What I'm looking at in round 2 archetypes

[Mikko Kallio]

Here's a list of things I'll be looking at (in no particular order) when choosing whom to vote. (What are yours?)

1. Formatting: No extra lines between paragraphs, correct use of bolding, italics, etc. Use (Ex/Sp/Su) when appropriate, don't use when not needed.
2. Replace abilities exactly at the same level: If the original ability gives you new options or power-ups every five levels, your archetype also should! List the new abilities in the order they are gained. Use appropriate titles and italics if you change something like gunslinger deeds which come in groups.
3. Maintain the same power level: Even though you may think a character class deserves a little more love and thus a power-up (or needs to be toned down), don't do that. It's not your job to fix a character class.
4. Break the mold in an interesting way: Give the class something it never had before without stepping too deep into another class's territory. Even if your archetype gives a totally new perspective on the class, make sure it remains faithful to the class it actually is. (Good example: Zen Archer)
5. No gonzo!: I like quirky, crazy, imaginative (and breaking the mold in an interesting way), but I don't like over-the-top wahoo crazy. No flying fiendish giant crab rider cavaliers! Understanding the fine line between points 4 and 5 is extremely important.
6. Awesome name: Something as obvious and boring as Tymonian Gladiator tells me you don't want to advance to round 3! Make me feel proud to write the name on my character sheet!
7. Cool flavor: Evocative intro text AND ability names. Make me able to imagine your archetype in action with your flavor text! Do not use something as boring as "Leaping Strike (Ex)" for an ability name. Abilities may have a bit of flavor text before the actual mechanics (but is not required). The names of your abilities and archetype, the flavor and the mechanics should all fit together. No part should feel like it doesn't belong.
8. River Kingdoms tie-in: While it doesn't have to be something as obvious as naming your archetype Tymonian Gladiator, there should be an explicit reference to how and why the archetype exists in the River Kingdoms. Does it make sense for the archetype to exist in the region? It should not conflict any existing OR future canon (yes Superstars should be able to predict that!) That said, the flavor should be interesting enough to use in other parts of Golarion, too, because people want to use your cool archetype elsewhere, too!
9. Meshes well with existing archetypes: While it's impossible to make it work with all or even most existing archetypes of the same class, it should be usable with at least a few of them. I know I love mixing and matching different kinds of interesting abilities when creating a character.
10. Clear focus: The archetype should focus on doing its thing well instead of being a collection of cool but unrelated abilities. Just like wondrous items, archetypes can be SAKs. Don't do that.
11. Last but not least: It has to be more awesome than what I would have submitted in round 2. If you got points 1-10 right, you may also have succeeded on this one. ;-)

[Kiel Howell]

This is exactly what I will be looking for. Nothing else I can say! And as a Monk lover...I love your archetype...hopefully we will have What You Would Have Submitted thread.

[James Conder]

Mikko wrote:

11. Last but not least: It has to be more awesome than what I would have submitted in round 2. If you got points 1-10 right, you may also have succeeded on this one. ;-)

Your assessment is correct. That archetype is indeed awesome! :-)

[R D Ramsey]

I feel your point 11 may be setting the bar too high. That archetype would easily get my vote.

Otherwise, a good list! Personally my tolerance for gonzo is probably a lot higher, and I'm not as concerned about mechanics as I am seeing that the archetypes match the flavor of the River Kingdoms. I'm looking for a unique sense of place in these archetypes.

I figure enough voters will focus on mechanics, I'm balancing it out with a focus on cool.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Mikko, I disagree with you on #2. A real Superstar can change out different levels while keeping with #3. This same point was made on SKR's list as #3. But some of my favorite archetypes break that rule. That is what I am looking for in a Superstar.

Your archetype is pretty well done. I am surprised you haven't done any freelance work since last year. I know I received a few PMs just for making the Top 32 and I have taken advantage of it. Since I didn't make the Top 32 this year, I am taking my archetype and expanding it for a 3PP product.

