Iron_Stormhammer's page

Iron_Stormhammer wrote:

Assassin Eye

Since you asked. I have to agree with the judges on the fact that its essentially a remote controlled fireball.

Beyond this, your text is too wordy for what is conveyed. There is no real excuse for you to be over the word count with this item. Figure out how to tighten up and combine your sentences so that you are saying the same thing with fewer words.

I also think, mechanically and textually, you are trying too hard to cover too many bases and and thus making your item too complicated for what it is. Why would I even imagine a solid metal sphere could just pop into and out of dimensions. There is no need for that tidbit of negative information to be there. Also things like the "smooth floor" convey too much information and yet not enough. Will it work on carpets? What if there is gravel in the cave?

I have yet to make it to the top 32, so take this for what its worth: My main advice to you would be for you to figure out how to tighten up your ideas and text.

Excellent. I appreciate that and I sincerely agree with you. You're right about "too much/not enough" because like the smooth floor, the dimension part was to prevent people from sending it through portals and the like, but not necessary. Very good observations. Thanks for your time.

Iron_Stormhammer wrote:

Assassin Eye

*You were disqualified. The contest rules require that you also include your item's name in the body text (as well as the title of the messageboard post). As such, it counts toward your total word count. That put you over the limit. Here's what we said in the judges' forum:

*Yet another item that goes over wordcount if I include the title in the submission text. This is what people get for flirting too close to the word limit.

*In addition, it's basically just a remote-controlled, delayed fireball. Yeah, who wouldn't find that annoying at 4,800 gp a pop?

*Auto-reject.

Word-count limit is a word-count limit. An oversight on my part. I understand that. Disqualified on a technicality is fine. I bear no ill will for being disqualified. However, I have to wonder how many people fell into this trap. This was something I questioned several times after re-reading the rules and looking at the submission form. Reading this now makes me realize that you also wanted the name above the aura and other information - no doubt about it. However, one would think that the name appearing several times in the item description counts as the "body text" when you look at just the submission form, and the top field (messageboard title) is allocated for the item’s name. That may have been just my assuming too much, but as a humble suggestion, I recommend that the difference be made a little clearer in the future.

With all due respect to the judges: To simply belittle and write the item off as an overpriced, remote-controlled, Delayed Blast Fireball doesn’t offer much of a critique or food for thought. In regards to feedback, several other items critiqued got some pretty good opinions and thoughts. I have a feeling this one didn’t because it was disqualified outright for word-count and not given much thought.

That said, I would like to bring the following points to the community for discussion for some opinions and constructive criticism of the item itself. If this needs its own thread, I’d be happy to oblige. I just want to hear what other DMs and past and currently aspiring RPGSuperstars have to say based on what little feedback I was given (I ask that those replying keep it professional, respectful and civil):

The item in question offers any character regardless of class the ability to safely reconnoiter an area using the Arcane Eye aspect of the device up to three times. This can be done safely and the item deactivated a few times before the item self-detonates, preventing players from abusing that part of it. And the Fireball part of it is fairly devastating at 7d6 points of damage, considering that you’ll most likely be catching targets off-guard and flat-footed etc. A perception check offers opponents the opportunity to detect the device and avoid or lessen its impact - a pretty reasonable check-and-balance.

Players using it in a dungeon situation, could easily roll it under a door, scout the area, navigate it down a corridor and assassinate a monster or group of enemies without ever entering into direct conflict. To me that offers a lot more latitude and tactical options than having to wait until your Wizard is 13th level to deploy a 7th level Delayed Blast Fireball.

I don’t think this is an item a DM would want players using all the time. Hence the 4,800gp price tag. Pricey yes, but for the abilities it offers it seems like a fair trade. A character with the appropriate spells and feats can crank these out at 2,400gp a pop (or less depending on the DM’s economics). The price was calculated using the item creation rules with a little adjusting; that I didn’t think was unreasonable.

At 4,800gp it’s comparable to a Type III Necklace of Fireballs. Just swap out the two lower beads for the ability to propel it at range, using it without putting the character in danger, and the ability to scout an area with it more than once before detonating it.

