Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

"Wonderous" Items vs. "Wondrous" Items


RPG Superstar™ 2012 General Discussion

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2009, Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I debated about posting this advice/rant/what-have-you, but I think it's important to get it out there. Basically, the title of this thread really says it all. What's the difference between a "wonderous" item and a "wondrous" item in the game terminology of Pathfinder? I can tell you that one is appropriate. And the other is not. It's become a real pet-peeve of mine. One which I brought up last year in several individual "Judges, Please Critique My Item" reviews.

If the RPG Superstar contest calls for a wondrous item submission as the litumus test for making the open call and joining the Top 32, that's what it should be. And if magic item crafting always includes the Craft Wondrous Item feat in a wondrous item's construction requirements, it should be called that. Not Craft Wonderous Item. Learn the difference. And live it.

Technically, "wonderous" is an acceptable spelling in certain dictionaries. It's synonymous with "wondrous"...but, I think a lot of people use "wonderous" not because they know it's a valid way of spelling "wondrous"...but rather, because they don't realize how "wondrous" is spelled. They just assume these magic items are filled with "wonder" and so it must be spelled "wonderous." Some spellcheckers mark this as an incorrect word. So that should be a clue right from the start. Others don't, however, but that's really no excuse (in my opinion).

The bottom line for me is that "wondrous" is right in the Core Rulebook. It's the given spelling for that entire category of magic items. And it's spelled out for you right in the submission guidelines for the first round of the RPG Superstar contest. "Submit a wondrous item in 300 words or less." On top of that, I called this out repeatedly last year in several critiques for folks. I even mentioned it in an entirely separate thread in the general forum discussions last year. So, if anyone misses this distinction, it tells me they don't know their game terminology or they haven't done their homework...whether looking through the Core Rulebook, the submission guidelines, or any of the advice/critique threads.

So here's the deal: I've seen items make the Top 32 last year with "Craft Wonderous Item" in the construction requirements (primarily because their mojo helped lift the core idea and editors could reasonably correct for a simple misspelling like that if this were an actual freelance submission). Regardless, I don't like seeing items come through that get this wrong. The other judges may feel otherwise, but I don't see it as a simple oversight or something that's too nitpicky to hold against a submission. If designers don't understand the correct game terminology of "wondrous" vs. "wonderous" what else might they miss if they went on to compete in RPG Superstar? It's got to be the most basic thing to this competition. You're designing wondrous items. They're called that in the game. The first round of the competition (for five years running) asks for wondrous item submissions. And people still call them "wonderous"...?

That's a problem. And it's one I'm personally marking people down for (even if just on a subconscious level)...

Thankfully, I'm only one of four judges. If the other three still want to elevate a wonderous item into the Top 32 and not judge it as harshly, that's well within their purview. I'm just letting folks know that I'm personally raising the bar on this one. And it's time for people to start meeting it.

My two angry cents,
--Neil

/rant

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Having had the teasing about an amour bonus (when trying to correct my spelling of 'armour' to American spelling) and not realizing it's not spelled Beastiary. (Though now in my mind I pronounce it best-ee-air-ee) I'm just going to +1 Neil's post.

Part of writing professionally (says the guy who doesn't) is conforming to the style of your employer. Just as Paizo doesn't want antipaladins wearing armor made of living babies for thematic reasons, they don't want extra 'u's in their armor, or color.

Neil's rant wrote:
They just assume these magic items are filled with "wonder" and so it must be spelled "wonderous."

If it helps, think that Wonder Woman's wondrous costume is filled with wonderful cleavage. ;-)


Thanks Matthew, now I will have that dreaded image in my head for the rest of the day. I hope you have a Wonderful day because I know I will have a Wondrous one.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

I think I need to sneak into Neil's home and replace all of his coffee with decaf.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Champion Voter 2013, Champion Voter 2014

Just pondering how many submitted items have had Craft Wonderous Item as a prerequisite to invoke the rant?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I feel that I can make this comment because I have never participated in this event (and therefore have never been subject to the judgment of the, uh, judges). This is just an opinion.

