Morphemic's page

Thank you judges! I appreciate your comments very much. And congratulations to the rest of the top five -- excellent monsters all around!

I'm glad you guys are running this contest again. It has been awesome every year!
I plan to have my entry completed within the next few days, and I'm really looking forward to seeing what everyone else comes up with.

I decided to write up a monster for this issue at the last minute. It looks like I got it in with only a few minutes to spare.

So... I had to spend the weekend taking care of a sick baby. Therefore I didn't get a chance to respond to specific comments. But I wanted to thank the judges and everyone else who has weighed in since my last post. You have all made a lot of good points for me to consider. I appreciate all of your feedback a lot!

I haven't received a tag for this year yet either. I think this happens to a few people every year.

Thanks to everyone for voting me into the top 32, and for the nice comments. I still have to finish my map, and I have a lot going on with work and family right now. But I hope that I can come back and respond to comments sometime this weekend.

Congrats to the rest of the top 32! I'm honored to get another shot at this. Unlike my previous two attempts, I'm doing this as a father of a baby. I guess I'd better spend my now limited free time on my map.

Wow! Thanks Endzeitgeist! I'm very happy about that review. I'll definitely consider writing a collection of these feats for specific weapons like you suggested.

Thanks again for the excellent review El Ronza. The positive reviews of this product have got me thinking about similar niches I could fill in the system (Jeff - I just added one idea to a proposal document).

There are a lot of choices in Pathfinder where there is only one optimal selection, such as using a lance if you want to make a mounted charge. You are mechanically penalized if you make a different choice for the flavor of it. I'll seek out such choices in the system and see what I can create to make some of the less-chosen options more balanced with the current optimal choice.

Thanks Malwing. I appreciate it.

Thanks to everyone reviewing this product. I appreciate your feedback!

Thanks Michael. It's great to get that kind of feedback.

Thanks Liz! And thanks to Frank and Jeff for putting everything together and getting this published! I've said this elsewhere already, but I'll repeat it here:

I'm excited about this release. It's the first published product for which I am the primary author, rather than just a contributor.

The purpose of these feats is to provide a mechanical incentive for mounted characters to use a weapon other then a lance for charging attacks. Each feat gives a different weapon type a bonus on a mounted charge intended to rival the double damage ability of the lance. So, if you're tired of all mounted characters using the same weapon, check this product out!

I'm excited about this release. It's the first published product for which I am the primary author, rather than just a contributor.

The purpose of these feats is to provide a mechanical incentive for mounted characters to use a weapon other then a lance for charging attacks. Each feat gives a different weapon type a bonus on a mounted charge intended to rival the double damage ability of the lance. So, if you're tired of all mounted characters using the same weapon, check this product out for only $0.99!

I'm glad you like my mounted brigand. It was the first thing I wrote for Flying Pincushion and my first published archetype. I also wrote order of the bow, and can confirm that they were designed to work well together (but also work well separately).

I am a freelancer who writes for Flying Pincushion. I wasn't involved with either of those books, but I think that at least the oracle book received a revision that fixed the issue you cited. You might want to try downloading the file again from whatever store you purchased from to see if the updates address your issues. I could be wrong though.

I'll bring this post to the attention of the senior staff to see if they can address your questions in more detail.

Also, since you are a fan of the series, check out the opportunity to get a free copy of Into the Breach: the Cavalier in exchange for writing a review!

I sent in a couple submissions.

The two best entries were both very solid pitches and I'd be happy to see either of them win. They had very different strengths and weaknesses from each other as well, making them difficult to compare. But ultimately I too had to go with Down the Blighted Path.

I remember being bothered by how little feedback we got last year, in comparison to previous years. Its looking like this round is also headed for a low comment count and quiet forums. I'm hoping I'll find some time to comment on all of the encounters (they are all quite good). But I'm quite slow at composing my thoughts, and pretty busy this week, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to do it.

