Blightbore

[Dana Huber]

This enormous worm’s stony hide boasts glowing green crystals and intricate patterns of precious metals. Noxious vapors blast from its jagged maw.

Blightbore CR 7XP 3,200
N Large outsider (earth, elemental, extraplanar)
Init +2; Senses darkvision 120 ft., scent minerals 90 ft., tremorsense 60 ft.; Perception +15

----- Defense -----
AC 19, touch 6, flat-footed 19 (-2 Dex, +12 natural, -2 size)
hp 94 (9d10+45)
Fort +11, Ref +1, Will +9
Defensive Abilities blightburn sickness; DR 5/adamantine; Immune acid, radiation; Resist electricity 10
Weaknesses vulnerability to sonic

----- Offense -----
Speed 30 ft., burrow 20 ft.
Melee bite +15 (2d6+8 plus grab), slam +15 (1d8+8 plus blightburn sickness)
Space 15 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks blightburn sickness (DC 17), breath weapon (30-foot cone, blightburn vapor, DC 17), grab, swallow whole (3d6 acid damage, blightburn sickness, AC 16, 9 HP)

----- Statistics -----
Str 26, Dex 6, Con 20, Int 5, Wis 13, Cha 7
Base Atk +9; CMB +19 (+23 grapple); CMD 26 (cannot be tripped)
Feats Alertness, Deepsight, Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Power Attack
Skills Climb +16, Intimidate +5, Perception +15, Sense Motive +8, Survival +6, Swim +16
Languages Terran

----- Ecology -----
Environment Plane of Earth, underground
Organization solitary
Treasure standard (gemstones, metals, and ores only; see text)

----- Special Abilities -----
Blightburn Sickness (Ex) Weakened blightburn crystals decorate a blightbore's body. Any creature hit by its slam attack or swallowed whole risks contracting a mild form of blightburn sickness (Into the Darklands, p. 16). (Fort DC 17; onset immediate; frequency 1/day; effect 1d6 Con/1d6 Cha damage; cure 2 consecutive saves.) This also applies to creatures who hit a blightbore with a natural weapon or unarmed strike.
Creatures who contract blightburn sickness cannot teleport or be teleported until cured.
Blightburn Vapor (Ex) Once every 1d4+1 rounds, the blightbore can spew blightburn vapor in a 30-ft cone, exposing targets to blightburn sickness.
Scent Minerals (Ex) Similar to a rust monster's scent metals, a blightbore can sense ores, metals, and gemstones.

Despite their horrific appearance-- enormous maws and radioactive carapaces-- blightbores aren’t inherently malicious. A blightbore is indifferent to other creatures... unless they’re carrying materials the blightbore desires.

Originally from the Plane of Earth, blightbores burrow through the Material Plane seeking ores, crystals, and especially blightburn. Immune to the crystal's radiation, blightbores 'consume' it along with everything from granite to gold. A blightbore derives no nourishment from these inorganics, but processes them and excretes them into complex patterns on its skin, with blightburn chunks featured prominently. The deliberate designs indicate intelligence, but their purpose is unknown to any but the blightbores. It is also unknown why blightbores prize blightburn, but some scholars theorize the worms may be an engineered species, designed as collectors/disposers of hazardous materials.

Though a mature blightbore is a living treasure trove, these riches come with a risk: lingering radiation. Many have killed blightbores and harvested their riches only to succumb days later to brittle bones and open sores, leading to superstitious rumors of a 'death curse.'

In combat, a blightbore uses its breath weapon, then seeks to swallow the creature it deems most dangerous (or tastiest). While blightbores are not highly intelligent, they understand their lack of ranged offense, and will burrow away from a foe they cannot attack.

Blightbores are solitary creatures who meet only for mating. Once every decade, a female deposits a single, metallic egg, then moves on. The newborn consumes the egg on hatching and starts growing its unique armor.

An adult blightbore is 15 feet long but its dense, mineral-rich body can weigh up to 15 tons.

[Mikko Kallio]

Congratulations on making the Top 16 in RPG Superstar! I'm Mikko Kallio, an RPG design blogger, freelancer, and former RPG Superstar finalist. Some of my freelance work involves designing monsters for Paizo's Adventure Path bestiaries. I'll review your monster much like I do when a fellow freelancer asks me to have a look at an assignment they're going to turn in.

Name and concept

The name describes the creature pretty well, but isn't terribly evocative. I think the concept is ok for Nar-Voth, but I'm not sure if a radioactive earth elemental that only wishes to devour minerals is a Superstar concept.

Descriptive line

The descriptive line is usable as read-aloud text and is dynamic and evocative enough. So far, I'm sufficiently intrigued. I want to know why it has green crystals on its hide, what the intricate pattern means, and what the noxious vapors do.

Stat block

I have a strong feeling that this creature was intended to be Huge, but you changed your mind in the last minute, causing a mismatch between its size and the associated modifiers (e.g. -2 size) and its space (15 ft.). That's quite sloppy and not very Superstar.

Its stats are slightly above the average for its CR, but not alarmingly so.

The stat block is mostly formatted correctly; the only things I noticed are the hyphen in -2 and 9 HP (should be lowercase).