I am concerned with the level of scrutiny given to the details like this. As a self-proclaimed grammar enthusiast -- I have not graduated to capitalized Grammar Nazi yet -- I can understand these concerns and the level of professionalism that is expected. However, in light of recent editorial whiffs on Paizo's part in both Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, I find this overbearing attitude toward perfection off-putting.

It is the prerogative of Paizo, of course, to determine who the judges are and by what set of standards they select those judges. I also understand that in the deluge of content submitted for review, many entries are so outstanding or likable that the judges have to turn their view to things such as format, grammar, and spelling in order to make decisions.

What I am trying to say is that, while I appreciate the concerns, I would like to see this sort of emphasis placed on actual products, where standards should be higher, rather than on amateur work where the material isn't being published by professionals.

Inflammatory as that sounds, I mean this in the most respectful way possible. I understand the difficulties of critically judging vast amounts of work.

RPG Superstar 2009, Contributor

LazarX wrote:
I think I need to sneak into Neil's home and replace all of his coffee with decaf.

It wouldn't help. I don't drink coffee. I live by an all-natural high. Sugar. ;-)

RPG Superstar 2009, Contributor

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
Just pondering how many submitted items have had Craft Wonderous Item as a prerequisite to invoke the rant?

Enough that it warranted a rant.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

@Foghammer,

I'd keep in mind that Neil is a contributer (and judge) and I'm not even that. Neither of us work for Paizo directly, but the fewer errors there are in your product, the less there are for the editors to miss.

Wondrous items is a core term. Calling it Wonderous is akin to calling the fighter 'meatshield' or the bard 'buffer'. Yeah, they are technically accurate (in most cases) but they're not the right termanology. When a proofreader sees "Wonderous" or "Beastiary" they then have to wonder what else was glossed over?

Like you, I'm not meaning to be inflamatory, just voicing my two C-bills.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:

@Foghammer,

I'd keep in mind that Neil is a contributer (and judge) and I'm not even that. Neither of us work for Paizo directly, but the fewer errors there are in your product, the less there are for the editors to miss.

Wondrous items is a core term. Calling it Wonderous is akin to calling the fighter 'meatshield' or the bard 'buffer'. Yeah, they are technically accurate (in most cases) but they're not the right termanology. When a proofreader sees "Wonderous" or "Beastiary" they then have to wonder what else was glossed over?

Like you, I'm not meaning to be inflamatory, just voicing my two C-bills.

I do not think "misspelling" (as it was noted that 'wonderous' is considered an alternative spelling in some cases) is akin to calling a fighter a 'meatshield.' Those are two very different things. Now, the logic that you used to say "If they missed this detail, what else did they neglect to recheck?" is perfectly fine, but I would restate my challenge to apply that to published material, things like the Tetori monk archetype from Ultimate Combat.

I'm not saying there's not a place for it, I just feel that it's distasteful to make a big deal about it here when the stuff we pay for doesn't appear to get the same treatment.

God I'm such a troll. [weeps] I love you Paizo. I don't know why I say mean things. I just want you to grow up to be a better golem than your mother, that's all!

RPG Superstar 2009, Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Foghammer wrote:
This is just an opinion.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. In this case, I'll agree to disagree with it. As I'm sure you'll do with mine. And that's okay.

Foghammer wrote:
I am concerned with the level of scrutiny given to the details like this....I find this overbearing attitude toward perfection off-putting.

First, chill a bit. I debated on whether to issue this advice/rant/etc. from the very beginning. Mostly because, I knew there'd be some folks who would take it exactly the way you appear...i.e., I'm way too nitpicky, far too much scrutiny, overbearing, etc. And, if this were a normal typo like a misspelled word somewhere in the descriptive text, I'd be okay with it. But, as indicated in my original post, this is the most basic of all things. It's a contest to submit a wondrous item. The entire category of magic items in the Core Rulebook (as well as every iteration of D&D preceding the Pathfinder RPG) calls them wondrous items. There's a feat named Craft Wondrous Item. The submission guidelines, rules, etc...and even the advertisement on the front of Paizo's website and the email notifications they sent out inviting people to submit for RPG Superstar calls them wondrous items. On top of that, the contest has been running for 5 straight years. I've called it out before in item critiques. And still...even after all that...not one, not two, but several people miss this basic thing? Personally, I take my stand on this one.