It's interesting that there are three entries getting virtually all the votes, and the last spot in the top four will go to an entry that gets very few votes (just more than the bottom four). It seems like I could have the most influence by voting for my favorite of the remaining five to try to get it into the top 4. But ultimately, that's not my style, so I voted for my two favorite entries, both of which were among the three locks to advance:

Brian J. Fruzen — The Gloomsworn Path
Monica Marlowe — The Hanging Gardens of Karexin

I just checked the preview function on the forum submission page for my entry, and it doesn't seem to be giving a word count. I don't trust myself to count words correctly for the forum system, so it would be great if we could get that fixed! Thanks in advance!

The preview function on the submission tool only displays a word count if you enter something in the title field. If you leave the title blank, you don't get a word count.

Of course, I don't have access to the tool right now to verify that this is currently the case. That's just how it worked in the past.

In alphabetical order, I voted

Coryphae
Deeplit
Dread Glutton
Narrick

After careful deliberation, I decided to vote for the same list as Anthony.

So it looks like pretty much the entire top 32 got either their item or their monster published in this? I'm impressed that they fit it all in.

I'm happy my first ever submission to Wayfinder made it in. Looking forward to seeing the issue. Congrats to everyone else who made it!

It was not an easy choice, but I voted for the following list:

Gabriel Almer - Caverns of Steam, Near Dwimovel (Darklands, Sekamina)
Charlie Bell - Smokemount Hold
Brian Fruzen - Salvation's End
Dana Huber - Elven Guardpost on the Tanglebriar Border
Monica Marlowe - Firebrand's Redoubt: Stronghold of Lady Delbera Axebringer
Kalervo Oikarinen - Ancient Cyclops Stronghold in the Icerime Peaks
R Pickard - Town of Griffon Falls
Christopher Wasko - The Drowning Temple

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: A
The axe shape and hand-drawn lines invoke a sense of old-school fun.

Interest Level of Location: B
This is an interesting stronghold, but a lot of the rooms are pretty ordinary and mundane. They wouldn't be that exciting to explore as a player.

Tactical Depth: B
There are a few areas that would make good combat locations. There are also a lot of rooms with nothing but a little furniture to spice up a fight.

Adventure Potential: A
This would work as a mini-dungeon, or as a home base to defend.

Clarity: A
No problems.

Logic: A
Well designed. Everything makes sense.

Overall: A-

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: B
The time lapse is cool, and so is the lava. But its also complicated and confusing.

Interest Level of Location: B
This map is kind of a one trick pony. One hell of a trick, but there isn't a whole lot going on besides the map changing as it heats up.

Tactical Depth: B
A lot of empty space, but there are enough features to keep it fun.

Adventure Potential: B
The map's only story is the lava. I would need to design an adventure around it to justify it.

Clarity: B
Everything is well defined, but it is sufficiently complicated that it gets confusing.

Logic: B
Phenomena like this are easy to nitpick. I'm not getting into it, but I could.

Overall: B

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: B
The side view is cool. But the overhead view doesn't look like a very good map (or a very big one). Even for a cliff face map, the overhead view is important.

Interest Level of Location: B
The cliff is cool. The town is ok. The map has some interesting names, but doesn't really tell me why I would adventure in this town.

Tactical Depth: B
Maneuvering here would be very tight when fighting on a grid, but all of the elevation and buildings could make a fun vertical battle.

Adventure Potential: B
Useful both as a home base town and as an adventure site in itself, but too small to serve as either for very long.

Clarity: B
I can figure everything out by comparing the two map views. But I shouldn't have to. I wouldn't attempt to map a location like this unless I had mastered isometric drawing. This was too ambitious.

Logic: B
I'm a little confused about how some of the buildings are reached.

Overall: B

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: A
This is a beautiful, classic map of caverns.

Interest Level of Location: B
All the things you would expect to find in the Darklands. Nothing is surprising, but everything is well done.

