Get over it already. Either that, or hire a british lawyer to help you get your money back. If you don't do this, you are out of options, as has been pointed out to you guys.
There is nothing more that needs to be said.
This. SO much this. This is a horse that died a long time back and has been dug up and beaten over and over. I'm not sure what going over this every few days is supposed to accomplish.
To be fair, it's been 3 months, not a few days.
I think if someone spent their money on a product that was promised them and it doesn't happen, then they deserve to get their money back. And I think it's reasonable for them to complain in the thread that was created to talk about this issue.
I think it's unfortunate that this situation happened, but I don't think the paying customers need to just get over it. Hopefully the refunds will come through for each customer.
What kind of things has it ruined? Why is he making plothooks in a world of magic that depend on people not knowing something is magical?
Detect magic accidentally revealed a villain that should not have been revealed. The party got very suspicious when the supposedly unarmed farmer seemed to be in possession of some sort of magic item. Why the villain didn't attempt to hide it we will never know.
We also used it to determine the difference of a cheap knock-off weapon from the real one. Supposedly we were supposed to use perception, and realize it had a certain symbol engraved on it. But I don't think that the advancement of the plot should be determined by a die roll.
This sounds like an example of clever players solving a problem faster than the GM anticipated. Is your GM new to running games? I know when I first began GMing I was surprised by clever spells or tricks the players came up with. Now I'm used to having my best laid plans dashed, so it's not much of a surprise. :) Personally, I think the GM should reward clever play, and try to be happy for the players when they come up with a run-around. However, I know that can throw off your game as a GM if you didn't have a backup plan.
If the GM's frustrated by the use of detect magic, he will be even more frustrated by higher level divination spells. I hope your chat with him will allow him to understand your concerns, because I'm afraid the higher your characters progress the more he will see his plans foiled by divination magic.
He would be well-served to read through the divination spells, including the ways they are foiled, and to consider them when planning his adventures. Divination can be a very powerful tool, especially for high-level wizards, and if his adventure plots are being ruined by detect magic, he'll be especially frustrated with "scry and die" abilities at higher levels.
Fair enough, I completely understand what you are saying. I see that sort of thing often enough where I work. But I was under the impression Bill was proud of and took full ownership of the 4e rules.
Has he ever said he wished things were done differently?
I mean that question in a genuinely curious way. Not as a debate attack point.
I think that Bill Slavicsek does have responsibility for much of the 4e ruleset and design choices. That's why I think it's perfectly valid to fault him for design changes from 3rd edition to 4e that you don't like. If you don't like 4e powers, skill challenges, etc it's fair to disagree with his design ideas.
Having said that, he was probably under a lot of pressure to change the entire mechanic to move D&D far away from the OGL so WotC would own all D&D material for future editions, and I'm sure there was pressure to adapt a card/toy(mini)/digital model for future projects. I don't know if the board games were planned back in 2007, but that seems to be a huge part of their business model moving forward.
I don't think it's fair to fault him the disaster of the GSL and the discontinuation of an OGL, alienation of 3PP, the poor customer service, putting half the classes and races in the PHB 2 instead of the PHB, for the shift from print to electronic subscription model, for axing Dragon & Dungeon magazines in favor of DDI, etc.
I think it's immensely unfair to blame Bill Slavicsek for many of these things that were out of his hands. Sure you can disagree with some of the design choices on 4e, but much of the problem with the edition change was due to Hasbro being a big corporation. And someone like Bill was not able to change that.
I'm sorry to see him and others laid off/forced to retire/whatever from WotC. It's a very difficult industry to find paying work in, and I wish them the best. If any of them can land on their feet at Paizo, I'll be more than happy to support them.
From my xp running a 4th Ed campaign for 8 or 9 months, I'd also say that just between the start and end of that campaign there had been a strong transition from "buy the books" at the beginning to "just use the character builder" by the end. This was during the first year or so of 4th Ed being out, and what I saw was an acceleration of putting out new product within DDI, putting continually evolving errata into DDI, and actually players wanting to change up their characters as they went along thanks to the steady stream of new content via DDI, to the point where players were hardly using their books at all because by a year after release *THEY* felt like their PH was mostly obsolete.
Very good breakdown of a major difference between PF and 4E 3PP as it stands right now. As a DM, I began to rely more and more on DDI, using the Compendium or monster builder to create nearly all my encounters. I stopped buying splatbooks like the Adventurer's Vault since everything was in DDI. Eventually all the players created their characters and leveled them up in CB, and creating home-brew stuff and manually entering in 3PP was more work than it was worth. Any kind of character-based 3PP content became less and less attractive. The only 3PP products I ended up using for my game were Open Design adventures. I can only imagine that VTT exacerbates this issue.
