Shadow Box
Aura moderate illusion and conjuration; CL 7th
Slot none; Price 27,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Description
This small wooden box is covered with ornately carved figures in various fighting poses. When activated, the shadow of one creature within 30’ of the wielder (wielder’s choice) animates and assumes a hostile flanking position, forcing the shadow’s caster to defend itself. Although the shadow’s attacks can’t actually do damage (appearing always to just miss), its opponent doesn’t immediately realize this, giving the wielder and/or any allies in a flanking position flanking bonuses; flanking rogues can sneak attack. Spellcasters threatened by the shadow must cast defensively (making a concentration check – DC 15 + double the level of the spell) for the spell to succeed.
In addition, if the wielder has any of the following Teamwork feats and is flanking the target creature with the shadow, the distraction created by the shadow allows the wielder to take advantage of them in combat, as though the target was facing two opponents with the same feat: Feint Partner, Improved Feint Partner, Outflank, Precise Strike, Paired Opportunists, and Team Pickpocketing. The shadow uses the wielder’s Bluff skill for the appropriate feint checks.
The shadow has the wielder’s AC; if the target succeeds on a melee attack on the shadow, it gains a Will save (DC 17) to disbelieve the shadow as a threat; if successful, the shadow becomes merely a distraction for the remainder of its duration – attacks by the target are at a -1 to hit; spellcasters who have saved must still make a Concentration check (DC10) when casting to ignore the shadow.
The Shadow Box is usable three times per day, up to 10 rounds each time a shadow is summoned.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, shadow conjuration; Cost 13,500 gp
I kind of like this one. It's pretty innovative in playing around with both the flanking rules, forced concentration checks due to proximity of threatening attackers, and it also invokes a whole slew of teamwork feats out of the APG...all of which fits this item's theme perfectly. We've had items conjure up illusory flanking partners before, but this one really brings a lot more of it together for me.
Mechanically, I'm not as happy with a few things. For one, I'm not a fan of doubling the spell level with a more difficult concentration check for someone threatened by the shadow. I'd rather it just forced a normal concentration check with the person whose shadow it's formed from being unable to escape it...i.e., if they take a 5-foot step to pull away, the shadow automatically exercises the Step Up feat to follow. That would make more sense. And forcing continued, frivolous concentration checks (even at DC 10) after they've seen through the illusion seems pointless. Just say the condition no longer applies. Lastly, having the shadow box function three times per day up to 10 rounds each time is a bit much. I'd rather see it grant a certain number of rounds per day it can function, but they don't have to be consecutive.
Other than that, most of the presentation values are pretty high in this item design. The author still needs to lowercase and italicize references to his own wondrous item in the descriptive text. But everything else is fairly solid. And, there's enough mojo here that I'd like to see what else this designer can bring to the competition.
Vote to Keep.
Interesting idea. Mechanics are a little rough, but I think it's worth keeping for now. We'll see if that's enough to make it stick.
Keep.
I don't like that there is no initial save to disbelieve until you successfully hit the shadow. That runs counter to how these types of images/illusions normally work. And I share Neil's concerns regarding the Concentration checks. I don't normally like the obvious pun name, but this one works :)
Temporary KEEP...for now. Again, as with the [item that didn't make it], there is mojo here. And I like mojo.
The item starts with a name that's a bad pun. Then it gets worse, presenting an effect that allows no save. And it makes it much easier for a solo character to achieve flanking position vs. an opponent - one of the limiting factors on the benefits of flanking is that you need someone else to get into the proper position and you need to time your movement and attack to take advantage. This item negates those needs.
I do not recommend that you vote for this designer.
What I like:
While I'm pretty sure I've seen items that cause phantom flanking type effects before, it's not something I'm tired of yet. I think you do a fairly clever job of creating a new item to fill that particular niche. Plus I like shadow-based items in general, so you've already got on my good side with that.
What I love:
The inclusion of teamwork feats as part of the item's functionality, though, is really, really nice. They're still a fairly new rule mechanic that hasn't had a lot of love thrown their way yet. I almost want to say this is maybe too nice a deal, since it would encourage a player to pick teamwork feats for himself even if nobody else in the party feels like spending a feat on one, which is sort of contrary to the intent of teamwork feats. But really, I don't think that's too much a bad thing; not any worse than a cavalier's class ability (while managing to not just be a carbon copy of that ability).
