It was really great to have you here. You were all very friendly and it was great how open you were to questions and conversation. Everyone I spoke to was full of praise for all of you. I hope you can make it back in the future!
Search Posts
Stop being reasonable. WE MUST BATTLE! See, this is just my luck. A call to battle and I miss it by four days. But if it's battle you want, I'm game. As long as it's not a physical battle. I'm kinda frail. Or a battle of wits. I'm not really equipped for that either. And it shouldn't require too much typing (weak wrists). From your perspective it might feel more like a light warm up than an actual battle. Like stretching before the main event. We should probably just call it Pre-Battle Calisthenics. (Is there time to add that to Ultimate Combat? Pathfinder's stretching rules are woefully inadequate and don't really reflect how people stretch in the real world. If you guys made some better rules for properly warming up before combat, PCs could avoid serious injury. And you could finally address the Trip loophole where players just ignored the muscle strain that is likely to occur when being knocked prone.)
Well, I wasn't going to threadjack again, but three people replied to me... Except that in this contest the Editor - by way of the rules - has made Golarion-specific content entirely optional. (Which doesn't shield people from critique when they use it incorrectly, of course.) Absolutely. And my replies to Jim and to you were not designed to suggest otherwise. My reply to Jim was only intended to point out that the "Editor" had not made Golarion a requirement. I said nothing about whether or not it would be a good idea to avoid Golarion. My reply to you was to address what I saw as a conflict between your statement that the contest is intended to be "Golarion superstar" and the rules which allow for a Paizo-noun-free proposal, which would not be something I'd expect to see in an actual "Golarion Superstar". Again, I offered no suggestion on whether that would be a good idea. The competitors have been at this for three months now. The time for hand-holding is over. I figured the time for hand-holding ended when you posted your last bit of Round One advice. :) (I'm not knocking Sean's adventure here, I'm knocking the idea Erik's suggestion that because using Paizo nouns is optional, trying to have it fit the world is also optional.) That was not my suggestion. My replies to you and Jim were only to note that the rules don't require Golarion. I offered no opinion on how far from Golarion an author might tread, nor did I offer an opinion on how a contestant should approach the round if they wanted to remain Paizo-noun free. Although if you want to know my opinion, it is this: Use the setting, or expect to lose. Thanks for taking the time to reply, Sean. It's been another great competition. (And it was nice to see the adventure proposal's 4th-level requirement. I'm a big fan of good low-level modules.)
I definitely want to give a "me too" to Matt's praise on the writing. It grabbed me in the first paragraph. While covered in the old king’s blood he traveled into the dark heart of the city. Deep within the Aeromantic Infandibulum he tore free the staff of rightful rule. He returned with staff in hand, declaring himself king, and beginning a chain of events that would bring two worlds into collision. Nice visuals, very active (he didn't just claim the staff, he tore it free) and you ended the paragraph with some tension. I want to find out what the chain of events are when I read that.
I wager that specific part of the rules are in place to avoid requiring people to spend money on the setting material in order to be competitive. My guess is that even if the intent is "Golarion Superstar" that "bad adventure/great setting knowledge" is way less important than "great adventure/bad setting knowledge". Round Four required Golarion, but Round Five didn't, and I believe the contestants were given the campaign setting PDFs long before Round Five. So there's little reason to not require Golarion unless that part of the rules is to make sure authors focus on great adventures first.
I definitely think we are talking about freelancing. And I get what you're saying about the realities of freelancing for Paizo, and needing to have a good grasp on Golarion. But here's my take: Every round of the contest involves an editor (the judges) telling freelancers (the contestants) what is expected from the freelancers' latest assignment (by way of the rules). Every assignment is different from the previous assignment. Each has its own guidelines and expectations. Is that not the reality of freelancing? And as a freelancer would you want, after you've written your assignment, to have the editor say that the guidelines he gave you do not actually reflect the intent of the assignment? For me, I just want each round's rules (and supplementary material, like SKR's great pre-Round 1 advice) to reflect what the judges expect their freelancers to produce. And if those rules say "Golarion optional" I hope the judge's comments on the contest will also reflect that. (Out of respect to Sean, this will be my last post on this topic on this thread. Voting closes tomorrow and I don't want to hijack or distract from his responses. I appreciate your response Jim and if you feel it's a conversation worth pursuing, I'd be happy to continue it on its own thread, or in another medium. Thanks for your time and thoughts. And apologies to Sean for this threadjack.)
