Thoughts on the overall quality of the top 32...

[Dire Mongoose]

Jeremiziah wrote:

Since I made the point initially, and made it less poignantly and more bluntly (as is my wont) than Dire Mongoose did, I'll also defend myself here.

Wooo! Somebody makes me look tactful! :)

[Dire Mongoose]

One thing that occured to me today, with respect to the discussion of archetypes and why they're mechanically different/harder than wondrous items is that wondrous items have only a balance upper bound, whereas archetypes have both.

That is to say, a wondrous item will be rejected for being overpowered, but is rarely rejected for being underpowered. It seems like an item needs to be truly mechanically worthless or extremely overpriced for what it does for that to weigh in much relative to all the other factors that matter.

Conversely, a lot of people got criticized in Round 2 for making archetypes that are underpowered.

[Neil Spicer]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

That is to say, a wondrous item will be rejected for being overpowered, but is rarely rejected for being underpowered.

Not really true at all. We rejected a number of items that were overpriced for what they do. Thus, they got rejected for being "underpowered"...and that happened nearly as often as the overpowered rejections.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Neil Spicer wrote:

Dire Mongoose wrote:

That is to say, a wondrous item will be rejected for being overpowered, but is rarely rejected for being underpowered.

Not really true at all. We rejected a number of items that were overpriced for what they do. Thus, they got rejected for being "underpowered"...and that happened nearly as often as the overpowered rejections.

One of my players recently pointed out a feat is worth about 5,000 gp.

The price of the dark blue ioun stone is 10,000 gp. An unslotted item is multiplied by 2. alertness feat = 5,000 gp.

But the cost for the skills of the alertness feat are worth 2,000 gp. +2 bonus squared x 100gp = 400 gp. then multiply one of the skills by 1.5 = 600 gp. 400 + 600 = 1,000 gp, times 2 for being unslotted. 2,000 gp if you made an iouns stone that doesn't reference the feat.

How are feats priced in items????

[Eric Hindley]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

How are feats priced in items????

In all honesty, I suspect it depends on the feat in question. 5000 gp is probably a good baseline, but not all feats are created equal. Any of the skill bonus feats are not going to be all that expensive as a magic item, in a way. A +3 competence bonus is only 3^2 x 100 = 900 gp, and a +6 is 3600 gp, but these are competence bonuses. The feats in question grant an untyped bonus, which would thus stack with these items. That makes them more valuable.

Gauntlets that grant Power Attack might be worth 5000 or even 8000 gp to the right character, while I doubt many people would shell out 5000 gp for Gauntlets of Eschew Materials, a feat whose purpose is to eliminate other costs... Of course, your mileage may vary.

[Dire Mongoose]

Neil Spicer wrote:

Dire Mongoose wrote:

That is to say, a wondrous item will be rejected for being overpowered, but is rarely rejected for being underpowered.

Not really true at all. We rejected a number of items that were overpriced for what they do. Thus, they got rejected for being "underpowered"...and that happened nearly as often as the overpowered rejections.

Reading the items that comments have been posted on, I really feel that it's much easier for mojo to overcome "overpriced" than it is "overpowered" -- but I can only see a subset of the items and comments.

Which isn't to say that the judges don't consider overpriced to be an error and we haven't seen those comments, too.

I think underpowered is easier to see for an archetype, because you always have the base version of the class for comparison. If someone writes an archetype and you think "The base version of this class does this specialized job better than this specialized archetype" you can be pretty confident it's underpowered. (And, to be fair to the Top 32, I've seen more than once someone post here and level that very criticism at one of a few of the APG archetypes.) Conversely, when you're reading a set of funky clairaudience leaves, it's harder to baseline that against all the other existing funky clairaudience leaves.

[Steven Helt]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I wasn't offended. *shrug*

If you want to knoqw how to offend Sean, send me an email. : }

[Steven Helt]

Eric Hindley wrote:

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

How are feats priced in items????

THere will alwasy be some level of "it depends" applied to this question. Giving someone Combat Patrol without a slot and without Copmbat Reflexes should cost more than giving someone Skill Focus (pottery). But the 3.5 guide was 10k for a feat. You'll note the ioun stone that gives you Alertness costs 10k, but doesn't take a slot, so that one is worth, theoretically, 5k.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

How are feats priced in items????

