I've always seen the contest breaking down this way:
1) The First Impression Test - This always relies on wondrous item submssions. That's because you're just never going to find another 300-word or less submission idea that gives us such a quick feel for your creative writing ability, idea generation, mechanical rules-fu, and stat-block/template following. That tiny nugget is self-contained enough (and in a small enough word count) that we can handle the volume of submissions in our small, turn-around window. As such, I suspect the lead-off wondrous item round will stay for all future iterations of RPG Superstar.
2) The Creativity/World-Building Test - This round varies more than most. The assignment has traditionally been anything from "design a country" to "design a concept (for a monster or villain)" to "design an organization." There's really only ever been one rules-fu testing assignment during this round and that was the somewhat ill-fated "design an archetype" round wherein the concept was still so new that it caught a lot of people unprepared (including some of us judges). Regardless, I think the general thrust of this round has usually focused on testing your next big creative idea, paired with showing off your creative writing ability to inspire the reader, but all while also paying careful attention to honoring Paizo's flagship campaign setting and giving them usable world-building material for their IP.
3) The Rules/Villain Test - This is generally the round where we get a sense of how strong you are in a mechanical sense...i.e., your understanding of the rules and your ability to apply them correctly. Thus, this round typically features the "design a stat-block" test, either for a villain or a monster. In the first year, it was just a "design a villain" round, but that competiton got skewed a bit as it had one extra round overall to play with. Regardless, I think this is the round where we check to see how well the remaining contestants can adapt and apply the rules to their designs. And, we still want to make sure that these concepts fit within Paizo's IP.
4) The Game-Play/Location Test - This round is the natural building block for the eventual assignment given to the contest's winner. As such, once the voters have identified 8 candidates with a grasp on executing creative designs with proper application of the rules and consideration for Golarion canon, we can then turn to figuring out which ones are capable of thinking in terms of the actual game experience...i.e., what it's like to take those designs and see them in play...on an actual map...in an actual encounter. It's a roll-up of testing how your writing once again inspires the reader to envision the location which your encounter features, how you select and play with certain tactical setups for it, and how you weave in the various adversaries to give everyone playing the encounter some good entertainment value. The goal of this round is to move forward with those candidates you feel you can trust with pitching an adventure proposal and delivering on it.
5) The Storytelling/Plot Test - This is the final round. It's always the same. Basically, pitch an adventure proposal. The main focus here lies primarily on a credible, interesting plot. But, you also have to weigh everything you've learned in the earlier rounds of the contest. I've mentioned several times that the best adventures contain a) a memorable, compelling villain, b) an awesome, interesting location, c) a credible, entertaining plot that will motivate the PCs to get involved, d) some recurring minions the villain can rely upon to carry out his plans, and e) a decent reward the PCs obtain which can enhance their careers and live on far longer than your single adventure. If you look back across all those earlier rounds, you can see that the wondrous item round corresponds to the reward. The villain concept round applies to the adventure's villain. The encounter round corresponds to your adventure's location. And the stat-block round usually corresponds to the minions featured in an adventure. The only element that's missing is the plot. And that's the primary purpose of the final assignment given to the Top 4. We need to get a sense of how good you are at plotting and pacing an adventure. It's got to have compelling backstory, a good act/scene structure for its encounters, and a compelling mystery/situation for the PCs to experience. Hopefully, the latter is what kicks your adventure into iconic status as players get together to reminisce over and over about what your adventure allowed them to vicariously experience through their PCs.
And that, in a nutshell, is what each round of the RPG Superstar competition attempts to impart and test for anyone trying to navigate through it. Additionally, as voters, it's your responsibility to make sure you properly assess each competitor in how they measure up to the assignment. You want those Top 4 competitors every year to be up to the challenge, regardless of who takes the prize. That's what the assignments in rounds 1 thru 4 enable you to do. And then, that final round, gives you the chance to settle on which of the four's proposals you'd most like to see published so you can enjoy playing it or running it for your friends.
In my opinion here's the difference between the two Sidhe.
The Noble is effectively a character.
By that I mean that you get a Lord by assembling parts of the existing game system in ways that are straightforward. The game is designed to work this way for players and GMs.
It doesn't have any mechanical variation created by the designer except for a couple of very small "tweaks" (like giving a minor morale boost to companions, or not being able to lie).
Most of it's impact comes from its Sorcerer spells and its Fey nature - both things that come right out of the books and didn't require any balancing or integration considerations with other rules.
The Lord is a new component of the game system (in this case it's a "monster").
It has 4 abilities that aren't derived from its component parts and were created by the designer and have to be judged within the context of game balance:
1: It gets a flying mount
2: It does all sorts of interesting things as it charges
3: It emits light (with suitable special visual effects for flavor)
4: It triggers wild behavior in those around it with a ranged attack
Take those 4 special abilities and combine them with the stuff you get "for free" from the game system (the spell-like abilities) and the output is much more than the sum of its parts.
I'm very unlikely to ever have repeat encounters with the Noble. If I wanted to have different Nobles, I'd pretty much have to design them myself (as the GM). If I use it once, it's an NPC. If I use it as a Villain, I could have created it myself - I'd not be getting much value from Paizo for my purchase.
I could use the Lord many times. I could have a repeat encounter with a single individual or with many as a group. I could imagine having a PC Lord - or even running a game where all the PCs are Lords. If I wanted to make variant Lords I could do that by swapping the mount/charge mechanic for something else, or even by just theming the mounts differently to generate a range of effects.
So the Lord goes into the toolbox as a reusable, reasonably easily alterable component that can be used and re-used many different ways. The Noble goes into my Rogues Gallery as a potential one-shot adversary (which I could probably have designed myself if I needed a Fey Sorcerous opponent).
To me, that's the essence of this round of the contest. The difference between lightning and lightning bug.
As with Curaigh, my gut reaction is always severe disappointment, but that's par for the course;
...
Will I ever have what it takes? Who knows.
...