The feats are ok, mostly useful but nothing exciting. Deepsight is largely unnecessary; when you are designing a monster, you can just give it darkvision 120 ft. if you think the monster needs it.

Special abilities

You've reused a radiation disease from a very old source (though a newer version exists in Kobolds of Golarion). Since you've included new stats for the disease, the use of an old source isn't much of an issue, however.

The monster's main shtick seems to be the radiation disease, which you can get contract in many different ways. The blightburn abilities and the scent ability are all thematically very appropriate for the monster and straightforward for the GM to use, but sadly, none of them are new or exciting. The restriction on teleportation magic shows that you've done your research, though.

Description

The style of writing is a bit too casual, particularly the parts with the ellipsis mark (...), quotes ('consume') and the slash (collectors/disposers) used in a rather casual fashion.

The description provides some interesting facts about their behavior, tactics, physiology, reproduction, and origin, but unfortunately, some of the more interesting details are handwaved with scholarly speculation. I really wanted to know more about the patterns. As a GM and designer, I'd appreciate more facts that can be used as story hooks or ideas for encounters. As-is, these creatures are best used as a random encounter if the PCs happen to be carrying minerals.

Verdict

I think you're not quite ready for the challenges that the later rounds involve. I don't recommend this entry for advancement.

[Owen K. C. Stephens]

NOTE TO VOTERS: There was a template error for some contestants that placed name, CR, and XP all on one line. That is not a contestant error, and they should not be penalized for sticking to the template we told them to use.

I see everything Mikko sees, and he's right about all of it. There's no point in my rehashing it.

So for me the question is, does the idea of a radioactive all-consuming earth elemental offset those.

The answer is a narrow no. And it's all about the patterns.

The patterns are interesting, and I want to know more about them. As the GM, I want to intrigue my players, and use the truth of those patterns to drive stories, create magic items, or pull a cool plot twist. But I can't, because while the monsters know why the create patterns, the GM running them doesn't.

That takes a lot of the potential cool out, and loses my buy-in.

I do not recommend this monster for advancement to the next round.

[Adam Daigle]

Congrats on making it to this round! May you have the luck and talent to push all the way through to the end!

My Judging Process:

I’m treating these like a pre-development pass.

When I develop a monster for the Adventure Path bestiaries (or anything really), one of the first phases is where I print out the monster entry, and look it over, marking up the page with notes and highlighting any problems that I need to address later when I really dig into it. Much of the time I’m circling things in the stat block or flavor text and leaving a quick note. Most often, this quick note-making pass is performed while I’m writing out art orders for the monsters so I can make sure that the description I give to the artist is what the final monster will be. This is where I make note of any changes I plan to make (some of which I’m sure frustrate some of my freelancers from time to time).

I figured the best way to judge this round is to treat it like my normal day-to-day work and do what I mentioned above. I’m going to judge this round in a similar manner to how I’d treat a monster I ordered from a freelancer if I asked one of my freelancers to just send me something within the same parameters that you’ve been given. Some of the things I comment on might seem nitpicky or overly critical of a small element, but I blame that on my job. I’ll probably even use terms that aren’t that familiar outside of publishing. :)

One thing to keep in mind is that nothing in my review here is personal, and since tone is difficult to communicate online sometimes, imagine my comments and critiques read in a friendly and nudging way. To heighten the experience, imagine all of these comments scribbled in purple ink on a sheet of paper containing your monster.

I start by googling the name to make sure that it isn’t something already existing, a weird term that could mean more than one thing, or isn’t secretly offensive or illegal.

Then I read the flavor line under the monster’s name.

Then I work my way down the statblock looking for anything that stands out or is in the wrong place or is formatted wrong. Most of these comments are just things that jumped out at me from a glance and are super easy to fix while I’m developing a monster. (I don’t get annoyed at my freelancers for these little typos and oversights unless it gets really sloppy or persistant.) During this I also look at how much the stats match up to Table 1–1 and how different elements of the design account for numbers that are off the average. During this part I often have questions about why a decision was made or why the creature has this element. I jot these down. Many times I figure out the decision once I read the flavor text and go back and scratch those notes out.

This leads me to the flavor text. This is the part of the monster where I get to see how well the designer can write. (One of the reasons I often test new contributors with monsters is that it pairs up design and writing in a nice compact package.) I also look at how the designer used the tight wordcount. This round’s rules used pretty much the same wordcount that we’d use for one of those monsters, and it can be difficult finding the right balance of flavor text and statblock. Too much flavor can sometimes result in a boring creature mechanically, but when 90% of the turnover is statblock, the GM doesn’t have much to go on for how to run the critter.

In judging, I also go back and evaluate some of my critiques and revise after looking at the monster again with fresher eyes.

I notice that I say “probably” a lot in my reviews. When I use that word I pretty much mean that I’d either really think it over and research a few things more than I normally would before making a particular change. This would certainly include me turning around in my chair and getting feedback from other developers (including any editors that heard me in the next cube over).

Even though most of my comments are very “stream of consciousness,” I spent a good amount of time with each of these monsters, typically an average of 30 minutes on each submission. Some more than others. I also did all of my reviews blind without seeing the other judge’s comments. I didn’t want what they had to say influence me. I apologize ahead of time if we end up being repetitive.