That seems counter-intuitive, you can get all the information legally off the computer to play so you never need the books, I mean, if they kept say the APG and other books off of it I could understand but, that's crazy to just offer it all up. The PRD has the rules, it doesn't have the campaign setting, adventure paths, modules or support materials (card decks, flip-mats, etc...). I believe Paizo does well for themselves on all that non-rule material. If I recall correctly, the original point of the entire Pathfinder RPG was just to make available D&D 3.5ish rules so people would have the rules to keep playing Paizo's adventures. Selling lots and lots of rulebooks may just be a pleasant bonus for them.
The Golarion-specific issues don't concern me - this is RPG Superstar, not Golarion Superstar.I don't want to rake the author over the coals, but a freelancer has to write what the Editor wants. If the Editor wants Golarion specific content, the freelancer has to do their best to meet that requirement. Except that in this contest the Editor - by way of the rules - has made Golarion-specific content entirely optional. (Which doesn't shield people from critique when they use it incorrectly, of course.)
Considering that the winner writes a Golarion module and is probably going to be doing more work in Golarion for Paizo, the intent of the contest is indeed "Golarion superstar" even if the contest isn't called that. The Round 5 Rules state (emphasis mine): Like all Pathfinder Modules, the winning adventure will be placed in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting. If you feel comfortable enough to use Paizo-owned proper nouns feel free to do so, but this is by no means a requirement. We will adapt the module to fit our world during the writing and editing process. The rules of Round Five seem pretty clear that the intent of the contest is not "Golarion Superstar," and that Paizo is willing to do the work to fit the adventure into the campaign setting. It's great when people nail the Golarion content (and hopefully save Paizo some work), and it seems clear to me over the years that the fans take that into account in the comments and voting. But I don't think a judge in the competition should be approaching it as "Golarion Superstar" or even saying the intent "is indeed 'Golarion superstar' even if the contest isn't called that" when such a statement contradicts the actual rules for the competition - which make using Golarion optional. None of this protects Sean from commentators bothered by how he used Paizo-owned nouns in his proposal, nor should it stop judges from noting the errors. But if the intent of the contest is "Golarion Superstar" then the rules should probably require the use of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, or at least note that judges will favor those proposals that do.
Last year we had a 5000-year-old city rise from the ocean, where the PCs adventure in it for a brief time before causing it to go away again. This year we have a 5000-year-old city fall from the sky, where the PCs adventure in it for a brief time before causing it to go away again. Which leads me to ask: Did you read last year's entries and the comments attached to them? Because I'm seeing some parallels. Including the "too low a level" comments and the comparisons to Crucible of Chaos. And then there's the "adventure location is destroyed/disappears" bit. Set's comments on last year's entry pretty much sum up my thoughts on self-destructing locations. Spoiler: Short version: They're not a great idea.
Thanks Liz! And you even got my flavor of tea right! :)
I received an email for order #1464200, and it lists the entire Legacy of Fire bundle twice, once as individual items and then again as sub-items under the heading "1 x Legacy of Fire Super Bundle". Just want to make sure I'm not getting two bundles when I only ordered one.
Chessex makes them.
(Quite the trick, I'll note, when the jar is full.)Not if you use a paint can shaker. Or one of these: http://onlinestore.smucker.com/display_product.cfm?prod_id=385&cat_id=5
What those rules are saying (although perhaps not as clearly as they can) is that you can't use Stealth in bright light when the target can see you. His response seems clear to me. All he's saying is: 1. You can't use Stealth in bright light if the target can see you.
What the target could do isn't the point. It's what he is doing that matters. If he is looking away, he can't see you. He is certainly capable of seeing you, simply by turning his head, but until he does, he cannot see you. That's the problem with "can see": It means "is capable of seeing" but it is also used to refer only to what someone is currently observing. I hope they take that into account and pick clearer language if they errata the Stealth rules.