Part of the reason I'm running a PF game right now instead of 4E is because I feel I have more control over the campaign setting and house rules in PF than I ever could in 4E with DDI. I like both rules systems fine; it's the other stuff that's been nudging me over to the PF camp in recent years. And 3PP content is a HUGE part of that. I feel like PF is so much more versatile and open to all kinds of possibilities. 4E is very rigid, and if I don't like parts of it, or want to add to it, it's a nightmare to try and tinker with it.
Maybe I'm just simplifying this, but I think everyone is going WAY over board. Yes, the feat needs an adjustment, but it isn't that difficult:
DC changes to 10 + (old DC formula). If the target has over a 15 Intelligence, then the DC increases by the Int modifier of the creature. This helps to adjust for the "omg, 60 year old wizard would never do that" issue.
Intimidate doesn't have a range on it, but I think it is safe to say that if you aren't close (within 30 feet) that intimidate either simply wouldn't work or would be less effective. Demoralize is the key to this feat. Antagonize is supposed to be used IN COMBAT SITUATIONS. Therefor, I would think you would base it's use off the closest thing to that...Demoralize. The Antagonizer has to be within 30 feet. So now, it's not nearly as easy for the barbarian or someone else to just yell at the bad guy behind a legion of zombies. You need to get somewhat close to him.
I like the suggestion of using the Demoralize 30' rule to adjust this feat. And I also think they forgot the '10+', and that will be errata'd
If people can't stand that spellcasters are required to make a melee attack (which I think is the coolest part of this feat), then maybe they can houserule that it forces a spellcaster to lose a spell-slot to channel [1/2 HD]d6 force damage (reflex half) instead.
I could see this happening if D&D 4e doesn't perform to Hasbro's expectations. Hasbro then reacts by a) spinning off WotC, b) publishing D&D RPG material online only, as a MMORPG or a VTT/digital subscription-only, or c) ends publication of the D&D brand, and allows 3PP to license the D&D name. (option d) ceases publication of D&D as an RPG and keeps only the brand for licensed board games, is too horrible to consider)
Now if D&D didn't exist in the RPG industry anymore, the entire RPG industry may go under. But if WotC got spun off, or a third party was allowed to publish D&D material, this scenario could possible happen.
Now, in this apocalyptic scenario, my ideal situation would be for WotC to be sold to Paizo, though I don't know if they have the capital to make that a reality. Or barring that, I'd prefer Paizo was permitted to publish under the D&D license.
If WotC is in such sad state that they need to copy PFRPG to be successful, I'd be really worried about the RPG industry as a whole.
Congrats Sam! Great work throughout the contest. It's gotta be pretty glorious standing among Christine Schneider, Neil Spicer, and Matt Goodall as the newest RPG Superstar!
I'm really looking forward to seeing your module. Though I didn't pull the lever for your adventure module, it was very, very hard to decide, and I put off voting til the last minute. I know I'll love what you come up with.
Also, congrats to the top 4, and for every one who competed in RPG Superstar 2011. It was a great year. I really enjoyed each stage of the contest.
I want to echo John's comment that you didn't go out on a weak note. Your adventure proposal got my vote too. And reading your thoughts about how you would have changed moves it in an even better direction. And I'm sure you've taken the comments on passive voice and such to heart.
At any rate, even if Gears of Madness doesn't make it, I'll be looking forward to seeing your PFS adventure and whatever else you cook up. Great job on this contest!
For me, I think a niche module makes it MORE marketable. I don't subscribe to modules, and I usually only mine them for dynamic encounters, story ideas, maps, characters, locations, etc. I don't think I've ever run a module form beginning to end how it's supposed to be.
If there is a good module that does something different (which I think Jerall's proposal does), I'd be more likely to pick it up because it's different than many other modules out there. The strong investigative slant and the opportunity to see how the PCs fare working for (or against) the church of Asmodeus are the two elements that really drew me to Isgeri Blood and Orphans' Tears. I ended up voting for Gears of Madness in the end, but it was really close.
I know Gears of Madness was also criticized for being a niche of a niche for combining steampunk and lovecraft elements. Personally, that's what made it stand out in the end for me and got my vote. I thought some proposals were better written, and I like the plot/story aspects of a couple other modules, but the genres themselves dovetailed perfectly for me. I can guarantee that if his module gets produced I'll buy it.
