Shadow Projector
*So, it's another remote illusion projection item for 2,400 gp a pop as a consumable? I'm still not a fan of this concept. All illusion (figment) spells are not the same.
*Weak Reject.
*What is it with projecting illusions this year?
*Reject.
*And it's a FIAC.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Mirror Sphere of Inevasible Evocations
*So, it's a pretty convoluted item (both in description and mechanics) to basically just deny someone their evasion and improved evasion against your spells that require Reflex saves. Sounds like someone got frustrated with being a blaster and having opponents ignore all their spells. This feels a bit too cheesy for me, despite the attention to detail on using the provided template.
*Weak Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Neat idea, too much cheesy writing. Over did it on the mechanics. Making things more complicated is not the same as making them more interesting. Not ready.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Alright Neil, make me cry sweet, sweet tears tonight.
Book of Infinite Insults
*Your Superstar item is a +5 circumstance bonus on Intimidate and an extra round of inspire courage, inspire greatness, or inspire heroics on a Perform (comedy) check...all because you're reading from a book of insults?
*All for 5,000 gp?
*Vote to Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Lame. Reject.
*Rejected.
Mindari’s Maddening Mittens of Myriad Missiles
*Congratulations, you win the most Amazingly Annoying Alliteration Award.
*It's an extra magic missile three times/day for 1,200 gp. Not really all that compelling.
*And who cares who Mindari is?
*Vote to Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Rejected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thief's Chalk
*It's the ultimate "breaking and entering" SAK of SIAC effects.
*I'm not real keen on all of these abilities in one item, despite the theme. I think the first two abilities alone are sufficient in describing the extradimensional abilities of the chalk. We've seen chalk items that flirt with these ideas before, especially the passwall effect. Personally, I think GMs would find that tremendously annoying as it gives you an "in and out" for virtually any place. To have that exist in a triple-use item for just 10,500 gp makes me frown as passwall is usually a spell you don't have to worry about as a game-breaker of certain scenarios until the 9th level adventuring band.
*In addition, three scrolls of passwall would run 3,375 gp...almost as much as a single use of this item...and yet, the chalk also gives you far greater utility in its three uses by letting you choose between the passwall effect, a rope trick effect, or the modify memory effect. So, the chalk should probably be priced far higher...both because of its combined abilities, and because you wouldn't want this becoming available until around the same time a 9th level adventurer could acquire passwall on his own.
*So, while I do appreciate the thinking that went into this item...as well as the attention to detail in using the provided template and the overall theme and focus on making sure they limited the chalk as well as they could...I'm just not sure I feel comfortable rewarding this item by lifting it into the Top 32. That said, it's interesting enough that it might be worth putting in the Keep pile for a bit. This designer is close. And it's clear to me that they've got a really good imagination.
*Weak Keep.
*Nah. Swiss army knife. I, too, like the thought that went into it. I also remember a ton of chalk items the year of Pan's Labyrinth, they were very popular.
*Good wondrous items just don't do this--they don't take everything you want and need and put it in one item.
*Reject.
*I agree. There was a point where I kept thinking to myself this should really be multiple, separate items. And even then, some of the effects would need nerfing down. The ideas are interesting. The design of putting them altogether is worrisome (and potentially flawed). But the designer's attention to detail and presentation is laudable. So, the real question is do we see enough potential in this designer to warrant a visit to the Keep pile and consideration for elevation into the Top 32 or as an alternate? I keep thinking that maybe we do...
*But that's why I'm only a Weak Keep. And it's growing weaker the more I think on it.
*It might as well be a staff. And what rogue wouldn't want a staff of awesome?
*Agreed. Reject.
*Rejected.
Begging Bowl of the Prophet
*Plot device item. Price/cost ratio is completely whacked.
*Vote to Reject.
*..."Have the GM make it up!"
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Skiver's Blade
*Haven't we already seen an item like this from an earlier RPG Superstar competition? I recall a stone that rogues could use to absorb a glyph, symbol, etc., store it in the rock, then reapply it to another surface. I think this item's description doesn't flow as well. There's a lot of unnecessary peeling and description around two-dimensional vs. three-dimensional stuff. Basically, information that isn't really all that pertinent. That's also causing them to bump up hard against the word limit.
*I don't know. I'm not feeling this one. It's been done before. And better.
*Weak Reject.
*My thoughts exactly.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Profane Larva of Sarkoran Corruption
*I'm not a fan of this item.
*Firstly, the submission itself would be over word count if the designer had correctly included the Craft Wondrous Item feat in the construction requirements like he should have. Plus, he left out the Cost tag and bolded his gp value in order to make it in at exactly 300 words. It's basically a DQ.