Foghammer wrote:
...I also understand that in the deluge of content submitted for review, many entries are so outstanding or likable that the judges have to turn their view to things such as format, grammar, and spelling in order to make decisions.

Actually, in year's past (and as described in the RPG Superstar panel at PaizoCon), formatting is almost never the sole exclusion criteria for anyone. Not unless you really botch the entire thing by totally ignoring the proper format in its entirety. And, I'm not saying I won't ultimately agree with the other judges to include an item that still references the "Craft Wonderous Item" feat in its construction requirements. It really just depends on how much all the other factors outweigh that negative. We had some get through last year. I'm just really tired of seeing this error in what's supposed to be a clean 300-word submission. If you can't get this right in a 300-word assignment, why should someone be trusted with a freelance opportunity of 12,000-20,000 words? Honestly, if the contest is going to be about finding an RPG Superstar, you shouldn't trust someone who gets that wrong. And, I felt like it was best to bring this up here and now than see anymore of these entries come through with that kind of glaring error.

Foghammer wrote:
What I am trying to say is that, while I appreciate the concerns, I would like to see this sort of emphasis placed on actual products, where standards should be higher, rather than on amateur work where the material isn't being published by professionals.

For me...and having written in the industry...you'll never have 100% perfect editing in a product. Bringing Paizo's editorial standards on actual products into the midst of this discussion isn't the same issue. Sure, everybody wants to tighten down on all the edits in everything. There's a big difference between errata in a 20,000-word (or greater) product and missing this particular item in a 300-word submission. This is a contest to put your best foot forward. Do it.

Foghammer wrote:
Inflammatory as that sounds, I mean this in the most respectful way possible. I understand the difficulties of critically judging vast amounts of work.

Nah, that's cool. I respect your viewpoint. I knew there'd be people who would see my perspective on this as an overreaction. But I think it needs to be said. And again, I'm not saying I'll kick someone out just for using "wonderous" instead of "wondrous." But, what I am saying is I'll be deducting points for it. Folks have had plenty of time and opportunity to learn the ropes of the proper format for a wondrous item submission. It should count for something. Those who get it right have an edge on those who don't. Pure and simple. Or, as they say in grade school, "Neatness counts." And so does following directions.

--Neil

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First, spelling core terms correctly means the reader (not just the judges, but the voters and ultimately the customers) will not get distracted from the awesome by a typo.

Second, this is a job application. It's considered a good idea to avoid typographical errors in your cover letter.

Third, and most important, mojo comes in a lot of different styles. Spelling things correctly is a component of mojo in my book, since it means that the human editors who will eventually publish your work can focus on style instead.

[Of course, note the lack of golem next to my name. I don't work for Paizo now, and don't really expect to, unless I win RPGSS.]


I won't continue to deface the thread with back and forth posting over a simple difference of opinion. I got a satisfactory response from Neil, I'll leave it at that and agree to disagree.

Dark Archive

Matthew Morris wrote:
but they're not the right termanology.

[ironic humor] Did you mean terminology? I'd never heard of termanology before now, and it takes your statement in a bizarre direction... [/ironic humor]

RPG Superstar 2009, Contributor

I don't want this discussion to boil down into who's got the biggest grammar police credentials. As I stated earlier, this particular misstep isn't the same as a simple typo. I'm far more willing to let some of those slide in the descriptive text (though, I'll admit, that vexes me, too). This one is a bigger deal. Hence, I thought I'd head off anymore "wonderous" item submissions before I explode.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

Matthew Winn wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
but they're not the right termanology.

[ironic humor] Did you mean terminology? I'd never heard of termanology before now, and it takes your statement in a bizarre direction... [/ironic humor]

Heh, I don't have spell check in IE at work, and I've admitted my spelling sucks.

