understand it), so it is protected only inasmuch as copyright law protects it—meaning the ideas can be used, though not the actually words.

If Wizards were to include the OGL in future printings of their core rules, and state that anything in those books that isn't in the SRD is Product Identity—or just add a statement equivalent to that to the PRD—then I believe no content gap would exist; that is, anybody using the OGL would be unable to include derivations of that content. I'm not clear on whether or not "closing" that content could trigger retroactive effects, though.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at regarding the new SRD.

If the SRD had been either more permissive or less permissive, it would have been much more effective.

A more permissive SRD would allow third-party reference sites to explicitly include core D&D character options, generating familiarity with WotC-published content and promoting WotC's vision for the game.

A less permissive SRD would have allowed third-party publishers to expand upon the D&D 5e rules without also being able to create comprehensive reference sites that dilute the authority of the PHB.

Instead, WotC chose a middle route that has the disadvantages of both. The SRD is just restrictive enough that you can't create an authentic reference site, but just permissive enough that you can create a designer-impostor reference site. That's probably the least beneficial result WotC could get from releasing a System Reference Document.

Epic Meepo wrote:

...you should never build a house on land you don't own...

To be fair, though, you can make money off of your "house" (read: your work), and the "land" in this case is the RPG IP equivalent of Upper East Side Manhattan.

I'm speaking from the perspective of an independent publisher offering advice to would-be independent publishers. Never base your business ("build your house") on a single, revocable license to someone else's IP ("land you don't own").

That's not a value statement about WotC's DMG Program (which is much better than, say, Paizo's Adventure Card Creator). That's a suggestion that aspiring publishers read and understand the full ramifications of any license they want to use, and then develop their business model accordingly.

I kind of think of the SRD as a way for publishers to produce compatible content without fear of legal action, not as a player resource.

The SRD 5.0 is obviously a publisher resource, not a player resource. On behalf of third party publishers everywhere, I thank WotC for publishing it.

On the other hand, I think the current version of the SRD is a poorly-executed business strategy. Within 12 hours of the SRD's release, a third-party publisher created a 5e SRD website intended for use as a player (not publisher) resource. Third parties are already discussing the best way to populate the 5e SRD site with clones of the content excluded from the official SRD, and those clones will be reiterated by numerous 3pp products drawing upon the 5e SRD site. Based on the history of third-party publishing, none of this should surprise anyone.

Essentially, WotC just outsourced the online gateway to the 5e rules. Except, instead of allowing the online gatekeeper to promote the actual 5e rules, it has incentivized the gatekeeper to create a competing edition of the 5e rules (one which renames and rewords most of the core character options). WotC now suffers all of the drawbacks of the OGL (3pp products can ride WotC's coattails and/or create competing game systems) with none of benefits of the OGL (3pp products can do nothing to introduce new players to the character options appearing in the PHB, and thus generate limited interest in official 5e products).

You retain ownership of the content you create, but you give them "the exclusive, irrevocable license for the full term of copyright protection available (including renewals), to develop, license, reproduce, print, publish, distribute, translate, display, publicly perform and transmit your Work, in whole and in part, in each country in the world, in all languages and formats, and by all means now known or later developed, and the right to prepare derivative works of your Work."

You retain ownership of your house, you just can't live in your house, rent it out, modify it, sell it, or tear it down. Also, we can move into, rent out, modify, sell, or tear down your house whenever we want.

(Which is why you should never build a house on land you don't own.)

Leaving stuff out isn't as awkward as declaring stuff closed content.

I don't know. Leaving out a bunch of feats is rather awkward.

This leads to a situation where the only complete, "try it before you buy it" SRD is going to be a third-party website with a bunch of designer-impostor feats (and clones of other official D&D character options like archetypes and backgrounds). Wouldn't it be better for D&D if the game's most comprehensive online reference tool was a site that listed the official wording of the game's most common character options instead of listing a bunch of third-party workarounds?

The in-progress custom class builder is a good crutch. XD

Custom Class Builder Preview

The 64-page preview of the Custom Class Builder is now available here as a pay-what-you-want product.

I'm currently collecting comments, playtest data, and other feedback on the preview in this thread.

Welcome to the playtest thread for the Custom Class Builder Preview. While the rules in this PDF have been playtested as much as possible by the designer, they allow more choices than any one person or group could playtest in a lifetime of gaming. Accordingly, any feedback from readers is greatly appreciated, and will be taken into account when finalizing the full version of the Custom Class Builder, which is scheduled for release in late 2016.