[Steven Helt]

I am sure we all hope to offer archetypes that speak to Paizo's crowd. Hopefully mine does it for you folk!

One thing that excites (and scares) me is that archetypes are not as new as they were a year ago. So I think the competition will be very tight. Usually round two really separates another grade of contestants - like those who grock villain from those who don't. I have a feeling this could be the toughest round two ever!

[Anthony Adam]

It sure will... if you take my reviews, exclude the readability, and spelling items (computer generated scores) there is like 4 points separating all of you.

Your archetypes this year are really going to be important!

[Jason S]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

2. Replace abilities exactly at the same level: If the original ability gives you new options or power-ups every five levels, your archetype also should!

Agree with Thomas, it's not that important, it's just a good general guideline to follow.

I won't penalize anyone for being creative with it.

Mikko Kallio wrote:

5. No gonzo!: I like quirky, crazy, imaginative (and breaking the mold in an interesting way), but I don't like over-the-top wahoo crazy.

Honestly, I dislike gonzo a lot, even in round 1. I was surprised that a lot of designers / voters like it.

Mikko Kallio wrote:

8. River Kingdoms tie-in: While it doesn't have to be something as obvious as naming your archetype Tymonian Gladiator, there should be an explicit reference to how and why the archetype exists in the River Kingdoms. Does it make sense for the archetype to exist in the region? It should not conflict any existing OR future canon (yes Superstars should be able to predict that!) That said, the flavor should be interesting enough to use in other parts of Golarion, too, because people want to use your cool archetype elsewhere, too!

I want the archetype to synergize with the River Kingdom lore. I don't need to see flavor text with regards to the River Kingdoms in the entry. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of region specific archetypes, I like it when it fits the region, but could potentially be used elsewhere.

Mikko Kallio wrote:

9. Meshes well with existing archetypes: While it's impossible to make it work with all or even most existing archetypes of the same class, it should be usable with at least a few of them. I know I love mixing and matching different kinds of interesting abilities when creating a character

I actually think that having more than 1 archetype (per class) is a weakness in the system and supports over-the-top power gaming because of unforeseen synergies.

This will not affect my voting.

Mikko Kallio wrote:

11. Last but not least: It has to be more awesome than what I would have submitted in round 2. If you got points 1-10 right, you may also have succeeded on this one. ;-)

Your archetype is very good and had a good chance of getting you into the top 16. I'm sure there will be archetypes in the top 16 that aren't as good as this.

I agreed with your other points.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

Good points Mikko!

I disagree with your #2 as well, for the reasons provided. It's not an exact science after all. Where possible, yes, but not always.

As for this:

Mikko Kallio wrote:

No flying fiendish giant crab rider cavaliers!

I am absolutely looking for one of these! Sounds a bit specific though - perhaps Giant Fiendish Crustacean Dragoon. Flying optional depending on the evolutions* you choose...

*Diminished (by 1/2) evolution pool conflated with mount at 1st level, and swapped in for all of the cavaliers bonus feats. Not exactly a 1st level/1st level swap, but...

[Mikko Kallio]

I'll add two more point now that I remember to:

12. Makes the class interesting to more people: While changing a class's power level is unadvisable (see #3), changing the flavor and mechanics in such a way that the class becomes appealing to a wider audience is a very good way to catch the voters' attention. The archetype should still remain faithful to the original class (see #4), so that when a player who doesn't know what archetype you're using can still recognize what class it is when he sees the character in play.

I'll shamelessly use my wildstrider monk as an example: I know some (or many?) people don't like the monk class because it is too "eastern" in a standard fantasy setting. Personally, I like Wuxia, Japanese samurai stories and other Asian stuff in movies and literature, but a lot of times, but even to me, D&D/PF monks feel a bit out of place unless you're adventuring in the Oriental part of the setting. So what I tried to do was give an option that still is very much a monk, just the kind of monk you'd expect to see in the parts of Golarion where people are more practical and down to earth.