*Secondly, it's "Worldwound"...not "World Wound." If you're going to quote Golarion canon, get it right. I also don't see why you'd name an item as something involving the corruption of Sarkoris, seeing as how that region isn't referred to as that any longer. That's why it's called the Worldwound. In addition, why would demonologists even try to create this item from the amniotic fluid of such maggots in the first place? Just about anyone in the Worldwound who isn't already a demon is a crusader trying to beat them back. And the crusaders wouldn't include demonologists trying to make an evil-aligned magic item out of demonic maggots.
*Thirdly, I didn't care for the inventiveness in having demonic maggots attached to a crystal anyway...or, that they can leap off and entangle something 40 feet away (I mean, how big are these things? Is something maggot-sized really going to entangle anyone?)...or that the maggot has an entirely different effect (i.e., fiendish spider swarm) if it backfires on the wielder when he rolls a natural 1. Why not just have it affect him the same way as the intended target?
*Lastly, like many other misguided designers who become highly enamored with the creativity of their wondrous item imaginings, they just had to include a material component in the construction requirements. Wondrous items don't have those things. That's because they aren't necessary. They're assumed as part of the underlying cost of the item. Otherwise, there's an implied black market where you can buy or acquire amniotic fluids from demonic polyps and demon blood to craft such items. The game doesn't need that level of detail on wondrous items. So, just leave it alone.
*Okay. Enough.
*Vote to Reject...and with all the holy fire a devout crusader can muster.
*Disqualified on word count issues.
*Auto-reject.
hehehe - Neil's got his 2nd wind. Are you tired of reviewing faction submissions? Or did you power through them and are done already? ;)
Portfolio of the Assassin
*Plot device item, despite using blood biography as its basis.
*Vote to Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Rejected.
MANACLES OF CAPITULATION
*Is a SAK of magic manacles for 40,000 gp an innovative, compelling wondrous item worthy of giving this designer a shot RPG Superstar? I'm not feeling it. These types of items see use rarely unless you're in the habit of subduing lots of adversaries during your adventures. The designer seems to think Will saves need to be lowercase and italicized for some strange reason. And I'm just not won over by it.
*Weak Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Rejected.
Helm of Eternal Hunger
*A really annoying mechanic woven into the "must eat dead flesh" angle. This designer really just wants to force characters into eating every decomposing body they run across.
*Setting that aside, it's basically a SAK with some SIAC effects (i.e., black tentacles). They also referenced ghoul's touch which isn't the correct name for that spell.
*I also don't like the mechanic whereby the tentacles have a base CMB/CMD, but it's higher if the wearer's is better.
*All in all, I'm just not a fan of this one.
*Vote to Reject.
*Gonzo monsters in a can.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
I saw that, and I'm thrilled that I qualified for the Keep folder! I've got my request submitted to Sean's thread, so I'm looking forward to reading that.
*FYI, it's the "this is usable a number of times per day equal to your Int bonus" that bugs me, because that scales up forever and is impossible to price.
This comment confuses me - I don't recall mentioning Int bonuses anywhere. Perhaps this is in reference to the reversed youthful appearance ability? It appears that I failed to specify that the ability is usable once per day.
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
Irisated Tabard
*A potentially annoying item. It's basically the "once per day, I want to make sure I can choose to negate a devastating blow on my character and not just avoid it, but automatically inflict it on an enemy of my choice" item. And, oh yeah, give me +10 on my Perception checks so no one can surprise me, too. Meh. No thanks.
*Vote to Reject.
*Its basically a controlled twisted space in a can, or in this case a tabbard. Yes, its annoying, but it mimics a spell effect. Granted, I didn't need the overly dramatic iris stuff in the description.
*Frankly, this item highlights that the spell twisted space is poorly designed. The spell, as I read it, redirects an attack towards another random target [who was threatened by the original attack], though it doesn't clearly say that [material in brackets by me]. This tabard lets the wearer redirect the attack to any target within 55 feet (not sure where they got that from).
*The real question is this redirected attack. If the item didn't have it redirected at the will of the user then this would just be a spell in a can. So I compliment the author on that change. But this only works on a successful sneak attack or critical hit. THEN the item, as an immediate action, is triggered. That to me is where the bad design happens. You can't wait until after the hit to use the effect. We dont have that in the game, or at least not very often (luck effects to cause rerolls).
*Vote to Reject. But I liked this alot more than you and I think it shows promise.
*SIAC. Damage is not an 'effect' and can't be transferred. The logic bombs here will explode the heads of many players.
*Vote to Reject.
*Rejected.
Yeah, I figured the automatic damage to a target of choice was what did this one in. As I said in my self critique upthread, I feel that was the fatal flaw.
At least it got more discussion on its merits than just "reject" or "this sucks".