4 Winds Fantasy Gaming will be at MisCon 24 in Missoula, Montana this weekend, in the dealer's room. If you can make it, come see us. I'll also be running a demo of our upcoming adventure, Albion Armitage's Astounding Arsenal on Friday and Saturday. It was great to finally meet you guys!
I guess my question is: How was the errata handled? What was the process?
Please do. I'm 100% sure our errata compilation process could use refinement. How about a specific errata subforum for each core book? Inside the subforum, each problem has its own thread, instead of trying to put it all in one long thread. So inside the Paizo Products subforum would be another subforum called "Paizo Product Errata". Inside that would be a subforum for each book the staff feels will need errata. Like this: Paizo Products
Here's how I imagine it would work: 1. Each thread a user creates is a report of a single item. This allows comments on a problem to be isolated to a specific thread and not be mixed in with other reported problems. 2. The title of the thread cites the problem. That way the forum's list of threads acts as a list of every problem reported. This would allow someone to scan the list of reports and see if the problem they found has already been mentioned. The list of reports could probably also be exported and used as a checklist by the authors of the errata. 3. Each report follows a specific format for easy reading and referencing. Reports that don't match that format can be flagged and then fixed or deleted. (I favor deletion: Learn the rules or lose the post.) EXAMPLE FORMAT Part One: Thread Titles Thread titles use the following format: Pg. ### - Subject of Problem Example: Pg. 37 - Bard's Suggestion Ability Part Two: Thread Body The reported problem uses the following format: Pg. ### - Subject of Problem (repeats the thread title) Problem Text: Quoted Text
Examples:
If possible, when it comes time to create the next errata, the lucky fellow doing it could be given the ability to lock a thread and move it to a subforum called "Added to Errata" so the reporter would know the issue has been seen and addressed. Thoughts?
The PRD has been updated with the newest errata to the Core Rulebook and Bestiary. If you spot any errors or other discrepancies, please post in this thread or email me. The kobold entry still has the old Perception score in the senses line. The kobold entry has an extraneous line break after its Intelligence score. The drow entry has the wrong hit points. As a level 1 warrior, it should have 5 hit points and 1d10 for its Hit Dice.
You're not alone. My brother and I watched it and both took it to be a "remember how it all started?" kind of thing, with no hidden meaning at all.
According to the LA Times, the producers didn't add the plane crash wreckage at the end. ABC did.
canon/cannon
Concentration checks for Bards, Paladins and Sorcerers all use their Charisma modifier.
Yuck. I'd definitely deny that. Take a character with an Intelligence of 18 and a Wisdom of 10 and use this feat to apply his Intelligence modifier to Wisdom-based skills. That gives him a +4 to four different skills (not counting professions) for one feat. Existing feats only give you a +2 bonus to two skills. So the character above is getting the equivalent of 4 feats. In the case given by the OP, the PC would be trading Wisdom (-2) for Intelligence (+5). That's a gain of +7 to each of four skills, which would be like having 7 feats. It might make some sense for characters with the Expert class (as the book likely intends) since NPCs usually have lower ability scores than PCs. But I'd say it's way too much for a PC.
Someone suggested writing up a good item once a month so you would have 12 good entries by the time next year rolled around. Of course, by the time Matt was declared the winner (congrats again :) we only have nine months left to wait. Anyone want to submit a couple for practice and critique? I might have a couple. I started working on new ones while I waited for the results on round two. Those and a few monsters. I dunno which ones I'll find time to share. Some haven't been fully written up and the game I'm running gets first priority on my time right now. :)
(Note: These may be issues with the Bestiary too, but I don't have a copy to check, so I'm listing them here. If someone with the Bestiary can confirm these, I'll be happy to add it to that errata thread too.) Humanoid Warrior Hit Dice
They list 1d8 hit dice, which is the racial hit dice for humanoids. But the humanoid type and the sections on those creatures as characters both say their Hit Dice are defined by character classes. So they should have 1d10 hit dice from the warrior class. Kobold Stealth
It has the following entry for skills:
As a first level warrior with an Intelligence of 10, it gets two skill points. Breaking it down, it appears its skills were determined like this: Craft (trapmaking) +6 [+0 Int, +2 Race, +1 Rank, +3 Class Skill]
But kobolds have the "Crafty" special quality, so Stealth is always a class skill. So shouldn't it have a +3 class bonus, giving it a total Stealth of +9?