And now onto the monster!

• Description line is fine. It let’s me know what I’m about to read. (Though I’m not keen on it “boasting” a physical feature. Perhaps “bears” would be more in line.

• It looks like you changed your mind on the creature’s size and didn’t adjust your modifiers.

• We use en dashes for a minus sign instead of a hyphen.

• Its hit points are high for a creature of this CR, especially considering that it has damage reduction (as well as other defensive abilities).

• I don’t think that blightburn sickness should be in defensive abilities. I’d say maybe SQ and Special Attacks, but then again I might break this into two separate abilities since it’s kind of working multiple angles.

• It’s attack bonus is a bit high for a creature of this CR. It’s damage is a bit low, but considering it’s dealing Con damage, that more than makes up for that.

• When listing the breath weapon in the special attacks line, you didn’t include the frequency that it can use the attack, which normally goes in the parenthetical.

• “HP” in the swallow whole parenthetical doesn’t need to be in caps, and the damage should read “3d6 acid damage plus blightburn sickness.”

• Deepsight is a wasted feat. You, as the designer, could just assign whatever range of darkvision you wanted.

• Your Environment line makes it seem more like something that would be encountered on the Plane of Earth rather than specifically in Nar-Voth.

• Scent minerals: you don’t need to italicize a monster special ability.

• Blightburn is more of an Orv thing than a Nar-Voth thing. Furthermore, you reference a 3.5 book, and as far as I’m aware, a Pathfinder version of that hazard hasn’t been printed. In this case it would have been best to update that material. This isn’t the only reason I think it was a bad choice to use blightburn. The hazard, as presented in 3.5, is a CR 7 hazard, and this creature, that can use that hazard in three different ways, is the same CR. That seems off to me. If I were developing this monster today, I would update the blightburn hazard rules to Pathfinder, and either seriously limit this creature’s use of it or I’d rebuild this monster to suit a higher CR.

• The flavor text is fine, but it’s not exciting. I’m also not a fan of emphasizing certain words with single quotes or the use of a slash when “and” would work just fine.

I appreciate the effort you made on this monster, but I don’t recommend this monster to advance.

[Lucus Palosaari]

This reminds me of a thoqqua that ate blightburn. Or otherwise, it's a radioactive graboid from Tremors. Good use of integrating an existing thing from Nar-Voth, but the "radioactive worm" isn't that amazing. Thank you for not making it inherently "evil" but it still wouldn't be the most amazing combat or encounter. You toss in a nod toward the Vault Makers a la "made to handle hazardous waste" the way delvers were made to carve out the vaults but... in the end this is a filler creature for such a book. Also, might have been more interested if you'd made it have interested effects on teleportation because of its diet of blightburn.

[Lady Firedove]

This was the third monster I read. (Ladies first...)
I'll just be giving my initial impressions:
I like the name. Blightbore is memorable and suitable.
I like the concept. It's kind of like a giant, radioactive rust monster... in a good way.
Although I might be frustrated as a player, the GM side of me loves the idea of being able to threaten overpowered PC items/wealth with this monster.
I'm curious about the patterns and think the GM should know more.
Neat monster! :)

[Cthulhudrew]

Like Adam, this seems more like an Orv creature than a Nar-Vothian one to me. To echo the other two judges, I felt a little bit cheated when the description didn't explain the rationale behind the Blightbore's particular predilections; without some more concrete description of its motives and origins, this just doesn't quite have enough flavor to grab my attention.

It looks a little too powerful to me, but in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not the best judge of mechanics.

I do like the name and the initial description as well as the way you tied it in with a Golarion/Darklands material.

[Maurice de Mare]

7th monster I have seen.

Good: Dune!
Bad: .....
Ugly: ......

I am going to disagree with the judges here. I do like the Blightbore and think it is superior to other entries which they have weakly supported.

Your current rank is 3rd.

[Tosscobble]

I appreciate this entry. A hard working B-.
Yes your stats are all muddled, and at round 3 that should end your run.

This entry is on pair with your others, showing you need more practice and.some more unique
Ideas.

About the patters: JUDGES!

it could have been written better and more intriguing. But the info was fine. you gave an outline and left room for GMs to expand if they want and fit it anyway they want.

That is what RPG games and the core books are for. If I want to have every answer spelled outffor me I will read a novel or an adventure module. or just play skyrim if I don't want to create with my players.

The problems with this entery are with the writing, not the content.

[Jeff Lee]

This is the sixth entry I've read. My initial impression is mixed. Big worm that eats blightburn? Cool! Wait, why is it an elemental? Let's dig in and see what's here.

Name: Dig it.

Description: Excellent. Gives a clear, vivid picture of the beastie.[/b]

hp: High for its CR.

AC: Mistake in calculation (size modifier). Otherwise AC would be on target for the CR.

Attack: Attack bonus is high for its CR.

Damage: Average damage is within range for its CR, just shy of the top end.

Primary Ability DC: High for its CR. Equivalent of a CR 9.