What needs a little sumptin' sumptin'...
The anti-spellcaster concentration effect, though, is probably giving this item a bit too much. First of all, it makes the box's power useful even if you're not flanking the caster, which feels like it's coming off as more versatile than it should be. Plus, I don't get why the caster has to cast defensively here. Casting defensively is just an option for someone who doesn't want to provoke attacks of opportunity, and while it's certainly the choice almost all smart casters will make, in this case there wouldn't be any negative consequences should a caster 'threatened' by his shadow just go ahead and not cast on the defensive, since the shadow doesn't make real attacks or do damage. Maybe if it just screwed up the first spell the caster tried and then allowed a save DC to disbelieve, much like if the caster had attacked it? And that train of thought leads me to...
Ten rounds at a time, three times per day- assuming 3-4 fights per day between rest periods, this is going to see use in almost every round of combat that plays out daily. It's not exactly feeling overpowered to me, based on that, but maybe just a little too ubiquitous. I think I would feel more comfortable with this if it had less rounds daily, or if the shadow in question only lasted for one successful flanking per use, something like that. As it stands now, it allows rogues to sneak attack pretty much every round of a fight with no consideration for actual tactical movement, which just feels a little too useful for me.
All in all...
It's a cool item, one that presses a lot of my auto-like buttons. I do feel like it needs some adjustment before I'd give one to players, just to tone it down a reasonable amount. As a player I'd almost certainly want one of these (especially if I'm playing a rogue/ninja/other sneak attacker) as written, but I think even a toned down version would still keep my interest as well.
Congratulations and welcome to RPG Superstar!
Welcome to the Top 32!
There are some mechanical issues with your item, so I am going to address them first. I do not like that the initial effect does not allow a saving throw. It would really upset my players if I were to throw something like this at them, with no rolls involved. Secondly, I am fine with imposing concentration checks, but the reason for the check, given by your entry, does not work for me. Normally, a caster can, while within a threatened square, choose to cast defensively or provoke an attack of opportunity. This shadow works differently, removing that choice.
I like that you managed to bring in teamwork feats (they need all the love that they can get). However, I'm a little concerned that you made such a specific list, since you cannot account for future teamwork feats that way.
However, despite everything else, I really like shadow-themed equipment. With a bit of tweaking, I think I would make use of this item in my games. I like how you have managed to blend a number of different rules and mechanics together, picking out new combinations not yet seen in other items. I hope to see such creativity in future rounds. Just make sure to work on your mechanics.
Good luck!
Shadow items are an easy sell for me, but even if I hated them this I would still be impressed with this. Normally I’m opposed to pun titles, but this one is subtle enough that I don’t mind. I love the concept, which is both flavorful and extremely useful for a variety of classes; I appreciate the thought that went into the teamwork feats, and most of mechanical details.
The other judges have covered some of the mechanical rough spots/balance issues and they’re certainly real and relevant, but I consider this item to show some serious design chops and I’m looking forward to seeing what more the designer has to show us.
I like this, except for the initial zero chance to disbelieve. There should be an initial save worked in to the mechanic. Also the phrase "Spellcasters threatened by the shadow must cast defensively" is applying actions to PC characters that they may not choose to do. If the character is a Sorcerer/Monk, he/she might just choose to use a trip, disarm, flurry of blows, etc...
A cool item, but too much muddling of the mechanics.
What if you use it on a shadow? Or a greater shadow? Does it attack itself?
I like the idea.
Just a question: why would disbelieving impose you a penalty to attack rolls if believing doesn't? There are situation in which it should be worse than the flanking in itself. Was this on purpose?
Wasn't there 3.5 spells that basically did this idea? The teamwork feats bit is new, but I'm pretty sure there were spells that created shadows/phantasms for flanking. Anyways, the lack of an initial Will save to disbelieve detracts from what is a pretty cool item. Its themed well and the item type matches the ability.
Good luck and all the best with the following round mate.
Mechanically, I'm not as happy with a few things. For one, I'm not a fan of doubling the spell level with a more difficult concentration check for someone threatened by the shadow. I'd rather it just forced a normal concentration check with the person whose shadow it's formed from being unable to escape it...i.e., if they take a 5-foot step to pull away, the shadow automatically exercises the Step Up feat to follow.