I still give Todd a hard time about this almost 2 years later, making jokes about if we need a 32-page book on something we just tell Todd to write a 2,000 word article, and so on. Tragedy is when it happens to you. Comedy is when it happens to the other guy.
Great work everyone and congratulations to Matt! This has been a great contest to both enter and watch.
Here's the new version. Thanks for all the helpful comments! Updated version: Nakuru (Sin-Fallen Angel of Gluttony) CR 7
=====
=====
=====
=====
Grab (Ex) A nakuru may attempt grab any creature its size or smaller. Gluttonous Hunger (Su) Creatures struck by the nakuru must succeed on a Will save (DC 17) or suffer uncontrollable hunger for 1d4 rounds. The hunger affects any creature capable of eating, although those that do not require food to survive receive a +4 racial bonus on the save. Those who fail the save spend the duration of the effect attempting to consume any visible source of food. If a living creature - other than a nakuru - is the only visible food, then the victim attempts to grapple and eat it. The victim may use a standard action each round to attempt another Will save to resist this urge. A successful save allows the creature to use the rest of its actions that round to acquire a different source of food, such as from a nearby cupboard or rations in a backpack. Affected creatures still defend themselves if attacked and the hunger ends if the nakuru attacks the victim. This is a mind-affecting effect. The save DC is Charisma-based. Starvation Aura (Su) Living creatures within 30 feet of the nakuru must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC 17) or become fatigued as if starving. The fatigue lasts for 10 minutes after leaving the nakuru's aura. An opponent that succeeds on the saving throw is immune to that nakuru's aura for 24 hours. Creatures that do not need to eat are immune to this effect. The save DC is Charisma-based. Swallow Whole (Su) A nakuru's body stretches, allowing it to swallow a single creature its size or smaller it has grabbed. The nakuru regenerates one hit point for every point of damage its stomach inflicts on the swallowed creature, with injuries to the nakuru's stomach healing first. The nakuru can disgorge a swallowed creature as a move action. Creatures who die inside the nakuru are ejected in this manner to make room for a new victim. Creatures who break the grapple with the nakuru are also ejected, without costing the nakuru an action. The nakuru may take an attack of opportunity to bite creatures as they fly from its mouth. Nakuru, sin-fallen angels of gluttony, are floating, emaciated humanoids with brittle, gnawed stumps where a true angel’s wings should be. Their long arms end in bony claws that are almost as sharp as their needle-like teeth. Nakuru are often accompanied by ghouls and ghasts they create and command. Some nakuru fell while on the Material Plane and stayed. Others are trapped on evil outer planes, where they seek access to the material plane and amuse themselves by making weaker creatures devour each other. Their eagerness to get to the Material Plane makes nakuru popular with summoners, as nakuru charge less for their services and their preferred payment - a decadent feast held in their honor – is often less odious than payments demanded by other evil outsiders. Unfortunately, the nakuru will sometimes use the guests of such a feast to create their ghoulish entourage. Nakuru try to encourage gluttony through persuasion and guile, but sin fallen lack the patience of other corrupting fiends and occasionally inflict their powers on unwilling victims. Tales of taverns falling prey to a hungry stranger or despots turning to cannibalism are often the legacies of an impulsive angel of gluttony. As outsiders, nakuru do not require food to survive, but they obviously enjoy it. Sin Fallen Angels
Sin-Fallen Angel Subtype: Sin-fallen angels were once angels, but have lost most of the features of their old subtype. They are evil outsiders, who wander the evil-aligned outer planes and the Material Plane. Sin-fallen angels possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry). * Darkvision 60 feet and low-light vision.