Saves: Not sure what happened here. Outsiders get two good saves, usually Reflex and Will. Had you kept to that formula, then its saves would have been Fort +7, Ref +3, Will +9. With some adjusting of feats, they could have been on par.

CMB: It's off by 1. Might be another change you didn't make when changing the size of your creature from Huge to Large. Which means CMD is also off.

Feats: Okay.

Skills: Why Swim? It doesn't seem like it would be in the water much, if at all. Those are skill points that could have gone elsewhere, in my opinion.

Special Abilities:
Blightburn Sickness: Not a defensive ability. It affects anyone that is hit by its bite and slam attacks, so it should be under special attacks rather than defenses.

Blightburn Vapor: Seems like overkill. If there's a reason to keep it, I might make it a secondary ability and lower the save.

Scent Minerals: In keeping with the flavor of the creature.

Defenses/Weaknesses: Its immunities and weakness seem appropriate, though I'm not sure why it's resistant to electricity, seeing as it has a whole lot of metal incorporated into its body. The DR seems a bit much as well. Once again we have something that's not a construct with DR/adamantine. That doesn't happen often, and I'm not sure it's called for here.

Background: The background speculates that they were engineered, yet it also says they were originally from the Plane of Earth. So were they brought here and then engineered? By whom? I question the decision to make it an elemental and an outsider. It seems the concept would have worked well as a magical beast, and since there's already an underground worm monster out there, the blightbore could have been bred from an existing Darklands stock.

The idea of the patterns is interesting, but it doesn't go anywhere. The rest of the information is sound, but I don't get a real Nar-Voth connection here. As Adam said, this sounds like it would be from the deeper Darklands.

In general, the concept is interesting, but I'd say this creature is more powerful than a CR 7, given its abilities and the fact that much of its stats are suited for a higher CR. There are missteps and mechanical issues here that I'm not sure can be overlooked. Good luck to you.

[Feros]

Congratulations on making the Top 16! :D

The visual image of this wormlike elemental is unique and somewhat cool. I like the idea of abstract patterns of glowing radioactive material on the sides of this creature. It definitely gives it a unique look compared to other worm-like creatures in the game.

The size compared to other swallow-whole worm-monsters gives me pause. Why not go with Huge size and match up? Aside from that it appears to a Large size Purple Worm with radiation damage. There isn’t anything new or exciting. Why couldn’t I use a young template purple worm in an area with blightburn crystals to the same effect?

The breath weapon should have been called that rather than something new; there is no reason to reinvent the wheel unless there is no choice.

Ultimately this creature looks cool, but is not very interesting otherwise. As such I will not be voting for it.

[Mikko Kallio]

Tosscobble wrote:

About the patters: JUDGES!

it could have been written better and more intriguing. But the info was fine. you gave an outline and left room for GMs to expand if they want and fit it anyway they want.

That is what RPG games and the core books are for. If I want to have every answer spelled outffor me I will read a novel or an adventure module. or just play skyrim if I don't want to create with my players.

I understand your point, but I think many GMs would disagree with you. A lot of people just want to play the game because they have work and family, and can't spend a lot of time prepping the campaign. The fewer details there are for the GM, the less coherent and consistent the campaign ends up being. If you like world-building, nothing is stopping you from changing any details that don't fit your homebrew campaign. Too much information is nearly always better than too little information.

And then there are the authors who write the novels and adventures you mentioned. Where do they get the information? The bestiary entry is the logical place to start looking. It is possible that a popular novel or adventure later becomes the definitive source for information about the monster, but it is also possible that the wheel gets invented over and over again because the relevant information was missing from the original source: the bestiary entry.

I hope that explains my reasoning for the comments. :-)

[Tosscobble]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

I understand your point, but I think many GMs would disagree with you. A lot of people just want to play the game because they have work and family, and can't spend a lot of time prepping the campaign. The fewer details there are for the GM, the less coherent and consistent the campaign ends up being. If you like world-building, nothing is stopping you from changing any details that don't fit your homebrew campaign. Too much information is nearly always better than too little information.

And then there are the authors who write the novels and adventures you mentioned. Where do they get the information? The bestiary entry is the logical place to start looking. It is possible that a popular novel or adventure later becomes the definitive source for information about the monster, but it is also possible that the wheel gets invented over and over again because the relevant information was missing from the original source: the bestiary entry.

I hope that explains my reasoning for the comments. :-)

Mikko I agree with most of that. but I would say we are talking about the differences between the core books and the supplement books and modules.

I know there are GMs out there with little time and want a complete story and history laid out. thats what modules and supplements are for. I was very thankful I had skull and shackles on hand to get insert when needed.

I know the monster pattern discription was lacking. its ok to leave an ending open but it has to leave you satisfied or very intrigued. ... not disappointed.

[R D Ramsey]

Name- Blightbore. Kind of literal, but gets the idea across.

Description- The patterns on its hide are the interesting part. Could make for some cool art.

Special Abilities- Neat, but basically playing off an existing thing, blightburn. Still, it's a natural niche to fill.

Nar-Voth appropriate- I agree it does seem more Orvian, but it seems reasonable they'd also be roaming around Nar-Voth.