Tactical Depth: A
The use of elevation and terrain features would make some memorable fights.

Adventure Potential: A
There's a lot going in in these caves that I could build adventures around.

Clarity: A
No problems.

Logic: B
Suffers a little bit from "dungeon logic" where rooms that are very close together house completely unrelated monsters. But this is par for the course in a game like this.

Overall: A-

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: A
Excellent old school map.

Interest Level of Location: B
The volcano shaft is interesting. A dwarven citadel is a little cliché. It could be fun to explore, but it would feel like a pretty generic dungeon to the players.

Tactical Depth: B
There are tons of rooms in here with almost no interesting uses for tactical combat, but the central shaft and the exterior defenses of the citadel both offer interesting combat scenarios.

Adventure Potential: A
This is one of the few maps that works as a complete dungeon adventure on its own.

Clarity: A
No problems.

Logic: A
No problems here either.

Overall: A-

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: D
Doesn't look like much time was spent on this. Small and basic.

Interest Level of Location: C
Elemental themed dungeon with traps. Fun but cliché.

Tactical Depth: C
Assuming the fire elementals are the only combat, it occurs in a very boring room. The rating is improved slightly by the cleverness of some of the traps.

Adventure Potential: B
This would be easy and fun to drop into an adventure. It could also be its own mini adventure.

Clarity: B
What's drawn is clear. I could use more details to figure everything out.

Logic: B
A "mad" elementalist. Someone would have to be crazy to build this. Why are there so many crazy dead wizards?

Overall: C+

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: A
Really great looking map!

Interest Level of Location: A
There is a ton of interesting stuff to explore here.

Tactical Depth: C
Really cramped quarters. No room for tactical maneuvering. The stream crossing itself is the most interesting part of the map from a tactical perspective.

Adventure Potential: A
This map would make a very fun segment of an adventure.

Clarity: B
The different colors of floor inside the tree confuse me, and I could use some elevation indicators around the stream. Otherwise good.

Logic: C
There's just too much stuff crammed into a tiny space. Not only is it unrealistic, but all the encounters would run together in actual play.

Overall: B

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: C
A typical "overland" map, only underground.

Interest Level of Location: C
A lot of great names, little indication of what these places actually are.

Tactical Depth: NA
I am not rating this category for maps that are not of a tactical scale.

Adventure Potential: B
There are tons of potential adventure sites here, but no obvious story telling me why I would visit them.

Clarity: A
No problems here.

Logic: D
The giant city, the single exit, lots of little things don't quite make sense.

Overall: C+

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: A
Very good looking map.

Interest Level of Location: B
You made it look really interesting, but actually exploring it in a game wouldn't take very long.

Tactical Depth: A
Either defending this post or attacking it would make a very memorable fight.

Adventure Potential: B
I'd love to use this in an adventure, even as a main encounter. The map itself doesn't suggest much beyond that one encounter though.

Clarity: A
I found this easy to understand.

Logic: B
I'm not sure I've even seen a tree with 10-foot wide, completely horizontal branches before. How could the trunk support all that weight?

Overall: A-

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: A
This looks extremely cool.

Interest Level of Location: A
I really want the interior maps. Not because this map feels unfinished, but because its so interesting the I want more of it.

Tactical Depth: A
The platforms at different elevations, the ice, and the bridge are enough to earn an A.

Adventure Potential: A
This makes me want to adventure there.

Clarity: A
No problems.

Logic: B
Where does the flowing water come from? Shouldn't it freeze? I suppose its all magic. Otherwise this makes sense.

Overall: A

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: B
It definitely looks interesting, but it took me more than just that first look to even figure out what I was looking at.

Interest Level of Location: A
This is about as cool as you could make a small ruined tower.

Tactical Depth: B
The elevations and angles are cool, but this map constrains maneuverability a bit.

Adventure Potential: A
The adventure hooks here include the graves, the cave, the history of the place, etc.