DC 15 + double the spell level IS a normal concentration check for casting defensively in the Pathfinder system. This is something that has sort of gotten to me in past years as well, a designer will use a common rule that function very slightly differently in Pathfinder than it did in 3.5 and use the Pathfinder version of the rule but be dinged by the judges in their comments because they are thinking of the 3.5 version. It's a little disheartening to spend so much effort trying to create something that conforms to the Pathfinder rule set and not trip over something that works differently than how it did in 3.5 only to have the judges say we weren't paying attention when we really were.
My bad, Alkwraith. At that point in the judging, I didn't have a lot of time to go back and check every rule reference. Something just felt off to me about seeing that in the item's description. And, honestly, if it's exactly like the normal rules for concentration checks, I'd rather the author have never included it. By having something there, I made an assumption he must be calling out something different about the concentration checks imposed by this item rather than just regurgitating the regular rules for concentration checks for easier reference by the GM. Basically, he could have saved on wordcount by not including the reference.
Either way, my comment made no difference in my assessment of the item (or the assessment of any other judge). I voted to Keep it.
Thanks for the votes - and the comments! I really appreciate the criticisms and ideas for improvement - hoping to learn from this experience and ultimately become a better designer. And certainly, I have much to learn about mechanics; I've always been stronger in the creative storytelling part of gaming than the mechanics. But the devil is in the details; here's hoping my future efforts will reflect a better grasp of them. I've had some opportunity of late to improve, as the players in my group keep me on my toes whether I'm DM'ing or playing.
Never thought I'd say this, but thank God for rules lawyers...
The shadow being from the target, but using a lot of the wielder's statistics (feats, AC...) is a little weird. And, though I didn't notice it at first, the pun name brings the item down even further.
Ultimately, not a big fan of this, though I can see some potential to be neat in there somewhere, I don't feel it's there yet.
Congratulations Greg,
I am not a big fan as we have seen flanking shadow creatures before (and the target is not even nauseated when you steal his shadow. :) But I like that it also forces spell casters to make concentration checks. Something I wish more people took advantage of against spell casters. Good luck.
Congrats,
Easy to understand and well designed. Good job.
First, congratulation on making the top 32, and good luck in the top 16 voitng (and onwards!).
Now, I like to give all items careful consideration, and doing extensive reviews are my method of choice.
First Impression Okay, so flanking and shadows. Not bad, but not overly inspiring so far. Let's see if a careful look changes my mind?
Analysis
Name: Shadow box is not exactly a name I'm going to fall for, but that aside, it serves the item well enough.
Template: I'm not the master of the template, so I'll pretty much say that while I see issues, I let them be mentioned by others (mostly, they are anyway).
Description/Clarity: Being a linguistics person, this is my area of focus. The grammar/language monster is awake, and it's not fond of and/or! Cut it, and make a choice on what you want to write. Also, the way you have it presently might suggest that the wielder always gets flanking, which I assume is not the intention. Cut the extra and try for saying "any character in a flanking position" or such. Saves you words. You don't really need to say that "flanking rogues can sneak attack". First, some other classes (some bard archtypes and ninjas come to mind)can get sneak attack too, so if you want to write it say "characters with sneak attack may use this". Also, it's generally a waste of words to say something which is already part of the rule you're refering to, UNLESS it's an exception from how it usually works.
Also, one last issue. You use the term "wielder", which I like, but it suggests that the item must be held, which you don't specify anywhere. Choose "user" or such if it's not meant for holding. As far as I recall, items that must be held (in one or both hands) to be used also get the same price reduction as slotted items, which, guessing from your price, you're not applying.
Grammar monster satisfied for a while, I'll leave off at this, saying that apart from the issue I've mentioned your entry is clear and easily understandable, and fair in writing.
Effects: Hmm, okay I like the flanking shadow fairly well, it's a novel enough idea, if not original enough to make me amazed.
I don't much like the smalled penalties remaining after a successful Will save. That's rather strange and unusual.
I don't like the extremely high DC for casting - you provide no reason why this shadow acts so differently against casting compared to normal flanking.
Overall I like your item to some extend, and I may well use it for a villain or two (they need it more than my players - I normally have 5-6). That said, it doesn't amaze me. I'll be watching, though.
