Icon of Aspects
Aura moderate conjuration; CL 10th
Slot none; Price 9,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Description
Although cleric chooses domains that resonate with the way he worships his deity, he still acknowledges and venerates the other aspects of his god, as represented by the deity's other domains. With the use of the icon of aspects, the cleric can tap into the power of those other domains, if only briefly. By expending a use of his channel energy ability, the cleric (or other character with the ability to channel energy) can activate a domain power of any domain granted by his deity. This may only be used to activate domain powers that do not have a level requirement. When activating a domain power with a duration longer than instantaneous, the power lasts until the beginning of the cleric's next turn or the power's normal duration, whichever is shorter. The cleric must be able to present the icon of aspects in the same manner as an ordinary holy symbol in the use of channel energy. Activating the icon of aspects is a standard action regardless of whether or not the domain power activated requires an action.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, creator must be a divine caster and must worship the god represented by the icon; Cost 4,500 gp
I like this idea quite a bit. Not sure I want an item with this cheap of a cost (channel) to bypass an important class restriction on domains. I want to hear Sean's input on that. But playing with domain restrictions is something that gets me excited to see what this author can do.
The first thing I thought was "channel energy uses are a cheap currency"—you can easily get a lot of them, whereas there aren't many things that affect how many times per day you can use a domain power.
I like the idea of this item, but the currency cost is wrong. You should swap out a use of a power you have with the same number of uses per day to activate a similar-uses power of a different domain. Or perhaps two of your uses for one use of the other domain's power, as this is a slotless item, so you can just throw it in your backpack until you need to dig it out to grab the domain power you want.
Contributor; Publisher, Kobold Press; RPG Superstar Judge
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, at risk of being the mean judge, I have to say that I don't like the bypass premise, and I don't like the mechanic used. It undermines the flavor and the theme of domains, in favor of a power boost unconnected to the "right" divine source. That's just powergaming design, and I tend to dislike wondrous items that are pure power creep without a sense of wonder.
I would pass on this item, but defer to the other judges.
Contributor
,
Star Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9
|
Welcome to the Top 32, Christopher!
Your item presents a fairly novel solution to the problem of not having access to all the deity's domains. I agree with the judges that the cost of one channel energy is low. If this were limited to once per day per domain ability, or something along those lines, I think it would be more palatable. I'm also unused to seeing a wondrous item with no spell requirement, but there's nothing that says you can't do that. Finally, I'm left wondering if this item can be used in place of a holy symbol, and I think you could have spent a few words answering that question. Still, these are very minor concerns for an otherwise interesting item.
Best of luck to you in future rounds!
I like tapping into your deity’s other domains. My cleric used to do it all the time with a non-Pathfinder spell. Trouble is that this item is too expensive for low level clerics, just right for mid level, and too cheap for high level clerics considering how clerics gain access to their domain powers. The first sentence is clunky and should have been caught by proofreading.
First of all, congratulations on making the Top 32! That in itself is a major accomplishment and it’s something you should take great pride in. You rock!
I actually quite like this item. I'm ok with the one usage of channeled energy cost, but only because the domain power you receive is limited to a one round maximum duration. Plus the domain powers without level requirements aren't generally overpowering. I think one way to limit abuse would be to limit the icon's usage to 2 or 3 times per day. One thing that did bother me was that the item doesn't have a spell requirement. That's not a rules violation, but it did make me do a double-take. All that said, your item resonated well with the voters (and me!), so well done! Best of luck in the archetype round!
Congratulations!!
I think this is one that I only saw once, and I believe that I down voted it since it was against my favorite item (Cloudwrangler's Gloves).
I have to admit, I didn't like the item not mentioning the possibility of replacing one's holy symbol. I also did not like having no descriptive text, but I understand the smart design choice of not having any...a cleric of X deity would have Y description.
One channel is low, but for those who aren't maximizing Channel's it will become a good choice to use the item or the channel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Admittedly, I'm prone to dinging things - possibly unfairly - limited exclusively for one or two classes. This is a strictly Cleric-only item. Not a big fan, myself. (Especially since I prefer Oracles. >_> Go go spont casting.)
That said, it's well made for a cleric-only item and a unique concept with the swapping of/accessing alternate domain powers. Though I agree with Sean about the price.
I saw this item several times, and definitely liked it. I think I probably up-voted it every time, or certainly most of the time. I'm a little surprised it got in, I'll admit, but only because I thought the judges would dislike that you were sort of letting a character bypass some of the choices he has to make at creation.
