TORC OF TERRAN TRANSFORMATION
I do not recall seeing your item while voting, but I must say I doubt i would have voted for it. Essentially it is just a Monster in a Can, giving the wearer a Swiss Army Knife of bonuses. It just lacks the pizzaz I am looking for in a superstar Item when voting.
I think the best part of your item is the Name and the first sentence of description. I was expecting an item that allowed the user to transform the earth around them and was curious how that would tie to the lore and legend of dragons. It peeked my interest and that is something a lot of the items in the contest did not do.
Thanks for sharing with us James, better luck next year.
Gloves of Suspended Arcana
Congrats on your item making it into the Top 100, and for improving over you entry last year. I saw this several times and voted for it many of those times. I liked the simple design and the way to played with the touch spell rules. Creative. It seems mechanically sound, but ultimately it's a "good in a book of magic items" type entry for me. I wish it had some kind of WOW it does that too kind of effect, and I don't mean in the description. I think you made the right choice about leaving that up to the DM's.
Keep at it and next year you will do better. Thanks for sharing with us Raisse.
Lens of Forceful Concordance
I saw this a few times during the vote, and I may have voted for it once or twice over less creative items. I think you have neat concept, sucking a bunch of creatures into one space for a limited time, though I am not sure what I would use it for. I guess I could even the playing field in a battle against large numbers, but it's effect doesn't WOW me as it is. I am also unsure why this is an eye lens because it seems not to really have any thematic connection to the user seeing. I get the prism connection but I think this would work better as something you toss down and have the creatures sucked into. I also think the mechanics need work and better clarity.
Thanks for sharing it with us MicMan, Good luck next year.
I submitted the following item, i'm hoping that some of you - hopefully some judges as well could give me some feedback on how to improve for next year.
Akene Amulet
Congrats on making it onto the Top 100 List, this is a pretty cool Item. I do not recall seeing it a lot during the voting process but when I did it got my vote. I love the visual and the creativity behind the item. I only wish it had done something more useful than hide the trail of the party.
As a DM I would love to see this in a book of magic items, it would be great to frustrate players once with it during the course of an adventure. As a player I am not as thrilled with it, I wouldn't be jumping out of my skin to claim it from a treasure horde when the loot gets divided.
Thanks for sharing it with us Kaartus, I bet next year you will be WOWing us again, not only with the visuals but with the effect as well.
I thought I posted this on page 2 but I guess I messed that up... facepalm. Feel free to be brutal I don;t pull any punches on my thread.
Shadow Archer’s Gage
Congrats, Your Item was in the Top 100! I kind of liked this item and I voted for it most of the time that I saw it during the voting period. I really liked the description of the shadow actually firing the arrows..and wished that Item had delt more with that image.
The biggest question I had about this, is why did it need to have a bow and arrows stored to operate? Why not just arrows? I also thought the perception checks to get caught flat footed a second time in a combat was a poor design choice.
I liked the shadow arrows, but I thought that would be cooler if that was the main function..turn normal arrows into shadow arrows that could affect incorporeal creatures while you are using you hands to cast spells or channel or what ever, your shadow could be blasting away.
Nice work and better luck next year. Thanks for sharing your Item with us GM_Solspiral.
Mine was the Plague Cake;
Plague Cake
I saw this Item several times while voting and I liked it, I voted for it several times. I think it is creative and well written. The DM in me loved it, I can see using this in a campaign ( and I just might in the next few months) to mess with the PC's. However the Player side of me doesn't really see a need to use it. I wouldn't get excited about it if I found it in a treasure horde. So while being super creative and well thought out, it does't have the WOW factor that takes it from "great in a book of magic items" to Super star for me.
Thanks for sharing it Cathara, Good luck next year...I think you are close to making it into the Top 32.
So, how does this work?
Teapot of Potion Mixture
I do not remember seeing this during the voting period, but I will be honest and say it would not have gotten my vote. For me it just seems ripe for abuse, six characters now have access to up to three spell potions. It falls into the makes adventuring too easy, avoid the risks. There is nothing that prevents me from buying a bunch of potions and then brewing and storing my new super potions for later use.
Thanks for sharing it with us Azouth, I hope you will enter again next year.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
,
Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8
aka Cathara
|
Mine was the Plague Cake;
Plague Cake
I saw this Item several times while voting and I liked it, I voted for it several times. I think it is creative and well written. The DM in me loved it, I can see using this in a campaign ( and I just might in the next few months) to mess with the PC's. However the Player side of me doesn't really see a need to use it. I wouldn't get excited about it if I found it in a treasure horde. So while being super creative and well thought out, it does't have the WOW factor that takes it from "great in a book of magic items" to Super star for me.
Thanks for sharing it Cathara, Good luck next year...I think you are close to making it into the Top 32.
Thank you :) That's much appreciated.
First thank you to everyone for helping people out. Second:
Shadowmancer’s Heart
I saw this several times during the vote, I think I did vote for it a couple of times over items that were less creative. I liked the name and the opening description and I was interested in reading more. I liked the visuals of your powers, I was just not a fan of the powers. For me this is a bit of a Swiss Army Knife of shadow powers. I was not a fan of the innate power to ignore vision penalties and I think this would have been stronger with out it.
I like the cascading shadow, however you haven't altered it from the spell haunting mists so that falls into the Spell in a Can category.
I think the best part of this is the third power, however I am not a fan of items that have a drawback to use. As a player I am going to avoid this, as a DM I can find other ways to thwart the party with out having to keep track of extra things like negative levels, especially random ones. I love the idea and look behind this ability, I just think it could be executed better.
Thanks for sharing it with us I'M INCREDIBLE, I look forward to what you might put out next year.