From now on, I won't do a permanent bonus higher than +5 (written 100 times).
hehehe - Neil's got his 2nd wind. Are you tired of reviewing faction submissions? Or did you power through them and are done already? ;)
Just needed to refuel over lunch. I'm trying to push all the judges' discussion notes out for those who requested feedback, so at least everyone has something. And, I want to make sure most of them have something before the Round 2 submissions are revealed at 2PM PST today. That way, everyone can have some initial insight into why they didn't make the cut. And then, they can turn their attention back to supporting the Top 32 going into the voting round.
Additionally, I'd like to get through these so I can turn back and do some deeper dive analysis on a few items that'll provide some object lessons for the community-at-large. That's the goal, at least. I know I'll never get to everyone. A lot of you are going to be upset because all you get is some really nebulous commentary during the judges' discussion of your item and not an in-depth, line-by-line critique. But it comes with the territory. This contest is too huge and the outcry for feedback is just too large for us to be able to get to all of them. And, quite frankly, I think a lot of people really miss the boat on what this thread is all about it.
The entire thing is a learning medium. It's not here so you can get feedback on your item alone. If you treat it as such, you're really missing out. That's because you can't resubmit an item. Insight into what it did wrong might not even apply to your next design. So, you need to widen your net when you come here for feedback. Sit back and absorb the lessons of the collective body of work that's presented here. There are so many different types of missteps, flaws, and outright errors here that you should be able to educate yourself much more clearly on what the judges don't want to see. Likewise, if you look back over the Top 32 items (and the Top 32 from every prior year), you should be able to get a sense of what the judges are looking for. Then, and only then, is it actually worth checking the feedback, discussion, commentary, etc. on your specific item. And even then, it's far more important to relate to the larger category of whatever problem it encountered.
At any rate, I'm motoring on. My organization reviews for Round 2 were done last night. I proofed them one more time this morning and made a couple of small adjustments (mostly for humor). I should be free for the next several days during the voting round to provide feedback here for awhile. Hopefully, Clark can do the same. And, I suspect Sean will get back to his separate feedback thread for the items that made the Keep folder. Like I said earlier, we're doing everything we can to maximize the feedback this year. Even more than last year. And that's saying something, considering it was the first time we got some kind of feedback to everyone who asked...
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
Whoa, 2 quick responses to that one. Now to make can of porcine hooves for next years competition...
EDIT: 1 responce deleted and forgot it should be can of anaerobic fermentated porcine hooves
*FYI, it's the "this is usable a number of times per day equal to your Int bonus" that bugs me, because that scales up forever and is impossible to price.This comment confuses me - I don't recall mentioning Int bonuses anywhere. Perhaps this is in reference to the reversed youthful appearance ability? It appears that I failed to specify that the ability is usable once per day.
Don't fret over that one. Sean's comment in that regard didn't correspond to your item. That's a different misstep we see in some other item designs. You avoided that in yours by basing it on age. Other items include a mechanic whereby the number of uses are determined by someone's ability modifier...which means its inherent value varies according to who's using it...which means it's impossible to price. Items that go down that path are universally called out by the judges. And they don't make the Keep folder. Yours did. So, rejoice in that. And then wait for Sean's developer's feedback. He's basically letting everyone know the exact stuff he'd tell them if they were already freelancing for him. That's a huge benefit this year. Sean's insights are invaluable. And I say that as someone who regularly benefits from them, not simply by being a frequent freelancer who's worked with him, but also a fellow judge who learns from him all during the judging process.
Dread-in-the-box
*I'm not even reading it. The name alone gets a reject from me.
*Alright, I read it anyway. I had to. I couldn't just nuke it on the name alone. Now I wish I had.
*This is spell in a can with some "spooky" special effects.
*Reject.
*SIAC. Toy item. Real-world item. Name sucks.
*Vote to Reject.
*...*sigh*...
*Reject.
*Rejected.
This post marks the end of Page 11.
hehehe - Neil's got his 2nd wind. Are you tired of reviewing faction submissions? Or did you power through them and are done already? ;)Just needed to refuel over lunch. I'm trying to push all the judges' discussion notes out for those who requested feedback, so at least everyone has something. And, I want to make sure most of them have something before the Round 2 submissions are revealed at 2PM PST today. That way, everyone can have some initial insight into why they didn't make the cut. And then, they can turn their attention back to supporting the Top 32 going into the voting round.
Additionally, I'd like to get through these so I can turn back and do some deeper dive analysis on a few items that'll provide some object lessons for the community-at-large. That's the goal, at least. I know I'll never get to everyone. A lot of you are going to be upset because all you get is some really nebulous commentary during the judges' discussion of your item and not an in-depth, line-by-line critique. But it comes with the territory. This contest is too huge and the outcry for feedback is just too large for us to be able to get to all of them. And, quite frankly, I think a lot of people really miss the boat on what this thread is all about it.