This may or may not be RPGSuperStar material. I stay open-minded and really don't keep an opinion of my own work. So I'd like to hear opinions. Thoughts? Comments?

I'd like to thank the judges in advance for any feedback and constructive criticism that can be offered regarding my submission. Knowing where the submission erred and what tier it may have ended up in will definitely be taken seriously in preparing for next year's competition. I have my suspicions why it didn't make the cut, but I will leave the critique to the experts. I believe this is my submission as it was entered:

Assassin Eye

Aura moderate divination and evocation; CL 7th
Slot –; Price 4,800 gp; Weight –;

Description
This small metal sphere has a fine gold pattern etched across its dark surface. When placed upon a smooth floor and purposefully set into motion, the possessor of an Assassin Eye can control its movement and view its surroundings until they choose to detonate it. Upon detonation, the sphere explodes, dealing 7d6 points of fire damage to every creature within a 20-ft. radius.

Once activated the possessor can propel the Assassin Eye up to 10 feet per round (100 feet per minute) along any smooth surface, to a maximum distance of 340 feet in any direction. While it is moving, the possessor can view the Assassin Eye’s surroundings as if using the Arcane Eye spell. Once detonated, an Assassin Eye explodes as a fireball spell (Reflex DC 14 half).

An Assassin Eye can travel outside the possessor’s line of sight and pass through openings up to 1 inch in diameter, but cannot pass through solid barriers or enter another plane of existence. An Assassin Eye is neither invisible nor silent. Creatures can detect an Assassin Eye with a successful Perception check (DC 25). If an Assassin Eye detonates on the same round in which it is detected, the round in which it is detonates is always treated as a surprise round.

To use an Assassin Eye the possessor must concentrate and can take no other actions while using it. An Assassin Eye will remain active indefinitely while the possessor continues to concentrate. If the possessor ceases to concentrate, the Assassin Eye will become inert until retrieved and activated again. An Assassin Eye always detonates automatically the third time it becomes inert.

Construction

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, Arcane Eye, Fireball; Cost 2,400 gp

After seeing the D&D Experience previews on 4e, I have to say that I must recant my previous statement. I still think the message boards are terrible, but that's not anybody's fault other than the people who go there and ruin it for everyone else.

As for the Dungeon and Dragon sections of the site, I am still very sore and disappointed about not getting my magazines every month. So maybe, just maybe the Insider will cure that. The previews from DDE looked really good.

I just wish they'd give the mags back to Paizo. I've been picking up Pathfinder and other Paizo goodies at the local shop, but it doesn't beat getting the magazines every month.

I stopped going to the boards altogether. I agree, it is very unlikeable and unpleasant. You say one thing in criticism, and you've got 60 people jumping down your back, insulting you, calling you names and otherwise being just plain rude. That's OK - WotC allows someone to post a reply calling you names, but don't you dare post that you hate the way classes and races are in the preview books! Instant deletion.

As far as GleeMax goes - that site is stupid, horrible and pointless. I was especially irked over how one day, I could no longer log on to WotC and I was forced to go register all over again at Gleemax to access the DnD forums and Insider.

Oh BTW - don't you guys just love the Dungeon and Dragon sections of the WotC site. There's SO much cool and awesome content up there - the magazines were never that great. There's so many awesome adventures coming out each month and so many cool Dragon articles - NOT!!!

And they're going to charge for online content????

I'm all for giving 4e a chance, but if it's anything like what the last few months have demonstrated - no thanks.

I'd love to have "Book of Fiends, Vol. 2: Armies of the Abyss" - I emailed you.

As a semi-pro writer and veteran DM, my suggestion is to start with a central locale to begin the campaign. Make this locale a focal point for the campaign, a home base if you will. Flesh out the place in some good detail, add some secrets and hooks and plots to keep the PCs there for a while. As the game progresses from session to session, you can start building things ahead of them based on where the game goes.

Flesh out the personalities, goals and most important stats for the locals and build a central villain to occupy the players, even if the first few adventures deal with unrelated events or minions of the villain.

If you work out too much ahead of time, you risk the PCs de-railing your plans (or worse, wasting your time writing filler that's not important) so keep it open-ended and let them think they're going in the right direction.