In TSR/WotC days, Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk never excited me. I bought the FR gray box 20 years ago, but haven't touched a book from either setting since. I don't really see much point in buying generic fantasy settings. Planescape, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and Eberron, however all interested me enough to get me to buy those campaign settings. KQ's Zobeck interests me. And I really like some of the non-traditional regions of Golarion, like Cheliax and Alkenstar.
I recognize I might not represent most of Paizo's customers, but I'm far more likely to buy something that seems niche or "gonzo," just because it inspires me or catches my attention.
Sean's Gears of Madness got my vote. I had a three-way tie for my vote for a while, but in the end Gears of Madness has the most potential and excites me the most.
I was going back and forth on my three favorite adventures and put off voting until the last minute.
There were some things about Gears of Madness that bothered me, all of which has already been talked about. In the end, I couldn't resist voting for Sean's proposal. THIS is the adventure I most want to see, and the one I'd be most likely to buy.
I really hope you get the chance to write this adventure Sean, because this is something that I think is pretty unique and original, and will be a lot of fun to see produced. Best of luck!
Glad to see you made the cut. I was really on the fence with this archetype, but I ended up voting for you because of how interesting the idea is, how well-executed this is, and because of your elegant assassin's rose. Congrats! Looking forward to your villain.
Be careful about posting a villain item. Not that they'll never ever pick a villain item, but it doesn't help your chances. Along the same lines, don't paint yourself into a corner with a specific narrow niche that doesn't appeal to many players.
Avoid making an item that is too similar to a trap, a hazard, a creature, etc.
Some of this is out of date, but it shows some of the thinking of one of the judges, and deals with some of the informal rules like "hands as chakra": Magic Item Creation.
*...Well, nerfing clerical holy symbols is an interesting ability, but I don't like that it happens automatically even when the item is in possession of its owner. There should be a item saving throw and an opportunity to substitute the owner's save instead.
*...The rest of this stuff is really just desecrate and poison SIAC effects with a lot of Asmodeus flavor wrapped around it.
*...this comes across far more as a villain item to me. I don't necessarily knock all villain items, but this particular concept (affecting holy symbols) could have been extended to all alignments...or at least two versions. I'd have rather seen at least a nod towards that.
*...Vote to Reject.
*...It's a hazard, not a wondrous item.
*...Reject.
Thanks Neil! I'd gotten similar feedback from others, but it's really great to see it from the judges. Shows that the flaws really were universal.
I went for a cool idea (which I still think could work), that I felt made for a really cinematic encounter, and I think that was the wrong approach. It's really good to read this feedback. Much appreciated!
But for me I wonder whether someone who writes adventures well would be equally good at creating such things as an archetype. The two don't necessarily go together in my book.
This is basically what I'm afraid of.
I like archetypes, and round 2 is the most appealing to me personally, and I'm glad they decided to give an archetype round a try this year, but... I'm also afraid that some of the best adventure writers, people who would otherwise make the top 4 or 8, could get wiped out this round. I think the wondrous items round is a relatively good predictor for adventure writing, and it worries me a bit that most of the best archetypes in my opinion came from people who didn't make the best wondrous items and vice versa.
On the other hand, maybe it still does work as a round 2 because I've seen a lot of people posting something to the effect of, "I only think 3 of these archetypes are good, so I'm voting for my favorite 5 wondrous items too."
I am keeping this in mind. If I see an archetype that I feel is really creative and innovative and the type of thing I'd like to see in an adventure, and the author made a really cool wondrous item, then I'm going to vote for it. Even if it has an ability that's slightly overpowered, and all the judges don't recommend them to advance. Because I DO believe they'll use this round as a lesson to keep things in balance if they get another chance.
On the other hand, if their archetype kind of bores me or seems really safe I'm less likely to give them a shot, even if all the judges love them. I'm just approaching this round differently than some people; I care less about a balance issue or two, and more about what the author is trying to do with their theme. I'm not going to be buying a book of archetypes. I'm going to be buying an adventure module.
EDIT: Reading Neil's comments, I see where he is coming from. And I agree that what he describes is what every contestant should strive for. My perspective is: I'd rather have someone try something really cool and fail, then try something safe and succeed. I have faith in their ability to improve, and to learn from the mechanical missteps they may make along the way. But I'm also approaching this as a potential consumer of a module, not from the perspective of a Paizo team member looking for all-around freelance talent.
I'm not claiming that the design space is utterly exhausted, merely that we're clearly in the area of diminishing returns already. Most of the "archetypes" we're seeing are either incredibly niche or just not that doable mechanically.