So, maybe I'll successfully run the gauntlet one of these years, maybe not, but I certainly won't stop trying :)
I know the answer--it is YES! I believe you will break through.
GB, you and Wicht and Curaigh and a whole bunch of others are ones who I always hope will wind up in our keep pile. And I think you all are improving. Keep at it! Even though submissions are anonymous (and frankly this is one reason they are), all the judges love how hard all of you work, and how much it means to you. We are people, too, with hearts and feelings (me, anyway, maybe not Sean and Ryan, they are like terminators or something :) just kidding guys!) and how can you help but want to see the nice people from the community advance. Of course we do! In fact, the first thing I do when the 32 are announced is check to see if it is anyone who I recognize! I am pulling for all of you to break through. (looks like I'm the Paula after all)
So how do I know you have what it takes? How can I be so sure? Because you haven't given up. A freelancer can't give up. That is a key quality. So your continued persistence tells me you will make it. The 1% inspiration 99% perspiration rule is true--keep working.
I really hope everyone reads through this thread. It is really informative.
There are a couple big points to pull out:
1. This is RPG-Freaking-Superstar, people! Dont come at us with another version of a figurine of wondrous power.
2. Nearly every item submitted would have made a book of magic items if this was an open call for magic item submissions. It wasnt. Please understand what we are doing here: we are using a wondrous item submission to help us parse the contest down from everyone in the world who submits (over 800 if I recall) to 32. We have to use something, and it better be short or all the judges will lose their minds. Designing a wondrous item fits the bill nicely. The goal is not to get published in a magic item book. The goal is to advance in RPG Superstar.
3. Names. Good names are important. Dont overdo them ("spoon of the witch-queen") and dont underdo them either.
4. Make us want to see more from you.
5. Remember what a wondrous item is--it isnt a swiss army knife that solves every problem, it isnt uber (those are artifacts), it usually has a tight theme and is well designed to that theme, it usually is a common item that does something uncommon, it usually addresses a heroic (or evil) need as opposed to a practical problem or a problem that heroic PCs dont have, it is not an excuse to bypass class restrictions or other restrictions built into the game (artifacts do that), and it should be within the power range of wondrous items in the SRD (that means from the low end to the high end; if all it does is keep you warm that probably isnt wondrous yet on the flip side if it does more than a cube of force or a helm of brilliance it probably isnt a wondrous item any more).
6. No joke items. This is serious.
7. I'm sure you love your back story and your amazing quotes and interesting campaign comments, but dont give use 5 sentences of back story on how the item came to be. That is an essay on your campaign, not a wondrous item.
8. We got some real bad items. But we also got a whole slew of good items--C+ to B+. But we are looking for As. In the end, it didnt prove to difficult (other than the time it took). Again, we had lots of B items, which would have been great in a big book of magic items. But that is not what this contest is. It is NOT an open call for magic items.
9. Go read the winning entries again--the 32 items. You will see a real wide range of items. From a stirring rod to the crown of the breaching legion.
10. Oh, and make sure your item is actually a wondrous item. We got lots of weapons and armor. Those arent wondrous items. We mean that literally.
11. For those many folks who submitted and who said in this thread that they dont see where their item went wrong. It was most likely that they submitted one of the many "B" items--one that was really good. It just didnt have the special flavor. Which leads me to the final point and the one I am most worried about for this year's competition: dont confuse "gonzo" with the special spark or flavor that makes a B item into an A item. I know the cry of "the judges loved gonzo" was heard alot. I dont happen to agree that is true.
*So, for 33,400 gp, I can get cold resistance 10, stagger and slow myself down, make touch attacks that do the same, and gain one-third healing from cold attacks. Why would I want this? The cold resistance and healing possibilities aren't really that big a deal. But, someone with ray of frost could abuse the heck out of this thing. The melee touch attack is pretty silly since the staggered condition limits you to just a single move action or standard action. That means, the only people you can attack are those who come up next to you. Otherwise, you're wasting your action every round just to try and get close to them...and you're having to move at half speed. So, if I'm an opponent of someone using this tactic, I just keep moving away from them to keep my distance and nail them with ranged weapons.
A couple of the things I'd like to note about this kind of thread is the dual purpose it serves...
1) You guys are giving positive feedback to those whose work you enjoyed. That helps them get a sense of where they stand in the collective Top 32 already...i.e., before you've even seen their Round 2 submissions and cast a vote for them. It also boosts their confidence and spurs them on to create something else that will appeal to the masses. In light of which...
2) The savvy competitor (and even those who missed the cut and now watch the contest from the outside) will note which items consistently made everyone's Top 5. They'd also be remiss if they didn't then assess why that particular design resonated with everyone (and not just the judges). Then, if you can find ways to tap that interest again, it helps you learn what the market enjoys so you can tailor your designs accordingly and give them what they want. At the same time, you're helping yourself be more successful, whether in the contest or when working on an actual product down the road.
In short, the education of the competitors and those following along at home begins...NOW!
Feral, I just checked the judges' forum on your item.
Your item, and our comments on it, are a perfect example of why we should NOT open up our forum for private view.
Seeing us cull out items would only unnecessarily bruise egos and hurt feelings. There is no need to do that and that is NOT what this contest is about. We judges need to be able to evaluate quickly and often in a brutally honest way, in a way much different from how we would interact with you face to face. So there is just no need for you to see that.
Really, you can divide submitted items into several rough categories:
The Good
1. Superstar Top 32
2. Potential Superstar, but doesn't make the final cut
3. Interesting but flawed, like it enough to keep it initially, doesnt hold up once all the "kept" items are examined together
[the above three categories make it initially into the keep folder for later sorting]
The Not Quite Good Enough
4. good execution of an average idea, the item would make a book of wondrous items, but not good enough to be superstar
5. poor execution of a above average idea (if it was a little better, this likely would have been in category 3, above, and gotten into the keep folder)
[the above two types of items represent the BULK of all items submitted, which is a credit to this community. normally we require three of the four judges to review and vote to reject before the item is moved into the reject pile]
The Bad
6. the clear reject item--the spell in a can, the boring skill bonus item, etc. See Sean's list of bad item stereotypes.