My item. Go easy on me - fair and honest, but gentle. It's my first time... asking for feedback.
Ever Beating Heart
First off...Welcome to the competition I hope you have caught the RPG Superstar bug. I saw this a few times while voting...sadly I couldn't bring myself to vote for it. You have a creative idea...a heart that keeps a target alive I just felt it was a bit gruesome. I know that some games go for this and that's okay, it's just not for me.
While it is a good idea, I think mechanically it has some issues. The biggest one for me..Why does a creature targeted still take damage, including extra bleed damage when the heart is used? If they can not die what benefit are they getting? I'd rather use my action in the round to use the Heal skill to stabilize my companion to stop the hp loss caused by the dying condition. That's assuming I don't have a spell or item that will cure them. Potions and scrolls are cheaper and the target then gets hp back and can rejoin the fight.
Thanks for sharing this with us Jester David, I hope this helps and that you are already working on next years entry.
Leaf of the Seasons
I only saw this item a few times during the vote. Honestly I did not vote for it. As you indicated it was pretty much a spell in a can, and it was actually four items in one. However I like the idea behind and having a leaf brooch that is connected to the seasons is kind of cool. I think this would have benefitted if you had focused on one leaf or made it a brooch made in the image of all four leaves joined together. Visually I would have liked more detail about the leaves...perhaps a dogwood for spring, an oak for summer, a maple for fall, and a pine needle/cone for winter. More importantly finding a way to be inspired by the control weather spell to do something new an innovative is the key. Good Luck next year, don't let English be a barrier...find someone to proof read for you. I suspect many here on the boards would be willing to give it a once over to make sure its clear.
Thanks for sharing it with us Bardess.
I hope that I am not too late to get a critique, I am proud of this item, I think maybe it just wasn't exciting enough, thanks in advance for reviews.
Torc of the Master Woodcutter
Aura faint necromancy and transmutation ; CL 5th
Slot neck; Price 7500gp; Weight 1lb.
Description
An old but well cared for bronze torc, with only the slightest decoration. When a character places the item on for the first time their mind is flooded with the memories and experiences of a solitary woodcutter granting them +5 competence modifier to profession(woodcutter) while the necklace is worn. In addition they gain +2 to damage against Treants and other creatures with the plant creature type or who are primarily composed of wood. Finally whenever the wearer makes a full attack on an object or structure primarily composed of wood the character may deal double damage.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wonderous Item, speak with dead, warp wood other requirements; 3,750 gp
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
,
Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8
aka Cathara
|
I hope that I am not too late to get a critique, I am proud of this item, I think maybe it just wasn't exciting enough, thanks in advance for reviews.
Torc of the Master Woodcutter
Aura faint necromancy and transmutation ; CL 5th
Slot neck; Price 7500gp; Weight 1lb.
Description
An old but well cared for bronze torc, with only the slightest decoration. When a character places the item on for the first time their mind is flooded with the memories and experiences of a solitary woodcutter granting them +5 competence modifier to profession(woodcutter) while the necklace is worn. In addition they gain +2 to damage against Treants and other creatures with the plant creature type or who are primarily composed of wood. Finally whenever the wearer makes a full attack on an object or structure primarily composed of wood the character may deal double damage.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wonderous Item, speak with dead, warp wood other requirements; 3,750 gp
I loved this item! I voted for it every time it came up. Wonderfully flavourful, not overpowered and just rather fun to have. Brief and concise without being confusing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cathara and Feros thank you so much for the feedback! Tooting my own horn, but I was proud of the third power as I thought it a fitting parody of the Treant's ability.
I hope that I am not too late to get a critique, I am proud of this item, I think maybe it just wasn't exciting enough, thanks in advance for reviews.
Torc of the Master Woodcutter
It's mostly a skill bonus in a can. I would have liked to see something a bit more creative mechanics-wise than simply doubling your damage against wood structures. It does have some style format issues with it. However, the item is fairly cohesive and flavorful. I would rather have this than some overcomplicated SAK.
On a fridge logic train, I have to laugh and question why a wizard would infuse the memories of a woodcutter into a magic item. He could have imbued the torc with the knowledge of a revolutionary scholar or the wisdom of a monk who spent a lifetime achieving enlightenment. Instead, he got some lonely lumberjack's memories and shoved them into a torc so whoever wears it can be better at chopping wood.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
,
Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8
aka Cathara
|
I hope that I am not too late to get a critique, I am proud of this item, I think maybe it just wasn't exciting enough, thanks in advance for reviews.
Torc of the Master Woodcutter
It's mostly a skill bonus in a can. I would have liked to see something a bit more creative mechanics-wise than simply doubling your damage against wood structures. It does have some style format issues with it. However, the item is fairly cohesive and flavorful. I would rather have this than some overcomplicated SAK.
On a fridge logic train, I have to laugh and question why a wizard would infuse the memories of a woodcutter into a magic item. He could have imbued the torc with the knowledge of a revolutionary scholar or the wisdom of a monk who spent a lifetime achieving enlightenment. Instead, he got some lonely lumberjack's memories and shoved them into a torc so whoever wears it can be better at chopping wood.
It has a few bonuses that are all perfectly fitting and filled with flavour.
Plus I liked it having the memories of a normal, mundane person. It reminds players that not every single person in the world is some legendary whatever. It brings things down to earth a bit. And is still hugely open to story.
Hey, sorry this is belated, but thanks for the feedback on my Headband of the Hirsute guys. I appreciate the thoughts since some of what I did wrong was getting too dedicated to a concept, and didn't consider players thoughts about the flavor.
Thanks again!