Overall, this is a good and well-thought-out item. You indicate that you're looking for useful criticism, and that's a smart request, so I'll jump right into it.
The biggest question that leaps to mind: Does this thing actually require the target to have a shadow? This could come up in fights in mid-air, underwater, in the dark, etc. It's an easy enough matter for a GM to rule on, but it has implications beyond that (e.g., if the box does require a real shadow, magic to drop the ilumination level is a viable countermeasure).
You dictate an awful lot about what the target will and won't do. Some of your assumptions aren't safe. The target may, in fact, immediately realize that the shadow is insubstantial, particularly if he's gone up against this item before. Spellcasters may choose to brave an AoO rather than cast defensively. Furthermore, you note a successful melee attack as the only trigger for a Will save. Others have argued that the target should get one right off, and I agree, but that's not my complaint here. My complaint is that of all the viable (and likely) methods of testing the nature of the shadow flanker, you note one as viable, implying that others won't work and don't permit a Will save against the effect. What about ranged attacks? What about spells? What about willingly taking a hit from the shadow? What about various divination spells? It probably would have been easier to permit a Will save right off or upon "interaction that could reveal the shadow's nature."
All three of the concerns above tie into the same basic issue: you're scripting the situation in which this item is used. You indicate what the attacker will do, what the shadow will do, and how the target will react. I think that the final step is one too many. Your rules have got to account for the varied reactions targets are likely to make. If I were you, I'd make an effort to write more inclusive rules that can handle even the situations you can't foresee.
Finally, hitching the shadow's AC to the user's is a misstep. It doesn't make sense (since the AC includes armor and size bonuses) and it raises rules issues because AC is a final, calculated value (does the shadow get easier to hit after the user charges, for example?).
Criticism aside, this item is creative, thorough and useful. Good luck in the next round.
Although I agree with many of the criticisms lodged against this item, the concept here is great. It's very reminiscent of the way the shadow minions in D&D's recent "Dark Legacy of Evard" Encounters act. I can think of LOTS of PCs and NPCs who would use this item to great effect in combat.
Creative! Items like this make Teamwork Feats attractive, and that's a good thing.
I'm satisfied with the pun name. Its risky as heck, but it worked for me. Be careful though! The pun didn't score any points with me, it just didn't cost you any.
The mechanics are rough as many people have already said, but the innovation is noteworthy.
Congrats!
Look forward to next round.
What I appreciate most is that this item encourages and rewards teamwork, and it gives another reason for characters to select some of the teamwork feats. There are plenty of "selfish" magic items out there -- items that help the user to shine in a fight. Your shadow box helps promote the party working together and coming up with shared tactics.
Of course, DMs would also love to have their bad guys get a hold of this item. It could be an object lesson for characters who don't normally care about working together as a group when the villains demonstrate just how dangerous teamwork can be.
Wondrous work, keep it up!
The punning title is a risk but I think you get away with it.
The highlight here is the interaction with teamwork feats. I've never seen anyone but a Cavalier or an Inquisitor take them. This makes it worthwhile. The wielder can use a teamwork feat with the shadow instead of having to rely on other party members to play to his or her game plan.
This item makes a rich but underused part of the game viable, which is superstar design!
Greg, first of all, I love the name -- puns may not be the way to go normally, but in this case it works, probably because the name works so well with the item itself (if that makes sense).
The judges have, I think, correctly called out some mechanical concerns, but I like the basic idea of the item, giving you a shadow flanker and allowing access to teamwork feats. I know in my usual game, which has just two players most of the time, the rogue would love this.
I do wish you'd described its size a bit more, though. Is it small enough that a rogue could activate it and then tuck it back into a pouch while she goes to fight, or is it big enough that it would need to be in a pack? Does the box have to stay out and visible for the fight? I think these questions could have a major effect on how the item's used and right now it leaves it up to me as the GM to decide that.
Holy sneak attacks Batman. I like it but would definitely shorten the duration. Cool item. Good luck.
One little nitpicky detail, “shadow’s caster” sounds like spell casting to me. Perhaps save some ambiguity with alternate wording, like “said creature” instead?
Otherwise, I actually love this item for turning your opponent’s shadow against them, and above all for getting me to seriously consider building a character with Teamwork feats.