Mojo- Some. A lot of it is mixing existing concepts, but there's something the idea of the patterns that could work nicely with some development.

Will players remember in 6 months- To some extent. You don't meet radioactive worms every day. Won't be the most fun memory, though.

[RJGrady]

It's a "purple xorn" with radioactive breath, and I don't know what to do with it. It has a cool appearance, but that's wasted with the numerous technical weaknesses and the lack of a compelling story role.

[Raynulf]

The Good: It's tied in well with the Darklands, the higher HP but lower AC is a good compromise, and their alignment and ecology allows for easy use as an adversary, navigational hazard or even potential ally (e.g. underground community forming a symbiotic relationship with one).
The Bad: It's huge. The size listed is Large, but everything about this monster says "huge", from description to crunch (Space/reach, AC, attack bonus).
The Ugly: This thing punches way over it's weight: using power attack it has two natural attacks at +12 for d8+14, translating to a fairly high attack and 37 average damage. Honestly, dropping the Strength to 25 and ditching Power Attack would be my recommendation to bringing it more in line with a CR7 beastie.

It's got warts, but I can't help loving it, personally. To me it's a lot more than the sum of its parts; the ecology, description, special abilities and consideration of the environment build up to a creature that makes me want to use it, even with the flaws.

This one was tied for my fourth vote, but won me over in the end.

I will be voting for this one.

[frank gori]

Criteria:

The Monster round is my favorite in the competition as it generally exposes the designers in a way previous rounds do not. 300 words is enough to make an impression but does not tell me much about you as a designer.

The monster round tells me about your gaming ascetic, your attention to detail, and if you have the creative chops to be different. Anyone can make a boring monster it takes a special kind of mind to make a Chimney Troll or a Yellow Tongued Hulk. IS it fair to compare you to my favorites from prior years? Probably not but I'm going to do so anyway.

Format you'll find familiar but shorter than my item reviews. I'm combining bad and ugly and I'm going to be harsh even on the things I like, this is because compliments don't make you better.

Good I love the detail with the treasure carrying radiation and that adds an element of story to the monster which is a good hook.
Bad and Ugly You went with a radioactive earthworm which doesn't really call to me. The stat block errors hurt but I could forgive them if the core concept compelled me more.
Overall I'm sorry but with 4 votes I can't play favorites which is a shame you were to this round the most consistent in my eyes. This is a D for me as I would have a hard time voting for it if had 8 votes... Sorry :/

[Jacob W. Michaels]

OK description. I certainly get an image, but it’s not the world’s most exciting.

Indifferent can be risky with Superstar; that said, I think you successfully avoid that trap by noting they’re not indifferent to characters with certain materials. That said, blightburn’s dangerous, so I’m not sure how many PCs are going to be carrying it around to thus be at risk of a dangerous encounter with these creatures. Also, saying the purpose isn’t known to anything but the blightbores doesn’t help me as the GM, who’s basically playing the creature. I need to know what’s going on so I can play it properly and this hides that information from me.

hp +
AC =
Atk +
Dmg =
Abilities =
Saves =/--

The special abilities feel like they work with the theme, but I don’t think there’s enough innovation there. You’re basically having them use a hazard from Into the Darkness as a breath weapon and attack enhancement. That can work for a bestiary book, but a Superstar monster unfortunately needs a bit more to really show off your design chops.

Unfortunately, I think while this is a decent monster, it just falls short in a couple areas. I’m afraid I won’t be voting for this.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

Eh, I like this one. Big breath weapon radiation scourge worm that is… not malicious. Sign me up for a ride (rad suit needs patching though…)

Seems lots of creature designers are having fun with patterns this round (geomaw, gloomwing, blight bore).

Feels kinda similar to geomaw, and does some things I wanted the geomaw to do.

Maybe I could strip each of them and take the best bits. Or just have them mate.

Still feel like people are missing that blood is a rich supply of minerals. Worked for Magneto.

I'm liking the theories about its genesis and the patterns - I'd be happy to create the lore surrounding this creature.

I found the descriptive text very evocative.

Again, I like this.

[Curaigh]

dana huber wrote:

This enormous worm’s stony hide boasts glowing green crystals and intricate patterns of precious metals. Noxious vapors blast from its jagged maw.

Blightbore CR 7

Congratulations on Top 16 Dana.

This is very strong in its description; I see it, I recognize it, it has identifying qualities. This details carries through the stats which are clean and seem balanced.* DR 5 is not too high, but the adamantine does make it harder to pass. Not unexpected in CR 7 critter though. I do wonder about this blightburn I keep seeing.

Ahhh... it is another source. Had this used blightburn as a springboard for its various abilities I would be more impressed. As is, it hangs too heavily on that one disease.

*EDIT: I missed the size modifiers others have mentioned. The final numbers seemed appropriate to my mechanic-weak eye, and still do for its CR.

Tight writing, this needs more inspiration move to my keep pile. Good luck.

[Tosscobble]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Tosscobble wrote:

About the patters: JUDGES!

it could have been written better and more intriguing. But the info was fine. you gave an outline and left room for GMs to expand if they want and fit it anyway they want.