13. Useful for players and GMs alike: An archetype shouldn't be useful to players only (or worse yet -- to GMs only!) First and foremost, it should enable the players to translate a cool character concept into a fun and interesting PC. Its abilities should be such that the character is useful in a typical four/five person party. If it also works well in solo play or other less common types of adventuring parties, more kudos to you. It should also be something the GM can use to create a memorable villain.

Thanks to theheadkase, James, CWW, Thomas and Jason; I'm glad my archetype has some appeal. :)

As for the comments on #2, I have to admit the main reason I included that point is SKR's advice. It's generally unadvisable to go against the judges' advice. My opinion on this matter is not quite as stringent as I made it sound. I find it perfectly acceptable to replace an "every four levels" ability with a slightly more powerful ability that you get every six levels, for example. The main point is that you shouldn't give too much too early.

I also think it's ok to replace ability A with a slightly weaker ability and replace ability B with something more powerful to balance it out, or even to replace two weaker abilities with one stronger ability--if you're writing an archetype for a Paizo supplement or 3pp product. However, it's good to remember this is a contest and the judges and voters need to be able to assess your ability to maintain mechanical balance. For that reason, swapping out abilities on a 1:1 basis is a good idea. The contestants are not allowed to comment on the thought process behind their archetypes, so the voters may misinterpret your decisions as an inability to follow instructions or to balance out the mechanical side of things.

@Steven: Considering your opinion on round 2 archetypes back in 2011, I'm surprised you're so optimistic about this year's round 2. Of course, being in the top 32 changes your perspective, been there too... You're right, archetypes aren't new anymore, but on the other hand, many of the most iconic archetypes have already been covered, so it becomes harder and harder to create something entirely new, especially within the limits of the River Kingdoms twist. (The twist actually helped me find a focus for my archetype, but I presume it made the round more difficult for a lot of people.) Looking back at previous years of the contest, I estimate that the top 16 will consist of 2 really awesome archetypes, 4 good archetypes, 6 that are good enough for a book of archetypes, 2 "good gonzo" archetypes, and 2 archetypes that managed to squeeze through because the designers had very good round 1 entries, or they're popular with the folks at Paizo messageboards.

@Jason: I'm not a huge fan or region-specific archetypes or prestige classes either, but here the River Kingdoms tie-in shows you can follow instructions. I suppose you don't have to include an explicit reference if your archetype embodies the spirit of the region so strongly that everyone who sees the archetype will understand the connection. I strongly agree with you on that the archetype should also be interesting and playable in campaigns and adventures that take place elsewhere. So, for example, an ability that gives you a bonus only when you're in Daggermark would be a bad idea.

I don't think that the rule that allows you to combine two archetypes is the problem. Rather, sometimes designers are careless and include things that can be abused when combined with other archetypes. The scout (rogue) class is a good example of cleverly avoiding loopholes in design. It specifically says that you only deal sneak attack damage once per round if you use the ability. It's very difficult for a single-class rogue to get multiple attacks after moving, but the archetype is smart in that it has the restriction because players are smart and will find ways to get pounce or something like that, though multiclassing or some other way.

@Oceanshieldwolf: The crab-riding cavalier is starting to sound oddly appropriate now that I think about it... there are a lot of rivers in the River Kingdoms, after all... and rivers have crabs in them... Maybe this could be an archetype for the denizens of the Outsea. Lots of sahuagin and merfolk there. :) (But this just illustrates SKR's advice #27. A Superstar designer can make even the craziest ideas seem reasonable. ;-) There's good gonzo, and there's bad gonzo.)

[Steven Helt]

It's true I was pretty surprised by the round two archetypes that year. Truth be told, I've grown up a little since then. Not that I felt I was overly hostile or nitpicky - there were a lot of mediocre entries - but I'm practicing being a little more diplomatic now. I do think this will be a tough round because the quality of the top 32 seems high and because archetypes are something we've seen more of and the community has had more practice with.