"Hermit needs Editor, badly."

RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter 2013, Marathon Voter 2014

Neil Spicer wrote:
Hence, I thought I'd head off anymore "wonderous" item submissions before I explode.

It won't help you, and you know why...

Spoiler:
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!


Wondering how many submissions will pop up now just to piss you off. I have to admit, even I find that idea tempting.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

Doggan wrote:
Wondering how many submissions will pop up now just to piss you off. I have to admit, even I find that idea tempting.

I think it would be more fun to just write about wondrs and wonderous items in posts and see how long it takes for his head to explode. (Though I'll admit with my spllings, h might not vn notic.)

Dark Archive

Matthew Morris wrote:
Matthew Winn wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
but they're not the right termanology.

[ironic humor] Did you mean terminology? I'd never heard of termanology before now, and it takes your statement in a bizarre direction... [/ironic humor]

Heh, I don't have spell check in IE at work, and I've admitted my spelling sucks.

"Hermit needs Editor, badly."

Heh, as long as you laughed instead of taking offense, my work is done here.

*schwissshh* (sound of flying out an open window)

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think bstern has hit it right on the head - Neil is right, this is effectively a job application. The judges aren't just looking for a cool item, they're looking for a potential future coworker. Would you want to work alongside a guy who always passes on the details?

I know I'll make sure to make sure I submit my Wondrous Item with top-notch spelling, to take a load off his mind. ;)

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Let me put it this way, Foghammer:

It's spelled "wondrous" in the Core Rulebook. If you spell it a different way, you're spelling it wrong.

It's spelled "wondrous" in the competition rules. If you spell it a different way, you're spelling it wrong.

If you (generic "you") can't bother to spell it right in a simple 300-word submission, why should I think you'll spell it right in a professional turnover? And if you can't get your spelling right in a professional turnover, why should I think you'll get a stat block format or a rule issue right in your turnover? After all, following a stat block format or getting a rule right is harder than getting a spelling right.

It's Craft Wondrous Item, not Craft Wonderous Item.
It's Craft Wondrous Item, not Craft Wondrous Items.
It's Level sorcerer/wizard 3, not Level sorceress/wizard 3.
It's the Deceitful feat, not the Deceptive feat.
It's Knowledge (arcana), not Knowledge (arcane).

And so on.

If you can't be bothered to get the name of a feat, skill, or other rule right, I can't be bothered to think you're serious about me paying you to write for me.

Or, to put it in the most cranky way: If I'm paying you hundreds of dollars to write something, it's your job to do your best to make sure the feat names are right. Every misspelled feat you turn over is something the developer or editor needs to fix, and that means a little less time the developer or editor has to fix something that actually affects the game. Why is your time more valuable than my time? I'm paying you to get it right, so get it right.

It's not hard to spell words the same way they are in the book. Just like it's not hard to follow the 300 word limit. And yet every year, people fail to do one or the other, and some people get cranky when the judges mention it.

I admit it, I have my share of spelling errors and quirks. I always want to stick an "e" on the end of "booth," for example. But when I spot them, I correct them. And if I'm called out on a spelling error, I accept the blame for it, because it's a dumb, easily-avoidable mistake that I let happen anyway. Which is why I spell-check and proofread my turnovers--better to be diligent and re-check it than to let it slide and look sloppy later.

Silver Crusade Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Tales Subscriber

I'm an Aussy, but accepting American spelling and Paizo's style guide is part of the brief.

Look at it this way: If your item makes it into Ultimate Equipment and a customer reads through the book seeing craft wondrous item 99% of the time, but the editor missed ONE instance of wonderous, YOUR instance. Then as a customer it looks weird, sticks out like a sore thumb, and appears sloppy. All professional writing is expected to conform to the publisher's chosen style, and rule-books have a more precise style than most.

Don't be discouraged by the above advice, take it as a variant on check ANC recheck your writing for accuracy and comprehension. I know I have to watch out for armour/armor and colour/color, and I'll keep a special eye out for this too.