Ant Health Warning: this year, I really worked hard on technical execution of my item, so these reviews will likely reflect template use. Brace yourselves for the template fu - it can sting.
Template Use: 10/10
template fu sees "none;" from 5th printing and settles down for a snooze.
Slot affinity: 7/10
There is no slot as such, so I will give a general assessment score here so it balances with other reviews.
I found the sentence structures clunky in places, e.g. "assumes a hostile flanking position," - I wondered if you meant the wielder initially and only after reading on did I work out that you meant hostile to the owner of the animated shadow. Similarly, I think you could have said the target is threatened from the animated shadow to save repeating who can do what and get what from flanking, players know this rule, believe me they do.
Then, returning to "assumes a hostile flanking position" - what if there is no position that is flanking at time of animation?
What if they lose their flanking position becomes negated during the course of combat?
Finally, what if the shadow is already animated, can it still "gain control"?
Abuseability: 8/10
The price is low enough that a party of mid to high level could have one each and start each combat by having many of their opponents, all of the opponent spell casters, etc., becoming shadow flanked. Almost like a zone / curse effect.
Desirability: 8/10
I rather like it despite the outstanding questions mentioned. Its good for anti spellcaster use as well as gaining some much needed bonus to attacks without risking attacks of opportunity to move to such positions.
Originality: 8/10
I really like how you went with looking at a combat mechanic to affect. A rather original tangent attack to wondrous item creation. I look forward to seeing what you do with Organisations.
Ant Score: 41/50 (82%)
Shadow Box
Aura moderate illusion and conjuration; CL 7th
Slot none; Price 27,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Description
This small wooden box is covered with ornately carved figures in various fighting poses. When activated, the shadow of one creature within 30’ of the wielder (wielder’s choice) animates and assumes a hostile flanking position, forcing the shadow’s caster to defend itself. Although the shadow’s attacks can’t actually do damage (appearing always to just miss), its opponent doesn’t immediately realize this, giving the wielder and/or any allies in a flanking position flanking bonuses; flanking rogues can sneak attack. Spellcasters threatened by the shadow must cast defensively (making a concentration check – DC 15 + double the level of the spell) for the spell to succeed.In addition, if the wielder has any of the following Teamwork feats and is flanking the target creature with the shadow, the distraction created by the shadow allows the wielder to take advantage of them in combat, as though the target was facing two opponents with the same feat: Feint Partner, Improved Feint Partner, Outflank, Precise Strike, Paired Opportunists, and Team Pickpocketing. The shadow uses the wielder’s Bluff skill for the appropriate feint checks.
The shadow has the wielder’s AC; if the target succeeds on a melee attack on the shadow, it gains a Will save (DC 17) to disbelieve the shadow as a threat; if successful, the shadow becomes merely a distraction for the remainder of its duration – attacks by the target are at a -1 to hit; spellcasters who have saved must still make a Concentration check (DC10) when casting to ignore the shadow.
The Shadow Box is usable three times per day, up to 10 rounds each time a shadow is summoned.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, shadow conjuration; Cost 13,500 gp
Disclaimer:
Note:
Fair is foul and foul is fair supposedly . Basically, though, does this item have any useful application in a spa?
No. About the only use I can think of is as a distraction to cover a hasty retreat, and there are much cheaper ways to do that.
Assuming for a moment that it’s more convenient to pay taxes than to circumvent the system, does this item look likely to be a tax-deductible business expense for a succubus art-dealer?
As far as store-guards go, it's probably cheaper just to hire a couple more minions (which are at least as tax deductible as this is) than to try to pass this off as some sort of highly advanced security 'enabler' device.
Is the item useful in a strawberries-and-cream-tea context?
As with the spa situation there really isn't much mileage which could be extracted from this item on a date.
Other Comments?
Basically this is an item for brawlers. It seems to me that the presentation fails to address issues of what happens when a 'target' has seen the item in use before or otherwise knows what it does - presumably such a target may automatically disregard the 'animated shadow'.
However on a much more serious note, highly important data is not given on the approximate dimensions of the box or the type of wood from which it is crafted. This is very important in determining if it is suitable for use as a moderately classy mat for mugs to stand on, so as not to risk staining important papers or damaging desk-tops with any dribbles of coffee which run down the sides.
Gollum Rating: