Knight Otu's page

One thrend is becoming clear, the stock of monster articles is waaay up. So far three of my four positive responses deal with new monsters.

Four shots, four misses on my part. Back to delving through my idea files, it seems.

I have a couple from November, should I resend them or should I simply wait patiently (something I am getting exceedingly bad at... :))

Based on the information that the "cutoff" was *cough*uary (which one? The one after *cough*ember? ;)), I'd say you want to resend them.

Maybe tod—next we—sometime "soon." -ish

Why do I get the idea that someone stands behind you, chanting "Don't say the t-word! Don't even set a date!"?

Might be Dragon # 323, Detect Violence, Detect Attitude, Detect Guilt, and Detect Heresy.

Thanks Knight Otu, your feedback was very helpful, I'll try to be clearer with regard to the things you caught going forward. I still have some 1st edition vocabulary I'm trying to overcome.

At your service. :)

Actually, I forgot one point I wanted to make in my previous post - the term Enchantment. Many people will say that using the term outside its rules meaning (the school of magic) is a bad idea. I don't necessarily agree, but it is still important to remember.

Wes has been very cool about feedback on some other stuff I submitted, but as there are a number of aspiring writers out there and this submission is dead I thought it might be fun to ask the board to dissect the submission.

I am trying to hone my game writing so all input is appreciated. And I have reasonably thick skin so feel free to open up.

Thanks in advance.

Well, I'm no aspiring editor (I only did content reading for one book), but I guess it'll help both of us regardless. ;)

Bloodfield

Evocation
Level: Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 3 Actions
Range: Medium (25 ft. + 5 ft./level)
Area: A square with sides equal to 5 ft./caster level
Duration: 1 turn/level
Saving Throw: No
Spell Resistance: No

When cast Bloodfield places a powerful enchantment on the ground transforming a square with sides of 5 ft./caster level into a minefield. Any creature size small or larger within the area of effect has a 20% chance per round of discharging a magical burst. Each blast affects a 5 ft. radius for every 5 caster levels, these bursts do 1d6 of fire damage for every three caster levels (reflex save for half damage). Discharging a blast does not reduce the duration of the spell nor does it make that square safe for those that follow after, any individual square can be discharged multiple times. The material component for Bloodfield is a small bronze bowl filled with ash and oil.

(Note that many of the following comments apply to all spells)

3 actions isn't really an appropriate way to say what you want. That would be 3 rounds.
Medium Range is 100 feet plus 10 feet per level. Short range is 25 feet plus 5 feet per two levels.
Turns generally should read Rounds. There is no such thing as turns in the current edition.
Saving Throw should be Yes (see text).
I'm unsure about the flat percentage chance for the effect, as it feels like the chance should rely on both the wizard's and the victim's capabilities. I'd personally prefer a solution that requires less rolling, so I might actually be inclined to say that entering (or remaining in) the area automatically forces a Reflex save. On a success, nothing happens, on a failure, the victim causes a blast (full efefct, no save for the victim, Reflex half for others).
Also, you may want to note an energy type for the blasts, or use force, and add that as a descriptor.

Field of the Archmage

1 turn here should propably be a full-round action.

Claw damage should (presumably) be slashing damage. For clarity, it might be good to note if Damage Reduction applies (technically, it shouldn't for spell damage, but one could argue that slashing, bludgeoning and piercing damage is physical, and thus should be reduced by DR).
The fixed DCs for the Fortitude may not be a good idea.
Overall, this spell feels rather like a Necromancy spell to me.

Field of the Damned

Well, that one looks really powerful. For the drawback, it would be cleaner to use negative levels.

Field of Thorns

Caltrops have their own mechanic already (they perform attack rolls on creatures moving through), so it would be better to refer to those mechanics, and note the changes from the spell. 1 action should presumably be 1 standard action.

This feels more like a Conjuration (Creation) spell than an Evocation.

In all seriousness, we are going to start looking at proposals again very soon. Life is starting to resemble something similar to a state the might be mistaken for normal.

Jason Bulmahn
Managing Editor of the Mole People

Good to hear. :)

The retroactive allocation of skill points would be analogous (sp?) to the retroactive increase of hit points in case of increased constitution, I think. So this would be a point towards internal consistency of the rules and seem logical.

Many things would be so much easier* if that were the case. I seem to remember that Andy Collins wanted to change that for 3.5, but was outvoted. :\

*not to mention more internally consistent, as you pointed out. Monsters, especially dragons, do use it retroactively.

Oh, I see.

Of course, some newer books don't quite follow that idea. There was a huge outburst on the Wizards boards about a cleric capable of resurrection "on demand".

I thought Eberron wasn't supposed to have super high-level NPCs? Am I just misremembering, or was that part of its original design plan?

It's super high-level NPC Heroes, or NPC Allies. Entities like Vol, the Dragons, the daelkyr and the Rajah are definitely high-level NPCs. NPC allies usually are only high level if they are somehow limited in their freedom of movement, such as the Great Druid Oalian (awakened tree; technically mobile, but prefers to stay rooted) or the Keeper of the Flame Jaela (11-year old girl; loses most of her powers outside of Flamekeep).

the most painful admission was the "like something from a madman's nightmare" reference...

How do you now it was an admission of mine....

What? ;)

Another understandable change was the number of times the nerve strike could be used, making it a straight number instead of relying on the other two abilities.
I do believe, though, that a column was cut from the brainstealer dragon tables - the Crush/Tail Sweep DCs. Normally the same as the dragon's breath weapon, but this guy, you know. ;)

I'm very glad that the brainstealer dragon appears to be some kind of fan-favorite, by the way.

I hope I'll be able to pick it up tomorrow, so I can see for myself.

This?

I think farewell is referring to this. The one you linked to is, as far as I know, effectively a much smaller version.

Admittedly, I don't have the issue yet, but I've heard and know a few things.

-What is Zuggtmoy's CR?

I've heard 25.

-Is at least 1 new monster listed for a minion of Zuggtmoy?

I hear there are two fungal creatures and a demon.

-What is the average CR of the Monsters of the Mind article?

If the CRs weren't changed from our submission, 7.75 without the brainstealer dragon, 13 with the various age categories of the dragon.

it hits the stands on oct 25

Except here in germany. :p No sign of 337 in my FLGS yet.

Knight Otu wrote:

Leave it to the Creature Crew to up the average monster count per issue. :p

i can't and won't apologize for that, and you know this. ;)

I wasn't saying that it is a bad thing. :p

Especially considering I'm kind of a member of the Creature Crew... (though at its core it is you and Shade).

if you think that was long, about 1/3 of the monsters we submitted got cut from the article. ;)

Though it does appear that this issue did indeed have more monsters than most recent issues. What was the total? Nine or ten, including Zuggtmoy?

While I personally do not think that this is a lot of monsters, I can see where DeadDM is coming from.

Leave it to the Creature Crew to up the average monster count per issue. :p

Boz - you were one of the writers of that article? Very nice! :)

BOZ, Shade and... some elusive third guy whose screen name has some connection with oxygen or something were the writers. :)

i do believe that was Shade's idea... and a good one it was. :) we like to be thorough.

I seem to remember it was your idea. It certainly wasn't mine, though - I'm not intelligent enough for that. ;)

my first article to be printed (co-written with Shade) is Monsters of the Mind, in next month's issue.

Ahem. ;)

Yeah, there can sometimes be long waiting times. I know they can be discouraging, but don't let them be. :)

And another one! Looks really good! :)