I'll do item reviews upon request. PM me if you want an in-depth critique on your item. First come, first serve.
Too late to get a critique?
Nope, it shouldn't ever be too late! :D
Astral Spike
I'm not sure I can tell you much more than the other critiquers have said about your item, but maybe I can give you some more details. It definitely does too much. It is for the most part well written and simply explained, but it is overpowered. All the abilities are related and that is good, but there is just too much here, especially for the price. If it only did the first thing, and only once per day, it would still be good and might be worth the 20,000 gp price. The other two abilities are also good and are just gravy on top of bacon, and that clogs the arteries.
The range on the first ability is really large. It looks like you got this from the Dimensional Anchor spell, but that spell at least requires a ranged touch attack and cannot be used to interrupt extradimensional travel as it happens. Your ability doesn't require an attack roll or a save to negate the travel, but only for the secondary curse type effect. And it is usable three times per day. Think about what an item that casts Dimensional Anchor three times per day might cost and then realize how much better it would be if it did it as an immediate action with no attack roll. And then it also causes a curse that randomly teleports, and deals damage for 2d6 rounds. That's way too powerful. The full round action Will save option to avoid is not really a balance as it seems unlikely to even be utilized. If the full round action and a successful save ended the curse-like the effect, that might be good, but just to avoid 1d10 damage and avoid being moved 5 feet for one round? I would only lose my whole turn to avoid this for a single round if I were close to death, and even then, since I didn't get a turn, I'm likely dead anyway by the actions of my enemies. I'd probably just risk the damage to try to escape again. Maybe it only takes a move action to avoid?
The second ability is powerful as well, but not more than a banishment spell. It doesn't say what action it takes to activate this ability so it defaults to a standard action which is fine. It is unclear what "slammed" means. My first reading brought to mind that it was held in hand and violently "thumped" on the ground to activate, but it could also imply that it is violently thrown to the ground. I don't have a problem with the ability overall, but attached to the first ability, which is already too powerful, it just adds to the power of the item overall.
The last ability is just an RPGSS no, no. It breaks SKR's auto-reject advice #21. Basically, you don't want a magic item to make a character choice obsolete. Whether it be class ability or a racial ability or a feat or giving a large skill boost, it should be avoided. Maybe you knew this and thought that because it was in theme, it might get a pass from advice #27, but I don't think it does and many public voters may not have either.
One thing that comes to mind that might help to balance the item a little (but not enough) is to assign it an item slot. The first ability does not say that the item must be in hand to activate the ability. It uses the term "wielder" to reference the person in possession of the spike (as does the third ability) but this doesn't clearly mean that it must be in hand to use the ability. It might be taken that the item can be carried in a pack or in tucked into a belt to benefit from these abilities and that adds to its power. It should at the very least clearly cost you a free hand, if not an item slot. I'm not sure what item slot I would suggest using, but maybe gloves or head? You might have to re-theme the unicorn horn reference, but that might be a sacrifice that needs to be made.
The creation requirements are pretty crazy. Four feats and four spells seems like overkill. I get the building blocks for the most part. I don't think you needed Hostile Juxtaposition, though I get that it was to explain the teleporting curse. I'm guessing that the True Strike inclusion was to explain the lack of an attack roll for the Dimentional Anchor effect. Is that right? I think it was unnecessary, but the lack of a roll is a problem mentioned above. Since you have Heighten Spell in here, I would just make the two save DCs be the same (and might have done it arbitrarily without the feat).
Overall, there was some good thoughts in here, but the first ability was too much and the other two just made the balance further out of whack. I have a feeling that your hatred of villains escaping via teleport maybe made you push this item into the broken area. I've had some GMs in the past who are too in love with their NPCs to let them die. I feel for you, but a quality GM should know better than to over use this. My biggest advice for you is to carefully consider the power of your item before you submit. I hope this helps and good luck next year.
Thanks for the feedback. It looks like I should focus on focusing. Design items that just do one thing, and do one thing well.
If you posted an item before this post, I have critiqued you on the good, bad, and ugly thread.
Thanks for the feedback. It looks like I should focus on focusing. Design items that just do one thing, and do one thing well.
Well, yes, generally. In my opinion, if your item has more than one ability they should be linked mechanically as well as thematically. I think my last two entries have both had this. The three abilities of your item are all thematically linked, but are all independent of each other mechanically. It is ok for a fairly minor ability to only be thematically linked, and is best when it seems secondary or almost incidental. Your item this year didn't have that and all three abilities seemed like they could have been their own item. On the other hand, your 2012 top 32 item, CLAW OF THE CRAWLING SPELL, had a somewhat minor ability with the increase of range for touch spells. Though that ability is more powerful than most minor abilities, it is simply explained in two sentences and seems very secondary to the main ability. Though it is always best to cover every ability in the creation requirements, I love it when a minor item ability seems like it may have been a "happy accident" that the creator may not have even intended.
I think if I re-did the Astral Spike, I would give it 3 charges per day, and let them be used for the baleful teleport interruptor or the banishment ability; and as long as the Astral Spike has at least 1 charge, it would bestow the use of Teleport Tactician, and maybe grant a bonus to attack and/or damage if the wielder already has the Teleport Tactician feat.
I think the Teleport Tactician feat is nifty, but really nichey, and I've never seen anyone take it, or seen a creature in any of the Bestiaries take it.
Would the Astral Spike have been more Superstar if it teleported its victims 10 feet or 1d6x5 feet, or something like that?
I think the Teleport Tactician feat is nifty, but really nichey, and I've never seen anyone take it, or seen a creature in any of the Bestiaries take it.
Would the Astral Spike have been more Superstar if it teleported its victims 10 feet or 1d6x5 feet, or something like that?