That said, for me, it works thanks to your intro about acknowledging and venerating other aspects of the user's god (though shouldn't it be here -- the iconic cleric is a woman so references to a gender in a magic item should match that?). Without that fluff, I'm not sure I'd have liked this anywhere near as much as I did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you, everyone. Believe me, I've hit myself with every one of those criticisms since I hit the "submit" button, and there are no words to describe the feeling of having "Create Pit" cast in my stomach the day after, when I re-read what I submitted. "Although cleric chooses"? *Chris Farley Self-slap*
And while my initial impression was that this kind of versatility might be power-creepy, I also priced it as a mid-level item, which meant a cleric wouldn't get one until about level 5 or 6 at the soonest. And I looked at literally all the other 1st-level domain powers, and basically said "Is this better than a 3d6 channel?" By and large, it seemed like a fair trade. Less outright power for a little more versatility, and you were still limited to your own deity's domains. A few of them had long-lasting effects which I felt were too generous, which led me to introduce the duration limit.
But yes, as far as those criticisms go, I wavered on all of those points, steeled myself on others, and if I were to re-submit, it would have fixed some of those issues. But sent is sent. Thank you for taking the time to critique it.
I am awed and honored to have made it into the Top 32. Thank you to everyone who voted.
I agree with Wolfgang on this one. I don't think every form of expendable used by a player needs to have an "exchange rate" so they can cash in towards other expendables.So, thematically, I'm precisely the wrong audience for this one. The mechanical writing is fine though, aside from one lamentable goof.
I consistently voted against this item for bypassing fundamental limitations with no meaningful cost. Just something I don't like.
It's a concept that makes some sense, but this doesn't feel like it found the right way to do it.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka JoelF847
|
This was one of the items I saw a lot while voting that I really liked. I wasn't crazy about the channelilng cost, but mainly because I felt that limiting it to 1st level domain abilities was enough of a restriction, and would have been fine with 3/day. I particularly liked that the item addresses that point that while clerics pick 2 domains, they aren't ignoring the other aspects of their god; it was nice to see a bit of philosophy/theology mixed into a mechanilcally fun item.
Although this item was a little mechanically minded for my tastes, I think it goes somewhere new, so kudos for that. I love giving items drawbacks, so my first thought regarding balancing the 'exchange rate' would be to make it as big as a man.
I can picture your average PC dragging it into the dungeon behind him on a cart, or carried by a long-suffering (and very frightened) minion. Of course, if you're a giant you're laughing.
I liked this item, and voted for it pretty consistently. It did something I hadn't seen before, which is always a plus.
Congratulations, and good luck in the archetype round!
I really liked the core concept of this item, but I really think the limits should have been handled differently. SKR's proposed solution makes a lot of sense, though I also like the idea of making it a consumable item. I can see why people would think it trivializes the importance of carefully selecting your domains, but at the same time, the logic behind this makes sense and has a lot of appeal to me. It needs some tweaks, but I agree with the judges call here and I want to see more.
Can't wait to see what you submit next round and congrats on making it to the Top 32!
Way to divide the judges and voting public! I looove the way the commets are falling either side of this item - some very well-reasoned, strong arguments against and some equally very well-reasoned, stong arguments for.
Times like this it's abundantly clear even mechanics is sometimes as much an art as a science, with a LOT of opposing views. And that is a very good thing.
And what an art! I'm kinda on the "for" side - I like what the item does - sure it's for less than 5% of characters, but any cleric worth his/her/its salt will clamor for this. And really, divinity is such a closed shop sometimes - so lets ease up on the one domain shtick huh? If you've got it, let your adherents flaunt it - if they have this Icon and they are prepared to expend the channel usage.
Very nice work Christopher. May your archetype be as equally creative, ingenious and perhaps, as divisive. Or not, on that last point. :)
I saw this item during voting and I tend to agree with judges. Designers must create a space for the players to make interesting and meaningful choices. If we play too fast and loose with bending the rules for that sense of "awesome" we end up making items and abilities that really aren't choices at all. I agree with SKR, that this item is likely to be kept in a bag until it's needed, then whipped out to make whatever easier.
That said, the item concept is solid, and definitely worth exploring.
Christopher, congrats on making it through to the top 32. You found an interesting niche - clerics bending domain restrictions a little - and went for it.
Despite everyone's misgivings, I think you bent the rules just enough (though perhaps your cost is too cheap, but see below) - using different domains of your existing deity is a perfect balance between offering more choice, and reigning it in. After all, that will grant the average player access to what, maybe three or four more domains?