7. the auto-reject item--over word count, wrong format, gag item, other clear rules violations.
[items in this category don't require three judges to even see. items in this category can be rejected by two judges.]
[by the way, these arent formal rules, they are just our practice. if an item is a clear reject and we all know that NO judge would keep the item then two judges are enough to boot the item into the reject bin. If there is any question that any judge might find the item worthwhile, we wait until at least 3 judges have reviewed it and if they all three reject it then it is rejected before the 4th even sees it.]
Your item fell into category 6.
It was a clear reject, and the comments were about what you would expect. I didn't even see your item. Two judges saw it and nuked it right away, which was appropriate. One noted basically "a skill bonus item, that is your superstar entry?" and another just said "boring" and hit reject.
Candidly, I don't think people really want to see that. And it isnt that helpful to you. You will get much more helpful feedback in the critique my item thread where not only can the community come in and comment, but the judges do, too. Neil is a machine. I usually burn out about half way through. :) And in that forum we can actually give you what you want--more constructive and detailed feedback and advice. That stuff simply is not in our judges forums, so opening them up wont help you.
Plus, we dont know anything about the authors. Imagine if one of the submissions that we thought was boring and we were amazed was even submitted--imagine if that submission was by a 15 year old Paizonian. We would be horrified for them to see our comments because that is not how we mean them. So even if a reasonable adult might want to see, there is still good reason not to just open up our chambers comments.
Here's a very general answer: Your R1 submission should impress us with your item, not who made the item, why they made the item, what classes are fond of using the item, or what the item is typically used for.
Who originally made the item isn't relevant, because Ezren can make a copy of it and that copy doesn't come with that backstory.
Why he made the item isn't relevant, because that's in the past, and the campaign is about what the PCs are doing in the present.
What classes are fond of the item isn't relevant because not all members of that class may think that way, and members of other classes or archetypes may also think the item is cool, so why bother spending words saying "class X really appreciate having this item" when you could be telling me about the item instead of its fanboys?
What the item is typically used for isn't relevant because (1) a cool item's uses are obvious, and (2) a smart player will use it for something you never thought of.
So, for the HERO X'S Quill of Clarity, it doesn't matter who HERO X is, or why they made it, or which classes like it, or what the item is used for. Tell me what the item DOES.
Think of it like selling a car. You can tell me about the car company's history of "precision engineering," you can tell me this car will recapture your youth and get you hot girls, you can tell me this model is driven in famous races. But that's all trappings--none of that tells me anything about the actual car. Instead, you can tell me how many people it holds, its MPG, it's acceleration, and its safety features... that's info about the car. RPG Superstar is telling me about the car.
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm posting them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest. This is the last of them.)
27. An awesome item may disregard the previous advice.
If you haven't been reading the discussion for each of these advice articles, this one is here to (1) bring this to your attention, and (2) end on a positive note.
All of these "auto-reject advice" threads are just advice from one of the judges. They're not the rules of the contest. It is entirely possible to create a cool, innovative item that goes against one or more of these bits of advice. It's just not easy to do so.
I wrote this posts based on my experience as a designer, developer, and judge for RPG Superstar. That doesn't mean I've seen it all or that I'm the end-all authority on designing wondrous items. And it doesn't mean I can't be proven wrong.
Various iterations of this game have been around for over 30 years, and people keep coming up with new ideas and new twists on old ideas. People have been writing stories for thousands of years, and still keep creating new stories or new twists on old stories. Musicians take obscure songs and perform covers, and the covers become more famous and popular than the originals.
Does your item fall into one of these "auto-reject" categories? Despite that, do you still think it is an awesome item and has a chance of making it into the Top 32? Submit it.
To quote myself in another advice thread: Prove me wrong. I want you to prove me wrong.
Every year, items make it into the Top 32 that you could consider a spell-in-a-can, or an item with a joke name, or a toy. They make it into the Top 32 because despite that flaw, they do something really cool or new. You can add flavor to a spell-in-a-can, you can change the name of a poorly-named item, you can change the shape of a toy--if the concept of the item is cool, it deserves a second look.
Every single one of these 27 advice posts is here to help steer you away from mistakes that could make the judges reject your item. Going against that advice can be risky. But sometimes taking a risk is the way to get noticed, to make progress.
But there's a difference between taking a risk with a category you know is likely to get rejected, and just being lazy by submitting an item that is exactly the sort of thing the judges will auto-reject if they see it. Let's take RPG Superstar Neil's item from two years ago:
Spice, Spice, Baby wrote:
Last Leaves of the Autumn Dryad Aura moderate divination and transmutation; CL 10th
Slot —; Price 53,500 gp; Weight —.
Description
These multicolored leaves retain their vibrant autumn hue regardless of season. Once per day, their possessor may place a single leaf on the tongue to assume tree shape for up to 8 hours. This transformation incorporates the remaining leaves into the tree, but all other equipment changes with the owner.
While in tree form, the owner may release the leaves upon the wind, consciously controlling them as a scrying device. The leaves fly overland up to 10 miles per hour, but use the combat movement, defenses, and special abilities of a locust swarm with plant traits, regeneration 5, and vulnerability to fire.
The leaves may also form a three-dimensional representation of the owner’s face to communicate. They speak with a dry rustle, but otherwise convey the owner’s natural expressions. Fey descendants or those with wild empathy may cast ghost sound, speak with animals or speak with plants through the connection.
The leaves must return before the owner resumes normal shape or lose their enchantment.
Construction Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, arcane eye, tree shape, whispering wind; Cost 26,750 gp
At its simplest form, this item is a spell-in-a-can, and a Swiss army knife. But Neil brought more to it than its simplest form. Here's that same item in its simplest form:
simplest version wrote:
Leaves of the Scrying Tree Aura moderate divination and transmutation; CL 10th
Slot —; Price 53,500 gp; Weight —.
Description
This a bag of leaves. Once per day, the bearer can use tree shape.