I hear you on the feat, but it still breaks Reject #21 and many voters won't vote for it just because of that. I have mixed feelings about magic items granting feats, but the powers that be say it's bad and that might be a deciding factor in my vote if both items are close. I think your idea about requiring a charge is a step in the right direction for sure, but I'd be cautious of breaking any of the auto-reject advice unless the item just wouldn't be superstar without it.
I really like the random teleporting short distances as a sort of curse effect. It seems like a spellblight to me and I had to check to see if it was one when critiquing your item. I would limit it to 10 feet maximum, since it happens every round. More than that would get really annoying for everyone. Also, one thing that I didn't point out in my critique is how this teleport curse thing interacts with the Teleport Tactician feat. I assume every round my opponent teleports 5 feat, even though it is not intentional, it gives me an AOO. That makes the first ability even that much more broken. I'd lose the feat or fix this in another way.
The teleport curse is a cool effect, but the biggest problem with Astral Spike is that it causes an automatic fail of an enemy's spell, as an immediate action, with no attack roll needed and no save to negate or lessen. I can save to avoid the teleportation curse, but I still lose my spell and my escape route. Very few single effects in the game, if any, do something this powerful without a chance to avoid it. It's just not fair and too powerful. Fix that and you'll be closer to balancing the item.
I think if I re-did the Astral Spike, I would give it 3 charges per day, and let them be used for the baleful teleport interruptor or the banishment ability; and as long as the Astral Spike has at least 1 charge, it would bestow the use of Teleport Tactician, and maybe grant a bonus to attack and/or damage if the wielder already has the Teleport Tactician feat.
I think the Teleport Tactician feat is nifty, but really nichey, and I've never seen anyone take it, or seen a creature in any of the Bestiaries take it.
Would the Astral Spike have been more Superstar if it teleported its victims 10 feet or 1d6x5 feet, or something like that?
In my opinion, that would not address any of Nick's concerns. I consistently voted against this item for all of the reasons Nick gave. I also never really understood why an item that completely bars teleportation can force a teleportation effect.
I'm also not a big fan of "charge" items, because it adds extra book keeping. Plus, it's easier and more elegant to use if the item works constantly or only once per day.
It's still genereally considered bad design to have a wondrous item bestow a feat. Even if you have a good reason for bestowing it (which I've never seen a good example of one), neither judges nor voters look favorably upon it.
If it were me, I'd keep the item simple and elegant with a function that matches form (why is a horn making it hard to teleport?). I would either make it an actual spike you stick in the ground as a standard action to make teleportation within a radius more difficult (forces concentration checks or caster level checks) or a horn that causes planar disruptions in a cone that causes victim to randomly teleport on their turn.
If it were me, I'd keep the item simple and elegant with a function that matches form (why is a horn making it hard to teleport?). I would either make it an actual spike you stick in the ground as a standard action to make teleportation within a radius more difficult (forces concentration checks or caster level checks) or a horn that causes planar disruptions in a cone that causes victim to randomly teleport on their turn.
I got that the horn was implied to be from a unicorn, which are known for their teleportation ability and their horns being valuable for magic. Maybe you should have just came out and told us it was a unicorn horn. But I also pointed out that this theme might have to be reworked to give it an item slot.
I also don't care for charge items, but with three uses per day, it is a matter of semantics. Don't call them "charges" and you'll be ok. At least for me. More than three uses per day and it becomes a bookkeeping issue.
I didn't have a problem with the teleportation effect being blocked and then causing an uncontrollable, random teleportation effect. I guess I figured that it was corrupting the magic and converting the energy into this effect. I guess that is why it reminded me of a spellblight. I guess it could have used some language that reinforced this idea. Anyway, I hope this discussion helps.
Yeah, this has been really helpful.
The basic premise of the item was for it to hijack the opponent's teleportation magic and use it against them.
I wanted to avoid "spell in a can," so I didn't just replicate the dimensional anchor spell. I altered it so that a ranged touch attack wasn't necessary; the spell doesn't require a save, so my Astral Spike didn't grant one either. I thought about it having a truestriked range attack, but that would hit 95% of the time for the most part, so I figured 100% efficiency was just easier to handle.
I also thought of having the Astral Spike grant its wielder (which I assumed everyone else would assume meant it was wielded in hand--my bad), an AoO against cursed teleporter, but Teleport Tactician is a ruleset that already does that, so why re-invent the wheel? My bad.
Also, taking 1d10 damage a round AND getting AoOed makes the decision to try to avoid the hostile teleporting an important tactical decision for the baleful teleporter.
I had originally described the Astral Spike as a hacked off unicorn horn, but my playtesters thought that seemed to intrinsically evil. I also thought of making it a pair of bracers made from twisted unicorn horns instead of an item that needed to be held to be used. But I thought of this item as primarily a melee combatant's item, so I thought preventing two-handed weapon fighting and two-weapon fighting was another balancing issue.
I wanted to avoid "spell in a can," so I didn't just replicate the dimensional anchor spell. I altered it so that a ranged touch attack wasn't necessary; the spell doesn't require a save, so my Astral Spike didn't grant one either. I thought about it having a truestriked range attack, but that would hit 95% of the time for the most part, so I figured 100% efficiency was just easier to handle.
Yeah, I got that in the creation requirements, but this is a "don't do" thing. 99% of effects in the game should have a save or require an attack roll, or other check. It is kind of fundamental in the design of rules for the game that characters have a chance to avoid an effect, or at least to minimize it. And making it an immediate action adds insult to injury. I realize that a successful save avoids the teleportation mishap thing, but that is minor in comparison to the unavoidable counterspelling of my spell. What other effect in the game does this?
I also thought of having the Astral Spike grant its wielder (which I assumed everyone else would assume meant it was wielded in hand--my bad), an AoO against cursed teleporter, but Teleport Tactician is a ruleset that already does that, so why re-invent the wheel? My bad.
I hear you and I assumed you intended "wielder" to cover the "must be in hand" aspect, but it doesn't make that clear. If it was described as having a handle or truly made an "attack" I could see it referring to the user as the "wielder." Otherwise it needed a couple words to cement that it needs to be in hand. Even without an attack roll (which I vehemently suggest), there were a number of ways this could have been addressed. The first ability could have said that the horn must be pointed at the target, for instance. Or just "when held in hand, the Astral Spike..." You could have also told what damage it would deal if the wielder used it as a weapon, since I have to hold it in my off hand to use and it might be sharp.
Also, taking 1d10 damage a round AND getting AoOed makes the decision to try to avoid the hostile teleporting an important tactical decision for the baleful teleporter.
Yes, this makes it more likely that a person might try to avoid teleporting for one round, but it is usually still a bad idea. I would rather risk an AOO and 1d10 damage for the chance to get out of my situation than to just spend the next 2d6 rounds standing there getting pummeled. And even if I spend the full round trying to avoid this effect, I might fail the save and take the AOO anyway. The full round action is just way too much to ask. Maybe if the GM were nice enough to let you know what you rolled on the number of rounds you are affected and it is only 2, I could maybe then see taking two rounds of attacks and do nothing (if I do make the save). Otherwise I'm going to take my lumps and try to do something. At the very least, avoiding the teleportation should not have required a save. Spending the full round is way more payment than I would usually be willing to pay, and just for a chance to avoid it for one round. Not likely.
I had originally described the Astral Spike as a hacked off unicorn horn, but my playtesters thought that seemed to intrinsically evil.
I can see that. Killing a unicorn is not something good guys do, but your description and the item's function implied the unicorn to me anyway, so maybe you should have just embraced it.
Plague Cake
First things first, the name. It is ok. I question the use of the word "cake" as it instantly brings the image of frosting and candles to mind for me. Maybe a word like "biscuit" or "hardtack" might have served better. I also think you should have found a way to reference "rats" in the name. I realize that you could have a "plague of rats," but the default thought deriving from the word "plague" is a disease that infects multiple people. I realize rats spread disease, but names should give the reader an idea of what the item does and not potentially mislead them.
There are an number of template errors that jump out at me. The slot entry should not be capitalized, but you have the right designation for a slotless item, and many miss that since it has changed a number of times since Pathfinder's release. There should be a space between the number and "gp" in your price and cost entries. If you don't do this, and doing so would put you over word count, you will get auto DQ'ed. The "Weight" entry should be an "em dash" and not a hyphen. You can look up how to make one on your system, or just copy and paste from an existing magic item. There should NOT be colons after each entry title. Just making them bold breaks it up. And there should be semicolons, not commas, breaking up the different item statistics. Anytime there is a spell, or magic item name in your entry (other than the title line) that spell or item should be all lowercase and italicized. This should be done anytime "Plague Cake" appears in the text and the "Summon Swarm" in the creation requirements. I believe it is permissible to use "cake" to refer to the item within the text, but since this is not the whole name it should not be italicized (or capitalized). The italicizing rule does not apply to names of diseases or conditions, but "Filth Fever" and "Sickened" should still be all lowercase. But "Fortitude" SHOULD be capitalized, so that one is right. Skill names, feat names, and book names, should be capitalized, but should not include any other formatting. If you question these things the best thing to do is to check the books or SRD to see what other items do with that term and copy it. Also, be cautious about putting page numbers for books in your description as different printings of the books may have different page numbers. The Bestiary might be immune to this, but be wary.
In your description line "mouldy" is not common "American English" and I think "moldy" would be the right way to write it for Pathfinder. Overall, I like your description here. It is evocative and gross. I like how you got a smell in there, but I'm not really sure how big the item is. A biscuit or ship's biscuit is usually about the size of a person's palm, but I might be thinking larger, especially calling it a "cake" in the name. And a reader might be unfamiliar with the term "ship's biscuit" and might assume this is a large biscuit that might feed the entire crew of a ship or something. Of course it doesn't weigh anything, but it is always good to get a size in here if the item type doesn't make this totally clear.
The ability does not state the action type, so it defaults to a standard action, which is fine, but I always prefer to state the action type needed. This line "may only be stopped by destroying or intentionally moving the Cake at least 100 feet, though movement such a ship sailing away with a Cake on it would not destroy the Cake" is a little weird. It says the rats stop coming if the item is destroyed or if it is moved 100 feet, and then clarifies that it is not "destroyed" if moved aboard a ship. I understand what it says, but this last bit implies that moving the cake, not aboard a ship "destroys" the item, where the part before it implies that it just ceases summoning rats if it is moved. It's a minor thing, but they kind of contradict each other. This section also says it begins "summoning" rats. I think there should be more clarity here. I get the intention that the rats come and infest the area as normal rats. Though most "summoned" creatures can be banished so it may warrant saying that these can't. They are not subject to a duration and don't attack until enough time has passed for them to become a swarm. I guess this is self explanatory enough, but I really would have like to have seen a line that said these things. Maybe something like, "these are normal, non-magical rats which avoid notice for 24 hours when they come together to form a swarm." It somewhat seems moot how often a new rat appears, but it would have been nice to know. A swarm of tiny non-flying creatures consists of about 300 individuals do maybe the cake should summon 1 rat every 5 minutes plus an extra one every other hour, but 1 every five minutes is probably fine.