Which actually brings up a point. The domains you're already using are probably the ones best balanced to your class. Sometimes, you can use this to say, gain access to the luck domain or something - but otherwise you're using this to gain sub-optimal powers. Perhaps the cost is spot on, one thing you have access to a lot of, to one thing that's less useful?
It would be better if using the item changed one of your domains for the day. With the effective character level of the new domain being equal to the number of channels used, maxed by class level of course.
As prior entries will tell you, Template Fu is one mean point eating machine, but will also praise where praise is due.
These reviews being this in depth usually take me a while to do and they get fitted in around other demands on my time, so please bear with me if I haven’t gotten to your item yet. I will get there in the end.
There are a couple of feedback categories that are easy to score high on as I do like everyone to get a good grade somewhere, conversely, there are also some categories that will sting everyone – you have been warned ;)
Review Caveat: I try to keep things totally dispassionate and all comments herein are my own. Having not made the illustrious levels that you have achieved this year, I can only caveat that anything I propose in feedback may not be totally in line with what Paizo thinks or needs of its freelance game designers, so do consider carefully any and all feedback I make under this light.
I start your review with…
Congratulations on being selected by the public at large and then the stalwart judges!
Review Breakdown:
Template: 4/5
Hungry! Staying Hungry… Gotcha!
You use your item name in the description text – go check out other items that do this – do you notice anything about the formatting of the item name? Yup, should be in italics.
I’m not sure about the skill phrasing part of the construction, it’s new but that is also one of the reasons this shines – you are stretching the boundaries. As I haven’t seen that sort of “must worship” phraseology in construction, I am going to say you have defined the way for that – so Template Fu only gets 1 point of food after all!
Spelling: 5/5
Everyone should know to use US English, so you just know that I am going to eat points for stray ‘u’ letters and similar.
Template Fu falls asleep with nothing to eat here!
Readability: 2/5
For me, I believe the rule system target comprehension level is 11 year olds and up, so I have included this to review everyone’s entry using the MS Word Grammar scoring system, which measures passivity, and the reading scores that determine age comprehension. Then using my self appointed expectation of target comprehension level, I have tried to score everyone consistently in this category as it is an area whereby I can mathematically deduce a score.[/i]
Passive Sentences 14% (very well done)
There are whole threads on this and it is possible to get 0%, which is wicked, but I would expect scores of less than 20% to be around the ideal mark for item descriptions (sometimes, you need the passive, but only rarely).
Flesch Reading Ease 39.3 (-1 pt – owch!)
(0-30 best understood by university graduates, 60-70 easily understood by 13-15 year olds, 90-100 easily understood by 11 year olds)
Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level 14.0 (-2 pt – owch! Wall of words is hitting you hard!)
(This equates to the grades found in the US schooling system, e,g. 8.2 means it should be understandable by the average 8th grade student)
Me as a Designer Review: 4/5
First off, to get it out of the way, Ugh! Wall of Words! This is a personal thing for me, I like to be able to scan an item description should a rule call be needed in an on-going game. Walls of words hurts my ability to do so. Designers should consider this sort of thing – fast games are fun games, games bogged down in the rule book, not so much. (I will admit here, some of my work is also guilty of this).
Not sure about the term Aspect – it brings to mind very specific memories of monsters – remember the “Aspect of ….” monsters in the 3.5 edition books? So initially, I thought this was going to be some sort of “make me 30 feet tall and allow my god to assume residency in my body” sort of thing. I am glad to say it wasn’t.
The first sentence is kind of clunky, try for example reading it aloud up to the first comma as it is then make this minor alteration and see if you prefer it. “Although clerics choose domains …” (I moved one “s”, but you would in this sentence then need to change the he’s to they’s. Another solution would be to add “a” before cleric as it is currently written.
The rest is pretty good, the designer within me wondered why you didn’t say that the icon is a holy symbol of that faith too – that resolves a lot of the presenting rule text you added.
The price has been mentioned already, so what I will do is suggest something you could have tried to get closer to your price – you could have made it such that when the cleric prays for his spells, he empowers the icon with one of the domains he doesn’t have access to at that time. This encourages role play as the cleric must still plan ahead and at the same time restricts item abuse and forces down the price that the item likely should be as it currently stands. I hope that helps.
Overall Impression: 4/5
There was excellent attention and execution of the template (so much so, I privately hope some of it came from reading my template thread from last year, one can but hope), but the item name in description pitfall caught you as it does so many others.