Note: This thread is being posted a few days before the Custom Class Builder Preview is released so text in that preview can be hyperlinked back to this thread. I will post a link to the preview once it is available for download. The preview will be released a few days after this post as a 64-page, pay-what-you-want PDF product.

I've decided to add a sample class to the Custom Class Builder Preview so readers can walk through an example of the class creation process. I've also found a few more pieces of artwork I want to include if I can find room without going over 64 pages.

That means I need to spend a few hours creating tables, shuffling artwork around, and making some page layout adjustments, but the finish line for the preview PDF is definitely in sight.

In case you missed it, Animal Races: Clan of the Goat is now available in the Paizo store and here.

Instead of releasing a PDF in November, I'm going to add some Animal Races material to d20pfsrd.com so I have some free, sample crunch I can point to if anyone wants to see it.

For December, I'm working on Animal Races: Clan of the Seabird so folks will have penguins in time for Christmas: cute penguins; umbrella-toting crime boss penguins; giant, Lovecraftian, albino penguins. Also, albatrosses and ghost ships.

My first few releases in 2016 will be:
Animal Races: Clan of the Shorebird (the last of the birds),
Animal Races: Clan of the Hyena (gnolls), and
Animal Races: Clan of the Lizard (lizardfolk).

Progress report:

I am currently doing graphic design and page layout work on the Custom Class Builder preview PDF (a.k.a., the alpha playtest document I mentioned in previous posts). I'm also looking through some stock art to find some illustrations I can use to add a bit of color.

Despite my best efforts to condense the awesomeness that is the Custom Class Builder into as few words as possible, the preview PDF is going to be 64 pages long (possibly a bit longer, depending upon the final graphics and artwork).

The Custom Class Builder preview PDF includes:

• Rules for arcane, divine, and martial custom classes.
  
• Four common themes that can be added to any custom class.
  
• Over five-hundred talents, sorted by level and theme.
  
• The full rules for custom class creation, allowing readers to create thousands of unique, new classes using only material included in the preview PDF.

And that's just a small fraction of the full Custom Class Builder that should be ready next year. In fact, the full product has so much more to offer than the 64-page preview, I'm going to make the 64-page preview PDF available for free or pay-what-you-want as soon as I've finished all the necessary graphics and layout work.

The Rock of Bral is like a thousand times the size of this place...

That's why I think the Rock of Bral was a better implementation of this concept. Any map that meets the requirements of this challenge is too small to do a flying landmass justice (as evidenced by all of the rooms missing from the house on this map). To me, this map feels like a case of too much portrait, too little canvas.

As a voter, I want to see a designer who understands the scope of a 120-foot-by-150-foot area, both in real life and on a battlemat. Too many times, I've gone to draw an epic map from a module on a battlemat only to discover that the map is actually small and cramped because its designer overestimated how much area was actually being portrayed.

After this round is over and contestants can talk about their maps without getting in trouble, I'll be curious to hear how many of them actually drew their maps on battlemats and moved minis around on them to get a feel for the size of their locations.

I suspect I'm going to be the only critical voice in this thread, so I'm going to skip all the praise I could offer and move right to the criticism.

This concept was really awesome when it was published twenty years ago as the Rock of Bral poster map in the Spelljammer boxed set. Flying boulder with buildings on it? Rock of Bral. Underside with opposite gravity? Rock of Bral. Big lake on one side? Rock of Bral. It's entirely possible the creator of this map never saw the Rock of Bral poster map, but the Meandering Oasis isn't doing anything that hasn't been done before and done better.

I've played Spelljammer and Planescape. I've played modules set on cloud islands and in flying castles. You can't impress me with a map just by saying, "Look, it's flying terrain!" I've been there and I've done that. If you want to impress me with flying terrain, it needs to be really interesting flying terrain.

So, ignoring the flying aspect of this map, what do we have? We have a standard lake, a standard pond, a couple of boulders, and the ruins of a mansion that's missing lots of stuff (dining room but no kitchen, guest bedroom but no parlor for entertaining, no bathroom or lavatory, etc.). If this were mapped on level ground as a meteor-struck, lakeside mansion, it would be okay, I guess. If we pretend the crash that wrecked the mansion wiped out all of the rooms that should be there but aren't, this map would probably make for a decent, reusable Flip Mat. But taking that okay location and turning it into an okay flying location does nothing to increase my excitement. It's still just an okay map, and now it's too niche to be reused after running the handful of specific encounters designed to take place there.

I fully suspect this map will advance, probably with a large percentage of the vote, but I still think it is a flawed map using its high concept as a smoke-screen for its shortcomings. And, as I noted above, it's high concept has already been done as a poster map in the Spelljammer boxed set, so it's nothing new to me.