In tree form, the user can send a patch of leaves out as a remote sensor like an arcane eye. The user can communicate through the patch of leaves as if using whispering wind.
Construction Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, arcane eye, tree shape, whispering wind; Cost 26,750 gp
That's... dull. It's three unrelated spell effects that are sort of tied together. And it has a mediocre name. If the judges saw this item, it would almost certainly be rejected because we'd have 40 or more other wondrous items that were more interesting than this.
But Neil's evocative name, (concise) description, and excellent flavor text tied these three abilities together and made the item cool, innovative, and stand out in the eyes of the judges. And he made it into the Top 32. And then won the competition for that year. And we've been hurling more writing work his way ever since. So, it is entirely possible to submit an item that goes against this "auto-reject" advice and make it to the next round of the competition. But you have to bring your A-game.
That's the whole point of these advice posts. If you just submit a simple SIAC or SAK like the leaves of the scrying tree, you're not going to make it. And now you know that. So give your item a hard look before you hit "Submit." Does it fall into one of these "auto-reject" categories? If so, is there some way you can make it better, cooler, more innovative, more eye-catching, more... Superstar? If there isn't, maybe you should submit a different item. If there is, make those changes... and look at it yet again. This isn't high school, where a passing score is enough to let you move forward--you have to be one of the best in each round.
You don't want to compete against the hundreds of other people trying to get spots 30, 31, and 32 of the Top 32... you want to compete against the people in the Top 16, or even the Top 8. While technically a "head start" on Round 1 doesn't put you in a better position in Round 2, it's a fact that your previous performance does influence the voters in later rounds. I can't count how many times people have said, "I'm giving you a vote in this round because I really liked your wondrous item." It makes a difference.
I'm going to be spending the next 45 days judging all of the wondrous items submissions. I've stated this before and I'll state it again: I'd rather have 500 good submissions than 400 mediocre submissions and 100 good submissions. I want you to make me work hard selecting the best 32 wondrous items from this year's competition. Submit an item that makes the judges click "Keep" without any dissenters.
Show me you have the design chops to be this year's RPG Superstar.
I'm mostly just trying to get feedback into the hands of folks who have waited for awhile...and give hope to those at the far end of the list. Also, I wasn't sure when Sean or Mark would have a chance to come back and finish. So, I set aside my usual in-depth feedback to pick up where they left off. I believe I'm up to page 5 now.
I just wanted to say that this feedback is extremely useful for at least two reasons; one: it provides critiquing of items for all to read and glean from that as they will and two: it demonstrates that each and every item sent in was critiqued thoroughly on its own merit, and only rejected out of hand if it actually broke the rules of the contest, such as not being a wondrous item.
The spiritbone corset is back and ready to party again? Okay, let's go. The name potentially works for me...i.e., it at least gets me interested in learning more about a spiritbone corset as compared to a whalebone corset. Reading ahead through your descriptive text, I can see you've chosen to associate that name primarily to the spirit nagas. So, you're matching your item name with the flavor (and some of the mechanics) of your item itself. That's a good thing to do. Always choose a name that lives up to what your item does. Also, a spirit naga would have abilities that are both snake-like (in terms of squeezing through tight spaces) and mesmerizing (due to its charming gaze). So, this is a pretty smart association to make given what everyone discussed at the RPG Superstar panel.
Curaigh wrote:
Aura strong enchantment and transmutation; CL 11th
You're good here.
Curaigh wrote:
Slot chest; Price 118,000 gp; Weight 1 lbs.
The 118,000 gp price tag raises an eyebrow here, but I'll evaluate that further as I look into what your item can do. Everything else in this section makes good internal sense.
Curaigh wrote:
Description
Black scales shimmer like silk on this corset while a dozen bones protrude from its top. Carvings of a human-faced snake with ruby eyes adorn each bone.
Again, good descriptive text. You're certainly invoking the snake-like quality of the corset we discussed at the RPG Superstar panel. And, by making them human-faced snakes, you're diving right into your naga association. So, I'm liking where it's going so far.
Curaigh wrote:
Once per day the wearer may activate the corset to squeeze, reshape, and alter his body into dozens of tiny human-headed snakes. The user gains a climb and swim speed 20’ and may fit into any cracks or holes that his constituent parts can. Moving into occupied squares is possible (provoking attacks of opportunity). The user’s gear is inaccessible at this time, but any effects already in place remain. Activating the corset is a standard action and lasts for eleven rounds. The user may cancel the effect as a standard action.
Okay. The good: you're leading off with your item's strongest ability. This is what this item does. This is what it's about. This is why a wizard crafted it and why a player would want it. You've also gone the extra mile in defining every mechanical aspect of becoming dozens of tiny snakes. The bad: Unfortunately, I think it's a mistake to go with a straight up swarm effect to define this item's ability to "squeeze down" and slip through tight spaces. Granted, a swarm can do exactly that. But this smacks more of a Monster-in-a-Can, because taking on swarm traits is much bigger than a singular access to a universal monster ability like "compression" from the Bestiary 2.
Frankly, the compression idea is what interested the judges the most from the RPG Superstar panel discussion. Why? Because it's a relatively new rule and ability provided to a handful of monsters in the Bestiary 2. And, there are no other wondrous magic items that give that kind of ability. Thus, as judges, if we were faced with two different corset ideas...one granting swarm traits vs. one using the compression ability...we'd choose the compression corset, because it's more innovative in playing around with the new rules introduced specifically for the Pathfinder RPG.
It's also more limited. Compression carries with it a very specific set of in-game mechanical effects that are easier to tweak so your item doesn't just duplicate a monster ability (thereby avoiding the more outright Monster-in-a-Can tag). Whereas, introducing swarm traits carries a much larger host of mechanical considerations beyond just squeezing through tight spaces.
Curaigh wrote:
Additionally, the user may activate the corset to create a ruby glow from his eyes and gain a mesmerizing gaze attack. Creatures within 30’ looking at the wearer must make a will save (DC 16) or fail to notice the wearer.