I still now find Aspect jarring – I am myself hopeless at item names, but I think in this case it jars me enough to feed Template Fu a point.
I think had you walked away for a day and come back to it, the wall of words would have hit you yourself, but on the whole, this is a clever idea, a good solid entry, well done.
Final Score: 19/25
I won’t give a final score comment as I haven’t reviewed all the items in this detail yet, I suggest that if it interests, you can watch as I progress through the items to see your final placement in my review scoring system.
Closing, as I started…
Congratulations on being selected!
This concept is interesting, but I agree with Sean about the incorrect currency cost and Steve's observations about the price of the item relative to its potential usefulness. The description text would also probably benefit from a complete rewrite - it's a bit clunky in parts.
For me, it isn't enough for an item to do something that's just mechanically beneficial and novel - I want to know what the item looks like and get a good visual effect of how it works for an in-game description. This entry is high on crunch and low on flavor, and while excessive flavor can be bad, I think you need at least a little bit to draw in the reader and capture their imagination. This item didn't do that for me.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I liked your item during voting because it was a risky choice. Two statements are both true at the same time: channeling is an easy, maybe even non-creative way to pay for flexibility, and, just as true, Pathfinder needs to have a mechanism for flexibility in domain choices. Not that domains aren't cool or shouldn't be defining, but because Pathfinder is a game that doesn't shy away from exceptions to the rules if they make sense or fill an rp space.
So maybe your approach didn't knock it all the way out of the park, but it was a brave choice and a needed option. Kudis to you.
Congratulations and good luck!
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6
aka Mattrex
|
First of all, congratulations on making Top 32! Good luck in round two.
My impression is largely the same as other reviewers': domain selection is an important aspect of character creation, as equally as important to a cleric as their choice of race and deity. Just as one would be very careful with an item that allows you to change your race at will (notwithstanding the several items I saw this year that allowed just that), we should be careful with any item that allows you to change normally irreversible decisions made at 1st level.
That said, I really did like the idea of temporarily adopting other aspects of your god. I'd have fussed with the requirements: I wouldn't have made channel energy a currency to exchange, but would rather have allowed the cleric to swap out a domain for 24 hours once a week, or something similarly restrictive. The real key here is, when designing an item that swaps or exhanges values, you have to make sure that the alternate value is around for less often than the base value, otherwise they switch places. You did limit duration somewhat with the one-round maximum, which was a good effort at curtailing long-term abuse, but it also results in PCs using it only when necessary and in a very granular, mechanistic fashion.
That said? I did vote for this item, several times. I do like giving players options--sort of my personal creed is that there should be an option for PCs to do everything--and this stood out to me as a solid example despite its flaws.
I'm not sure I saw this in voting. If I did, it was only one time and I don't remember how I voted. I almost submitted and item that did something similar to this. I like the idea, obviously, but I concur with others in that the currency used is potentially breaking, as well as the versatility of being able to choose the domain power at any time as needed. Overall, I like it. Good luck with your archetype.
The Good: Absolutely adore the concept and it makes sense in allot of ways.
The Bad: The judges beat you up on the cost and I agree.
The Ugly: Less a nick more of a missed opportunity. If you trimmed the prose a bit I'd have loved a 2-fer where there are heritical versions of the item that allow for different domains...
That said: congrats on a cool item and making the top 32
Hi. Thanks for the evaluation, but I'm confused by this:
You use your item name in the description text – go check out other items that do this – do you notice anything about the formatting of the item name? Yup, should be in italics.
Um. It is? Does it not look that way to you?
The first sentence is kind of clunky, try for example reading it aloud up to the first comma as it is then make this minor alteration and see if you prefer it. “Although clerics choose domains …” (I moved one “s”, but you would in this sentence then need to change the he’s to they’s. Another solution would be to add “a” before cleric as it is currently written.
Yeah, fully owned up; poor proofreading. That missing a will haunt me for the rest of my days.
but the item name in description pitfall caught you as it does so many others.
But it didn't...?
I still now find Aspect jarring – I am myself hopeless at item names, but I think in this case it jars me enough to feed Template Fu a point.
I think had you walked away for a day and come back to it,
Definitely agree with the thought. Many improvements came to me in the days following submission. After a second ding here for no physical description, I have to confess: that was the single thing, while waiting for the results, that made me think I had no chance at all in this. I was imagining a handheld painting of a god or saint, but if I were to submit this again, I would make it a handheld triptych depicting the god engaging in things signifying the various domains. I wish it had occurred to me to say it could replace a holy symbol, that would have been the best improvement in the fewest words for the overall feel.