In general: don't.

Because high-level characters have tons of gold and could just buy whatever feats they want.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

How are feats priced in items????

In general: don't.

Because high-level characters have tons of gold and could just buy whatever feats they want.

I wanted to use them as a baseline for pricing abilities that are hard to pigeonhole. Since there is such a large selection of feats, most abilities could be compared to them and the other prices already spelled out to help with pricing.

And many people are having issues with pricing. Especially me. Balancing an item price is alot harder than making class abilities that balance and scale well in my opinion. But I'm not an expert.

[Mikko Kallio]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

I have a Blackfire Adept (Wizard)and Riftwarden (Ranger) scrawled out somewhere. I have been using them in my campaign for a while. Sweettalker (Bard), Odeber Descendant (Paladin), Scarzni Smuggler (Rogue), and Son of Skinsaw (Cleric) also exist but have limited play. Working on an Imperial Breeder concept, but not sure if I want to rework summoner or druid.

Judging by the names alone, very interesting sounding concepts you've got there! Much more intriguing than the majority of the top 32, to be honest... I would like to see what abilities you've given them.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Serpent wrote:

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

I have a Blackfire Adept (Wizard)and Riftwarden (Ranger) scrawled out somewhere. I have been using them in my campaign for a while.

Judging by the names alone, very interesting sounding concepts you've got there! Much more intriguing than the majority of the top 32, to be honest... I would like to see what abilities you've given them.

Found them. They need a some changes due to the APG. But the Blackfire Wizard (oops, thought I had named it an adept) needed little change. I had considered using the teleportation domain of the APG, but my original concept was better I thought. I did have the first ability as (Ex) but I think (Su) is better.

Blackfire Wizard (Wizard):

The blackfire wizard is trained to be able to exploit the planes to his benefit. He has received training from a Blackfire Adept in how best to exploit the planes to his advantage.

Planar Languages: The blackfire wizard can select from the following bonus languages to the character because of his race: Abyssal, Aquan, Auran, Celestial, Ignan, Infernal, or Terran. This ability replaces bonus language.

Blackfire Robe: At 1st level, the blackfire adept forms an arcane bond with his robe following the rules for a wizards bonded object. If his robe gains the energy resistance magical armor ability, the blackfire wizard can change the energy type when he prepares his spells. This ability replaces the arcane bond ability.

Blackfire School: The blackfire wizard has studied under a Blackfire Adept and must select the Conjuration school. The following abilities replaces the summoner's charm and acid dart abilities of the conjuration school:

Detect Planar Rift (Su): You are attuned to conjuration magic and are able to detect planar instabilities. This ability functions as detect secret doors but reveals the presence of extra dimensional spaces, planar portals, and areas where the border between the planes is thin or torn. For each additional round, the mechanism or trigger for one planar portal closely examined by you is revealed, the opening to the extra dimensional space, or the elemental and energy trait of the plane where the thin or torn border leads to.

Energy Dart (Sp): As a standard action you can unleash a dart targeting any foe within 30 feet as a ranged touch attack. The dart deals 1d6 points of damage + 1 for every two wizard levels you possess. The damage type must be selected each day when you prepare your spells. You can select from acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic damage. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier. This attack ignores spell resistance.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Found them. They need a some changes due to the APG. But the Blackfire Wizard (oops, thought I had named it an adept) needed little change. I had considered using the teleportation domain of the APG, but my original concept was better I thought. I did have the first ability as (Ex) but I think (Su) is better.

** spoiler omitted **...

As I update my Golarion stuff I will be tossing it in this folder on google docs. Riftwarden has been updated, including new name.

[Dark Sasha]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

How are feats priced in items????

In general: don't.

Because high-level characters have tons of gold and could just buy whatever feats they want.

I appreciate this as I dislike the tendency to powerbuild from the 3.5 days. It makes it hard to create suitably challenging encounters for my 9 players without some brakes on their magic items. It is for this reason that I also have no items that add to ability scores. I am probably in the minority here, however.