I like the Perception check to smell it out, but I kind of question the DC. The only smell DCs in the Perception skill are -10 and 0, but these are both to notice a smell and not pinpoint it. It probably should have given a base DC of 5 or 10 and encourage the GM to add modifiers based on its location.
The last couple sentences seem pointless. Who's going to try and eat this thing? That's not the only way to destroy it right? I don't think it is worth putting these lines in there for the unlikely scenario that the PCs will run out of food and consider eating the moldy biscuit.
My biggest issue with this item is that it is not something an adventuring group would want. I can't see them using this for anything more than a practical joke on someone they don't like. It might be a bit more useful to NPCs as a minor obstacle for the PCs to deal with, but then it is just a plot hook item, and not a very exciting one. More humorous than anything. "We better call the exterminator. Wait, no worries. I found the rotting food that was attracting the rats and threw it overboard. Problem solved." A superstar item should be something the players are excited to have and I don't think this qualifies.
If I can give you some advice for next year, I would say to double check your formatting, and writing. Keep usability within the game in mind and make sure the PCs would want to own and use the item you are submitting. Voters are not likely to vote for something that they might see as not usable in the average adventure. It should scream "Awe, cool. I want one of those!"
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
aka FaxCelestis
|
I'll do item reviews upon request. PM me if you want an in-depth critique on your item. First come, first serve.
Can you do an in-depth one for the cloak of a thousand daggers on page 1? Feel free to tear it to shreds in public: I'm tough, I can take it.
Can you do an in-depth one for the cloak of a thousand daggers on page 1? Feel free to tear it to shreds in public: I'm tough, I can take it.
I'd be honored. I'll attempt to get it done today, but if not, expect it tomorrow.
Cloak of a Thousand Daggers
I'm not sure what I can tell you that other reviewers haven't said already, but I think I can emphasize and explain some of their points in more detail. It is a really good entry overall, but I can see why the judges may have passed it up.
First off this is definitely an above average item name. It brings to mind exactly what your descriptive text describes and it is cool. It also feels like a item that you might see in the core rules. Well done there.
Next, I spot several template errors. I'm a bit surprised by this since I know that you are not new to the competition, and the item is otherwise so well written, but we all overlook things every once and a while. First, neither word of your aura should not be capitalized, and neither should your slot designator. And "base attack bonus" as well. You missed the comma in the cost number. You did however remember to italicize and not capitalize your item name when it appeared in your body text, so good job there. Many mess that up.
The description is good and exactly what I would expect. A cool visual.
Next is the activation. It takes a move action to activate or deactivate which is not the default activation for magic items, but this activation in and of itself doesn't do anything so that might be ok. The description of an activated cloak is equally cinematic and cool as the deactivated description, though perhaps more exciting, as it should be. Really cool.
Now the primary ability. It attacks anyone who attacks you in melee with a non-reach weapon and this takes up one of the wearer's AOOs for the round. It is unclear for sure whether you have to have an available AOO for this to function, but I'll assume that was an oversight and you intended it not to activate without one. Since there is no limit to the number of times per day this happens, it seems awfully powerful. It is one additional attack (or possibly more) each round that you are attacked. This doesn't cost you anything or require you to do anything once you have spent the move action to activate the cloak. If you compare it to Haste or Boots of Speed or a weapon of Speed, this is so much better because you don't need to make a full attack to benefit. Of course you might think it is balanced because it is only 1d4 + Cha modifier damage, but it adds up because there is barely a limitation. Even if limited to the number of AOO the wearer has this means one extra attack per turn, and possibly much more for a high Dex character with Combat Reflexes. It also takes the sting out of provoking your own attacks of opportunity. I'd be much more likely to provoke when I will also get an AOO out of it. An archer with Combat Reflexes would love this thing. Everytime he fires in melee, he prokes and he gets a free dagger attack each time up to the limits of his Dexterity. I do think this ability is overpowered, but not grossly so, as there are effects in the game that deal damage to the attacker when a person is attacked. It could be fixed with an adjustment and raising the price.
I also question the last line in this ability. You can choose not attack or use an AOO if you want. It seems to be implied that this is not an action at all, which I think is fine, although maybe it should have been more clear. The problem I have with it is this is because you have already established that deactivating the cloak is a move action. Because there are no daily limitations to the number of times it can make AOOs and you can avoid the ability triggering so easily, there is really never any reason to deactivate it. Yeah, maybe in the local tavern you don't want daggers hovering about you, but there is no reason you couldn't. There is no mechanics reason that you might ever shut it off while you are wearing it. I'm not sure it is a fix for how powerful this ability is, but you could have balanced it a bit more by not having this last line and forcing its use while activated.
And now the secondary ability. This probably should have been the primary ability as it might be even more powerful than the first, and broken in combination. The user gets another attack as a swift action and again there is no limit to the times per day it can be used. It is a ranged attack "as if throwing a dagger" so I assume it provokes a AOOs if threatened. You might think that this somewhat balances an extra swift attack since I might take extra damage if I use it in melee. But it doesn't balance when the user gets an AOO of his own when he is attacked. Swift and immediate actions are dangerous to play with when designing an item. With this I can take a double move, and make an attack. I can cast a spell, and make a dagger attack in the same round. It just breaks action economy and that is a general no-no.