Unfortunately, I'm shorted a day on round 2 because I'll be on a train coming back from NYC to Baltimore, so I've got to submit my template Friday morning. So.....
Back to work! Thanks for the words.
Hmmm, not sure why the italics weren't showing before - possibly tired eyes on my part. When I wrote the review, my laptop screen showed the first use in normal font - I do apologise because on my iPad they are fine. When Template Fu regurgitates, you are welcome to that point back, the second point was deducted for Aspect, so I think he can keep that one.
I will revise my score for you up to 20 :D
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Locke1520
|
Congratulations on making the top 32! This is a cool idea that certainly deserves exploring. I'm not sold on the current incarnation but there is some creative mojo at work here if you ever go back and tweak this I'd love to see what the results look like. I often feel like options for cleric items are a little thin so you're playing in a design space I like.
Good luck with round two. I'm very curious what sort of archetype you have in store for us.
I like that you're limited to other domains of the same deity because, as others have said, you've already picked your favorite two so you wouldn't be using this all the time. I don't like the use of channel energy to activate it, and I'd like to know what it actually looks like.
What happens when a concept (deityless) cleric uses it?
Congratulations Christopher,
Domain choice is one of the hardest I have had to make, because it stays with you the whole time (feats, spells, skills all increase with levels). Kudos for this ingenious take & it is inspiring me in some new directions.
Suggestions for R2: balance. Or rather give this two the power gamer at your table and ask them how would you break this?
Good luck and nice job!
I generally like the idea, but I am a powergamer at heart.
I would have required something else on that creation line...like 5 ranks of Knowledge (Religion) or similar.
Congrats.
Allowing a cleric to have limited access to the other domains of his deity by sacrificing a channel energy...cool (I'll more than likely increase this cost to 2 channel attempts when i steal, i mean borrow this for my home game), but...
Allowing a paladin to gain access to domain powers via the same item...not so cool. This is one of those rare occasions where i think a single-class specific item is not only ok, but is actually better.
Christopher,
Congratulations on making the Top 32! I found your item intriguing in the way it played with the rules. I did vote it up a bit, as its creativity placed it above a lot of other items it was paired against. I think some of the others are spot-on in suggesting this should be a one-shot consumable though. Making the already powerful and versatile cleric that much more so with a wondrous item is a bit much. Best of luck in the next round.
Congrats.
Allowing a cleric to have limited access to the other domains of his deity by sacrificing a channel energy...cool (I'll more than likely increase this cost to 2 channel attempts when i steal, i mean borrow this for my home game), but...
Allowing a paladin to gain access to domain powers via the same item...not so cool. This is one of those rare occasions where i think a single-class specific item is not only ok, but is actually better.
Very good point. However, assuming you double the cost to 2 channels, then that's 4 uses of lay on hands for the paladin. Your 6th level paladin of Iomedae can heal 12d6 points of damage on his party with lay on hands, or 6d6 by channeling energy, or he can use it to give your bard +6 to Diplomacy for one roll. If your bard only has a 12 Charisma, that's all his lay on hands uses for the day. I mean I see your point, I just don't think it's a bad thing.
Maybe my experience with channel energy is different from most people's. I see them either being used after a fight to have everyone gather around and heal up, or sitting useless at the end of the day. The goal of my item was just to make the ability more interesting, because I like options. And between the cleric's channeling and regular healing, most parties I run games for end up going in fresh to every fight, which makes it difficult sometimes to make them feel like they're ever in any danger. Enticing the cleric to burn through their channels seemed like a good idea.
EDIT: Which is in no way meant to say that I refute the criticisms that people have lain upon it.
Congratulations Christopher, on making the Top 32!
I've always been interested in ways to make Clerics feel more tied to their gods and less generic. I was a big fan of the old concept of spheres in second edition (when the idea of game balance was very different to now) and the generic Cleric spell list does little for me in that regard. So anything that plays to that desire to have Clerics really embody their patron's concerns is going to do well with me.
I really like the idea of swapping out domain powers but it feels too powerful to me. Maybe I need to check out the durations of powers, as limiting it to one round may be enough of a check, but instinctively it allows too much diversity of action. However, I don't think it's really overpowered so I'm not going to look at it too harshly.
There's a good idea here, in an area I like, so I'm interested to see what else you do. Good luck!