[Vistarius]

I actually didnt read most of the posts here.
But i will say i found myself hardpressed to spend 8 votes. The ideas others not in the top 32 have posted are much better.
The majority of the people in the 32 arent skilked writers. Granted the judges opinion of others must be that the rest of us who are voting, cant write. But seriously. Wandslinger? Dirty beard fighter? Lets just make 32 and make joke entries.

I think the contest should have rules making the entrants required to be age 18. Thatll cut back on the ip conflicts abd poor writing and joke entries.

[Vic Wertz]

Jeremiziah wrote:

I'm merely making an observation. Archetypes and wondrous items require the mind to be forced into entirely different channels.

Yep. When we lay out the challenges for the entire contest, we're deliberately selecting tasks to test for different competencies that we think a good adventure designer needs to possess. And if that means that there's almost no overlap between the designers of the best wondrous items and the best archetypes, that's ok. Whoever gets through to the next round may not have been the best at either task—but they will probably be better at both than most contestants.

[Charles Evans 25]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Jeremiziah wrote:

I'm merely making an observation. Archetypes and wondrous items require the mind to be forced into entirely different channels.

Yep. When we lay out the challenges for the entire contest, we're deliberately selecting tasks to test for different competencies that we think a good adventure designer needs to possess. And if that means that there's almost no overlap between the designers of the best wondrous items and the best archetypes, that's ok. Whoever gets through to the next round may not have been the best at either task—but they will probably be better at both than most contestants.

I will say that having 32 entries with mechanics makes for hard reviewing. The reviews I've been posting under alias haven't been particularly mechanics orientated, but it's still taken longer than I initially anticipated to get through all the currently posted Round 2 entries.

[Dire Mongoose]

Vistarius wrote:

I actually didnt read most of the posts here.

But i will say i found myself hardpressed to spend 8 votes. The ideas others not in the top 32 have posted are much better.
The majority of the people in the 32 arent skilked writers. Granted the judges opinion of others must be that the rest of us who are voting, cant write. But seriously. Wandslinger? Dirty beard fighter? Lets just make 32 and make joke entries.

I think the contest should have rules making the entrants required to be age 18. Thatll cut back on the ip conflicts abd poor writing and joke entries.

You're aware that coming up with an idea for an archetype and actually writing a good archetype are two different things, yes? I had a few really slick archetype ideas in the hole in case I needed one this year (and I'm reluctant to post them in case of an archetype round in a future year) but when I sat down to try to write one of them up for kicks it turned out to be a lot harder to get it to come out good, cool, and clear than I thought.

There's also a certain irony in trashing the writing of others in a post that looks like it was written while drunk. :P

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Dire Mongoose wrote:

You're aware that coming up with an idea for an archetype and actually writing a good archetype are two different things, yes? I had a few really slick archetype ideas in the hole in case I needed one this year (and I'm reluctant to post them in case of an archetype round in a future year) but when I sat down to try to write one of them up for kicks it turned out to be a lot harder to get it to come out good, cool, and clear than I thought.

Just steal cool ideas from books. I think classes and archetypes are easy to balance. Its just math. Making them interesting and unique is the hard part.

Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. I can design great dungeons and locations, but suck when it comes to items, villains, spells, and flavor text. Some of the people whose items I enjoyed the most bombed on the archetypes and vice versa. I am exited to see the villians that will be produced. I think you learn alot about a persons play style on the villains they create.

[Levi Harbeson]

Vistarius wrote:

I think the contest should have rules making the entrants required to be age 18. Thatll cut back on the ip conflicts abd poor writing and joke entries.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe everyone who was selected to be in the Top 32 is older than 18.

[Eric Hindley]

Levi Miles wrote:

Vistarius wrote:

I think the contest should have rules making the entrants required to be age 18. Thatll cut back on the ip conflicts abd poor writing and joke entries.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe everyone who was selected to be in the Top 32 is older than 18.

Yeah, I think we're all 18+. (Being within 2 weeks of my 30th birthday, I reserve the right to take all age related observations as flattery, unless they're not).

[Kerney]

Vistarius wrote:

I actually didnt read most of the posts here.