This is why I'm more forgiving of archetypes that retread some ground that WotC may have partly covered with a PrC or a feat. To use your Evangelist example: while I thought the Evangelist should have picked a better name that didn't draw such obvious parallels to the WotC evangelist Prc, I think the archetype was approached with a very different spin, and therefore very unique. It was a bard instead of a cleric, and it ends up being an entirely different character.
For the Hound Master archetype, some people compared a couple abilities to WoW abilities. I think it's a HUGE mistake for us to sit around and say that any idea that's ever been used by any other company is now off limits for Pathfinder, or even for RPG Superstar. Sure innovation and originality are important, but there is also a lot that can be done by reinterpreting an idea in a new way.
Even those archetypes that are in no way unique, like the knife fighter concept, are still archetypal. And as such they are useful for Pathfinder. Sure I found some of the entries more inspired than others, but I'd never say there aren't a lot of good ideas here. And there are several archetypes that I'd like to include in my game in the future.
Oh man. I want to like this, but I'm on the fence. Just like this archetype is on a weird fence bordering the cavalier, paladin, and inquisitor.
Honestly I'm not the hugest fan of alignment dictating class features, but it's not fair to use that prejudice to dock you points.
I really like how you took some risks to come up with an interesting archetype, but I feel like this archetype was tried on the paladin or inquisitor first, and then kind of shoe-horned onto the cavalier because it was working better.
I couldn't care less if people thought he was walking the line on "don't make an order." I think he succeeded on being on this side of the line, so that's no fuss to me.
I'm going to have to think about this one some more. Fortunately I get 8 votes, so I might go for this one towards the end.
The cavalier really needs something that allows you to ditch that horse. I had a master of hounds on my short-list of potential ideas, so I'm really glad to see this archetype.
You did a really excellent job with this one -- any issues I see seem pretty minor and subjective.
Haven't read through everything yet, but I wanted to point out that this definition is probably somewhere in the ballpark of what Ignotus was thinking.
Of course, Ignotus cannot reply with any comments whatsoever. I just thought that it would be helpful to link to a definition.
I think your analysis is pretty spot on. Metagame prevention of multiclassing is the only reason I can really see for saying they are the same class.
Wouldn't it be better to instead just make sure their design isn't broken if they multiclass?
The ninja as an alternate rogue with ki is confusing to me. I'm ok with classes other than monk having ki, but to introduce an alternate rogue with it doesn't make sense. It steps pretty far from the rogue when you start introducing ki. This to me breaks so far away from the rogue, that it seems more of a new class than an alternate class.
If they don't want you to gain sneak attack from a ninja and a rogue when you multi-class, then why don't they just make you expend ki in order to sneak attack?
I haven't gotten any official judges' feedback on my item yet, but I've learned a lot from the gracious community members who have commented so far.
I've also picked up a few things I might have done wrong by reading the judges' comments.
My item may have been too niche. It's a bad-guy item. A bad-guy item for followers of Asmodeus. And only followers of Asmodeus. That hinders only the holy symbols of deities that aren't named Asmodeus. So just a tad specific. I liked the niche of it, but that coulda sunk my battleship.
It's kind of brutal. Almost 1st edition brutal. Maybe too brutal. Maybe broken. It's really mean to the poor clerics. Rogues are used to getting shut down, as are the poor illusionists/enchanters, but divine casters can usually skate through any encounter. And this item isn't just brutal, it's nasty. You think you solved it, and it comes back.
I also might not have answered every question. I know I should have mentioned how to turn the thing back on after it was suppressed. I assumed that you'd just follow the rules as normal for the means that suppresses it, but spelling it out would have helped. The thing is my item last year had the same problem. I never said how you'd get the darned squid back in the bottle. So next year I've gotta think about clean up. If it can get shut down, how does it turn back on?
It also probably didn't help that I made a candle. So that dropped me squarely in the middle of one of the meme categories this year. Also my item was named after a certain plane in Hell that got a lot of love this year: I've counted a couple "stygian" or "styx" items so far.
But I dunno. I don't want to learn the lesson "don't take risks" because I need to take a swing if I'm gonna compete. And I'd rather fall hard, on my face, than water down something I think is a good idea. The goal is to better know what is really a good idea, and what is a lousy idea. And I'm still struggling with that. Because with everything I've learned so far, my item still seems on-par with my item last year. Both had problems with mechanics. Both were (in my opinion) cool and interesting and flavorful. Maybe my squidship wouldn't have made it this year.