The entire thing is a learning medium. It's not here so you can get feedback on your item alone. If you treat it as such, you're really missing out. That's because you can't resubmit an item. Insight into what it did wrong might not even apply to your next design. So, you need to widen your net when you come here for feedback. Sit back and absorb the lessons of the collective body of work that's presented here. There are so many different types of missteps, flaws, and outright errors here that you should be able to educate yourself much more clearly on what the judges don't want to see. Likewise, if you look back over the Top 32 items (and the Top 32 from every prior year), you should be able to get a sense of what the judges...
Shameless plug, here. A few people have added some other common missteps they noticed, but we could make this a really comprehensive listing of "bad choice niches" in design space.
Also, here where some of us are getting a bit of practice in finding "mojo" while all these critiques and feedback are still fresh in our minds. The more, the merrier.
Warden's Cord
*..."Go go gadget hand!" Really? That's what you did for Superstar? Inspector Gadget gauntlets?
*Now that I have gotten that out of the way, I have to admit I don't hate them. Low level design is fun and hard and these are ok. 3/day uses of a reach attack on an attack of opportunity is interesting.
*BUT my problem is it doesnt say how it works with the attack of opportunity. Does it use one of the PCs attacks of opportunity? What if the PC is not able to make an attack of opportunity (already use the full amount, still flat footed, etc). Maybe I am over-thinking this but I think it needs more detail, and at 148 words (less than half) it had the available space.
*Leaning to REJECT.
*I think it would have been more interesting to see this warden's cord make reference to the mechanics for the weapon cord from the APG...and maybe do it up as a magical version of that gear...
Weapon Cord: Weapon cords are 2-foot-long leather straps that attach your weapon to your wrist. If you drop your weapon or are disarmed, you can recover it as a swift action, and it never moves any further away from you than an adjacent square. However, you cannot switch to a different weapon without first untying the cord (a full-round action) or cutting it (a move action or an attack, hardness 0, 0 hp). Unlike a locked gauntlet, you can still use a hand with a weapon cord, though a dangling weapon may interfere with finer actions.
*That seems more in line with what this warden's cord is trying to define with the locked gauntlet aspect. And, by keeping it cord-like, that makes more sense for how it could also lash forward to achieve the single AoO at 15 ft. reach. I'm more annoyed that they didn't just say it's an AoO because the item grants the wearer 15 ft. reach with the weapon attached to the warden's cord three times per day. Then, it could specifically cite the normal rules for AoO's. Yes, it should use up one of the PCs normal AoO's and suffer all the same restrictions of it (i.e., limited AoO's they can execute based on Combat Reflexes, Dex bonus, etc.). Someone with a high enough modifier could then execute all three of the item's AoO's at 15 ft. reach if a bunch of opponents were trying to surround them. And, if they'd already used up all their regular AoO's in a given round, I don't think this item should grant them an additional one.
*There's potential in the core idea of the item, though. Mechanically, it's just not fully baked in how it's described...i.e., not quite tight enough on that particular design aspect. This is the type of item where I naturally want to go under the hood and "fix" it to make it into something more awesome. But, the author has some other presentation flaws in using the template correctly (i.e., should lowercase the slot, missing commas on the price and cost). I also think they chose the wrong spell to base this item on, as spectral hand can't grasp weapons and attack with them. I think telekinesis would make more sense and then the aura would be based on transmutation magic rather than necromancy. After all, what's a locked gauntlet and AoO's with 15 ft. reach have to do with necromancy?
*Taken altogether, I just don't think the author is quite ready yet. They're onto something in the mojo department and this is a good try. They just need more practice so they can sharpen their design-fu and come back strong next year.
*Vote to Reject.
*It's a locked gauntlet that 3/day lets you make AOOs within 15 feet as if you had reach. Useful, but not Superstar.
*I was going to say "I don't know if it counts toward the user's number of AOOs," but Clark already did. :)
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Bonds of Eternal Love
*This goes way beyond shield other and not in a good way. Long range removal of conditions where one partner is safely in the arms of a cleric or wizard who can quickly remove that condition without suffering any threat or consequence is a bad design choice. Players will abuse this thing to no end. "Hey, honey, can you go hang out at the local temple and make sure they cure you of any condition you sense that's afflicting me while I go off adventuring with my buddies? Thanks. You're a doll!"
*Vote to Reject.
*Plus I hate the name. What is this, "Twilight the Roleplaying Game"?
*Reject.
*Yes. Agreed. Reject.
*Rejected.
Bracers of Impact
*This would be an annoying item. It's cheap enough that you could just keep buying them over and over to give yourself DR 20/— against five blows from a challenging opponent. That's nuts and completely abusable.
*Vote to Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Rejected.