I'm looking at the kobold entry on the PRD and I'm thinking that its Hit Dice and Stealth are too low, so I want to make sure I'm not missing something. HIT DICE The PRD lists the kobold's hit dice as 1d8, which is the racial hit dice for humanoids. But the humanoid type says: "Humanoids with 1 Hit Die exchange the features of their humanoid Hit Die for the class features of a PC or NPC class." The "Kobold Characters" section also says they have no racial Hit Dice, and are defined by their class. Since the entry says it is a kobold warrior, shouldn't its hit dice be 1d10? STEALTH The kobold's Stealth skill also appears to be too low. It has the following entry for skills: Skills Craft (trapmaking) +6, Perception +4, Stealth +6; Racial Modifiers +2 Craft (trapmaking), +2 Perception, +2 Profession (miner) As a first level warrior with an Intelligence of 10, it gets two skill points. Breaking it down, it appears its skills were determined like this: Craft (trapmaking) +6 [+0 Int, +2 Race, +1 Rank, +3 Class Skill]
But kobolds have the "Crafty" special quality, so Stealth is always a class skill. So shouldn't it have a +3 bonus, giving it a total Stealth of +9?
Good point. I think the less vicious version probably makes more sense for the nakuru too, since its purpose is gluttony, not cannibalism. :)
The way I see it, if I thought my monster was good enough for round two, it's good enough to stat up. And people on the boards are a friendly and knowledgeable group, so I know they'll have useful things to say. Like how I should have done a last math check before I posted. :) My new revision is almost done. I just need to decide if I want to make the hunger attack more or less viscous. My choices right now are: "Attempts to eat visible food, or creatures if no food is visible." or go the full cannibal route with: "Attempts to eat the nearest living creature." For the latter option, I'd change it to 1d4 rounds and note that the affected creature attempts to grapple and bite. The victim wants to eat right now, not after the meal is killed. (So no fighter attacking his party wizard with swords to cut up the meal first.)
First of all, even leaving out the general sin-fallen angel stuff from the end, you went over Round 3 word-count, so I assume this is not an attempt to represent the creature as a Superstar entry. Nope. I just wanted to stat it up. When I saw the round three rules, I was pretty sure this - as I envisioned it - wouldn't make it in under that word count.
I played with it at both 8 and 9 HD at some point, looks like I missed fixing some stats. The correct hit point total for 8d10+24 should be 68 hp. And now I feel like an idiot. :) I can only guess that I was thinking about the number of HD instead of the die type itself when I did the math. You appear to have deviated from the usual good Reflex and Will saves to give good Fortitude and Reflex instead, although the Outsider information in the Bestiary does indicate there is some leeway as to which saves are good. Yup. I even noticed that the outsider type lists Reflex and Will, but in the monster creation section they say "any two." I gave it a better Fortitude save and immunity to poison to reflect a hearty constitution, since it eats a lot of things that could normally be bad.
It started with Improved Initiative and I took that out. Clearly I missed that. Not sure how I got the 72 skill points though. That's a big mistake. With regard to the 'Create Ghoul' ability the closest corresponding ability I can find is that for a Shadow or Wight, which takes 1d4 rounds, and is not 'immediate'. The immediate poses questions of does the killed creature instantly turn around and start attacking former comrades (if any) in the same round? If so, does it get a move and standard action? I based this on the nabasu's Death-Stealing Gaze, which creates instant ghouls. I would have it act on its next initiative. It would probably start its action prone, as it would collapse when it died. Ravenous Hunger - so if a group of adventurers are trying to fight a Nakuru in a restaurant, anyone who succombs to the Ravenous Hunger needs to attempt another save just to eat any other food available in prefence over people? If a creature is closer than other food, then yes. My goal with the power was that the victims can no longer behave rationally, unless they make that additional Will save. But I see your point. I think maybe I should change it to be the first visible source of food, and then a creature if there is no other visible source of food. That might help get the CR down a little too. That seems to me more than just 'ravenous hunger'. Furthermore, if a fight is going on out in the open, where PCs are riding horses, apparently if used against the mounts this ability can turn those horses into raging carnivores? The ability name seems a misnomer to me, in other words. I'll fiddle around with some other names. Maybe Insane Hunger or Irrational Hunger?
Ah, I see where it's unclear. It's meant that as long as you're in the aura you're subject to the effect. But I wanted to make sure people couldn't just walk out and come back in to get a new save. But if they encounter the same nakuru's aura a day later they would get a new save. In hindsight, I should have just made the fatigue last until they'd been out of the aura for a set duration, and then give them a new save if they re-entered after that time.