But i will say i found myself hardpressed to spend 8 votes. The ideas others not in the top 32 have posted are much better.
The majority of the people in the 32 arent skilked writers. Granted the judges opinion of others must be that the rest of us who are voting, cant write. But seriously. Wandslinger? Dirty beard fighter? Lets just make 32 and make joke entries.

I think the contest should have rules making the entrants required to be age 18. Thatll cut back on the ip conflicts abd poor writing and joke entries.

I think this round will be the hardest to predict and the most uneven in quality. Archtypes are a new thing and unlike, magic items and adventures, there is much less to go on and much less to go on in both the Judges and Audience reactions. For example, my favorite right now is the saboteur because it's the kind of thing that should have been in the APG, but they forgot to think about. To someone else that might not be flashy enough.

P.S. Archtypes next year might be a good change up from 'design a magic item' once we have a few more 'offical' ones under our belt.

[Vistarius]

I do admit my writing looks drunk at the moment. But it isnt irony, its more.of.the.fact i hate my touch screen android keyboard.

And right, i wasnt saying all of them werent over 18 but i see every year in the item critique thread that it was a twelve year olds suibmission. Whats the point? What if they DO win? Lol slim chance obviously but weird stuff happens.

[Cody Coffelt]

Kerney wrote:

P.S. Archtypes next year might be a good change up from 'design a magic item' once we have a few more 'offical' ones under our belt.

They've already stated several good reasons for magic items to be the entry round. Reviewing a thousand archtypes would probably drive the judges insane as well.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Serpent wrote:

Judging by the names alone, very interesting sounding concepts you've got there! Much more intriguing than the majority of the top 32, to be honest... I would like to see what abilities you've given them.

All Updated, Red Mantis Guard added

[speed66]

Since grammar and writing are an issue in the first round rejects(including my item lol), I would suggest that if you are serious in becoming a good writer to take a class or buy a book that covers rules for writing. I have a book on writing and it goes into great detail on how to use correct grammar. It is definitely a good investment to put into yourself.

As for the top 32, they took care of business and stood out in the masses. Thats an accomplishment in itself and congrats to them. That is my two cents on the subject.

[MicMan]

I, too, was a little bit disappointed by round 2.

I had 4 archetypes that I thought very good (better than at least 50% of the archetypes in the APG).

I had 2 more that I felt were ok (on par with most of the APG archetypes).

The rest I felt were either suffering from critical problems of "OPness" or were quite boring (such as about 20% of the APG archetypes).

However I am certainly in no position to throw stones at anyone as I had clear ideas for each and every part of the contest, except round 2 :)

[Evil Midnight Lurker]

Very disappointed by most of these.

Vote for eight? Only four were worth advancing at all. The rest ranged from "solidly meh" to "the single worst entry I've seen since RPG Superstar began." (I can only imagine the quality of the first-round wondrous items we don't see.) If I could take my remaining four votes and cast them against some of the others, I would.

[Curaigh]

I think we hear this every year. There is a big gap, between the top tier and the second tier contestants. A lot of hopefuls are simply not ready for being writers and round 2 shows this. Round 3 will be much tighter, round 4 even more so (though people will have favorites they are following by then. :) The final round is not as close either, though this it is closer every year. :)

[gbonehead]

Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:

Very disappointed by most of these.

Vote for eight? Only four were worth advancing at all. The rest ranged from "solidly meh" to "the single worst entry I've seen since RPG Superstar began." (I can only imagine the quality of the first-round wondrous items we don't see.) If I could take my remaining four votes and cast them against some of the others, I would.

Not how I saw it at all. I saw this round as more conceptual - could someone put together a theme, and I thought a fair number of the top 32 took a good swing at putting forward a good idea.

That was actually more important to me than the actual mechanics. Not that mechanics are UNimportant, but the idea is more important.

Certainly some were better than others - I immediately came up with four that I viewed as 'best' but for the remaining 4 votes, I was paring down a list of about 10 that I viewed as good-to-decent.