Some stylistic problems here. Never...ever...use 30' to designate a range. You should always say "30 feet" or "30 ft." So, break that habit right away. Secondly, you forgot to capitalize your Will save. So, make doubly sure you check these things as you're putting them in your text. You want to reference game language exactly the way it appears in a real, published item. If you can do that, it shows you've got the professional chops right away to the judges. So, we feel a lot safer giving you the nod over an equally innovative item when we're comparing submissions from the Keep folder.
One thing I didn't see in this section was how often the mesmerizing gaze can be invoked. Seemingly, at-will? Or did you mean to make it once per day like the swarm effect? If it's at-will, I think your mesmerizing gaze outstrips your swarm effect and should be elevated as your item's primary power. And, personally, from the RPG Superstar panel discussion I felt like the "squeezing down" effect of a wondrous corset item would be its main draw. So, don't steal its thunder with a greater effect that's supposed to be the secondary ability of the item.
Curaigh wrote:
These creatures ignore the wearer acting as if he is not there for the next eleven rounds. The wearer may target a single creature with this gaze as a standard action. Attacking a mesmerized target grants it another save. Activating the gaze attack is a move action, and lasts for eleven rounds.
Another stylistic thing here. You keep having to say "eleven rounds" because you're tying this effect directly to your implied caster level (CL 11th) and the mass suggestion spell. It's okay to deviate from that. Calling out eleven rounds over and over again is kind of off-putting (to me, at least). First, when you get to numbers in double digits, you're better off just saying "11"...and, by spinning this item with a different duration than the exact duration of the spell, it'll help you avoid the Spell-in-a-Can comparisons. I might even suggest a random determination on it. Say, 2d6 rounds? That way, it's definitely not functioning just like the spell. It would also allow you to call out the duration of the effect in your first sentence and then cut it from the latter one.
Curaigh wrote:
A witch wearing the spiritbone corset within thirty feet of a spirit naga or a hag gains a +1 bonus to caster level as if aided by the creature. If he has the Coven hex, he also counts as a spirit naga for the purposes of joining a spirit nagas’ coven.
I notice that you've switched from 30' to "thirty feet" now. So, you've got some internal inconsistency with how you're presenting this information. When talking about ranges, go with "30 feet" or "30 ft." Next, I can appreciate that you're giving a greater boon to witches with this item. A +1 CL is a nice add-on effect to have that isn't just a skill bonus. However, the iconic witch is female. So, you should refer to her as a "she" in your text. Lastly, I'm not sure where you're getting the spirit naga coven idea from. The text from a spirit naga's description mentions:
The PRD wrote:
Spirit nagas occasionally band together in small groups-—some seeming to mimic the covens of hags. While a particular plot or foe might bring these deadly serpents together for a short time, spirit nagas are loyal only to themselves, and such alliances always end in deadly betrayal.
Emphasis mine. Nowhere in this description do you find that spirit nagas actually form witch covens. They have no access to the hag spell-like abilities granted by a coven. They aren't cited in the witch's descriptive text where the coven hex ability gets explained. So, in my opinion, it has to be a hag, and a spirit naga wouldn't suffice. Thus, the notion that this corset enables a witch to join a spirit naga coven doesn't work for me.
Additionally, it seems exceptionally odd to me that a witch wearing this spiritbone corset would gain a +1 CL just by standing near a hag or spirit naga. What if the creature is an enemy? Why would the item somehow gain a boost from their presence when you've hinted that it's more of a cooperative magic effect? The way you've worded it here, it just doesn't come across as very realistic. I think you'd have been better off just indicating the item granted a witch a free coven hex (which should be lowercase, by the way, when you reference it as a class ability in your text) and layer on a +1 CL to any of the hag spell-like abilities cast by the coven. That would allow you to cut out the confusing proximity element and take a bit of the focus off of spirit nagas.
Unfortunately, your item is pretty heavily weighted toward a spirit naga association. So, tacking on the coven element and associating it just with hags might clash with the theme of your item. I'd recommend looking for ways to shore that up by widening things out a bit (even if it requires renaming the item and avoiding the overwhelming spirit naga flavor). Or, drop this ability in its entirety so you can stick directly to your spirit naga theme.
Curaigh wrote:
Construction
Requirements Craft wondrous item, mass suggestion, swarmskin; Cost 59,000 gp
Another presentation problem with your feat name. It should be "Craft Wondrous Item" in all caps. Everything else is properly displayed here. Your price/cost ratio is correct. Your spell selections make internal sense, though I'd favor ditching the swarmskin explanation and going with reduce person and a compression ability over actual swarm-like traits.
I'm also a little concerned about the price. Becoming a snake swarm once per day...plus having access to a relatively weak DC 16 mesmerizing gaze...and gaining a +1 CL with the very specific requirement of having to stand within 30 feet of a spirit naga or hag...seems like very little to coax a player into parting with enough money to buy this thing at 118,000 gp. Which items did you compare this to on the wondrous item list to feel good about that price? For less than 118,000 gp, you can buy a lot of potent stuff. Anything from an ability boosting manual or tome (+4) to a headband or belt boosting two abilities (+6)...or any magic staff except the two most expensive in the book.
In addition, to even afford a 118,000 gp item, a PC would have to be at least 14th level. Are 14th level characters going to be concerned with buying or crafting this item when they can already do many of those same effects with their daily spell allotment, scrolls, wands, and staves? Would the adversaries they face at CR 14 and above be significantly affected by a DC 16 gaze attack or have trouble following after them if they adopted a snake-like swarm form? Unlikely. So, in terms of the art of pricing this item, I think it may be overpriced compared to what it can do.
Neil, can you or Clark expand on this a bit more? The difference between SAK and not-SAK is a fine line I am sure. Probably more gut than not, but any advice would be useful and this seems like the thread for it.