Taming Whip
*So, they're avoiding us viewing it as a weapon with that last statement. It's essentially a +5 skill bonus-in-a-can for Handle Animal checks, though they've bumped the economy of actions in handling one vs. pushing one. I find it kind of odd, though, that a ranger or druid would need to resort to a whip of taming to push their animal companions. That's kind of the harsh approach in what some gamers prefer to interpret as a friendlier partnership between druids/rangers and their animal companions.
*After that, it's a charm animal SIAC. You get to train animals and teach them tricks in half the time. I'm not sure what "rearing" an animal is supposed to mean. It's referred to kind of like it's game terminology. I assume they just mean how many animals you can train simultaneously.
*I don't know. The theme is there. It works. It's not blowing me away with creativity or anything, but it's a little innovative in some of the boundaries it's pushing. And the attention to detail in using the template is pretty much flawless.
*Weak Keep.
*I have issues with people making magic items out of cat parts.
*If it can't be used as a whip, don't call it a whip.
*Skill bonus item is not Superstar.
*Do you really need to speed up the action economy for animals and companion animals? Is that what's holding you back as an adventurer?
*Rearing a wild animal is in the Handle Animal skill, and you can normally do up to three at the same time. But this is something you do when not adventuring, so who cares? That aspect of the item isn't about adventuring.
*It's a utilitarian item, but it's not Superstar.
*Reject.
*This is not Superstar.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
This marks the end of the Page 12 requests for item feedback.
Spool of Adamantine Thread
*So, everyone goes out and intentionally breaks all their armor, shields, and weapons...then laces it back up to permanently increase its hardness...because, you know, we're all tired of having our armor and weapons sundered in combat. This would help make sure that never happens again.
*I'm also unclear on the amount of uses a single spool provides. What is 1 hour of uninterrupted sewing time the equivalent of when it comes to armor, shield, or weapon?
*Vote to Reject.
*..."Upon construction, there is enough thread created to repair one item needing."
*Make whole + hardness bump + generic name does not a Superstar make.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Bracer of Attunement
*Annoying item. This smacks of the player who always wants to know who targeted them with an effect so they can trace them back to wherever they are and avenge themselves. Particularly favored by those who want to scry everything, teleport in, and catch them unprepared. It's an item designed to escalate the arms race between players and GMs.
*Vote to Reject.
*Move action? No.
*Crappy formatting and sentence structure.
*Used once, then it's forever stuck on that guy. Bleh.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Enriching Pot of the Adventurer Cook
*Well, it's a food/camping item. And fairly well done considering the SAK of effects it grants you when an "experienced" cook makes a simple DC 12 Profession (cook) chekc with it. Still not Superstar.
*Vote to Reject.
*When you find yourself typing "grants a suite of benefits," stop.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
This marks the end of the item requests on Page 13.
Gnomish Combat Poison Kit
*Combat poison kit? And then we get to magically create as much poison as we want with Craft (alchemy) checks and randomly determine its potency while selecting what kind of ability damage you feel like inflicting today. This is so mechanically broken and open to abuse.
*Vote to Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*...and only 100 gp per charge!
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Barrister's Gavel of Pleading
*Plot device item. And they didn't even put charm person or suggestion in the construction requirements, despite providing them as SIAC effects against some very niche targets.
*Vote to Reject.
*Author, quit sucking up to Clark. :)
*Reject.
*Clearly they did a bad job sucking up to me. If they knew me, banging the gavel would trigger holy word. Feel my wrath! I dont bother convincing.
*Reject.
*Shouldn't that be unholy word for a demon lord...?
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Pouch of Scoundrel's Deeds
*Meh. Ranged combat maneuvers and Sleight of Hand to pickpocket stuff with no risk to the user isn't innovative. It's lame and abusable. Even an arcane trickster has to wait to get this ability as part of a prestige class. And even then, he can't do ranged combat maneuvers with it and he's constrained to only a handful of times/day.
I'll also note that mage hand is a prerequisite for that prestige class for a reason. That's because spectral hand isn't sufficient. And it shouldn't be for this kind of item either.
*Vote to Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Rejected.
This marks the end of all the items from Page 14.
Circlet of Eldritch Geometry
*Meh. I'm not really a fan of metagaming the squares to bend the rules on what counts as adjacent just to nerf flanking and such. I mean, if you're not adjacent then you can't effectively attack someone with a melee weapon unless you have reach. And, since the wearer gets to choose a number of squares equal to their Wisdom modifier, that means this weapon is better in the hands of some PCs than others...which means it's impossible to price. And the descent into madness with Wisdom damage that can't be healed makes this an item that very few would ever use, much less spend 55,000 gp on it.
*Vote to Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Rejected.