The bottom line, of course, is that whether our archerype has mojo, or we fit inrto the settimg better than most, or otger entries miss the boat - each of us will be thrilled to show off monster chops in round three if given the chance. Best wishes, everyone!

[Oceanshieldwolf]

@Mikko: Here is a LINK to the Abomination Rider Multiclass Archetype - originally posted on the Paizo homebrew MCA III thread... It combines some aspects of a Summoner's eidolon with a Cavalier's mount chassis. Perfect for a flying fiendish giant crab rider. :)
As you can see I wasn't kidding. And neither are you - I think the River Kingdoms "twist" is a fabulous "focus" for creativity.

[Guy Russell]

I really like constraints when doing creative work, as I end up producing much better content.

[Mikko Kallio]

@Steven: To be honest, I also thought it was a poor round. Round 2 has usually been a bloodbath, so I don't think it was dramatically worse than any other year's round 2, though. Let's hope this year will be better.

@OSW: Thanks for the link. The concept of multiclass archetypes is interesting. :) I actually browsed the wiki a few weeks ago while I was researching archetypes. ;-)

@Guy and OSW: Indeed, the twist/constraints may help you find the "focus" for your design. But I bet some contestants were struggling because of the twist. On Tuesday we'll find out about that.

@Anonymous user commenting on Google Drive:

Spoiler:

Anonymous User 22 wrote:

Unbroken Stride: "Every four levels thereafter, he may affect one additional foe per round." Affect = attack or no AoO?

It refers to the AoO denial ability you get at 4th level. For example, at 8th level, if you hit&damage two opponents while using stream of strikes, both of them are unable to make AoOs against you.

Anonymous User 22 wrote:

Stream of Strikes: According to unbroken stride, you must move 10 feet before an attack. So move 10 ft & attack, move 10 ft & attack, and so on?

Example: All against the same target and since each attack must come from a different square, after four 10 ft. moves, you would have hit from each of the cardinal directions and have to step back and then diagonal to attack from an adjacent square, to continue moving to hit from the corner squares?

You have to move 10 feet before starting the flurry of blows (which replaces the single attack), but thereafter, the only movement requirement is "each attack must originate from a different square", so only 5 ft. of movement is required between the attacks.

Thanks for asking these questions, they help me identify where my writing could be stronger. :)

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

@Anonymous user commenting on Google Drive:

** spoiler omitted **

No problem!

[N. Edward Lange]

i haven't seen anyone call this out specifically, so I will...
the biggest thing i'll be looking for is balance and abusability. if it's clearly better than the base class you will not get my vote. if it's a no brainer for other classes to take a dip in (or would quickly get a big boost from dipping 1 or 2 levels of another class), it won't get my vote. of course, there were a bunch of items in the top 89 that i really thought missed the mark on balance, so you can take this for what it's worth.

good luck to the top 32! you who are about to die, we salute you.

[Jacob W. Michaels]

In some ways, Round 32 is always going to be a bloodbath. After all, you have to go from 32 to 16 contestants, which is the largest cut of any round. It's also far less time than people have had to think about their wondrous items, so if you're not prepared, it's easy to mess up.

I think this year could well be different, because the contestants have known the rules for weeks instead of three days. I know without that limitation, I'd have probably ended up with the first archetype -- or maybe the first draft of my second one -- which simply wasn't as good as what I'd done with my fourth one by the time the Top 32 was announced.

Personally, I'm going to be looking strongly at River Kingdoms theme and whether it's something I'm going to want to play. Also, how risky did the contestants play it. There are certain classes where it's really easy to substitute powers -- did they rely on those and just do some real basic swap outs? That's not going to excite me as much as if someone found some room to play with some of the tougher classes like witch, oracle, sorcerer, etc. where there's not as much to swap out.

[Anthony Adam]

I think the big deciding factors for my votes will be the simple but obvious ones...

Do I want to play it?

Does it look/sound/feel like it will be fun?

Do any of the abilities bring something new and fresh to the game?

That being said, I will temper with these considerations too...

Why do I want to play this?