Think of it as a spectrum. On one end, you have "spell in a can" where the item is literally no more than "use of item x gives you spell effect y." On the other end of the spectrum is "swiss army knife item" which gives you lots of cool effects that does everything an adventurer might want but with little rhyme or reason. So while you talked just about SAK in your question, its hard to talk about one without the other.
Good design lies between those two extremes.
The question you asked, though, is how to keep your item on the "superstar" side of the "swiss army knife" line. The problem is that many people, in an attempt to avoid being spell in a can, create a swiss army knife item.
Of course, some of the published wondrous items don't help, as many of them are simply spell in a can items. And this is a good lesson--we dont want a submission that is the equal of a published wondrous item, we want a superstar item. Many people get sidetracked by saying "well an item in the PFRPG core rulebook is just like mine!" That may be. Not all wondrous items in the core book are superstar items. Similarly, many published items are specifically swiss army knife items--robe of many things for instance is exactly that. Or even a helm of brilliance (which I love, but have to admit its kinda over the top swiss army knife).
Do yourself a favor and check the top 32 from each of the prior years' competitions. That will probably be more helpful than reviewing stuff from the core rulebook.
But back to how to be "not just SAK"...(though I cant resist starting from spell in a can)
I often use boots of speed as an example of how NOT to be spell in a can but still pretty close. Boots give you haste, BUT the boots let you use the haste for 10 non-consecutive rounds at your discretion by clicking your heels. That ability to use haste round by round (up to a total of 10 per day) makes the item different that just a spell in a can. Now, is that difference enough to make a spell in a can item into a superstar item? I don't know. Probably not. But it is instructive design. Use your item to do more than just grant a spell effect.
One obvious way to not be "spell in a can" is to have two effects to your item. Which is why I mention the spectrum from spell in a can to swiss army knife.
But often the problem really isnt the spell in a can-ness or swiss-army-knife-ness, its more the "this item just isnt superstar-ness".
What you want is a tightly designed item that fits a specific theme. That is the core. Find your theme, find the heart of your item. Do just enough, don't over power it. Dont try to put in everything that relates to the theme. Just find a pair of good effects (not always spells) that serve the theme. THAT is how you avoid being spell in a can and avoid being a swiss army knife item at the same time.
For instance, if I make "wind chimes of damnation" that cause insanity as per the spell, those are spell in a can. (for the record I am not influenced at all by the annoying wind chimes my neighbor has in his back yard at all, this is a wholly original creation). Sure, I remove the spell in a can nature of the item if I say "and once per day the owner of the chime may give it a little extra push, which causes all animals in the area to bark like mad, which causes an additional effect of symbol of pain on all listeners within a 50 ft. radius." But all I did was add another effect. Did I avoid spell in a can, yes, by putting two spells in a can. The real failure is that the item just isnt that cool. Did I pick a theme? Yes. Insanity caused by sound. Did I avoid SIAC? Yes, cause I have two effects. Is it a swiss army knife? No, it doesnt do everything related to sound. The problem is all I did was pick two sound related spells and gave those effects to the item. Is that good design? Yes, in that it is better than sucky design. But its not superstar. But if you have two tightly themed powers on an item, one better and one lesser, and both are more than just spell effects--say, spells with tweaks like the boots of speed's tweak to duration--now you are getting to the area of superstar.
But I dont want to suggest this is the only way to make a superstar item. Its not. This is just advice in response to the question of how to make a multi-effect item that is not a swiss army knife.
Yes, that is a pretty subjective answer, I know. I hope it helps anyway.
Spiritbone, huh? Interesting spin, considering corsets have often been manufactured using whalebone. I'm curious to see where this one goes...
Spoiler:
Curaigh wrote:
Aura strong enchantment; CL 11th
Strong enchantment for the mass suggestion effect makes sense. Why no transmutation effect for the equally powerful swarmskin? Your caster level (for either spell in the construction requirements) is appropriate.
Curaigh wrote:
Slot Body; Price 118,000 gp; Weight 2 lbs.
Lowercase your slot...should be "body" basically. Price seems quite high, but seeing as how it can magnify so many charm spells, maybe it's warranted? This is one of those items that's very hard to price, because there's very little to compare it against.
Weight is a bit heavy for what I'd assumed a corset would be. But what do I know? It's not like I've ever worn one. Generally, I'd expect it to have the same weight as a vest of escape or druid's vestment, both of which have a weight of "--"...which is negligible.
Curaigh wrote:
Description
Black scales shimmer like silk on this corset while a dozen carved bones protrude from its top. A human faced snake carved into each of the bones holds two tiny rubies for eyes.
Interesting description. From a writing standpoint, I'd say "human-faced" rather than "human faced" when using it as an adjective.
Curaigh wrote:
The eyes glow red when the wearer channels a charm spell or ability through the corset creating a gaze affect.
You're mixing up "affect" vs. "effect" here. In game terminology, it would be a gaze "effect" instead. Also, rather than refer to something as a "charm spell or ability" you might want to subsitute "enchantment (charm) effect" or "mind-affecting charm effects" or something similar. Research how that's usually referenced (e.g., elves get a +2 bonus against enchantment spells and effects). If you're going to limit it to just charms, then you need to separate it as enchantment (charm) to denote it doesn't include compulsions. Regardless, this isn't a huge deal, but it is important to reference the right game terminology for the mechanical aspects of how your item works.
Curaigh wrote:
The spell affects each viable target (per the spell used) within 30’ of the caster. Doing this shortens the spell’s duration to 1d4+3 rounds and affected creatures leaving the area before this time become free of spell 1d4 rounds later.
As a judge for an item using this kind of mechanical explanation, it's going to give me pause. Basically, I'd have to go back and assess every charm spell's range and duration to make sure this item isn't overstepping anything or breaking any rules unnecessarily. It's complicated. The description itself makes it complicated in adjudicating its use at the gaming table. Every player and GM will wind up hauling out their book to read every charm spell to figure out how this item's ability influences it. Are you saying that charm person and charm monster all get busted down to rounds instead of hours or days? What about mass charm monster? How does that get impacted by this widening of targets through the corset? Basically, I'm not real comfortable with the design or game-writing behind this thing. Doesn't seem fully thought through yet. And, as worded, I think it offers more confusion than "elegant simplicity" at the gaming table.