[Eric Hindley]

In all honestly, I think a lot of us hit a few stumbling blocks. There has been a fair amount of discussion in past rounds about was and was not appropriate to the round. With archetypes still being a new concept, I know I threw out ideas for a variety of reasons- such as "is not an archetype", "not suitable for PCs", "cool, but I would only use it once", etc. As a result, I chose a relatively safe concept and tried to revise it as much as possible. I think this is what you're seeing in many of the top 32- people second guessing what the audience will react to.

[Herremann the Wise]

gbonehead wrote:

I saw this round as more conceptual - could someone put together a theme, and I thought a fair number of the top 32 took a good swing at putting forward a good idea.

That was actually more important to me than the actual mechanics. Not that mechanics are UNimportant, but the idea is more important.

For me, I was looking to see how well they tied their theme to the mechanics. I was hoping for some new mechanics that really meshed well with the theme. I was hoping to see more insighful rules fu.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

[Joel Flank]

One thing that I don't think I've seen mentioned on this topic is that in a way, archetypes don't lend themselves well to being 'superstar'. In a lot of past year's competitions, the people who did well really did a great job of going off the rails and doing lots of crazy things. New monsters and villains are pretty wide open to all sorts of permutations, templates, special abilities, class levels, etc. Adventure plots and new counties are almost a completely creative endeavor that lets the author come up with whatever their imagination produces.

Archetypes however are supposed to be a classic and/or broad spin on an existing class. This means that first, the archetype can't be too bizarre and creatively out there, since it wouldn't really be an archetype. A drunken barbarian that gets more powerful based on how much they drink is a common enough fantasy theme that an archetype can be used to model that. A barbarian that rips his own limbs off, eats them, and then spits the chewed up pieces of them at enemies is just weird, and certainly not an archetype that defines a commonly desired alternate class. Second, by being based off an existing class chassis, that further limits what you can do with an archetype. There's tons of room to pick different classes, and replace all sorts of different abilities with new ones, but you can't use an archetype to make something that has a full BAB, good will saves, and paladin spellcasting progression, with an arcane custom spell list for example. Lots of really creative ideas would best be served with an alternate class or even a brand new base class.

None of this means that you can't have really creative archetypes with clever mechanics, and an overall superstar presentation, but it's not a round that lends itself to wahoo gonzo craziness, which is what a lot of past years and rounds have allowed.

That's all just my view on things, but I expect a somewhat similar underwhelmed response from some people from round 3, with the limitation of basing the entry on one of the 32 portraits. It's a great twist, and a good test to see how well someone could take an assignment as a freelancer with some built in limitations, but it also is going to restrict some of the options that previous years have had.

[Mikko Kallio]

Joel Flank wrote:

One thing that I don't think I've seen mentioned on this topic is that in a way, archetypes don't lend themselves well to being 'superstar'.

I agree, and there's also what Eric Hindley said about archetypes being a new concept, which is why the contestants wanted to play it safe. But I'm sure we'll see better archetypes next year because the concept of archetype becomes better defined as new supplements are released.

However, I don't view the 32 portraits as a limitation at all. It's a fun twist and challenge, and I'm sure the overall quality of the submissions will be a lot better than in round 2.

[Ziv Wities]

Joel Flank wrote:

One thing that I don't think I've seen mentioned on this topic is that in a way, archetypes don't lend themselves well to being 'superstar'. In a lot of past year's competitions, the people who did well really did a great job of going off the rails and doing lots of crazy things. New monsters and villains are pretty wide open to all sorts of permutations, templates, special abilities, class levels, etc. Adventure plots and new counties are almost a completely creative endeavor that lets the author come up with whatever their imagination produces.

Well, I agree to some extent. It's harder to do something showy with an archetype.

But I gave a lot of weight (and respect!) to those contestants whom I felt delivered a good, solid presentation of a reasonable idea. I think in our excitement over the creative flurry, we sometimes ignore the importance - and difficulty - of the solid foundation. But it is important; it's worthy of our appreciation; and I think, looking at this round's results, that it gets it.

I think archetypes made for a very challenging round, but a very interesting one. I think every contestant brought at least some stuff that was marvelous (and I deeply regret that I didn't manage to comment individually on most of the threads, and highlight that some more). And I think the archetypes that carried the day were, to a large extent, less those that did one thing really well, and more those who didn't do even one thing too badly.