Shadow Lodge Marathon Voter 2013

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I'm an Aussie, but accepting American spelling and Paizo's style guide is part of the brief.

Same here and exactly. I think this is going to be tricky for us who spell in "English", having to remember: center instead of centre, splendor instead of splendour, criticize instead of criticise and so on. Any time I see er/re, u/ou or z/s, I have to double check an American dictionary just to be sure.

On a competitive level, I love that Neil's calling this out as it becomes another way to differentiate my entry from those that don't care enough to write clearly for and respect their audience.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

Founder, Legendary Games & Publisher, Necromancer Games, RPG Superstar Judge

Just so you guys know, I'll weigh in too.

I hate this as much as Neil does.

You are designing a wondrous item. That is the NAME of the thing you are doing. Its the title of the thing in the rules. Its in the game books. Its a part of the PRD.

If you can't get this right, that is a mark against you.

Is it an "auto-reject," like over word count? No.

For me, I don't like to see spelling and grammar mistakes, or even italics or caps mistakes. I won't auto reject you for them, but I will note them and more than two will likely get a no vote from me. Why? It shows me you didn't proofread or that you don't know the rules. That means the entry isn't superstar quality.

Will I reject an otherwise amazing entry for a couple grammar mistakes? Probably not. But I it sure doesn't help you. If you have some other issue, like, say, bad pricing, which is a similar thing (I won't reject you for it, but I note it) and you have bad spelling and grammar, then you are likely getting rejected without me even spending too much time reading your entry. You have simply failed to meet a minimum sufficient requirement for consideration.

Clark


I think everyone is forgetting one important thing here. The fact is Neil is a Judge and as a Judge he didn't have to tell us, as potential contestants what it is that he is going to deduct for but he did. So Neil all kidding aside I want to thank you for pointing out a flaw that has continued to pop up every year. I also want to thank you for this rant for you are right, we have been shown more then once every year how to spell Wondrous starting with the first task.

So thank you Neil for sharing with us one thing you are going to be looking for this year. Also thank you for your support, your feedback, and your time over the years.

One thing I think we tend to forget on message boards is not to take things personally. I also think we tend to forget common respect and for that I want to start by saying THANK YOU NEIL. Something that isn't said enough during this competition in my opinion.

So to start out I want to thank the following in no specific order:
Sean Reynolds
Clark Peterson
Neil Spicer
Ryan Dancey
Matthew Morris
Erik Mona
Lisa Stevens
Vic Wertz
James Jacobs
Jason Bulmahn
everyone else who has worked hard to make superstar a success
and last but not least the Piazo community for sharing their ideas, thoughts, and suggestions with us all to help us make our writing better.

Founder, Legendary Games & Publisher, Necromancer Games, RPG Superstar Judge

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
It's not hard to spell words the same way they are in the book. Just like it's not hard to follow the 300 word limit. And yet every year, people fail to do one or the other, and some people get cranky when the judges mention it.

I've already rejected one entry for being over 300. I can't believe we still get those.

Clark

Silver Crusade Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Tales Subscriber
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:


Don't be discouraged by the above advice, take it as a variant on check ANC recheck your writing for accuracy and comprehension. I know I have to watch out for armour/armor and colour/color, and I'll keep a special eye out for this too.

Haha!

Check *AND recheck. Irony thy name is iPhone messageboard post.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

I don't want post a pointless "me too".. but here's just something to think about from me.

You should be writing your item in with a word processing program, and then carefully copy and paste your entry that into the website window.

That does two things. First, it allows you to get a fairly accurate look at your word count. Second, most word processing programs will highlight misspelled words (i.e. underline them in red to draw your attention to it), or at least have a spellchecker.

I'm just sayin'. It should be HARD to have misspelling like that. You should be working at screwing that up. (That's friendly sarcasm, BTW.) I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but if you use a word processing program, those misspellings are going to pop out at you.

This is such an easy mistake to avoid. It's like not jumping in front of an oncoming bus. I think that is part of Neil's frustration, and rather than challenging whether it is a big deal or not, it takes far less energy just not to make this really careless mistake.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

And suddenly I have this sinking feeling, as I don't know if I spelled it right in the submission...