I almost made it CR 7, but I wasn't quite sure. I originally envisioned it as CR 8 or 9 (still in the bottom half of the CR range as the round 2 rules suggested), but I thought I'd try for CR 6. Looks like I should have gone for CR 7. Thank-you for posting it, however. Thank you for your thorough comments! I'm embarrassed by some of those pretty obvious mistakes. I should have done a final math check before I posted it. And I sure will in the future when I post monsters. Thanks again, Charles!
Erik, thanks for statting up the sin fallen. One note is that you don't need to use the multi-attack feat, since in Pathfinder, claws and bite are both primary attacks, and multi-attack only helps with secondary attacks. D'oh! Can't believe I missed that. Now I need to remember the other feat I considered for it. It was either Great Fortitude or Vital Strike.
Finally got around to doing mine: Nakuru (Sin-Fallen Angel of Gluttony) Now, to finish my encounter...
OK. I finally put aside planning a new Pathfinder campaign long enough to stat this. It has a new name (which apparently is also the name of a city and district in Kenya, but I really like it...). It may be pushing into CR 7, and not the CR 6 I gave it. That said, here it is: Nakuru (Sin-Fallen Angel of Gluttony): Nakuru (Sin-Fallen Angel of Gluttony) CR 6
=====
=====
=====
=====
Grab (Ex) A nakuru may attempt grab any creature its size or smaller. Ravenous Hunger (Su) Creatures struck by the nakuru must succeed on a Will save (DC 17) or suffer uncontrollable hunger for 1d6 rounds. The hunger affects any creature capable of eating, although those who do not normally require food to survive receive a +4 racial bonus on the save. Those who fail the save immediately seek out the nearest source of food. If a living creature - other than a nakuru - is the closest, then the victim attempts to eat it. The victim may use a standard action each round to attempt another Will save to resist this urge. A successful save allows the creature to use the rest of its actions that round to acquire a different source of food, such as from a nearby table or rations in a backpack. Affected creatures still defend themselves if attacked and the hunger ends if the nakuru attacks the victim. This is a mind-affecting effect. The save DC is Charisma-based. Starvation Aura (Su) Living creatures within 30 feet of the nakuru must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC 17) or suffer 1d6 points of nonlethal damage and become fatigued. The fatigue lasts until the creature leaves the aura. It becomes fatigued again if it returns, but takes no more damage. An opponent that succeeds on the saving throw is immune to that nakuru's aura for 24 hours. A new save is required every 24 hours, with new damage for each save. Opponents that do not need to eat are immune to this effect. The save DC is Charisma-based. Swallow Whole (Su) A nakuru's body stretches, allowing it to swallow a single creature its size or smaller it has grabbed. The nakuru regenerates one hit point for every point of damage its stomach inflicts on the swallowed creature, with injuries to the nakuru's stomach healing first. The nakuru can disgorge a swallowed creature as a move action. Creatures who die inside the nakuru are ejected in this manner to make room for a new victim. Creatures who break the grapple with the nakuru are also ejected, without costing the nakuru an action. The nakuru may take an attack of opportunity to bite creatures as they fly from its mouth. Nakuru, sin-fallen angels of gluttony, are floating, emaciated humanoids with brittle, gnawed stumps where a true angel’s wings should be. Their long arms end in bony claws that are almost as sharp as their needle-like teeth. Nakuru are often accompanied by ghouls and ghasts they create and command. Some nakuru fell while on the Material Plane and stayed. Others are trapped on evil outer planes, where they pass the time seeking access to the material plane and amuse themselves by making weaker creatures devour each other. Their eagerness to get to the Material Plane makes nakuru popular with summoners, as nakuru charge less for their services and their preferred payment - a decadent feast held in their honor – is often less odious than payments demanded by other evil outsiders. Unfortunately, the nakuru will sometimes use the guests of such a feast to create their ghoulish entourage. Nakuru try to encourage gluttony through persuasion and guile, but the sin fallen lack the patience of other corrupting fiends and occasionally inflict their powers on unwilling victims. Tales of taverns falling prey to a hungry stranger or despots turning to cannibalism are often the legacies of an impulsive angel of gluttony. As outsiders, nakuru do not require food to survive, but they obviously enjoy it. Sin Fallen Angels
Sin-Fallen Angel Subtype: Sin-fallen angels were once angels, but have lost most of the features of their old subtype. They are evil outsiders, who wander the evil-aligned outer planes and the Material Plane. Sin-fallen angels possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry). * Darkvision 60 feet and low-light vision.