Am I power gamer desiring or does it feel right and balanced?

Are the swaps like for like, defensive for defensive, offensive for offensive, movement based for movement based, etc?

Did it follow all of Sean's advice? And if it doesn't, was it a calculated risk and did the author pull it off?

Did the author design for the river kingdoms or is it an obvious shoe horn after thought?

Did the author tackle the setting from an unusual angle or did they go for the obvious choices?

And, for this round and onward, I will be reading everyone else's comments, in full and sitting back and thinking about them. Including the judges comments, because I know that I am not experienced in archetype design and so will need every scrap of help available to make proper informed voting choices.

[N. Edward Lange]

@mikko- i hope you don't mind but since you posted your archetype i'll use it as an example of how i'll judge...

you have a consistent thematic design, i like that. you also did a good job connecting it to the setting while making it useful and not (necessarily) out of place in other settings. i would, however, have trouble voting for this archetype unless the field is pretty weak, here's why:
the fourth level power is too powerful. even requiring 1 ki point, it closely resembles the 12th level power of the Dervish Dancer (which also costs rounds of performance). it lets low level monks do something they simply shouldn't be able to do.
for me, it also makes a 4 level dip way too attractive... a fighter would give up 1 BAB (except when flurrying) and some hp, but get the same number of bonus feats, free spring attack with no prerequisites, the 12th level dervish ability, better saves and more skill points. giving up armor (and becoming more MAD) won't be everybody's cup of tea but good luck to anyone unfortunate enough to run into a shortbow focused fighter wandering around the battlefield while shooting, threatening with unarmed strikes, firing without provoking from the first person he shoots, and stacking flurry with rapid shot/many shot (which you didn't prohibit). it would be a good dip for a rogue too- you lose some SA (and skill points) but you trade 2 tricks for two feats and pick up spring attack/12th level dervish power plus gain a ki pool which opens up all the ninja tricks without spending a trick for an inferior ki pool... suddenly your 14th level rogue (or ninja) is using hidden blade to full move around the battlefield taking more than a full attack worth of all SAs. Or how about that paladin who dips 4 levels and takes Crusader's Flurry for his deity's favored reach weapon? like the fighter he still threatens adjacent squares but can move around the battlefield (more than) full attacking and never even getting close enough to someone to provoke (that's probably the most MAD of all of them, though Guided Hand could make for a really interesting Aasimar build focusing on Wis and Cha).

i hope that doesn't seem too harsh- that's more in depth a critique than i'm likely to actually write down, but that's sort of the process i'll think through for each archetype.

[Mikko Kallio]

N. Edward Lange wrote:

@mikko- i hope you don't mind but since you posted your archetype i'll use it as an example of how i'll judge...

you have a consistent thematic design, i like that. you also did a good job connecting it to the setting while making it useful and not (necessarily) out of place in other settings. i would, however, have trouble voting for this archetype unless the field is pretty weak, here's why:
the fourth level power is too powerful. even requiring 1 ki point, it closely resembles the 12th level power of the Dervish Dancer (which also costs rounds of performance). it lets low level monks do something they simply shouldn't be able to do.
for me, it also makes a 4 level dip way too attractive... a fighter would give up 1 BAB (except when flurrying) and some hp, but get the same number of bonus feats, free spring attack with no prerequisites, the 12th level dervish ability, better saves and more skill points. giving up armor (and becoming more MAD) won't be everybody's cup of tea but good luck to anyone unfortunate enough to run into a shortbow focused fighter wandering around the battlefield while shooting, threatening with unarmed strikes, firing without provoking from the first person he shoots, and stacking flurry with rapid shot/many shot (which you didn't prohibit). it would be a good dip for a rogue too- you lose some SA (and skill points) but you trade 2 tricks for two feats and pick up spring attack/12th level dervish power plus gain a ki pool which opens up all the ninja tricks without spending a trick for an inferior ki pool... suddenly your 14th level rogue (or ninja) is using hidden blade to full move around the battlefield taking more than a full attack worth of all SAs. Or how about that paladin who dips 4 levels and takes Crusader's Flurry for his deity's favored reach weapon? like the fighter he still threatens adjacent squares but can move around the battlefield (more than) full attacking and never even getting close enough to someone to provoke (that's probably the most MAD of all...