Suffice to say, I haven't learned every lesson yet. I still have a lot more to learn, but I plan to take the things I did learn this year, and apply them in future designs.
Do you really need the right to use my picture and name and municipality for advertising? I'm a fairly private person, and this scares me. I've been published before, and no one ever needed my picture or address.
You seem to suggest you'll pay for the work done by the grand prize winner on the final bestiary, but there's no suggestion what your per-word rate is. I know the value varies based on length but do you pay 1/4 cent a word? 1 cent a word? 3 cents a word?
Thanks for the clarification.
These seem kinda standard. RPG Superstar has the same things in their contest, and they don't say the per-word rate. I doubt Dreamscarred Press will either.
This thing is old school Gygaxian MEAN. :) I love the flavor but agree with some of the points already mentioned. I could see the judges reading this and just thinking it screws people over... and over and over. The wax seal is a really cool visual and interesting concept, but the fact it reforms if you're in the corrupted zone is just a nasty surprise and might have been too over-the-top. Also, this item requires a lot of knowledge about it to counteract it... a cleric may not even realize his holy symbol has the seal on it, and waste many rounds trying to figure out what in the Nine Hells is going on. And the "simple" solution of extinquishing the candle might never occur to a PC who has never heard of the item (and has no way to cast a spell to divine the source because he's cut off!)
I think there are three major issues here: the balance factor (which has been addressed), the idea that it is possibly a plot device/not an item (you described it as operating like a trap) and the fact it takes away class abilties. I think it's against Paizo's design philosophy to have an item that singles out divine casters liek this, but I could be wrong.
Also, I think this is vastly underpriced for what in effect can be seen as an anti-magic field that targets and follows divine casters. I might not be accounting for it being a single (4 hour) use item... or at least I'm assuming it can't be reused.
And obviously, this is sort of a niche/villain item and although that's not against the rules it further limits the item's appeal... Ryan Dancey made an excellent point in another thread about how he looked at designers to see if they had the potential to design items with broad "commericial" appeal. That's a viewpoint to consider here too.
That all said, this item scores mega points with me on the creativity scale. I love the image of a wax Asmodean seal that corrupts/taints holy symbols. Just needed to reign in the abilities and focus them more narrowly I think. This item is almost a "Boss Fight In A Can" it has so many cool things going on. :) Seperately they are all awesome, together in one 6,000 gp? Too much. (Says the guy with the broken touch spell spam device, I know...)
Thanks! Very useful comments, Crowface. I'm glad there were elements of the stygian seal you liked. I intend to revise this item for my own game (even though it belongs to Paizo now--so paladins be careful storming their gates).
I do wonder if it's a bad idea altogether -- singling out divine casters like it does. Silence affects all casters and bards. All kinds of monsters shut down rogues, illusionists, and enchanters. I couldn't begin to list the spells, items, and abilities that shut down necromancers and the undead. A lot of things really hurt melee classes, though more indirectly than anything. . .
The blasphemous bile special attack by the heresy devil is kind of similar to the seal, but I have no idea if that helped or hindered my item. In fact, it's a tad SAK+MIAC (but only kind of) -- continual flame + devil-flavored desecrate + an ability kind of similar to blasphemous bile = stygian seal of blasphemy. But I felt I had an item that was innovative and had a really tight theme. It made a really nasty zone that helped minions of the Prince of Darkness put the smack-down on his enemies.
I guess I should have considered how to make it more PC-friendly, instead of Tomb of Horrors-level evil. And I should have spent some more time tweaking the price. I was thinking 6000 for a one-shot item that can be circumvented by putting a bucket on top of it was starting to get too high, but I think I was suffering from tunnel vision.
I also wonder if it being a candle (one of this year's meme items), and that I've seen at least two other "stygian" or "styx" items, hindered it as well. I thought making an item that exemplified characteristics of one of Pathfinder's levels of hell (blasphemy, poison), that gave a ton of love to Asmodeus, was a good idea. Well, there's always next year. :D
Your comments were very helpful. Thanks TONS for talking through my item.
"If the holy symbol is within the zone of corruption, the seal instantly reforms."
And at this point I think we've jumped the shark. If the seal instantly reforms, then taking the poison hit was for naught.
RonarsCorruption wrote:
@seth - Joe beat me to the punch, the key is the line where you say "instantly reforms". Which means if you try to stop it, you get poisoned and still remain gimped. Therein lies your demise.
I really contemplated that.