I also don't really understand the Charisma used for ranged attacks thing. The cloak makes you look cooler, but I don't think it should do anything with Charisma. The first ability is automatic, though it does cost you an AOO, but the second ability is an active ranged attack. I don't see what a character's force of personality has to do with throwing daggers off of his cloak. Maybe if the description filled us in to the reason, but we are left to our own reasoning as to why. Since we are wondering, we might question why it is not Constitution or Wisdom? Or why not just Strength and Dexterity? My guess is that you didn't want to use Strength for the first ability because the user's body is not behind the attack, but it could be explained that it borrows the users strength, just as easily as it is explained how it uses the wearer's confidence and likeability to make attacks. The second ability requires aim and I don't see any reason it should not have been Dex based.
So, to balance the first ability I might suggest that it takes a standard action to activate and deactivate and you can't prevent it from using your attack of opportunity while its active. Maybe the activation only lasts 11 rounds and is limited to once or three times per day. The second ability probably just need a limited number of times per day or maybe it also costs an AOO to activate. I'm sure there are other fixes that might also bring this ability more inline, but add another 3,000 to 8,000 gp to the cost and some combination of fixes and you would likely have an item that is as balanced as it is cool.
All said, your item has super mojo which is the reason you made top 100. My guess is the reasons the three judges passed on the Cloak of a Thousand Daggers probably had to do with the overall power, the action economy principle, and maybe the Charisma issue being weird and unexplained. You were close this year certainly, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see you in the top 32 again soon. Good luck next year.
Kind of late to this party, but would love feedback if anybody's still watching the thread:
Summoner’s Skirl
Aura moderate conjuration; CL 9th
Slot none; Price 27,000 gp; Weight 1/2 lb.
Description
This small flute is made from the hollowed segment of a demon’s finger bone, etched with arcane runes and punctuated by several holes along its length. It can be played with one hand to produce an otherworldly and high-pitched tune.
Once per day, a summoner’s skirl can be played to teleport one summoned creature within 100 feet to a space adjacent to the user (Will DC 19 negates). The destination space is selected by the user, but cannot be an intrinsically dangerous location.
The summoner’s skirl can also be played to send an adjacent summoned creature back to its home plane instantly. On a DC 19 Will save, the target summoned creature is not dismissed, but is staggered for 1 round. Using this ability consumes the item, even if it is unsuccessful.
Activating either of these effects requires a DC 15 Perform (wind instruments) check. With a DC 25 Perform (wind instruments) check, both effects may be applied to the same target creature as a single full-round action. The creature receives only a single Will save in this case; a successful save negates both effects, but the creature is staggered for 1 round.
A targeted creature is not affected if it cannot hear the skirl’s tune.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, dimension door, dismissal; Cost 13,500 gp
I'm still watching. And taking requests, but I'll give you one without a direct request.
Summoner’s Skirl
First, I’m not a fan of using obscure terms in your item name. I had to look up what a “Skirl” is, and from the definitions I found, it is a shrill sound, especially the one made by bagpipes. It is a term that does not refer to an object, but I expected that maybe your item is a set of bagpipes. The description says that it’s a flute, so the name is maybe a reference to the sound it makes. I can find "skirl" as an uncommon synonym for "flute," as a verb, but not as a noun. So I have to say that I do not really like the name. It is not evocative by itself and I don’t really get a sense of what it is or does. I am expecting it to have something to do with the Summoner class, or summoning spells, but that is all I’m getting from the name. And after reading the item, it seems somewhat less a “summoner’s” item, and more an anti-summoning item, so I don’t think it quite fits. Maybe if it had another utility ability for a character who summons monsters.
The description is pretty solid. It doesn’t seem like a demonic item, but I guess demons are summoned from time to time, and I guess that is the reference. Maybe it would have been better if it were just a bone from an “extra-planar” creature to avoid the demonic association. I don’t know. It’s a small thing.
The first ability is cool. It’s not really powerful, but I think it is really smart as it has both offensive and defensive applications. I question the DC here. Since both spells are 4th level (5th for Dismissal by a wizard), the DC should be 17 at the most. To calculate the DC of an effect it should be 10+Spell Level+Minimum Ability bonus to cast a spell of that level. 10+4(or5)+2(for a 14 or 15 score)= 16 (or 17). If you wish to artificially inflate your DC you could make Heighten Spell part of the creation requirements. Another option would be to use the greater hostile juxtaposition as a 7th level wizard spell, but this would make it DC 20. That being said, I’m not sure that it requires a higher saving throw as these abilities have two chances for them to fail with the save AND the required skill check. A bard of this level (who plays wind instruments) will have a hard time failing the DC 15 check, but it could happen to someone not so skilled or with the double ability DC of 25. Another option is to maybe have the Perform check set the DC? Maybe for the combined ability only? This might be a way to better balance the sacrifice of the item for the Dismissal ability, which is pretty big.
The second ability is also cool and I like the way you limited it to an adjacent creature so that you could combine the two abilities in the next paragraph. The save DC has the same issue, though possibly only by one. I don’t really care for the destruction of the item to use this ability, especially since it is destroyed even if the save is successful. I’m not quite clear if it is destroyed if I fail the Perform check too, but my assumption is no, though it will still cost me my standard action. The first ability is not very powerful and this one is, but requires the destruction of the item. That seems harsh for an item that costs 27,000 gp. I’m not going to buy this for the first ability, and I’m not going to use the second unless it is my only chance to defeat the creature I’m trying to banish. And then, if it fails, I’m probably screwed and just wasted 27,000 gp. The limitation of requiring it to be adjacent is already scaling back the power of the Dismissal effect, but it still might be a bit powerful without another limitation. What I would really want from this ability is a chance to dismiss weaker summoned creatures repeatedly (though a limited number of times per day), and maybe a one time chance to dismiss a really powerful summoned creature. Or, better yet, have it not be destroyed, but work a limited number of times per day, and have it not useable on the same target more than once in 24 hours. There has to be a way to make this not such a terrible loss or risk to use.