That is what RPG games and the core books are for. If I want to have every answer spelled outffor me I will read a novel or an adventure module. or just play skyrim if I don't want to create with my players.

I understand your point, but I think many GMs would disagree with you. A lot of people just want to play the game because they have work and family, and can't spend a lot of time prepping the campaign. The fewer details there are for the GM, the less coherent and consistent the campaign ends up being. If you like world-building, nothing is stopping you from changing any details that don't fit your homebrew campaign. Too much information is nearly always better than too little information.

And then there are the authors who write the novels and adventures you mentioned. Where do they get the information? The bestiary entry is the logical place to start looking. It is possible that a popular novel or adventure later becomes the definitive source for information about the monster, but it is also possible that the wheel gets invented over and over again because the relevant information was missing from the original source: the bestiary entry.

I hope that explains my reasoning for the comments. :-)

Mikko after looking through some of my favorite monsters, I have totally flipped to agree with you.

Even if the entry only says something like "it is suspected there is a deeper meaning to this, the true function is unknown.....or speculated to have something to so with...blah"

More details leads to more hooks, but it doesn't have to be a drawn out history or story, just to make it fit into a campaign world.

[Browman]

Blightbore made my top 8 but not top 4. There were too many minor problems for it to make it that extra step.

[Joel Flank]

Overall, I like the monster, the biggest problem I have is that it's basically a radiation xorn, in a worm body. The radiation them works a lot better by directly tying it to blightburn that's already part of the darklands than the Gloomwasp's use of the rules from the technology guide. However, that monster is overall more original I have to say. The motivation on the blightbore is pretty much the same as xorn or rust monsters, and while it's powers are fun, not sure it brings it to superstar levels.

That being said, this is only the 2nd monster I like enough to vote for - so it has my vote for now, but is in danger of being bumped if others have a more overall superstar package of creativity in both rules and description.

[mplindustries]

How I Judge/Disclaimer:

I'm probably not your "typical" judge of monsters. When I GM, I tend not to use pre-generated creatures and statblocks, preferring instead to build custom foes for the PCs (this is because my houserules remove, most significantly, magic items, excessive wealth, and instant, permanent debilitating effects, like instant death, ability drain, energy drain, permanent curses, etc.). However, I do, occasionally mine extant creatures for ideas, and adapt them to suit my needs.

I would say that at least 75% of the foes my PCs face are intelligent, social creatures with class levels, as I always prefer it when, 1) there is a logical reason for an encounter (I dislike illogical filler encounters when 1d4 darkmantles drop on you just for the hell of it) 2) there are multiple ways to overcome a challenge (such as parley, escape, manipulating the environment, etc.). So, for an actual, legitimate monster to interest me, it needs to have logical reasons to interact with the party beyond "they're close by and it attacks for reasons," and ideally, it needs to create a memorable interaction thanks to a strange ability or behavior pattern.

From the PC side of the table, meanwhile, I'll be judging on how fun it would to encounter this creature. Now, I don't mean "how easy it would be to defeat," I mean how dynamic and exciting facing it would be. There are tons of filler creatures already that you just beat on until someone falls over. I want something involving unusual tactics, but that wouldn't just be frustrating.
Now, on to the monster!

I almost like this one. I am intrigued by the idea of this thing being an engineered species designed to dispose of hazardous materials. But, unfortunately, it doesn't really deliver, as it apparently will attack the PCs for random metals and gems they are carrying even though it doesn't actually consume them for nutrients. If these only went after Blightburn and other hazardous materials, I'd like it a lot more.

It's also kind of a boring fight and its abilities seem more oriented towards making sure the whole party has disease before it dies than actually winning. I mean, it gets literally no benefit from using its breathweapon. It doesn't do enough to kill people as an opening move, and since it's a disease not a poison, it won't keep delivering the initial damage once you're infected (you can be more poisoned but not more diseased, you just have it or you don't).

Otherwise, it's a typical swallow whole monster. The worst part of that, though, is that it also has a burrow speed, so, it could swallow someone, then just burrow into the rock and wait. Anyone escaping its gullet would just be trapped in the earth and probably die anyway. That's too dangerous for CR 7.

Like I said, I almost like this. I would not call a vote a sure thing, but, I guess I am really unreasonably picky here because there are only two creatures I've liked more so far, and only four more to read, so, there's real chance I will vote for this.

[Christopher Wasko]

Brief critiques as I prep for the possibility of advancing, focusing on feedback that is hopefully new and constructive to future designs.
Strong Golarion tie and definitely has zip, but I take issue with an extraplanar creature being native to Nar-Voth, which is on the Material Plane. I wouldn’t reference another monster’s abilities in your own monster’s, either. Same issue with Into the Darklands, especially since I believe that was released under the 3.5 ruleset (a minor problem, but still). Size is off too, as mentioned before.
Hope to see a little more attention to detail in your encounter should you advance. Good luck!

[Dana Huber]

Before I say anything else, let me take the chance to say a sincere thank you to everyone who commented. Seriously, these monsters are a slog to critique, and I deeply appreciate every second that people took to offer feedback, opinions, and criticism. Lots of people gave extremely in-depth analysis of my blightbore, and I'm very thankful for anyone who took the time to critique it, comment at all, or even read it. Thank you very much. And if, despite some serious flaws with my monster, you were one of the people who said it still got your vote, I'm beyond thrilled and grateful that you saw something in the blightbore worth voting for.