I really liked the "gotcha" mechanic of a cleric taking the seal off, taking the poison, and having it reform bc they didn't have the sense to get out of the corrupt zone.
Maybe I liked it too much. I thought it was clever and 1st edition-y to make them suppress the zone (cover it up, cast deeper darkness, dispel magic, consecrate, etc) before they removed the seal, or get the hell out of the 40' r zone (which I know is huge) if they want to cast spells.
In a way, the item creates a zone that acts like a hazard or a trap, and it requires thinking to deal with it.
But it looks like I made it too difficult, too unfun for clerics/paladins, or just downright broken. I can totally see where you're coming from.
The challenge with this contest is knowing which boundaries to push, and which to leave alone. I never got a chance to see the judges' feedback, and I probably never will since it's round 2 now. But both of your feedback is immensely valuable.
What's interesting is that I feel like my vessel of the deep had just as many mechanics issues as my stygian seal of blashphemy, and i personally feel they're equally cool. The seal is definitely more niche, and certainly more painful for clerics, so maybe that's the difference between round 1 and round 0.
How do you feel your nexus compares to your nightingale's tongue, Joe? Did you like either one more?
So, this feels like an instant gimp to divine casters. And for the price, holy cow! I mean, I like the devils bit, and the wax forming on holy symbols is cool, but - it basically kills half the divine spells that are out there. For 6k, that's crazy.
And you don't clairify a few important cases - can a caster cast a spell with the symbol in that round before the wax reforms? What happens if the flame is doused, can you relight the candle? How long does the supression last if you consecrate it?
Cool ideas, cool visuals, but way overpowered, especially for the price.
Thanks very much for your comments!
navel-gazing:
It looks like I did a lousy job of communicating, so I deserve to be on the outside looking in with this item.
I guess I felt the gimp factor was balanced by the fact you could take the wax off the symbol, at the cost of getting hit with the poison spell. But it's apparent that wasn't viewed as enough.
As for cost, I thought 6k might be a bit steep for an item you can only use once. The math was hard to work out, and I probably ended up low-balling it by basing it on poison + desecrate + continual flame, since it's possible to end up poisoning multiple opponents with this item, plus the gimp factor for those who don't want to get poisoned.
I stated that the wax instantly forms when the symbol is brought into the zone. It was my intention to clearly communicate by that, that if you move, then it seals after the move, but before you can use a standard action. Maybe I should have been more explicit. It's always a balance to decide how much to call out; I assumed that the judges would understand that point, but I could have been very wrong.
And yeah I totally should have talked about relighting the candle. I assumed that if you dispelled it, consecrated it, covered it, or concealed it with a darkness spell then it's suppressed. And you'd resolve countering the spell normally (such as with dispel magic, consecrate, continual flame (or any light spell equal or higher than the darkness spell). In retrospect, I shouldn't have left that as it is. I should have just said that you could relight the thing as a standard action, which would turn it back on. It's certainly an elegant solution.
Also in retrospect I should have made the radius 20' for the wax effect (so that part only works in the area where the profane light burns brightest). That may have made it a little easier to swallow.
At any rate, I'm still uncertain on how powerful it is because it's really easy to bypass the gimp effect. You (or an ally) just have to make a sacrifice by taking the stygian venom into your body to get back your communion with your god.
But I can clearly see I failed to pass muster for many of the reasons you pointed out. I still think this is a great villain item, but it's obvious it needs work still, and despite last year's lucky break I'm still not ready for this contest. Because to me it looked balanced. :-/
I like the name. It sounds cool, and it gives the right connotation.
Yeah, aspergillum of blessed mists falls of the mind's tongue like a lead fishing weight. I had to come up with something else.
Seth White wrote:
I just don't know that this wowed the judges. It's cool and useful, but it's not really treading that new of ground. I wonder if it's too close to SIAC? You combine your channel energy ability with obscuring mist. I think it's well thought-though, and a nice clean, useful item. I'd definitely use this in my game, and it would be a great item to include in a sourcebook.
Yeah, maybe it just ain't cool enough. I really liked the thought of a bunch of undead or lower planar baddies writhing in pain while surrounded by holy water mist.
Seth White wrote:
I think they were looking for something that is more innovative. Of course it's hard to tell because I think a few of the top 32 were no more innovative than this, and you definitely designed everything well, and thought through all potential abuse issues.
One place that I think I screwed up was giving undead the shaken condition. Shaken is usually fear-based and undead are immune to that, of course. I really just wanted that condition as short-hand for a minor incapacitation. Probably should have done that differently.