I think the voters did fine without judge intervention. I would just like to see the algorithm tweaked to spread the items around better. That way, I'd feel more confident that most voters' thoughts on an item have been heard before I get an opportunity to down-vote that item nineteen times.

Instead of generating a random item pair each time someone casts a vote, perhaps the system could assign a (behind-the-scenes) string of pre-generated item pairs to each account before the start of voting. That would let Paizo better regulate the distribution of items to voters. No one would get twenty times as many votes on a given item than anyone else; everyone would see unique items more frequently without having to wade through constant repeats; and Paizo could encourage people to cast even more votes by offering incentives like, "Every Marathon voter is guaranteed to see each item at least once."

That's the sort of change I'd like to see. I think it would make voting both more reliable and more enjoyable for voters.

I agree with 90% of the culls and I didn't see too many surprises in the Top 32, so I think the process did a fairly good job of identifying high-quality items. In fact, this is the first season where I haven't seen a single Top 32 pick that made me ask, "How did that get in here?"

That being said, based on my Marathon voting, I saw some areas where the voting system might have broken down a bit, especially after the final cull. Based on purely anecdotal evidence, the biggest problem I saw was the tendency of certain items to "follow" me as I voted. In other words, my nearly 2000 votes were not evenly distributed across the available selection of items.

Looking at only the final 223 items, I voted on each item an average of ten times. (I saw my own item seven times and one of the items I workshopped thirteen times, for example.) However, there were eleven items I saw fewer than five times each and thirteen items I saw more than fifteen times each. That's 10% of the final 223 that received a disproportionate number of my votes.

Let's look at the two most extreme cases. There was one item in the final 223 that I never saw. There was another item in the final 223 that I saw twenty times (and down-voted nineteen times, though I could see how other voters with different preferences might have liked it). That happenstance was pure chance. There was an equal probability that my viewing numbers for those two items would have been reversed.

For the sake of argument, let's say the item I never saw was one I would have really liked and up-voted almost every time I saw it. Let's also say that both of the items in question were middle-of-the-road items for voters other than myself. If my viewing numbers had been reversed, that would have meant 10 fewer down-votes and 10 more up-votes for the item I never saw (but would have liked) and 10 fewer down-votes and 10 more up-votes for the item I saw twenty times (but didn't like).

Would those additional up-votes have affected the chances of those two items? The answer to that question depends up lots of complicated things, but I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that an extra 10 up-votes might have bumped either of two items already in the top 223 up a few spots. If one of those items finished in 37th place, it might have missed out on the Top 32 simply because its number of views by yours truly was a statistical outlier.

TL;TR: Item views need to be better distributed across all voters. When Marathon and Champion voters see a small number of items twenty or more times, their influence on those randomly-chosen items is disproportionately large.

Interior. Suburban house. The TWO GUYS sit on a couch, eating junk food.

(Thunder claps. The lights in the house flicker briefly.)

GUY #1: "Wow. Big storm."

GUY #2: "Yeah, I'd love to see the New Kid's face right now."

GUY #1 (lauhging): "Yeah, that would be totally hillarious."

(Enter GIRL #1.)

GIRL #1: "What would be totally hillarious?"

GUY #1: "Oh, nothing."

GIRL #1: "No, really. Tell me."

GUY #2: "We told the New Kid we'd meet him out in the woods by the old Guildhall at midnight tonight, so he's probably out there in the rain and the wind right now."

GIRL #1: "What? Why would you send him out there and leave him hanging all night?"

GUY #2: "Because it's funny."

GIRL #1: "You are such an ass." (Grabs her coat off a nearby coat rack.)

GUY #1: "What? Where are you going?"

GIRL #1: "I'm going out to the old Guildhall to make sure the New Kid isn't lost or hurt or being attacked by wolves or something."

GUY #1: "There aren't any wolves around here."

(Girl #1 puts on her coat.)

GUY #1: "You're not serious. You're not really going out there to look for some stupid New Kid?"

GIRL #1: "I am. And if you ever want to have sex with me again, you're coming with me."

GUY #1: "What? No. It's pouring rain out there."

GIRL #1: "Well, you should have thought about that before sending the New Guy out there. Now get your keys. You're driving me out there."

GUY #1: "Dammit." (Stands up. Collects his car keys. Looks at GUY #2.) "Well, come on."

GUY #2: "What?"

GUY #1: "We're going out to the old Guildhall to find the New Kid."

GUY #2: "Why am I coming?"

GUY #1: "Because this prank was your idea."