Damn.

Not that it matters, my spelling and grammar are so atrocious I would get washed out at some point down the line, regardless.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 8 , Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014 aka John Benbo

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Let me put it this way, Foghammer:

It's spelled "wondrous" in the Core Rulebook. If you spell it a different way, you're spelling it wrong.

It's spelled "wondrous" in the competition rules. If you spell it a different way, you're spelling it wrong.

And "dark vision" is "darkvision" right, Sean? You got me on that last year. Such was my shame, that I remember to doublecheck "darkvision" every time I stat up monsters when doing freelancing.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 8 , Dedicated Voter 2013, Star Voter 2014 aka John Benbo

Herremann the Wise wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I'm an Aussie, but accepting American spelling and Paizo's style guide is part of the brief.

Same here and exactly. I think this is going to be tricky for us who spell in "English", having to remember: center instead of centre, splendor instead of splendour, criticize instead of criticise and so on. Any time I see er/re, u/ou or z/s, I have to double check an American dictionary just to be sure.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

I believe if you are using word, you can change the setting on it to the different types of "English." For example, living in the U.S. and writing for Raging Swan out of England, they send me a word doc template to use and it is set to Queen's English so it will correct me if I try spelling "armour" as "armor" which is great because I don't know all the word that are spelled definitely, like "maneouvre." However, after a long day of writing that way, it's hard to go back to the office and "spell" correctly :).

Marathon Voter 2013

Personally, I think it's a huge favor that's being done for us, the contestants, by the judges being willing to comment on this. Nitpicky or not, whatever you want to call it... quite simply this is a contest that has a ton of, well over a thousand or more now?, entries and I can only imagine that as a judge when it comes down to those final rounds of making the cuts, even a minor error or deviation could force one item to be picked over another, and you certainly wouldn't want it to be yours. Check, double-check and then triple check and THEN have your friends do the same.

Thank you all for all the advice given in the past--you guys have gone out of your way and provided amazing feedback when you never really had to. The people at Paizo truly do make it my favorite game.

Thanks again and good luck to everyone!


Craft Wonderous Item (Item Creation)
You can create wonderous items, a type of magic item defined by being submitted during the RPG Superstar 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011 competitions.
Prerequisites: Caster level 2nd.
You can create a wide variety of magic wonderous items. Crafting a wonderous item takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its price. To create a wonderous item, you must use up raw materials costing half of its base price. See the magic item creation rules in Chapter 15 in the Core Rulebook for more information.
You can also mend a broken wonderous item if it is one that you could make. Doing so costs half the raw materials and half the time it would take to craft that item.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Founder, Legendary Games & Publisher, Necromancer Games, RPG Superstar Judge

Sis, that was funny.

But you missed a part. Let me insert it for you:

Craft Wonderous Item (Item Creation)
You can create wonderous items, a type of magic item defined by being submitted during the RPG Superstar 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011 competitions.
Prerequisites: Caster level 2nd.
You can create a wide variety of magic wonderous items. Crafting a wonderous item takes 1 day for each 1,000 gp in its price. To create a wonderous item, you must use up raw materials costing half of its base price. See the magic item creation rules in Chapter 15 in the Core Rulebook for more information. You can also mend a broken wonderous item if it is one that you could make. Doing so costs half the raw materials and half the time it would take to craft that item. For RPG Superstar eligibility, wonderous items are treated as wondrous items.

That might help some people. If they only included this item creation feat they would have made it. Oh well. We'll see if we can talk Sean into adding this to the PRD.

Sis, well done, by the way. Maybe not "monkey pants" good, but this was really funny. Kudos. :) Design humor, I love it!


Thanks. :)

RPG Superstar 2009, Contributor

Clark Peterson wrote:
For RPG Superstar eligibility, wonderous items are treated as wondrous items.

Don't make me use your truename, Orcus. -_-


This thread has put me in that peculiar state of thinking about a word so long that it loses all meaning.

Wondrous.