Many thanks for your feedback, Seth. I really do appreciate it.
As for the reqs on your Seal, I don't think it makes a huge amount of difference. So long as they're in the ballpark, it shouldn't matter much. Yours don't jump out at me and say "that's wrong".
I don't know. I liked the shaken effect. It reminds me of the 3x turn undead ability where they run away from you, or cower. Even if they're immune to mind-affecting spells, it doesn't mean they can't ever be afraid, does it? Undead SHOULD be afraid of a cleric I think. But maybe mechanically they never can. If that's the case, then I think that's a real shame.
I like the name. It sounds cool, and it gives the right connotation.
I really like this item, and I can see it becoming a staple for some churches. It looks like it should already be published. It's just a good, solid item.
I just don't know that this wowed the judges. It's cool and useful, but it's not really treading that new of ground. I wonder if it's too close to SIAC? You combine your channel energy ability with obscuring mist. I think it's well thought-though, and a nice clean, useful item. I'd definitely use this in my game, and it would be a great item to include in a sourcebook.
I think they were looking for something that is more innovative. Of course it's hard to tell because I think a few of the top 32 were no more innovative than this, and you definitely designed everything well, and thought through all potential abuse issues.
Thanks for taking a look at this, Joe. Your criticism is really helpful. I thought about some of the things you brought up, and it's good to see a fresh take on it.
Joe Wells wrote:
Slot should be "--" rather than "none", I think.
I think I fixed the slot error when I submitted it actually, and forgot to save it; if not, then I agree it's sloppy presentation. At any rate, I didn't catch it when I reposted it here, so I may have missed it last time as well. :)
Joe Wells wrote:
A burning shrine to Asmodeus? I dunno. Other items linked to gods do so in a more general way. With this, I would expect that even (non-Asmodeian) evil characters wouldn't want it. And with that narrow a scope, this seems like a hard sell.
I'm curious if it's the specificity that hurt it. It's a GM item mostly, and at that very, very specific. It's purposely intended to shut down all divine casters who don't worship Asmodeus (even evil ones). And that may be much too specific for this contest.
Joe Wells wrote:
The blasphemous seal bit seems way over the top. No save?
This seems way underpriced. 40' is a pretty wide swath and effectively negates any divine caster in the area, without recourse.
You're right. The seal doesn't have a save, and even if you suppress the zone, it still stays in place for four hours. It may be too over the top. You can remove the seal easily but it costs you. You must spend a standard action (which sucks), and you must expose yourself to the poison spell (which also sucks, but at least provides a save). In essence, if there are multiple clerics or paladins this is a potent item. If just one, not so much.
Joe Wells wrote:
I dunno. It's definitely flavorful and does some interesting stuff. I think it needs to be pulled back a couple of notches and made a bit more general in scope.
I agree that this may be too much. I wasn't sure. I really like the item, but obviously it didn't make top 32. I'm curious to see what the judges say about it.
I wondered if it was a mistake to take away abilities from clerics and paladins. Does it make the encounter a fun challenge, or does it make it not fun for any divine characters?
I wondered if poison was the right spell. Should I use an actual poison affliction instead? Symbol of pain? Blasphemy,since the thing is called a seal of blasphemy (though I don't like save or die effects on a single-use item)?
A flaw I see in retrospect is that I call out how it can be suppressed, but not how it can be turned back on again, nor how long it takes to light the thing. I assumed the reader would know that it could be turned back on by eliminating the source of the suppression (greater darkness, dispel magic, consecrate, putting a bucket over it), but I think in retrospect I should have spelled that out more clearly.
So maybe I pigeon-holed myself too much here. I enjoy this item greatly. It seems balanced to me, but I'm the author and, as such, I may be suffering from tunnel vision.
Thanks much for the criticism. I totally see where you're coming from on those points, and I have to admit, I had some of those concerns myself. But it was the coolest of my items, so I submitted it.
It wasn't solely based on the description. If your flask had said "This flask can hold up to five potions at once. The user may decide to drink two potions from this flask at the same time but doing so renders him sickened for a minute afterwards." You would be dead in the water (also very close to a first edition item called the flask of infinite potions) -- but you didn't do that (which would be what we would have seen in the Core or APG) -- you included descriptive text (in my opinion good descriptive text for the most part) and presented your item very well -- and you are rightfully (in my opinion) superstar because of it.
*******
So what I have taken away is: The auto-rejection advice is at least partly a trap -- especially auto-rejection advice #3.
But see Rule #27. It specifically takes Neil's last leaves and strips them down to their basic description, and shows how the writing helps the item.