Footsteps of the Master
*I'm getting a real strong SAK vibe from this item. A +5 insight (not competence) bonus to all those skills is way overboard. Insight bonuses are going stack along with other items that grant competence bonuses and this item just does too much. That alone should have jacked up the price on this item. And what do slippers have to do with improving Perform (oratory) or Knowledge (history) anyway? Just because?
*Then, we get uber power-ups for monks by letting them beef up their Strength off their Wisdom and throw on an extra insight bonus to CMB/CMD just to make them that much more powerful. Again, insight bonuses are going to add into the mix with ever other normal combat bonus (enhancement, morale, etc.) to make this item a must-have for every monk.
*I don't think the designer thought through these things. This item's design comes across more like the guy who really likes playing monks and wanted to give their PC every advantage they possibly could in one single item. I'm just not a fan of this one.
*Vote to Reject.
*Buncha skill bonuses, how convenient.
*Free Improved Unarmed Strike feat. How convenient if you're not a monk (and irrelevant if you are).
*Wisdom instead of STR to damage, how convenient for a monk. It's "only" 4 rounds/day, but imagine a badass monk making 7 attacks per round and you'll understand why that's a problem.
*And a bonus on CMB and CMD. Excuse me, CMB and CMD *rolls*, I didn't realize you actually rolled your CMD. And monks are good at those already.
*File me in the "makes you better at what you're already good at" bin.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
*Author, quit sucking up to Clark. :)
I wasn't sucking up, I'm a lawyer too! Write what you know and all that....
Firefly Headband
*I kind of like this one. The immediate action interrupt of an opposing spellcaster is interesting. And, the mechanic of (DC 10 + spell level + number of lights) seemingly works, especially since they fade one round at a time when the headband is activated. I'm a little concerned by how rapidly the discharged gemstones reform. This is the kind of item I could see players abusing in that they'd just wait before every possible encounter with a spellcaster until it charged all the way up to full again. So, it has the potential to bog down play by slowing down the adventuring day a bit. Still, it's playing around in a somewhat interesting space, design-wise.
*Weak Keep.
*Oh my word, no. Seriously, this recharges?
*This just became the number one must purchase item of all time. Every adventurer will have one. It really jacks up all spell casters. And it recharges--which, since waiting is in the total control of the PCs--means it will always be fully charged and anyone can wear one which means everyone will wear one.
*Which begs the question. What happens to an enemy spell caster when ALL 5 PCs have one of these on? And it is round 2 so each has 5 lights left? Do all 25 remaining lights go to the spell caster for a DC 10 + X + 25?
*You just took enemy spell casting out of the game. Big meta REJECT from me. Neil, you must be seeing something I am not. I am surprised you aren't more against this. Am I missing a limitation that is making this reasonable? Like you, I am intrigued by the idea of spell interrupts. Its a fun idea and a good theme for it with the fireflies, but the way its done is just not well through through. But maybe I am missing something.
*It took me awhile to think it through. Basically, this item can be used once in a single combat. It launches all of these fireflies at one time and after that, it goes dormant until it replenishes them one firefly per hour after that (so it's a 6-hour recharge time). Yes, that means PCs can "save up" between encounters to get them all restored before going up against the next spellcaster. But again, even in the next encounter, they'll only be able to force a potential spell interrupt once during the entire forthcoming battle. After that, the headband can't be used at all for the next 6 hours while it regenerates the lost gemstones again. So, it's a single, forced concentration check on an opposing spellcaster which you can do about 2-3 times per day (assuming you take an 8-hour rest break to recover spells, etc.). That's going to happen in pretty much any adventuring day with a handful of combat encounters...not simply as a result of this item being abused in some fashion.
*When I looked at it that way, I then started comparing it to regular situations that force a spellcaster to make a concentration check. Is this all that much different from a warrior with the Step Up feat taking an AoO on a spellcaster who tries walking back a 5-foot step to pull away and get off a spell? Not really. The fighter gets to follow, execute an AoO, deal some damage, and force a concentration check. Do the fireflies make a subsequent concentration check any more burdensome on a spellcaster than the inflicted damage when someone strikes them during an AoO? No, not really. It's a regular concentration check whose DC gets modified by the amount of damage inflicted (or, in this case, the number of fireflies used to dazzle the spellcaster). Also consider the potency of these fireflies diminishes by 1 every round the headband is active. That means, if a spellcaster doesn't even launch a spell in those first 6 rounds, there's no abilty to interrupt him at all and the item's use for that 6-hour period is wasted. Also, if the PC activates the headband too early in a conflict, they miss their opportunity to nerf a spellcaster entirely. Even when it does activate, the potency of that interruption might be negligible because most of the fireflies have already winked out and a spellcaster might shrug it off with a successful concentration check.