Less exciting? Maybe, superficially. In my experience, though, it's easier to find the spark of genius than it is to clear away all the gunk around it. I think giving a good, solid showing in a challenge like this is plenty Superstar. It's the more laborious, less flashy side of Superstar - but let's be honest, that side of Superstar is a LOT of what this contest is about, and what makes it special.

[Danny Lundy]

Now that I'm out of the running, I'd like to point out this whole process is a long job interview. The judges are allowed to be as critical or forgiving as they want. They will have to work along side the winner.

Archetypes were likely chosen this year because they may have a project coming up that deals with archetypes. That seems the simplest answer to me. Notice that round 3 must also use an archetype. For whatever secret projects they have planned, I'm willing to wager archetypes play a big role. And the next member of the creative staff will need to be able to hit the ground running in that department.

If the judges seem a little unfair to the voters from time to time (I didn't feel that way at all) then maybe it's because they have some foresight we are not privy to. Maybe this idea gets a little more weight because it will tie in well with project X coming out in 12 months.

At any rate, thanks to the judges for all they do. It's your prerogative to be as hard on us as you want and I was not offended in the least. You ripped my archetype to shreds and brought up dozens of valid points. That's your job as judges. If I can't take the criticism, then I likely wouldn't do well working for you under a short deadline anyway, right?

That's my two sense.

[Jeremiziah]

Cody Coffelt wrote:

Kerney wrote:

P.S. Archtypes next year might be a good change up from 'design a magic item' once we have a few more 'offical' ones under our belt.

They've already stated several good reasons for magic items to be the entry round. Reviewing a thousand archtypes would probably drive the judges insane as well.

I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think "spells" would be an amazing first round challenge. What do you all think? It requires flavorful description, tight writing, and clear mechanics.

[Kerney]

Jeremiziah wrote:

Cody Coffelt wrote:

Kerney wrote:

P.S. Archtypes next year might be a good change up from 'design a magic item' once we have a few more 'offical' ones under our belt.

They've already stated several good reasons for magic items to be the entry round. Reviewing a thousand archtypes would probably drive the judges insane as well.

I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think "spells" would be an amazing first round challenge. What do you all think? It requires flavorful description, tight writing, and clear mechanics.

That does sound good.

[Andrew Christian]

Jeremiziah wrote:

I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think "spells" would be an amazing first round challenge. What do you all think? It requires flavorful description, tight writing, and clear mechanics.

While I think that would be really fun and neat to see, I’m not so sure it would do what Paizo is looking for round 1 to do.

For instance, Wondrous Items, usually take spells and creatively use them to create a unique effect. The more creative and unique while also maintaining game balance, rules precedence, mechanics, et. al. the better your item can be judged and the more likely you make the cut.

But with spells, it makes it sorta difficult to judge these things, because you are creating a singular aspect of the Wondrous Item. Sure, spells can be creative (Complete Mage had some very unique spells that worked off one another (the heart & unicorn series are ones used by my 15th level Druid right now) were really creative). But often-times the more creative you try to get with a spell’s effects, the more unbalanced it becomes.

A better way to include the creation of a spell, is during the “create a monster” or “create a villain” round, where the twist is to include a new spell (spell-like ability based on said new spell) in the write-up.

[Ask A RPGSupersuccubus]

Disclaimer:
Ask A RPGSupersuccubus is posting from the point of view of a CE aligned succubus. And she really doesn't like Asmodeus and all his fawning lackeys.
I've said this elsewhere but I believe it bears repeating. Round 2 saw too much devil-worship (although to be frank any kind of devil-worship is too much) and insufficient demon-love.
Although it was nice to see a paladin who's traded in his white-charger for an elephant and greater susceptibility to the strictly arcane side of a succubus' arsenal of charms (if such should be needed as a last resort).

[Eric Hindley]

Jeremiziah wrote:

I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think "spells" would be an amazing first round challenge. What do you all think? It requires flavorful description, tight writing, and clear mechanics.