That said, there were flaws with my monster. At this point in time, I'll be extraordinarily surprised if it turns out I made it to the next round. It's not over until the valkyrie bard sings, of course, but I'm not holding my breath. Anyway, in light of my feelings on this round, I'll be writing my responses here in a manner that is probably less "defend my choices" and more "hey, everyone, here's a cautionary tale of what not to do next year! Learn from my mistakes!"

I made a number of missteps with this monster, but a lot of them have something in common: I was focused too hard on meeting word count, and in so doing, I made choices that I honestly knew were bad choices, but I rationalized them to myself, and I shouldn't have.

The patterns- Most people were disappointed by the lack of explanation of the patterns, and by the cop-out that "well, only the blightbores know."

My first drafts had explanations of the patterns: about 150 words of them. Primarily they were intended to be a courtship display, though there were alternate explanations offered, the idea being that a GM could pick whichever one best suited their needs for a story. Ultimately, I decided I had to sacrifice this stuff in the name of word count: I told myself it was too frivolous, that I had too much else I had to explain in my limited space, and that this was what I could best afford to cut. My mistake here was in not recognizing that the patterns were the most imaginative thing about the creature-- they are what set it aside from purple worms and anything else that occupies that big, wormy, gonna-eatcha-space. Instead of viewing the patterns as something disposable that I could afford to put on the chopping block, I should have made them the central core of my explanation-- rewriting entirely if necessary, rather than trying to cut off and whittle bits down, like Cinderella's stepsisters hacking off their toes to fit into a shoe.

Many of the other minor-to-middling missteps that were brought up, I can also trace back to my word count troubles. Deepsight, for instance: I knew, even when I wrote it, that I was going to be dinged on a 'wasted feat'. Originally I was considering the Improved Bull Rush - > Awesome Blow combination. That's five words. Deepsight and Alertness are two words. I saved three words!!! But lost the chance to do something interesting.

At the mental place I was at when I was doing this sort of textual penny-pinching, all I could think was 'hack it down to under 600, however you have to.' So I chose two relatively crummy, uninspired, and unnecessary feats, over the feats that I really wanted, in an example of poor prioritization of word count over design. While word count and other logistical/technical issues are necessary to good design, you should NEVER use them as an excuse to make choices that you know are sub-par. You can't sacrifice quality for word count. (Well, you obviously can, but judges and an informed public will react poorly to it, and with good reason.) My attempt to cut corners with the feats wasn't Superstar, and the judges and voters giving feedback responded accordingly.

Some of the minor wording issues mentioned, like "collectors/disposers" rather than "collectors and disposers" were also casualties of my desperate search to trim words wherever I could.

Originally, the blightbore had ranks in Appraise (to best decide which metals it wanted in its beautiful armored skin) and Knowledge: Planes. Again, sacrificed for word count reasons.

The blightbore also had references originally to prizing metals such as adamantine and mithral, and using those in its hide. This was intended as a hook for why they would be interested in adventurers-- as has been correctly pointed out, no adventurer is going to carry around chunks of blightbore, but adamantine weapons and mithral armor are always popular. Again: sacrificed to word count.

I don't mean any of this to sound like I'm using "but word count, waahhh!" as an excuse for why my monster fell short in many areas. There's a risk here of sounding like I'm trying to say, "But if I'd just had more words, it would have been awesome!" and that's not my intent. I am not blaming the restrictions; I am saying that I made errors of judgment in how to design within those restrictions. Being able to use the alotted space given to you, wisely and judiciously, is what makes a Superstar, and I believe I made major missteps on that front. So, my advice to my 'next year' self, and to anyone else who is interested, is Understand what makes your monster/content special, and make sure that you get THAT in there. Learn what is, and isn't, expendable information.

*

Alright, now Size Does Matter. On this one I.... uh, honestly, I don't know what the heck happened. I am aware what this unavoidably looks like to a voter or judge: like I changed my mind on size, and never fixed my stats accordingly. When I read Mikko's comment, I had a moment of pure panic, as I went "what do you mean it's intended to be a Huge creature? It IS a Huge creature!" and then I scrolled up, saw that damning 'Large', and proceed to freak completely out as I went through all my drafts, trying to figure out where 'Large' had crept in. Every single one of my draft files says Huge.

The blightbore was always intended to be Huge. I never changed my mind on its size. I am still extremely baffled as to how the version I actually submitted included 'Large'-- I have no memory of ever changing the size, but clearly, I must have. The only explanation I can come up with is that when I started plugging it into the template, I might have accidentally deleted a line, rewritten it from memory rather than copy-pasting from my (correct) drafts, and apparently had a brainfart and inserted 'Large' in place of 'Huge.' I suppose this is an unsatisfying explanation to the voters; it's certainly an unsatisfying explanation to me.