*I also didn't see anything that indicated multiple headbands stacked all their fireflies together. So, really, you're still only forcing 5 independent concentration checks at DC 10 + spell level + 6 (max). Most spellcasters pump up their ranks in Spellcraft far enough that they could still easily override that burden. Even moreso if they take Combat Casting (which many spellcasters do), that feat alone offsets 4 of the fireflies from this headband...making it essentially a DC 10 + spell level + 2 (max) concentration check. Again, no biggie for most seasoned spellcasters. So, it's not an undue hardship on the opposing spellcaster. It's fairly likely to not even succeed. And all the fireflies are expended in that single use. The wearer doesn't even get to decide which spell he can interrupt. It's always the first spell the fireflies sense in a 100 ft. range. And, even if this tactic forces the opposing spellcaster to lose a single spell in a combat, how is that all that different from forcing those kinds of things in regular play? The only difference I perceive is that it's a ranged "attack" to force the concentration check. You don't have to get up close and personal. And, in some ways, that's this item's greatest utility.
*So, to recap, the overall potential for mayhem in nerfing opposing spellcasters with this item is somewhat diminished in my view. I'd be interested in hearing if Sean thinks otherwise. What intrigued me a little about this item is that it's playing around with a mechanic that we don't typically see wondrous item design touch on...i.e., concentration checks. So, in that light, this entry came off as a bit more innovative than some. Still, the fact that it's fostered this much analysis...and two different interpretations from us...might be an indication that the author struggles in presenting things as clearly as possible. So, that might be a knock against it as well.
*I'm a bit more on the fence with this one than an all out Keep or Reject. And I'd like to hear more discussion and analysis of it.
*Meh. It's effectively a spell in a can.
*Vote to Reject.
*I guess Ryan and I have rejected so I could hit Reject, but I really want Sean to take a look at this. Sean could see something here I am missing. Sean, give us your thoughts.
*I like that the concentration DC is based on how many fireflies are left, but I don't like that tracking the attrition of the fireflies is going to be annoying (tracking spell durations is bad enough, tracking a depleting-effect with a duration is more complex).
*This is a headband slot, which is mainly for mental boosts, so the fighter and rogue will have this slot available, so it's not like they're having to choose this item instead of something that gives them a combat bonus.
*The recharge is wonky... it's basically [six hours minus six rounds] since the last time you activated it. You might as well just say it's usable X/day, because having to track how much time has passed is a headache.
*I think Clark's concern that everyone is going to be using this is mitigated by the fact that you have to use an action to activate it. Odds are, everyone in the group isn't going to want to spend an action to interfere with an enemy spellcaster. Heck, odds are even ONE person isn't going to give up an attack to force an opponent to make a concentration check.
*I think it's an interesting idea, but the mechanics built into it just introduce a lot more work for the players and GM. Playtesting--or a careful review of how it would be used in-game--would reveal this, and the fact that the designer didn't consider it means they're not quite ready yet.
*Weak Reject.
*Rejected.
Dust of the Shaitan
I am looking forward to Sean's feedback. Thank you very much Neil! The comments show where I did not make things clear enough. I especially thought solid fog was not harsh enough for how I envisioned this.
*Doesn't affect wind and fog, "except to limit duration," but I don't know what that quote means.
I intended it as both a hazard and a haven, hazard to air creatures (ideally djinn) and a haven against air effects.
I envisioned a sandstorm bearing down on a party and this item allowing at least 5 rounds of protection to come up with some solution. I did not detail this well.
I also envisioned some very evil ways to kill/damage water sources like oasis and wells (and create traps on the fly)
Ape-Reach Bracers.
*60 ft. reach gloves of climbing? No thanks.
*Vote to Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Rejected.
Navigational Helioscope
*Plot device.
*Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Rejected.
Vase of Extraplanar Gate
*Where's the price for this item? It's just a wide open summoning item straight out of planar ally, planar binding, etc. Writing seems weak, too.
*Vote to Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*How often can you use it? Unknown, therefore unpriceable. (Perhaps that's why the Price is missing?)
*Reject.
*Rejected.
*Wisdom instead of STR to damage, how convenient for a monk. It's "only" 4 rounds/day, but imagine a badass monk making 7 attacks per round and you'll understand why that's a problem.
Neil:
It's not my item, and I agree that there's thought that needs to go into allowing to use Wisdom instead of Strength to deal damage - but I also think this critique should be defended a bit better: Paizo has after all published both the guided and the agile weapon property.
Regarding the direct comment of the judge: if I imagine a badass monk, then he doesn't need to rely on 4 round/day to be terrifying. A monk that actually benefits from this would have say 10 Strength and 20 Wisdom (along with high Dexterity and Weapon Finesse). In such a situation I don't see the 4 rounds/day as being particularly crazy.
...bring the pain... please.