Clarity: B
It takes some work to figure this map out because of its complexity, but it is very well drawn.

Logic: A
Very well thought-out.

Overall: A-

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: C
The central, arena-like temple is kind of interesting, but the rest of the map isn't.

Interest Level of Location: C
There isn't enough detail to figure out much more about this place than my initial impression. It appears to be a flooded dungeon, but that doesn't affect my rating.

Tactical Depth: D
Small, rectangular, and submerged rooms don't allow much room for interesting tactical movement.

Adventure Potential: D
It would take me more work than I'd want to do to set an adventure here.

Clarity: C
Needs elevation indicators and a discussion of how the flooding works. Needs other details too.

Logic: C
Without elevation indicators, I can't really tell whether the water distribution makes sense.

Overall: C-

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: A
That's just cool. The mix of hollowed-out fish and added structures is impressive.

Interest Level of Location: A
This would be really fun to explore. Especially the swallowed lighthouse.

Tactical Depth: C
The lighthouse area could have some tactical interest, but overall, this doesn't seem to be a major consideration.

Adventure Potential: B
While this would be super fun to drop into an adventure, there is nothing in the map that suggests how I would do so, or how this thing came about. Adding more detail to this map would help a lot.

Clarity: A
No major problems.

Logic: C
This isn't a very realistic fish.

Overall: B

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: B
Looks interesting, but a bit cluttered.

Interest Level of Location: B
The concept is cool, but mostly just a clearing in the jungle full of bones. The other features are pretty basic.

Tactical Depth: D
Fighting here would just happen in the clearing, I suppose. I guess all the bones are difficult terrain, so the battles would be pretty static.

Adventure Potential: C
Nothing on the map tells me how to use it in an adventure. It wouldn't be much trouble to drop it in though.

Clarity: A
No problems here.

Logic: B
This map works as it is, but I would think that a site as iconic as the dinosaur graveyard would have more to it than a clearing with a pile of bones. I always imagined it as a more complex adventure site.

Overall: B-

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: C
A basic city map. Some of the shapes are interesting.

Interest Level of Location: D
Lacks the level of detail needed to make a city map worthwhile.

Tactical Depth: NA
I am not rating this category for maps that are not of a tactical scale.

Adventure Potential: C
There are a few potential adventure sites on the map, but I'd have to make up pretty much everything about them myself if I wanted to use them.

Clarity: D
Lack of detail leaves many unanswered questions.

Logic: B
Missing important information like elevation, but otherwise reasonable.

Overall: C

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: C
The map is blocky and lacks detail.

Interest Level of Location: C
The concept is interesting enough, but the lack of detail keeps it from scoring well.

Tactical Depth: B
The rooftops and rope bridges work well enough for me as a site for a fun battle.

Adventure Potential: C
I could drop this into an adventure, but there isn't enough information to make me want to build an adventure around it.

Clarity: C
Are the rooftops flat? Can you get inside the buildings? What the map does show is clear, but important information is missing.

Logic: B
Nothing really wrong with it, but building placement is a little random.

Overall: C+

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: A
This is a fun looking mini-dungeon.

Interest Level of Location: A
There's a lot going on in all of the rooms. I could imagine something fun happening in each of them.

Tactical Depth: A
The main temple is set up as a fantastic tactical space.

Adventure Potential: A
There are enough hints about what's happening here to imagine a story. I could easily build an adventure around this.

Clarity: B
The elevations are a bit confusing, but this is otherwise clear.

Logic: C
It takes a healthy dose of "it's magic" to explain the water movement here. How did anyone enter the temple before the column fell? Some of the rooms appear to have been designed primarily to fit the map, rather than for logical reasons.

Overall: A-

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: B
Very pretty, but it's a pretty standard looking building.

Interest Level of Location: D
This brewery has interesting looking equipment. But there is nothing that would obviously be interesting in a game.