Honestly, I think it creates a lot more work for the judges. Spell's are going to have a lot fewer "auto-reject" criteria than items. A spell is much less likely to be SIAC or feat-in-a-can or whatever-in-a-can than an item. I'm sure you'd get a few even greater invisibility types, but since the judges are looking for a way to whittle thousands of entries to 32, it helps if they can dismiss even half of the entires with (relatively) easy criteria.

I could be way off base here, but that's why I think Wonderous Items are hereto stay for at least a few more years.

[Jeremiziah]

I guess I don't see why injecting a higher level of consideration to game balance in round one would be a bad thing. Harder to judge, maybe...but I'm not sure that's true. I know that I would find it easier to judge, personally, but maybe that's just me.

[Andrew Christian]

Jeremiziah wrote:

I guess I don't see why injecting a higher level of consideration to game balance in round one would be a bad thing. Harder to judge, maybe...but I'm not sure that's true. I know that I would find it easier to judge, personally, but maybe that's just me.

I don’t think it is a matter of whether it would be harder or easier to throw out bad ideas or bad execution of good ideas. It is more that it would be easier to create a well executed good idea, because there are less moving parts to deal with. Thus rather than 10% getting thrown in the keep file, you might have 70% thrown in the keep file, and then they gotta whittle that down to 32.

Less moving parts also means less creativity and less uniqueness.

[Mikko Kallio]

Danny Lundy wrote:

Archetypes were likely chosen this year because they may have a project coming up that deals with archetypes. That seems the simplest answer to me. Notice that round 3 must also use an archetype. For whatever secret projects they have planned, I'm willing to wager archetypes play a big role. And the next member of the creative staff will need to be able to hit the ground running in that department.

My guess is that they want to boost APG sales and also give the contestants new challenges. The contest might get boring if they didn't change a thing or two each year.

[Neil Spicer]

Eric Hindley wrote:

...but that's why I think Wonderous Items are hereto stay for at least a few more years.

I sure you meant to say wondrous items?

[Set]

Spells tend to be more limiting than wondrous items, as most spells will only be available to a small subset of classes (Sor/Wiz, or Clr, or Drd), and while one could make an interesting wondrous item that is only relevant to a single class (such as the Ampoule of False Blood), the advantage of 'wondrous item' over 'wand' or 'scroll' or 'weapon/armor,' is that wondrous items aren't inherently limited to 'X class only.'

I'd be curious to see what other sorts of options are possible.

New Feats? New Conditions? New Combat Maneuvers? Most likely, particularly for feats and conditions, the write-ups would be quite a bit shorter than those for a wondrous item.

A new city or nation, using the new 'city statblock' or 'country statblock' I've heard that Kingmaker introduced, and then X hundred words of descriptive text, could be interesting. Unlike the wondrous items, such locations would be explicitly *not* set in Golarion. And then, like that amazing map in Dungeon magazine, of the 'Lands of Adventure,' that cobbled together dozens of locations from adventures published in the last few years of the magazine, someone could come along later and whip up a 'world-map' that somehow included all of the 'superstar' communities / nations. It would be the ultimate internally inconsistent kludged-together kitchen sink / Fibber McGee's Closet game world. :)

[Eric Hindley]

Neil Spicer wrote:

Eric Hindley wrote:

...but that's why I think Wonderous Items are hereto stay for at least a few more years.

I sure you meant to say wondrous items?

Gah! Yeah, those too...

[Mikko Kallio]

Neil Spicer wrote:

I sure you meant to say wondrous items?

It would be interesting to hear a rough approximation of how many people actually spelled it "wonderous" in their round 1 submissions.

"Good name. Evocative description. Uses the template well. Interesting core concept. Mechanically sound. Everything looks fine, I'll say we KEEP this one. Wait, what's that? Requirements... Craft... Won... Wond... *cough* WONDEROUS Item??? REJECT REJECT REJECT!!!"

:D

[Neil Spicer]

Serpent wrote:

It would be interesting to hear a rough approximation of how many people actually spelled it "wonderous" in their round 1 submissions.

More than I care to go back and count. It quickly became a pet-peeve of mine.

[brock]

Neil Spicer wrote:

More than I care to go back and count. It quickly became a pet-peeve of mine.

If it helps, I'm still embarrassed about that, and other typos.