Yes, mechanics are important, innovation is important, coolness is important. But so too is good writing. Your job is to help the reader visualize your item. You can try to do that solely with mechanics, but it will be difficult. You'll probably also need some "fluff" text as well.
Rule #3 is talking about over-doing it. You don't need to write 2-3 lines. Sometimes a couple carefully placed words work. I'd point to my item this year, but it fell short as well, and I'm curious to know the exact errors in it as well. But don't think that you can just ignore Rule 3 and glom on backstory and long description.
Wow. That wasnt nearly as helpful as id hoped. Thanks.anyways i guess.
We could stop posting the judges comments if you don't think it's helpful. We do, after all, have work to do, and free time to enjoy....
Basically, sometimes it only takes a dozen words to determine that an item doesn't make the cut, and there is a consensus among the judges. Sometimes it takes more effort and discussion.
I'd much rather have even a short answer than none at all.
I hope that someone who asks for feedback, and then doesn't like the feedback they get, doesn't ruin it for other people who are grateful for the time you're spending critiquing our items.
Of course I understand if the judges are frustrated that their extra effort to help people out isn't appreciated. I hope you know that there are a great many of us who really appreciate all you're doing.
Me either actually; it looks like a lot of items are being bashed for reasons which sound to me like praise.
I'm not a judge, but I think it's this part: "The same person, or a blood relative if the owner is deceased, can retrieve items left inside by becoming the owner again. A Not Lost Box can have many such previous owners, each with their own contents inside. "
The fact that your relatives can get your stuff after you die doesn't really help you at all. It's more a plot hook for an adventure or something -- and a pretty cool one at that.
Tho take anything I say with a grain of salt -- I'm in this thread too bc I did something wrong. :)
I think that's what's so valuable about the feedback. We don't always think through a lot of the things that the pros need to think through.
I know for my item I tried something that I thought was a little innovative to shut down a certain type of ability. It could be that's exactly what killed my item because it's just a bad idea, or there could have been other aspects that I didn't think about, like corner cases, or another item or spell that does the same thing.
These threads are great because we get to look behind the curtain and see the thinking that leads to the rejects.
I'll be curious to see what really sunk my ship this time around. I have a couple ideas after the fact, but I'm really interested in hearing any feedback.
The more I follow along in the "Judges critique my item" thread, the more I'm astounded by the amount of work the judges put into this, and the amount of rules-fu they have. What a valuable resource.
Just scrolling through that thread makes my eyes glaze over. It's amazing that they have dedicated weeks and weeks to reading through everyone's items - good, bad, and ugly -- and thought through the mechanics, pricing, innovation, and writing skills of all of them.
They really are all to be commended. Thanks Sean, Mark, Neil, and Ryan (and Clark, and any past judges reading) for everything you do to make this contest the hands-down best RPG contest ever.
I shouldn't be posting at present (self-imposed exile this year to avoid another lecture from Urizen at least when it comes to serious posts... ;) ), but this isn't technically about round 2-5, so I can leave my cage for a bit...
Too bad about the exile. I know I valued your comments last year, and I thought they added to the contest both previous years I well.
I really like this fun item. Sure it's got some issues that a number of people have already brought up, and it does rely on the existing portable hole, but this is just a really good item.
This would be a fun item to give away as a Dm (though I'd worry about breaking my dungeon), and a blast for players to find uses for. It's funny without being a joke or gag item. All-in-all, a really fun choice. Looking forward to your next submissions.
Hey Levi, have you ever been to House on the Rock? It's a bit south of you. I've wanted to check that place out ever since reading about it in Neil Gaiman's American Gods. Sounds pretty crazy.
I guess they had a huge event with Gaiman there on Halloween - a costume contest, dinner, author panel, opened up the carousel, and everything. I wanted to go, but I couldn't afford it. It looked really sweet.
I'm in Minneapolis. How's the gaming in Black River Falls? Did you have to drive far to find a game?
I'll give a huge shout out to Sean, Neil and (maybe most all, because he really had no stake) Clark. There was so much great advice this to build on, I felt like it really elevated my game.
For all of you still playing at home, read this stuff. I've put an item into every competition so far (all 4, plus the spiritual predecessor- Flight of the Red Raven). The best advice I can give is this- read, read, read. If the judges are posting, it's worth reading. If some problems come up year after year, listen to those concerns. Make sure you're not treading on ground that's already been covered or rejected.
+1
All the judges are awesome for the time they devote to this contest. And I can't wait until the next round.