GUY #2: "Okay, fine, but I'm inviting my girlfriend. And we're stopping at my house so I can steal some of my Dad's beer. If I'm going to drive out to a big, empty house in the middle of the night, I'm going to have some fun while I'm there."

GUY #1: "Bro, I like the way you think."

GIRL #1 (rolling her eyes): "Guys."

GUY #1: "Whatever. Let's do this."

GUY #2: "To the Guildhall!"

(Thunder claps. The lights in the house flicker ominously.)

Exterior. Night. The NEW KID stands in the middle of the woods.

(The New Kid glances at a smartphone, checking the time. In addition to telling the time, the phone indicates that no service is available at its current location.)

NEW KID (shouting): "Okay, guys, I'm here! Guys, where are you?"

(An ominous wind stirs the branches in the wood.)

NEW KID (shouting): "Seriously, guys. Let's just do this initiation thing so I can get back inside."

(Lightning flashes. Thunder claps. Rain starts to fall.)

NEW KID (shouting): "Come on, guys, where are you?"

(Branches rustle. A shape that might be a wolf dart between two large shrubs.)

NEW KID (shouting): "Guys, this isn't funny."

(More shapes move in the underbrush.)

NEW KID (shouting): "I'm going back to the car."

(The New Kid turns, but a wolf is blocking the path. Lightning flashes. Thunder claps. The wolf growls.)

NEW KID (shouting): "Guys!"

(The New Kid turns and runs. The wolf pursues. Other wolves join in. The New Kid stumbles through the dark and rainy woods, occasionally tripping on falled braches and stumbling. The wolves move effortlessly through the underbrush, but are alwasy just a few feet shy of their target.

(The New Kid stumbles out of the woods and into a clearing. Lightning flashes, revealing a large but worn-down house atop a nearby hill. The New Kid glances back in the direction of the wolves, then sprints for the old house. The wolves give chase, grey blurs darting across the clearing in pursuit of the New Kid.

(The New Kid reaches the porch of the old house and bangs frantically on the front door. No one answers. The New Kid glances back towards the wolves. They have all stopped at the threshhold of the old house's lawn, where they stand in a line, growling but unwilling to advance.

(The New Kid knocks on the door of the house, a bit less frantically this time.)

NEW KID: "Hello, is anyone there?"

(The New Kid turns to look at the wolves. Behind the New Kid, the house's front door swings open, seemingly of its own accord. The creaking of the opening door attracts the New Kid's attention.)
NEW KID: "Hello? Anyone there?"

(Lighting flashes. Thunder claps. The wolves howl. With one last glance at the animals standing across the lawn, watching hungrily, the New Kid enters the old house.)

Greetings. On behalf of all the haunts and incorporeal undead sent packing for the next life by the latest batch of Superstar items, I would like to congratulate everyone who competed. I would also like to welcome this season's class of Top 32 finalists and alternates to the Top 32 Guildhall. (Pay no attention to the poltergeist activity in the room with the bloodstained floor. We're having that area dusted and fumigated. A dead guy I spoke to assured me that will fix the problem.)

As always, the Guildhall is a place for all past and present Top 32 finalists, alternates, judges, and Paizo staffers to hang out and chat during the course of RPG Superstar. If you belong to one or more of these listed groups, feel free to post in the Guildhall any time after the names of the Season 9 Top 32 have been revealed. Just keep in mind that posts in this thread are visible to the everyone on the boards, not just the Top 32. Don't say anything here that might result in a disqualification!

Again, this thread is intended for past and present Top 32 finalists, alternates, judges, and Paizo staffers. I ask that community members not belonging to these listed groups please create new threads when posting commentary, congratulations, or other messages to the Top 32. Posts from the voting public are important to the finalists. Such posts deserve their own dedicated threads so they don't get buried in Guildhall banter, where they might get overlooked by the finalists.

Thank you. Good luck. Let the games begin.

Congrats to our two(?) four-time Champions for keeping the streak alive!

Having seen every item remaining in the competition, I can honestly say I have no idea what items I'll see when the Top 32 are revealed tomorrow. I have my own short list of favorites, but there are well over a hundred items I could see potentially making the Top 32. Depending upon which voters are seeing which items the most often, just about any of those hundred-plus items could make the Top 32.

I think it's a testament to the quality of this season's entries that I can't even begin to predict this year's Top 32. In previous seasons, I've been able to narrow things down to a list of fifty or sixty items I thought had a good chance, but not this year. I know what items I'd pick as my own personal Top 32, but if none of them make it onto the official list, I won't be particularly surprised. The competition is just that tight this season.