|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I on the other hand was not bothered by the shorter time frame... my long, considered, tinkered with, play tested, tinkered with some more, polished, submissions from previous years never amounted to much... so this year I decided before hand that I was going to think on my feet... Therefore, I pulled my submission out of my ass over the course of about 20 minutes yesterday afternoon. Let's see if spontaneity gets me further than forethought in this case.
Aaron Miller 335 wrote:
Aint this the truth, I've seen several items post cull that I was sure would have been cut.
Anthony Adam wrote:
I think that's because some items in the rule books work this way (boots of speed, and the greater cloak of displacement from the core rules both use incremental not necessarily consecutive durations).
Unless Paizo does superstar winning modules very differently than other companies do such assignments, if you win your module will be given a word count that you are expected to come as close as possible too (too short is just as bad, or even worse that too long in these sorts of situations normally) so that although you might technically be being paid by the word they already know how much they are going to be paying you in advance.
Sean, there is a marked difference in the public voting for wondrous items than there was in previous years when it was not public... in that the judges, when they saw an item that they knew for one reason or another would not make it to the top 32, could dismiss it and never have to look at it again, let alone reread it carefully dozens of times as it is shoved onto their screen vs. other items that they have already read dozens of times (Dozens might be an exaggeration for some voters, but my list shows that there are 4 items that I have seen more than 12 times each and this is only day 3 of voting).
I know that you don't have the time, but I think if you were to spend a few hours down here with us rabble voting like we do, you too would come to resent the timer, at least when certain pairings popped up on your screen.
I have finished voting, but have decided not to reveal my picks until the final day of voting this year, in an attempt to stave off swaying the voting process... people thinking stuff like "Joseph Kellog seems to have enough votes already that he should make it through with out my help, so I am going to vote for Adman Blanchard instead because even though I hated his archetype I loved his item and would like to see what he can do in the next round"... (note that I just used those names as examples, it is not indicative of what I thought of their archetypes).
Well it means that the creature is going to stay grappled and take the damage each round for a minimum of 4 rounds if it fails its initial will save... and like all spell combinations it is going to be situational... don't cast it on golems or giants then (although assuming that a rod is not used, the min caster level for a dazing black tentacles means that the tentacles CMB is +20, easily affecting hill giants, flesh, wood, and ice golems, and having a better than 50% chance of working on stone, fire and frost giants and clay golems.
If cast on a group of 6 Hill giants (a CR 13 encounter), each tentacle would need to roll above a 3 on d20 to successfully grapple a giant, inflicting 1d6+4 damage and requiring the giant to make a will save (with its whopping +3 to will saves) or be dazed for 4 rounds, each of those rounds it cannot attempt to escape from the grapple, so it automatically takes the 1d6+4 damage and must will save again or reset the daze to 4 rounds from that save...basically any hill giant from the group that is grappled (80% chance) and that fails its initial will save (chance will vary by caster, but likely at at least gonna happen 80% of the time) is very unlikely to ever get free taking the full 15d6+60 (112.5 average over the course of 15 rounds, enough to kill a hill giant)...
I'd say that the snake could move through such an area at normal speed, but would still take the combat penalties for being squeezed (because it can't coil to defend itself or strike as effectively)... there is something to be said about GM common sense playing a part in interacting with the letter of the rules sometimes.
The Red Ninja wrote:
Remember that the Judges still pick the top 32, all our votes do is decide what order the judges look at the items in.... I would be shocked if all the items that make the top 32 are simply the 32 items that get the most votes from the public voting period. Even if John Doe rigged the system somehow to get 1 million up votes against each other item for his misformated Astounding Codpiece of Stupendousness (a Camping Spell in a Can that also makes one immune to a personal range spell when cast by others and has a market price of $4.95), putting it firmly in first place in the voting.. the judges are simply going to reject it and move on.
They don't waste time on unimportant stuff like who made the first one (or only one... I have seen a few items that seemed to be unique) or how this item is made in x city from y material.
They know what rule system that they were designed for, and don't include elements that have been changed (listen, spot, tumble checks) or dropped altogether (I have seen items that reference spells that either do not exist in Pathfinder or have had the names changed).
They have a cool effect (or small, logical suite there of), that is (are) unique, with out trying to do too much and bogging it down with extraneous BS and tacked on powers that make no sense.
This morning between about 5 and 8 am pacific time, I voted 100 times (so saw 200 items), and this time I created an excel spread sheet to keep track of which items appeared (and in which column) and which items I voted for… here are some numbers that I pulled out of the data, I thought I would post them for those who might be interested in such things.
Total number of unique items: 175
21 items appeared twice, 2 items appeared 3 times
One of the items that appeared twice did so in back-to-back votes (on opposite sides), it did not get my vote either time.
2 items were items I had not seen previously, 4 were items that I had seen previously but not recently (since the cut down).
I did not see my own item.
I voted for the item on the left 53 times and the item on the right 47 times.
Later this today, probably starting around 1 pm pacific time, I plan on doing it again and comparing the results (to see if time of day really matters). Over the course of this week I plan on doing this at least 9 more times (at various times of day) giving me record of 1000 votes.
I invite others to attempt similar experiments and post them to this thread. comparing the data derived could prove to be interesting.
Eric Morton wrote:
Yeah, I've encountered several items where I found myself yelling, "Perfect. Now stop writing. Stop writing. Stop writing!" (Okay, I didn't actually yell it, but I did think it really hard.)
I did actually yell it at one point, prompting my wife to rush into the room and ask me what was wrong....