Curaigh wrote:
Spellcasters with the enchantment school, serpentine bloodline, trickery domain or charm patron use a 1d6 for both durations instead.
More complication. I'm feeling less and less like this would be Superstar design. It certainly wouldn't hold up well against other items that would likely make the Keep folder, assuming we let this one into the Keep folder. Also, domains are capitalized...i.e., Trickery domain, not "trickery."
Curaigh wrote:
Channeling a charm spell through the corset is a free action as part of the spell.
Okay. So, it's basically letting you take a single targeted spell and magnify it so it hits multiple targets within 30 feet? Sort of like a quickened, bouncing spell? Or some other metamagic feat? I'm not really sold on that. In some ways, I'd be questioning whether this is a new metamagic feat masquerading as a wondrous item. I can recognize, though, that you're trying to make sure the item doesn't just duplicate a spell. You're trying to make sure that spells affected by it are modified in some way. And, you're nerfing the extra targets by lowering the duration of any charm that affects them.
Curaigh wrote:
Additionally once per day the wearer may activate the corset to change his form as a standard action. The corset squeezes the user popping pieces off as it tightens. Each piece becomes a tiny snake in the image of the carved bone transforming the user and his gear into a medium swarm of tiny constrictors. The snake swarm has a movement and climb speed of 30 feet, and lasts for 11 rounds. Otherwise it behaves as a swarm does.
The user starts "popping pieces off" as the corset tightens? Ewww. We might hesitate on the grossness factor involved with that. Or, it might get championed as awesome imagery instead. I'm leaning more the former than the latter, if that's how it truly works.
We'd also consult with each other on how much of this ability is just a Monster-in-a-Can...or, more specifically, a Swarm-in-a-Can. I did something similar with the last leaves of the autumn dryad, but one thing you have to consider when you give the wearer an alternate form like this is that you have to define the statistics of the swarm. Is it exactly like a snake swarm? Do we have stats in one of the Bestiary manuals for a tiny constrictor snake swarm? I don't recall. And I'm at the office, so I can't look it up right now. Regardless, if you introduce alternate forms in a magic item, make sure it's not just a duplication of a monster form...but also make sure you can reference or provide the stats for the alternate form (and any differences if you do use one from the Bestiary).
At this point, I'm also left wondering about your name choice for this item. What does "spiritbone" have to do with mass charm effects and a snake-version of a swarmskin spell? Doesn't seem like there's anything "spiritual" about it at all. And, lastly, when we were exploring the idea of a corset that lets you squeeze down in size at the RPG Superstar panel, I don't think a swarm is what we had in mind. We were particularly interested in seeing people play around with the Spacing rules and Size rules in the game. That's kind of an underserved element within the game mechanics that someone could be innovative with in their item design. Thus, I'd encourage folks to take a look at items that work within that ruleset than the rules for swarms.
You've got a presentation issue here. When you're referencing the mass-version of a spell (particularly in a list separated by commas), you need to say mass suggestion rather than suggestion, mass. Otherwise, it visually looks like you're referencing the suggestion spell, another spell called mass and then the swarmskin spell. The only time you see suggestion, mass is when you're grouping spells together in a table, like all the class spell lists. That's so you can find it along with the base version of the spell. Hence, suggestion and suggestion, mass appear together, because they actually reference one another. It's the same reason you don't see dispel magic, greater listed out that way in an item's construction requirements. But, in the class spell lists, you have to look up greater dispel magic by searching for dispel magic, greater.
*...I don't see why, if this drags the user, it uses dimension door instead of telekinesis.
*...I don't really understand why you'd use this item at all. If you want to dimension door, get a cape of the mountebank for the same price. If you want to fly, a broom of flying only costs 50% more and works for hours, not just once a day.
*...There's more flavor than crunch to this one. It's written fairly well. And, you can tell the designer is striving really hard to stand out. There are a lot of "cool effects" that they've injected into this thing. But, at its core, the device is really meant as a means of moving yourself faster than you otherwise normally could...with an obscuring trail of smoke left behind...and a pillar of damaging flame at the end. It appears that pillar of flame even burns the user of the item itself. I guess maybe that's meant to be the cost of using the wasp?
*...Regardless, for 10,800 gp, there's a lot of better items most people would choose over this thing. It might make it into a book of magic items, but it would come off as a weird choice.
Intriguing name. Immediately makes the reader wonder what's on fire in the bag...or why the bag is on fire...and so on. Eager to read on...
Mike Kimmel wrote:
Aura faint evocation and transmutation; CL 5th
Slot -; Price 4,000 gp; Weight 4 lbs.
Aura and CL seem appropriate for an item based on fireball and pyrotechnics. Slot makes sense for a sack. The weight for a large sack is usually 1/2 lb., but you've got 3-1/2 lbs. of coals in it, apparently. So, it's good that you bumped it up. Price seems mostly reasonable for a 1/day pyrotechnics effect and a one-time consummable fireball.
Mike Kimmel wrote:
Description
This soot-colored sack is approximately 1 foot by 2 feet in size and appears from the outside to be filled with lumpy stones. Opening the sack reveals that it is in fact filled with smoldering coals, which produce moderate heat and a faint red glow. Any creature that reaches into the sack, or any object that enters the sack, takes 1d6 points of fire damage per round.
Interesting description. Good choice to lead it off with that. Might have liked some wording around any possible illumination (equivalent to a candle?) that it might give off, as well.
Mike Kimmel wrote:
Once per day, the wielder of the smoldering sack can open the sack and command it to create a 20-ft. cube of fireworks or smoke adjacent to the wielder. These effects function as the pyrotechnics spell (DC 13), counting the sack as the fire source, except that they only affect creatures within the 20-ft. cube rather than within the normal range of the effects.