Tactical Depth: D
Standard rectangular rooms with some furniture to serve as obstacles. That's all there is.

Adventure Potential: D
I could place this in an adventure, but the map does nothing to suggest one to me.

Clarity: B
Most things were easy to figure out. But the lack of a key left me guessing on a few.

Logic: A
I could come up with a few nitpicks. But for the most part, the brewery makes sense.

Overall: C

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: B
The cross section is cool, but comparing the main map is confusing.

Interest Level of Location: B
This is a very cool structure, but it almost seems more like a park than an adventure site.

Tactical Depth: A
Differing elevations, water pools, hedges. This is a surprising good setup for a dynamic combat.

Adventure Potential: B
The secret library tells me that there's something going on here that's adventure worthy. But I can't see this map being more than a small part of an adventure.

Clarity: C
This is actually a pretty confusing map. There are a lot of questions I could ask. I'm not sure you quite pulled off the ambitious design.

Logic: C
I think the location makes sense. But the various view on the map don't quite match up with each other, as Crystal noted.

Overall: B

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: C
A little messy and chaotic. Grid squares are quite large.

Interest Level of Location: B
Wrecked ship, floating junk, ziplines. Those are fun things.

Tactical Depth: A
This whole map appears to be set up for one combat encounter. A lot of jumping from one pile of garbage to another, use of the ziplines, and climbing on the ship would make for a memorable fight.

Adventure Potential: B
I could easily drop this into an adventure, but I don't think I could build an adventure around it.

Clarity: A
Despite its messiness, I can understand the whole map easily.

Logic: B
The setup seems to have been made with tactical considerations in mind, rather than realism. But no major problems.

Overall: B

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: A
Good looking town map

Interest Level of Location: B
A fairly typical fantasy town. Very well executed. The details make me want to explore it.

Tactical Depth: NA
I am not rating this category for maps that are not of a tactical scale.

Adventure Potential: B
This town has every location I would need to build an adventure, but there aren't many true adventure hooks in the map.

Clarity: A
Easy to interpret.

Logic: A
Very realistic town.

Overall: A-

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: B
Decent map, but for lack of a better word, it just looks slightly awkward.

Interest Level of Location: B
An evil temple. There are some features we don't see in the standard evil temple, but they are not defined well enough for me to be excited by them.

Tactical Depth: C
Huge open spaces to fight, with only a few more interesting locations.

Adventure Potential: B
There's a good story here. This is probably intended for a high level adventure.

Clarity: B
Most of my questions are about the details and individual features. The map as a whole is clear.

Logic: C
The scale issue make this somewhat unrealistic.

Overall: B-

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: A
This is really cool looking. I like the shapes.

Interest Level of Location: B
Ghoul catacombs, and evil temple, and some other typical dungeon features. Well designed, wonderfully creepy, but not entirely original.

Tactical Depth: C
You could have a very good battle in the main temple, but the rest of the map has so little space to move around that trying to run combat on it would be an exercise in frustration.

Adventure Potential: B
This mini-dungeon could be a fun adventure on its own.

Clarity: C
Most of the map is clear, but a lot of the fine details leave me with questions. There are a few places where I have to guess the intent.

Logic: B
This is fairly logical, but too linear. It needs some secret passages and escape routes.

Overall: B

Here are my ratings for this map:

First Look: B
The map looks fun, but there aren't very many rooms, and a lot of it is consumed by plain water squares.

Interest Level of Location: C
There are a few features that set this apart from a standard sewer map, but not enough to impress me.

Tactical Depth: B
The main area would be tactically unique, but it lacks room to move around.

Adventure Potential: C
So I guess there's vampires down there? Nothing in this map tells me much about the adventure.

Clarity: B
Mostly clear. But the big staircase in the middle is a little confusing. It took me a while to understand what I was looking at.

Logic: D
I wouldn't build a vampire lair near all that running water.

Overall: C+

Direct link to map file until the image at the top of the thread is fixed