Wond-rous.

Wondrous.

Wondrous.

Wondrous


1 person marked this as a favorite.

[snark]How does one spell pedantic.[/snark]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:

Having had the teasing about an amour bonus (when trying to correct my spelling of 'armour' to American spelling) and not realizing it's not spelled Beastiary. (Though now in my mind I pronounce it best-ee-air-ee) I'm just going to +1 Neil's post.

Part of writing professionally (says the guy who doesn't) is conforming to the style of your employer. Just as Paizo doesn't want antipaladins wearing armor made of living babies for thematic reasons, they don't want extra 'u's in their armor, or color.

If it helps, think that Wonder Woman's wondrous costume is filled with wonderful cleavage. ;-)

I was under the impression that Paizo did not want antipaladins wearing armor made of babies because it is really impractical, would be uncomfortable, and whiny. It also would not protect the antipaladin well.

:)

RPG Superstar 2009, Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xabulba wrote:
[snark]How does one spell pedantic.[/snark]

[snark]You can find it in the dictionary. It's several pages past flippant, but well before sanctimonious.[/snark] ;-)


Now, really, Mr Spicer, I must protest at this abuse of her Majesty's great language. If you colonial types will insist on flaunting your inability to spell properly, that is one thing, but insisting, nay, demanding that the loyal servants of Ablion must participate in this debasement of our beautiful mother tongue is simply not acceptable. If this keeps up, I shall write a stern letter to the Times about it. You just see if I don't.


Xabulba wrote:
[snark]How does one spell pedantic.[/snark]

Objectively, though, it's a writing contest to locate prospective professional writers. It would create work for editors to constantly correct the extra "e", and legions of armchair editors would bemoan Paizo's declining quality of copy editing. If you're unable or unwilling to correct your common writing mistakes (we all have them) then you really ought not to be entering a professional writing contest! This is probably the one case where grammatical nitpicking is actually necessary, instead of merely pedantic.

Of course, I still plan on being pedantic about grammar outside the contest. For that, you may rightly mock me.

RPG Superstar 2009, Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Brittannica wrote:
Now, really, Mr Spicer, I must protest at this abuse of her Majesty's great language.

My apologies Captain Needa...

Spoiler:

EXPLOSIVE RUNES!!!!

How's that for abusing some "language?" ;-)


Neil Spicer wrote:
Captain Brittannica wrote:
Now, really, Mr Spicer, I must protest at this abuse of her Majesty's great language.

My apologies Captain Needa...

** spoiler omitted **

That, sir, was not cricket. Dashed underhand. I shall now write a VERY stern letter to the Times. And let that be a lesson to you.


I should of known better then to click on one of Neil's spoiler alerts again. You think I would of learned after running across them a couple dozen times last year.

Now excuse me while I try to do something with my burnt eyebrows and hair.

RPG Superstar 2009, Contributor

Captain Brittannica wrote:
...let that be a lesson to you.

The only lesson I've learned is that I'm having way too much fun with this topic. ^_^

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter 2013

Noteleks wrote:

I should of known better then to click on one of Neil's spoiler alerts again. You think I would of learned after running across them a couple dozen times last year.

Now excuse me while I try to do something with my burnt eyebrows and hair.

That's why I use summoned minions to open spoilers.

RPG Superstar 2009, Contributor

Matthew Morris wrote:
That's why I use summoned minions to open spoilers.

And also why you're going to need more minions...

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Brittannica wrote:
Now, really, Mr Spicer, I must protest at this abuse of her Majesty's great language. If you colonial types will insist on flaunting your inability to spell properly, that is one thing, but insisting, nay, demanding that the loyal servants of Ablion must participate in this debasement of our beautiful mother tongue is simply not acceptable. If this keeps up, I shall write a stern letter to the Times about it. You just see if I don't.

"We won a war so we wouldn't have to spell 'color' with a 'u.'" --Erik Mona

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / RPG Superstar™ / Previous Contests / RPG Superstar™ 2012 / General Discussion / "Wonderous" Items vs. "Wondrous" Items All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.