This next paragraph describes how the abilities require Perform checks to activate. It doesn’t say what the action is, but the default is a standard action and it’s is fine by the rules, but I prefer to state the action type myself. I would have also liked to have seen this first line before the two abilities so that I know that Perform checks are required before I get this far. Like I said before, I really like how you can combine the two abilities in one with a more difficult check. Very clever way to link two abilities.
The last line gives it a limitation, which makes sense.
The creation requirements all make sense, but might need Heighten Spell as I pointed out before.
Overall, this is a really good entry for the contest. You made the top 100 so you know you have done something right. Maybe the judges passed on your item because they thought it was too much of a spell in a can (though I think you changed so that it isn’t). Maybe they thought that the destruction of the item for the second ability was too much to ask, especially at this price? It’s hard to know. I’m not sure how many times you have entered this contest or what else you have designed, but I would say that your item this year was at least 90% superstar. You were close. Come with this same level of mojo next year and you might find yourself in the top 32. Good luck.
Thanks, Feros and Nickolas! This was my first time submitting anything to Superstar (or outside my home games at all, really), so the feedback is much appreciated. Your comments hit on the issues I spent the most time chewing on (like whether to link Perform result -> DC, or whether a third ability would pull it together vs. swiss-army knife it), so I'm glad to hear your thoughts on those notes.
This was my first time submitting anything to Superstar (or outside my home games at all, really), so the feedback is much appreciated.
I thought it might be your first time entering, but you avoided all of the classic pitfalls, your template was super clean, and it was underpowered more than overpowered. That means you must have done your homework. Your item was super solid, especially for a first entry. Great job, and I hope you come up with something just that much more awesome next year.
Nickolas said pretty much everything I would have. I'm impressed for a first time. I know you'll give us something fantastic next year.
I always consider it a good idea to indicate the action unless you specifically use the terms "activate" or "command word." Though even my players sometimes forget those two always take a standard action to do!
Good Afternoon esteemed peers! I've been reluctant to post my item and ask for critiquing, but I am curious about what others may have thought.
I think I know one glaring error I made that stands out, besides the fact that I let this become an 11th hour submission (what can I say, wasn't even going to enter this year, and then inspiration struck). :)
All right, without further ado:
Trox Carapace
Aura strong evocation; CL 13th; Slot chest;
Price 40,000 gp; Weight 2 lbs.
Description
This iridescent mantle, crafted from the shell of a giant scarab, is inscribed with offensive and defensive runes.
A trox carapace provides its wearer with various abilities, which are conveyed upon donning the mantle. The wearer is considered to be the next larger size for the purposes of determining the effectiveness of several combat maneuvers such as grappled or tripped, or special attacks like swallow whole. The wearer is considered the most beneficial size to determine the effectiveness of the attack. Once per day, as a standard action, he may command the carapace to conjure additional arms of force to grab and constrict or just grapple an opponent, leaving his arms free to cast spells, attack with weapons, or use spell completion or spell-trigger items. The wearer is not considered grappled when utilizing the carapace in this manner. These arms of force remain in effect for 10 minutes, and must be used in one minute increments. They inflict 1d6+10 points of damage per round while constricting, and the wearer is considered to have a Strength score of 31 for the purpose of calculating his CMB and CMD.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, grasping hand; Cost 20,000 gp
And upon re-reading my item I can think of one or two additional errors or missteps (but would still like some feedback if any of you are of a mind).
Regards,
Dean
** spoiler omitted **
Feros, thanks for your personal insights, but I actually wasn't trying to duplicate any specific trox abilities (with the exception of perhaps the large size, and that's not an ability in and of itself).
I was more going for the visual of having a mantle that provided offensive and defensive abilities related to size and augmenting CMB and CMD scores to better facilitate that. The "arms of force" were the definite nod to the trox race (as was the name itself). I feel most of my short comings came from not better describing/explaining the carapace doesn't provide additional actions or attacks per round, and that the wearer's own arms were free to fight, cast spells, etc. (In rereading my entry I definitely felt that clarity was lacking). And at 213 words, I honestly had 50 - 60 words in which I could have better defined that.
My item did make it past the culling, so I think that's something (it didn't however make it to the top 100 items voted thread) but my buddy's did, so I'm stoked for him.
Anyway, thanks for your opinion, but I feel what I've called out may in fact be closer to what it's short-comings were.
Other critiques are welcome and invited of course.
Regards,
Dean
** spoiler omitted **Feros, thanks for your personal insights, but I actually wasn't trying to duplicate any specific trox abilities (with the exception of perhaps the large size, and that's not an ability in and of itself).
I was more going for the visual of having a mantle that provided offensive and defensive abilities related to size and augmenting CMB and CMD scores to better facilitate that. The "arms of force" were the definite nod to the trox race (as was the name itself). I feel most of my short comings came from not better describing/explaining the carapace doesn't provide additional actions or attacks per round, and that the wearer's own arms were free to fight, cast spells, etc. (In rereading my entry I definitely felt that clarity was lacking). And at 213 words, I honestly had 50 - 60 words in which I could have better defined that.
My item did make it past the culling, so I think that's something (it didn't however make it to the top 100 items voted thread) but my buddy's did, so I'm stoked for him.
Anyway, thanks for your opinion, but I feel what I've called out may in fact be closer to what it's short-comings were.
Other critiques are welcome and invited of course.
Regards,
Dean
OK, I see where you were going there. And from that perspective, you are correct. But then why bring the Trox into it at all? Since it isn't made out of a Trox shell, was there any reason for that aspect? The name and the force arms helped lead to the confusion.