Most of the time, if they're good players, they'll set things up for you to take advantage of by virtue of their actions.

As far as the world is concerned, don't go into too much detail about the world at large - as long as its in your head or in your personal notes, you can relay the info when asked or simply make it up on the spot. Remember, in a typical medieval setting (as was true medieval times), most people don't travel more than a day or two ride from their homes.

Nearly all of the issue is dedicated to a new mini-setting based on a book or story (I'm not familiar with it). It sounds cool, though. And Wolfgang Baur wrote it, so it should be neat-o.

Now that sounds very cool indeed!

Negative. I have not recieved my issue yet and usually would have received it by now. It comes out on the stands in 4-6 days (depending on where you buy it), so I am certain that it is now safely considered late or no-show.

This has always been an issue of heated debate amongst players and DMs and it really does boil down one thing: Meta-gaming.

Who's going to win here, the DM or the players?

My advice, don't open this to debate and reasoning. Give them a choice, warn them and then let them face the consequences.

If you as the DM feel that its not safe for the party to camp in the dungeon or if it doesn't fit your idea of the adventure, simply tell them to make a survival or dungeoneering check. The result of the check tells the player its not safe to camp there.

If they press it and ask why, you can try to give them a simple answer. If they stall the game or argue with you or stand around in said dungeon and bicker amongst themselves about why its ok to camp there - attack them.

Just pull out an encounter they already faced and run it again. It comes up behind them from the area they though they cleared. Just jump in and say - roll initiative.

You should never shout at them that something is stupid. Tell them that its not a good idea. If they ask why or demand a meta-game answer, you can simply reiterate that its not safe and at the risk of tipping your hand you'll leave it at that.

Right off the bat I thought - Yes, its a highly defendable choke point, but do you really want to defend a choke point while low on spells or while you're half-asleep or fatigued? No one wants to fight a battle after being shocked awake in the night. If they're not any safer in an inn, its probably even worse in the dungeon.

In my book, if I don't want anyone to escape or restock, then I make sure we're prepared or willing to take the battle all the way to the end or we make arrangments to deal with camping.

It boils down to common-sense. If this were not a make-believe fantasy where the players should ultimately win and survive to be heroes, and the threat of death were very real - would people still camp in a dungeon?

Probably not.

The whole "this-many-encounters-uses-80%" and ECL and CR have really hit dungeon crawls in the hamstrings. I don't remember this ever being an issue in earlier editions. This is all the more reason for players to pay closer attention to pacing and stamina in longer dungeon crawls - the adventures almost demand an in-dungeon rest based on mechanics. The true challenge players face is to hold back on their powers long enough to finish the job and avoid that.

..if I were to change the rules, my change would be to treat anyone who is flatfooted as having a DEX of 0 (thus a base AC of 5).

I wouldn't advise that. That would actually compound the penalty for being flat-footed.

The AC baseline in the SRD is 10. I think that by dropping the AC to 5, you actually make being flat-footed worse than many of the other conditions in the DMG. Being stunned for example denies a character their Dex bonus and drops a -2 AC penalty.

So why would being flat-footed be worse than being stunned!!!?

Read the rules.

Of course, everyone has their own take on the game and their own house rules.

The SRD states:

Flat-footed: A character who has not yet acted during a combat is "flat-footed", not yet reacting normally to the situation. A "flat-footed" character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity.

Technically, the condition for being flat-footed addresses Dex bonuses by specifically stating that you lose the bonus. It says nothing about penalties.

From what I have read in the SRD and FAQs, penalties always apply, and in some cases stack.

I would agree. If a character with average or exceptional dexterity cannot react normally, it only makes sense that a character with a Dex penalty would be more worse off. The key here is 'react normally'. Reacting normally is subjective for each character and what is normal *to them*.

By not including the Dex penalty for a low Dex, it actually might make being flat-footed a benefit for a low-Dex character when compared to other characters.

For example: If a PC with Dex 10 and no armor is flat-footed, his AC would be 10. A PC with Dex 7 and no armor is AC 8 normally. So it doesn't make sense that their Dex would go up for being flat-footed (by not counting the penalty).