Bracers of Versatile Channeling
*So, it's a way of spending some of your uses of channeled energy and storing them up to use as swift actions, plus you can combine a couple of them into a ranged attack. Unfortunately, the designer failed to tell us the range on the attack. It's an expensive item at 45,000 gp. So, maybe the swift action is warranted. I kind of like the ranged ray attack, especially since they didn't try to cheese out double the usual damage for the two "charges." It does something different with channeled energy. And the designer has some pretty good attention to detail here. Might be someone worth taking through the contest.
*Vote to Keep.
*Disagree. Reject.
*Disagree to disagree. I'll also say Keep.
*Some issues, but this is clever. Useful, but not overpowered. Fiddling with a rule like channeling is a good thing to visit in a wondrous item. Shows creativity and some mojo. I'd like to see what he or she can do.
*Kept.
*What I HATE about this item is it wrecks the action economy. Charge it up with a couple of channels, then expend them later as SWIFT actions instead of standard actions. Nothing in the rules saying you couldn't channel as a standard, then in the same round channel again as a swift action. With no additional resource cost--it just costs you a channel, just like normal. There's a feat to let you channel faster. It lets you spend TWO uses of your channel to do so as a MOVE action. That's balanced, this is not.
*And the ranged blast option for this has no stated range.
*Reject.
*I've come back to this, and with Sean's comments I have to agree. I like the item. Not enough to "golden ticket" it, though.
*Rejected.
Yellow Nettle Garland
*Wonky mechanic. Too specific to Calistria for my taste. Makes it seem like she's always the creator of the item. Just a CL boosting item. Get a metamagic rod.
*Vote to Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Rejected.
Juju of the Subjugated Psychopomp
*And how does one determine who's a "basic soul" vs. a "noteworthy soul" etc.? Also, although I'm okay with increasing the number of charges for an item, I don't agree with extending the daily uses of an item. Some items have more powerful effects than others in their daily usage. And extending that by as many as two extra uses per day could really challenge the integrity of game balance built into the original item. Personally, I think the designer tried to do much with this idea. They had three different abilities wrapped up in one item when less would have been more.
*Vote to Reject.
*Shouldnt we reject this just on the lame name alone?
*Reject.
*The soul differences are introduced in the daemons book.
*Ah, okay. Makes more sense then.
*But a magic item shouldn't be the place to introduce a new effect currency like "spiritual energy points." And you shouldn't be able to use a weak creature's soul point to power an expensive charged item, it's just a way to cheese costly charges for cheap. Alliteration, yes.
*And yes, the name is over the top.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
This marks the end of the items requesting feedback from Page 15.
Stein of Dwarven Vigor
*Well, it's blood rage-in-a-can, plus a once per day elixir of fire breath or burning hands for all practical purposes. Not particularly innovative or Superstar. Nice job on the formatting, though. And it's interesting that they're reaching for a couple of obscure spells from the Dwarves of Golarion and Orcs of Golarion books, even it's a little odd to see a "dwarven" spell matched with an "orcish" one. Regardless, this designer is certainly taking the path less traveled in an effort to stand out.
*I'm just not sure this is a good enough core idea with anything mechanically interesting enough to elevate the item to Superstar-worthiness. There's really good attention to detail here in the template, though. And it's clear that they're trying to be innovative and imaginative. If I look past this item, I see a designer who might benefit a lot from going through the contest and learning along the way. Unfortunately, despite that possibility, I think I'm going to have to say...
*...Weak Reject.
*And hopefully, they learn from this experience and sharpen their creative pencil a bit to come up with something more compelling that'll blow our socks off next time.
*Agreed. Reject.
*I'm with Neil. Learn from this and come back stronger next year.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
|
Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7
|
Aberrant Splints*Meh. This item grants an extra bit of reach or an extra bonus to CMD in exchange for a Charisma skill check penalty. How is that innovative? All the mechanics are borrowed from elsewhere. And the flavor and template execution isn't enough to save it.
Vs.
*Wow do I not like items that let you pick a slot. Gives the item way too much flexibility.
*Next year, pick one idea and don't over-complicate the entry.
See, I was trying to be innovative by focusing on an item that could be used in multiple slots, that made sense to be used in multiple slots(splints), and kept with the theme (abberation) without being a creature in a can or spell in a can. On the one hand, one judge thought it wasn't innovative, on the other, another judge thought it was overcomplicated.
Perhaps if I had better flavor, this might have been a keeper. Of course, with one judge "meh" and another "woah", probably not.
*I can see people wanting these.
I know, right? Sounds like I at least got the pricing around right. And it's a good item for front line fighter types. This made the judges comments easier to swallow, so thanks for whoever got that.
*It's spelled "grindylow."
So it is, dammit.
Well, it's the 3rd time I've entered, and I've gotten better with each one, but I'm not sure if I'm cut out to do the "Superstar" thing. Hmmn. Well, food for thought anyway.