And yes, I used the preview window: I just missed it, plain and simple. I can plead tiredness, or stress, but those are all just excuses. While this was more a 'typo' on my end rather than a misunderstanding of the size rules, the voters have no way of knowing that, and it's such a glaring and amateurish mistake that I certainly can't blame anybody who threw their vote elsewhere based on the size issue alone.

What I learned: Check your house thoroughly for pugwampis. Okay, that's a little tongue-in-cheek, but seriously, don't underestimate the fact that you may have just had a moment of complete random stupidity before your final submission. Yes, use the preview window: but maybe even wait a bit between your readiness to submit and the actual submission moment. Wait, breathe, go for a walk, come back and do that important one-last-check, before you hit that button. I don't know if doing that would have saved me on that front, but it's the only advice I have there.

*
(The following are more 'defending my choices/explaining my reasons,' rather than "specific lessons learned," though there's some of that in there too.)

Blightburn Sickness as a defensive ability I was thinking of babaus here and their protective slime. Something that specifically harms attackers is, to me, a defensive ability. It's just that for this monster, it is also an offensive ability. I don't know how I might have better written that. I will ponder it.

As a CR 7 hazard, blightburn is too OP to stick into a CR 7 monster I'm of two minds on this one. I understand the reasoning why it might seem too strong a hazard, but my rationale was that blightburn-the-element only requires people to come within 60 feet of it to harm them, whereas the worm actually has to hit you (or breathe on you), and the worm's blightburn has a lower save. On the other hand, the worm has pretty good chances of hitting you, and do it over and over. I think it's possible that reducing the stat damage from a d6 to a d4 might have put it more in line for a CR 7 monster.

Saves Saves gave me some trouble. I intentionally deviated from the outsider's usually good saves of Reflex and Will, because it says those are the usual saves for outsiders, but that exceptions are found, and to me, if there was ever a creature that shouldn't have a good Reflex save-- with its 6 Dex and its huge stony body-- this seemed like the one. Still, it goes to show it's always potentially risky to deviate from a 'usual.'

Why swim? Mostly because I had a mental image I liked of the glowing worms twisting their way through lightless underwater rivers.

Electricity resistance I envisioned the creature being fundamentally earthen-- its outer layers being rock and soil, and therefore very 'grounding'. But I was not thinking of the fact that the metals would be very conductive, so ultimately, I agree that electricity resistance might have been a poor choice.

Too much damage No point in dithering on this one: it is a correct assessment. It hits too hard. I just flubbed that one.

Why DR/Adamantine? Again, I envisioned the hide as being mostly rock with inlaid sections of metals like steel and iron. It made sense to me that you might need a really hard weapon to hack through that.

Old source book Another one I just plain flubbed.

An outsider? I dithered a lot with this. I statted out versions of the blightbore as both a magical beast and as an aberration. I didn't want something that felt like an aberration to me, because I figured that Nar-Voth has plenty of those already, and I wanted to do something that didn't feel like part of the "weird for weird's sake" vibe that aberrations usually leave me with. The intentionally-designed aspects of the blightbore made me consider magical beast, but ultimately, I went with outsider, because to me, the strongest visual I had of this creature was of something that is literally infused with the essence of earth, rocks, ores, and crystals. That said, some of the critique about an outsider from the plane of Earth not really being 'native' to Nar-Voth is merited, and it's something I could have probably addressed in a better fashion than I did.

*

I guess that's really about it as far as my responses go. It's been a blast; I'm beyond thrilled that I got as far as I did. If by some miracle I progress further, I'll be taking all my lessons learned to heart for the encounter, but either way, I'm just really glad that I got to be a part of this amazing contest, and again, I thank everyone who voted for me in any round, rooted for me, or simply left feedback. Thanks!

[RJGrady]

My advice on word count would be, "Show don't tell." for instance,

Quote:

Despite their horrific appearance-- enormous maws and radioactive carapaces-- blightbores aren’t inherently malicious.

That's all wasted word count. You already noted it is Neutral.

Similarly,

Quote:

In combat, a blightbore uses its breath weapon, then seeks to swallow the creature it deems most dangerous (or tastiest). While blightbores are not highly intelligent, they understand their lack of ranged offense, and will burrow away from a foe they cannot attack.

The second sentence is a useful note on tactics for the GM, who might not intuit how it should be played. But the first sentence is wasted; is there any large, swallowing creature that would reasonably not operate that way?

Quote:

The deliberate designs indicate intelligence, but their purpose is unknown to any but the blightbores.

This is almost exactly the same thing as saying nothing.

I think DR/adamantine speaks for itself with a mineral-based, big creature, and a pox on anyone who says otherwise. :)

[Dana Huber]

This is all good advice,and I appreciate it. Thanks for taking the time to give constructive feedback even after the end of voting, RJ!

[Lady Firedove]

Sorry to see you out of the competition, Dana! Your above analysis of your Blightbore is interesting and enlightening, you made my favorite map, and you did us ladies proud. Well done. :)

[Monica Marlowe]

Congratulations on making it to the Top 16, I am sorry to see you go Dana :-(

[Dana Huber]

Thanks, Monica and Lady Firedove! But rest assured... You haven't seen the last of me! *maniacal laughter*

Now rock it out of the park, Monica. :D