It feels a little weird to have to wait so long this time to see the next submissions. I just know I'm going to be logging on next Tuesday and then remember "one more week..." It'll be worth the wait though. Good luck guys!
Out of all the contestants, I was looking forward to reading your adventure proposal the most.Ditto. So I think you should write it up and publish it anyway! :D I don't know about anyone else, but I've been doing each of the round's tasks just for the experience of doing them. I may not be able to have them voted on, but I'm still learning from it. So yeah, write it anyway! :)
A blood-curdling scream cuts through the sounds of battle. Turning to look you see a massive, cat-like creature covered in blue, armor-like plates viciously shaking its head. As it does, drops of blood fan across the snow until you hear a crunch and the screaming stops. Another bugbear materializes suddenly, its twisted neck clamped in the ice-cat’s jaws. With a final savage shake, the beast drops the goblinoid’s body and approaches.Personally? This is probably my favorite snippet of writing in the whole godamn contest. It may not be flawlessly presented, but no one can say it isn't cool. Agreed. That's some nice writing.
For tactical maps like this one, we usually use 5 foot squares because that's what a GM will use for a battle map scale; using 10 foot squares runs the risk of the GM drawing everything at the wrong size. I bring this up specifically because I assumed the scale was 5 feet, and the 100 ft. radius blast of the big meteor made me wonder, "well, isn't that pretty much this entire encounter area?," which would be true if the map's scale was 5 feet per square; then I checked the scale and found it was 10 feet. People expect 5-foot squares on tactical maps (rather than 10-foot squares), just as they expect country map scale to be in miles rather than leagues. The scale is 10' per square on the isometric view. The top-down view is labeled as 5' per square in the bottom left corner of the map. (I assume the isometric view is just meant to show the relative size of objects.) So, yes, the 100' is pretty much everything except 10-20 feet next to the southern wall.
Yup. They've all been fun and useful to read.
You touch upon some worthwhile points. The problem with limiting it to magical creatures is that you really eliminate their use as an antagonist of the PCs. One thing I definitely wanted to avoid was them implanting cows and dogs and the like, because that really would lead to a population explosion (which would be countered by the lack of food supply, but it would still be an instant problem). Sentient creatures opens them up to being a threat to small villages; or sets them up to bully a tribe of goblins into doing what the ardorwesps want or face being implanted themselves. Limiting as you suggest only makes them a threat to pixies and unicorns, who the PCs might want to help; however this way there are many other different ways to get them engaged in a story. I agree. It is also my preference for them to attack a broad range of creatures (and I love that you limited it to sentient creatures). The idea of them attacking familiars and other magical beasts seemed popular in round 2, so my suggestion was based on retaining that idea while giving them a reason why nothing else is a satisfactory target. Personally, I could do without the fey and magical beasts mention. As I noted elsewhere in this thread, these things have very little incentive to make those creatures a favored target. The penalty to the save helps, but for creatures who can lay an egg every day the risk still isn't worth it when weaker sentient creatures are much easier targets. Of course, if you had removed the favored targets, people may not have liked it and it could have cost you votes. In all, I think you did a good job working on a creature with a couple of strong contradictions, and the concerns I had about it during the last two rounds didn't stop you from getting my vote.
For the sake of the editors who receive the stat blocks, I wish they were perfect. But my voting was definitely based on how people delivered over three rounds. Consistency of quality is good, because then I know I'll want to buy the adventure when it comes out. :)
That really just says "wasp" to me. Nothing written about this creature makes me think it is any more ardorous than any other wasp.
Every other failed save. The victim is only easier to hit if they roll a 2. But it's a good point, and I'll give the giant wasp a little more respect for the "you die slowly" bit. :)
Except that the ardorwesp is the one with DR and it has an AC 4 points higher than the giant wasp. So there is less power attacking on it than on the giant wasp. I'm just curious how it holds up to another CR 3 creature in the same niche. It's probably not a CR 4 creature (gargoyles and harpies live in CR 4 and they're pretty tough), but I am curious. I may have to carve out some time to run a couple of encounters with each and see.