While the wildstrider monk has the shortbow proficiency, they can only use monk weapons for flurrying, and as you can see, shortbow isn't one of the six weapon types specified. Like normal monks, they have over a dozen proficiencies but only 6 of those weapons count as monk weapons. Unbroken stride specifically states you can only use monk weapons and unarmed strikes with the ability, so there's nothing there either that would allow using a shortbow. So I think at least part of your criticism is misplaced.

I'd have to investigate the other combos more closely to be able to tell if the archetype opens loopholes that can be exploited, or if they are something that you can already do with the vanilla monk, existing monk archetypes, or dips in other classes. I also don't know if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks of not being able to wear armor, particularly with the paladin. I'm not sure I know what the hidden blade SA trick you mentioned involves, but a moving attacker cannot benefit from the same flank buddy more than once in a round, so there's at least one reason why moving makes it harder to make SAs.

The wildstrider monk also loses the ability to make an extra attack at full bab with ki, which reduces the overall damage potential in a round. Of course, this archetype can use his melee flurry more consistently than an ordinary melee monk, but it's useful to remember that ranged attackers of any class also get full attacks consistently and they don't even have to worry about AoOs.

As for getting an advanced ability/feat early is one of the monk's shticks. Stunning Fist, Punishing Kick and Perfect Strike cannot normally be obtained at 1st level.

Anyway, thanks for the comments, Edward. I can tell you're rather observant and you know the rules quite well (despite the minor mistake regarding shortbows) and both are important qualities in judging the submissions. If you comment on the actual top 32 archetypes in a similar way, please provide more info on the combos so that the designer or other voters won't be guessing what you meant. :)

[N. Edward Lange]

sorry for the lack of clarity. i meant it more as an example of how i would be evaluating to determine my votes, as opposed to a review/critique for the author's benefit- so i kind of wrote it stream of consciousness style (and did just flat out make a mistake with the shortbow). if i were writing a critique it would look something like this:

i like your theme, and i think you did a good job both building around it and designing something that's appropriate for the River Kingdoms but not out of place elsewhere. i do have one major reservation though- action economy. right now there are only a handful of ways to both move and full attack in the same round (e.g. pounce 10th level rage power or the 12th level ability of the dervish dancer) and they are potent enough that there are whole threads about how to best take advantage of them. you're offering that very potent ability at 4th level. its not without restrictions- so that's a step in the right direction- but this seems to me to be asking for abuse. This monk would be able to take full attacks far more often than a regular monk (or most other melee classes) and a 4 level dip (while restricting weapon choice and armor use) would allow another melee class to make much more full attacks than normal as well; AND, all with relative safety since you can move away from your enemies after attacking.
overall- i think you did a good job but you need to pay a little more attention to game balance. good luck.

side note: the Hidden Blade thing, from my earlier post, is the invisible blade ninja trick (which i misnamed cause i was writing stream of consciousness). it lets them use greater invisibily for 1 round/level as a swift action- which lets them get SA on basically every attack, so the ability to combine that with more frequent full attacks will be a big buff for them.

[Mikko Kallio]

Alright, that sounds like a fair assessment. :) Though of course, the top 32 should brace themselves for all kinds of comments, sometimes unfair, bitter and unnecessarily harsh.

The action economy thing is a valid concern. I did my best to limit ways of abusing it, including the armor restriction, and limiting it to a group of light melee weapons only (so no 2h power attacking). But yea, there are probably ways to make viable or even OP multiclass combos through rigorous optimization. (Side note: Synthesist summoners get pounce at level 1, but that of course is not an excuse to give good stuff too early.)