You've entered SIAC territory here. Also, there was some confusion between the judges on whether the pyrotechnics effect is centered on the holder or flows outward in a 20-foot cube adjacent to him. If it's the latter, I'm a little surprised you didn't go more with a cone-based effect. If it's the former, we would have preferred that you call that out (i.e., we would have been okay if the user himself was centered in the effect, because it could make for a mildly debilitating smokescreen if necessary).
Mike Kimmel wrote:
Additionally, if any fire source at least as large as a torch is ever placed within the smoldering sack, the sack explodes 1d4+1 rounds later, dealing 5d6 points of fire damage to all creatures within 20 ft. (Reflex DC 14 half) and creating fireworks or smoke (DC 13, randomly determine with equal chance of each) within that area.
Cool power-up that wipes out the item. In a pinch, someone might really need a fireball that desperately and it's cool to know this thing is on hand for that kind of insurance. It's still another SIAC effect, though. But much of the flavor you're bringing to this item is helping to override that.
That said, something that might have been cool would be to have the fireball version create both the fireworks and smokescreen effects of pyrotechnics after the sack explodes. That at least would make it a bit more than just what the spell can do.
Mike Kimmel wrote:
Dumping the coals out of the sack or destroying the sack also causes it to explode, with no delay. However it is produced, the explosion destroys the sack.
Cool. This means PCs will have to be careful that no one just starts messing with their gear. "Hey, don't open that!" *BOOM* Nice visual.
Mike Kimmel wrote:
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, pyrotechnics, fireball; Cost 2,000 gp
You're mostly good here. However, you've gotten lazy by italicizing the commas along with your spells. Do each one separately. Also, you need to alphabetize them.
So, here's what you need to know about your item. First, I championed this one early on. I cited it for SIAC, but was willing to overlook for the flavor and usefulness of the item. And, particularly so, because of the unique methods and dangers in using it. Some of the judges, however, didn't see it as all that innovative. At least one other (who was on the fence initially) came back to support it as we sorted through the Keep pile. Ultimately, as we were spending our "golden tickets" I'm the judge who pulled this one up into alternate status. Not quite Top 32. But close.
Summary:
Decent name
Cool idea
Solid mechanics (but nothing all that new or inventive here)
Solid writing/flavor
Okay presentation (still need to shore up some things)
Advice:
Nice try for taking a couple of SIAC effects and trying to do something new and synergistic with them. You packaged it in some very nice flavor. Mechanically, it would have helped if you clarified the origination point of the pyrotechnics effect. So, make sure you're as clear as possible in how you describe things. Study how wondrous items are worded (and presented using the template) and keep mimicking that.
Lastly, you really want to try to do something innovative with your wondrous item designs in at least one of two ways (and both if you can pull it off). That's with your idea...as in, never seen anything like this before. And with your mechanics...as in, there's nothing in the game that really duplicates how this works. Your idea was pretty much a grenade with some pyro effects. And your mechanics were pretty much how a fireball and pyrotechnics spell already work. So, you really need to ramp up the creativity in those areas to cross that threshold from Keep pile to alternate to Top 32.
...what do you do when you come up with an idea for a wondrous item, but there are no spells (or combination of spells) which do what your item does? I had thought that the answer was: "Find spells that fit reasonably well, then bend them to fit your purposes." But if your chosen spells have to fit exactly, I see that as being terribly limiting on creativity and more or less asking for SIAC. Or maybe you're allowed to bend spells in some ways, but not others; or perhaps its a matter of how much you bend them. Could we get some guidance on this?
In this particular case, add Vermin Heart (I think that's the one?) as a feat requirement. That lets your mind-affecting spells be applied to vermin in addition to animals. There are ways to work around some of these issues. You just have to be diligent in exploring other rules to see what you can string together that provides a logical answer to your self-imposed puzzle. And, after you do all that and if there's still not a good explanation, maybe you should think about discarding that idea until an opportunity comes up to create a new spell or a new feat that will help you explain that type of wondrous item effect? Unfortunately, for RPG Superstar, you're constrained to using the existing rules, rather than creating entirely new ones to prop up your design. Once you make it into the world of freelancing, though, new doors become available to you.
The "makes GMing harder" advice is mostly centered around items that put an undue burden on the GM by making him track a whole bunch of silly stuff. An example would be the item that identifies "the nearest treasure greater than 1,000 gp" or something dumb like that. This means everytime the PC activates that device, the GM has to stop and consider everything that might be around the PC, whether or not there's an item worth that much, etc.
Other examples are items that require a lot of bookkeeping on the part of the GM. If he's having to track multiple effects on multiple targets as a result of the item's use, that complicates gameplay and creates additional hardship on running the game when the GM already has a lot of other things to worry about. Items that reverse time are a good example of this as the GM has "undo" everything that's happened up to the point that time begins to flow again. Or items that let you swiftly read and sort through the past history of things causes the GM to have to invent backstories for everything right on the spot.
That's not to say items such as these can't make it into a book of magic items. It just might not be viewed as Superstar. A lot of it depends on what kind of mojo you're bringing with it and how clear you can make the mechanics for the GM and players to interpret at the game table.
As for exploring other rules that are "long and complex"...we're not asking you to regurgitate those rules in your wondrous item submission. Rules are contained elsewhere in the Pathfinder Core Rule Book for a reason. It's so you can invoke them without being repetitive and save people time, while keeping your item's description as clear as possible.
As for rules that "end up seeing little gameplay"...well, it's generally not a good idea to craft a wondrous item for submission to RPG Superstar that isn't going to see play all that often. In other words, a good Superstar item generally ought to be one with enough "wow" factor that it has multiple players fighting over who gets to own it. And, it should be an item that everyone (including the GM) wants to see used in actual play with some degree of frequency. Else, it's just a boring item most players would trade-in for something more compelling or useful to their PCs.
That said, if you can find a rule that sees little gameplay, but your item gives a compelling reason for using that set of rules more frequently in an innovative way, well that just might be something that really catches the judges' eyes, because you're potentially discovering and filling an underserved niche for your item.
Posts
