|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
David S. McCrae wrote:
Well, my work here is done.
My urgosh shall do things to you that will make monkeys cry out for mercy on your behalf. It will be like a toilet-humor-based Mortal Kombat scenario.
BLOODY OOZY POOP URGOSH OF BLASTING ALL THE THINGS!
Do I win now?
Jeff Lee wrote:
Wait...make it a dart that can function as a pen...adjust the weapon qualities to factor it being a missile weapon...crap, I think I just came up with an idea better than what I submitted.
Maurice de Mare wrote:
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.
Another polearm, sweet!
So I was having a thought regarding mechanics. The damage of a bludgeoning weapon is due to the impact. The force of impact has a lot to do with weight. So when you make a bludgeoning weapon out of mithral (which halves the weight of the item) it would seem like you're acting against your own best interests, since your heavy mace now weighs less than a light mace...
The Ring of Unscathed Passage
This platinum band is liberally coated in gold filigree and set with a massive blue diamond. Inscribed in Draconic on the inside of the band are the words "By the power of wizardly might and divine grace shall your passage be ever sure and fraught not with peril."
When worn, the ring of unscathed passage can cast light at will, and the wearer will never stub his toes on furniture or door jambs.
I feel kind of bad that I'm starting to be disinclined to vote for perfectly fine items just because they're part of trends I keep seeing. Like, it's not really the designer's fault that umpteen other people like portals too.
That's why it's important to focus on that fact that, where the vote is concerned, only those two items on the screen exist, for all intents and purposes. Your only question at that moment should be: Which of these two is the better item?
It's only a day into the voting, and I already have 9 items that stand out that I'm putting in my personal Top 32. The quality overall is much improved over last year. Even items that aren't quite good enough seem to be so because they just needed a little more time and effort put into them. Given the short turnaround, that's to be expected. The expanded design space is allowing for a lot of creativity to be shown, and that's great.
One more thing about formatting. For the business of writing, it's important. Places that accept submissions usually have writer's guidelines that often include such details as a particular font, font size, and type of file to be submitted. If you can't be bothered to follow those guidelines, then I can assure you that the editors can't be bothered to deal with people that won't work with them. Seriously. I've worked on magazines where failure to meet the basic criteria mean that they won't even read your stuff. Deadlines and high volumes of submissions don't allow for exceptions. They just send out the automatic rejection letter and delete the file. I've seen a thirty page typed manuscript go into the recycling bin because no one had the time to sit and type it into a Word file, so why bother with it?
Bear in mind, that if I'm snarking on formatting issues, or grammar, or the like, that doesn't mean I've downvoted what I'm complaining about. I look at the concept and creativity first. If I can't see the concept and creativity because something is so poorly written that I have to reread the item to get the idea, well...format and style is important.
As for the template being too hard to understand, I don't buy it. Just cut and paste the template and replace the words in it with your words, leaving the bracketed format codes. When in doubt, look at the freaking Core Rulebook. It's all there in black and white, exactly how you're supposed to do it.
pH unbalanced wrote:
I mark down for making assumptions about the gender of the user.
Gender-neutral language in the singular is difficult to pull off if you end up having to use a pronoun.
Didn't see your follow-up post. Yes, that is a problem. Still, most manly-man barbarians aren't going to wear the frilly underarmor of silky goodness. (Or at least many of them will be unwilling to admit they do.)
Gregory Connolly wrote:
I understand the reasons why this format is used. I'm just getting really frustrated that I can't uprate both or downrate both items. In one pairing I vote for the one with the least mistakes, then two really good items show up and I pick the better one. So I have upvoted something I hate and downvoted something I like, with no way to express my feelings because anonymity.
It can be frustrating, but you're doing exactly as required. Each vote is only between the two items on the screen. All the rest do not exist for purposes of that particular vote. It's just a point of determining which of the two items is better. I find it helps me pay attention to the minutia, especially when two items appear equally good or bad.
Here's a weird trend: Using flavor-style text to describe already established rules mechanics.
Example (not from an actual item): "This greataxe has its head forged of adamantine, a supernaturally hard metal that slices through most other materials, even other metals, with ease, allowing it to bypass hardness of less than 20."
Why would you do this? The rules for adamantine are established in the rulebook. You don't need to waste word count restating what the properties of the material are. Just say it's a +2 keen adamantine greataxe and then get to the stuff that makes it Superstar.