The more advanced version of the invisible blade is indeed powerful. Whether you can call the combo abusable really depends on whether the ability to move before and after the full attack is worth the loss of 2d6 sneak attack, 4 rounds of duration, and being limited to a subset of light melee weapons. By spending 1 ki point, a ninja can make an extra attack (=an equal number of attacks as with flurry, even more attacks with the right feats) at her highest ab without the -2 penalty (though of course the ninja/monk's bab is one higher when making flurries so it's only a 1 point difference) with any weapon type. A smart ninja will be using a good ranged weapon, she'll be conveniently 20-30 feet away from her target and probably doesn't have to move an inch to get a full attack, and she'll be invisible so she'll get full SA on each attack and her opponents will have hard time locating her because of the distance and invisibility. Which "build" is stronger? It's pretty situational, I guess.

Anyway, thanks for the comments. I'll certainly keep these things in mind when designing new archetypes. :)

[Steven Helt]

I guess I'll jump in with how my [other seven] votes will be spent.

1. Round one is over. A badass archetype will win even if your wondrous item was not a top favorite of mine. In fact, if overall design taste and risk is compelling, that designer will win pushes.

2. We all want variety in the round, but if there are six fantastic rangers, and a lot of mediocre entries, good entries will get the nod. I'm looking for the best archetypes, not the best eight classes.

3. templating, mojo, writing, and cinema are all equal. Template is easy, so messing that up is a big distraction. If it has mojo, I want to play it. I don't really have a favorite base class (maybe oracle) so every archetype has a chance.

4. If a class is suitable to the River Kingdoms, I'm satisfied. I prefer archetypes that fill a role in any game world, but then the flavor of a specific class devoted to Golarion (say, Golden City refugee) can easily be adapted to another setting. Being unique to the River Kingdoms won't hurt you, but won't help you over a better archetype that still fits into the setting.

I wish every one good luck and great fun. Signing off for a couple of days.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Rating scheme:

1) Is this archetype thematically appropriate for the River Kingdoms and compelling?

2) Do the mechanics lend themselves to easy understanding?

3) How does this archetype compare to the base class and existing class archetypes for balance and uniqueness?

[Curaigh]

I will be looking at three things in no particular order. Formatting & presentation should also be present, but these should be strong in all 32.
1) mechanics/balance as a GM I do not want to say this source is OK except for X, Y, Z. As a player I dinnae want to say I like core class, but archetype fourth level ability A is so much more useful.
2) flavor & appeal. There needs to be a non-mechanical reason to play the archetype over the base class. Trading tigers for lions: no thanks. Trading tigers for jabberwockies: hmmm...
3) River Kingdoms tie in. That is the assingment. My RK knowledge is minor but not absent. An entry worth my vote will fit at least my knowledge level.

[Nickolas Floyd]

To not risk being DQed for appearing to support my entry, I'll just say... I agree with much of what has been said here. Good luck and happy voting to all.

[Clark Peterson]

Mikko

Those are some really good criteria.

Let me tell you what I looked for.

First, my two fellow judges Sean and Wolfgang are rules gurus. So adding another layer to that didn't seem to make sense to me.

Instead, I focused on big picture design choices, was there a big idea, is it interesting, does it fit to the setting (even if not specifically mentioned, I do think the better submissions would have a tight RK tie in), depth and slate of abilities, how interesting are the swaps that are required and do they may players make choices. In the end, my biggest focus on an otherwise competent entry is the design choice and how it is implemented. Keep in mind, too, that this is just round 2. I'm not expecting perfection in round 2. After all, these are superstar hopefuls, not superstars yet.

What I did is I pretended I was in my developer/publisher chair and I got the entry from a proposed freelancer. I wanted a submission that excited me. That did something unique, that played in an interesting design space. When I look to whether or not mistakes or improvements would lead me to dump a submission, I looked at it like this: If I would send it back with some notes for improvement (which even established superstar freelancers get) then that was a good entry, if it was something that I would have said thanks but not thanks to, then it wasn't good enough. Superstar hopefuls, while not perfect, should all be in that first group.