...2. It's ecology still makes no sense. It favors magical beasts, familiars and fey for its young. But any sentient creature will do. These things have an Intelligence of 10, so this isn't instinct at work. They know any sentient creature will do... It only makes them optimal if the risk of attacking them is less than the gain from that -3. For some magical beasts, it might be. But magical beasts do have Fortitude saves as one of their good saves, while humanoids (for example) do not. Most of the fey these things might encounter have a selection of charm effects while ardorwesps have a weak Will save. Many fey also have DR that is overcome by cold iron, not adamantine, so the wesp may not even succeed on its attacks. Familiars are usually in the company of wizards, who are dangerous foes alone, and even more so in groups. In all, it is a lot of danger and work for that -3. A few of the magical beasts may be worth it, but I don't see them taking on fey or familiars unless desperate. (Interestingly, most of its preferred prey doesn't wear armor, but the creature has adamantine attacks and armor rending.)
I was surprised to see this was a small creature, but after reading it I started thinking about ways to use it in a game, and even to use its size as an advantage. I definitely want to boost its damage, but otherwise it's a solid creature, and I'll be voting for it (especially once I take your previous work into account).
I would have liked to have seen something less swarmy, but that's just my preconception of the Chymick from last round. Taken as a swarm, I think you did a good job and this is on my short list to advance.
What I don't like: 1. I still don't know *why* it's called an "Ardorwesp". There's still nothing here that says "ardor" to me. 2. It's ecology still makes no sense. It favors magical beasts, familiars and fey for its young. But any sentient creature will do. These things have an Intelligence of 10, so this isn't instinct at work. They know any sentient creature will do. With an Intelligence of 10 they should know to avoid magical beasts, familiars (and their accompanying people) and fey, and instead prey on really weak sentient creatures like goblins or kobolds. That prey is likely to be much more common and really no match for a swarm of wesps. Limiting it to magical beasts and other magical creatures would make more sense to me. It increases the likelihood of encounters with PCs and its needing magic to grow explains why casting a spell on an implanted victim causes a wasp to burst out. 3. Did you compare this to the giant wasp when you made it? Both are CR 3, but when I compare them, the ardorwesp seems more powerful. The wasp inflicts slightly more damage, as it only needs one hit versus the wesp's three, and has better hp. But the wesp has a higher AC and DR 5. In addition, while the wesp's paralysis has an easier save, it only takes one failure to paralyze a creature, compared to the wasp's 6 possible saves with only 1d2 dexterity damage each time. I'd give the wesp the advantage there. Finally, the wesp has adamantine claws, telepathy and the intelligence necessary to use tactics and interact with people. All that makes me wonder if the wesp needs to be bumped up a CR (or maybe the giant wasp is on the bottom of CR 3 and this is at the top). What I like: I do think you did a good job writing this, and it is nice to see lower CR creatures. I was not a fan of this last round and your work really warmed me to it. Between that and your work in rounds one and two, you're still one of my favorites.
I'd love to see a system where the server emails you with time and date of the submission, word count of the submission and a copy of the submission so you can be sure everything went through. But then again, I think I submitted my monster four or five times before it went through, so I might just be paranoid. :)
Hi Erik, I liked the concept for your monster. A little bit of Golarion flavor without making it too world specific. The idea of fallen angels is fairly mainstream so that may have hurt you. I also found it a bit funny for a fallen Outsider to be spawning Undead. I did like the swallow whole ability, perhaps it could have been described as sucking the goodness (life) out of the swallowed creature. I hope to see you competing again in next year’s competition. Thanks Matt! If I hadn't thought about the cannibalism thing, I might not have chosen ghouls as minions, but they struck me as well-suited to gluttony. I will definitely be competing again next year. The last few weeks have resulted in my creating more monster and item ideas than I did in the whole of last year. Win or lose, I'm feeling pretty creative. I should give this thing stats by the end of the weekend. I'm tempted to try and fit it into CR 6, just to see if I can do it, even though I imagined it closer to CR 8 or 9. Good luck on this round! I liked your work on the last two rounds (I'll be reading monsters tomorrow, when my brain is more awake :) ).
|