Firstly: congratulations! The staff is a very interesting concept and I like that you've pulled ideas for it from a lot of sources.
That said, I find myself wondering how I could actually use this staff in a game. One of the spells is magus only, one is alchemist and sor/wiz, and the third is magus and sor/wiz, which means that unless a PC or NPC multiclasses there's no one who can use all three spells and hence all three of the neat abilities :(
Actually, having just typed that, it occurs to me that if you need all the spells on your list to create the item, that pretty much means that the creator has to be a multiclass magus/wizard or magus/sorcerer >_> Though there may be some way out there to let players ignore some of the requirements, I'll need to double check :D
x93edwards wrote: Ring of the Clockwork Sentinel Good: The description is evocative and entertaining. Mostly well-written. I actually think the price is fine, though I would not have objected to a reduction to make it more accessible.
Bad: The ring notices people automatically. That's always a big no for me, because I do not like magic items that completely override the use of skills.
Overall: This was one of my favorite items, despite its flaws. I think with a little finagling it could have been great. Limiting the ring's unbeatable perceptiveness and using a lower-level spell like suggestion (and a lower Will DC), as an example, which in turn would have probably reduced the cost.
Jeremy Corff wrote: Springheart Good: A fun, cute, and imaginative tool for enhancing role-play. It is well-written (although I agree with Brigg about that last sentence) and simply gorgeous design.
Bad: ...Uhh... the price/cost is halved instead of being worked out and spell names weren't italicized. That's kind of it.
Overall: This was my #1 favorite item of 2015. It is a rare example of a magic item whose description evoked an emotional response. Not just in me, apparently, but a whole lot of people. It brings back a sense of wonderment to magic items - the reminder that there is more to them than simply stat adjustments and combat enhancers. I wish that more items of this style were created for role-playing games. Bravo, Mr Corff.
Phil Greeley/Rochandil Calenlad wrote: The Pen of Mirado Good: It has great flavor.
Bad: It references Bardic Knowledge as a check, which doesn't exist in Pathfinder; they changed how that class feature works for bards. Speaking as someone who has played with a medieval stylus, I find it hard to believe that it could ever be used to deal slashing or bludgeoning damage, even if you poked them with the blunt end.
Overall: I think some research into Pathfinder RPG's class mechanics for bards would have been useful before submitting it :)
KatsuraTsuruya wrote: Freebooter's Longcoat Good: The visuals are neat. Well-written and good clarity of concept.
Bad: Doesn't really have a lot of 'oomph'. The Price/Cost you've already noticed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think mithral normally makes the armor count as a lower category for proficiency. This is effectively a limited use of the Medium Armor Proficiency feat, and needed a bit more explanation to justify how the armor grants this boon.
Overall: I actually upvoted this a lot. The problem, for me, is that it was one of about 5 items I saw that had specifically nautical caveats. I found myself wondering how I would ever use this item in a game, even a nautical game, that didn't involve a lot of ship-to-ship combat to make the armor really worthwhile.
Oggron wrote: Foe Stitcher Good: Mostly well-written, a bizarre and very cool item. I love the thematic of stitching people together. I also like the use of the Drag CM as it rewards people who have invested in these feats.
Bad: The only criticisms I have are the Price/Cost was just halved rather than actually worked out properly, and there are some issues with incorrect or absent capitalization and formatting. It could be a little underpriced, but considering its niche and the fact that its made of silver (most players would consider that far from optimal) I wouldn't have priced it too much higher.
Overall: Was one of my favorites. I really liked this one. It does malevolent things that I would enjoy messing with as a GM or a player ;)
mechaPoet wrote: Honeycomb Cuirass Good: One of the more imaginative entries. Aside from being a +1 breastplate of deliciousness, this armor has a nice, simple mechanic to do with being sticky. All pretty cool.
Bad: I'm not entirely sure if I could use this in a serious campaign. A lighthearted, comical campaign, sure. It just doesn't scream "I'm an adventurer/warrior/rogue!" so much as "I am a madman with a sweet tooth!"
Overall: I do love this. I have to admit though, there would be some nasty drawbacks to being constantly coated in honey. Also, I'm really glad the durations are there and are sensible, because otherwise I could see players attempting to tap that cuirass like a maple tree.
metid wrote: Riftcarver Bow Good: Has a consistent thematic; ground, rock, stone spikes, breaking things (the giant hair bowstring seems to break the theme a bit, even if the description claims these bows were made by dwarven druids). The ground breaker power is a neat back-up ability.
Bad: How does the ranged trip work, precisely? Like these optional mechanics or a regular CM check? It doesn't specify. Also, I'm not fond of RPGSS bows with the 'adaptive' property, anymore than I like seeing RPGSS weapons with the 'impact' property. I don't think they need to be that optimized, and there's usually something more thematic you can do with that +1 bonus.
Overall: I like this a lot. Could use some rules clarification, but otherwise I think it's pretty solid.
Raynulf wrote: Motherly Love Good: Fun roleplaying tool. Especially if the player crafted it themselves, my god. Well written, other than missing a 'composite' there at the top. I think the "slightly creepy" is a good thing - too much creepy would have been going overboard and not actually been in line with the nature of the item (which doesn't seem particularly evil, just overprotective and demanding... like many mothers* ;) ).
Bad: The item being intelligent and able to communicate its desire to mother people would have been cooler (however I don't think intelligent items were supposed to be in the contest). Essentially, it's a cursed bow with peculiarities... but a personality would have made it better.
Overall: Has potential. Personally, I like a bit of subtle horror in my role-playing games, and would take something like this over "weapon that makes you go crazy" any day.
* I'm a mother. I'm allowed to say that ;)
GM_Solspiral wrote: Deadeye’s Shepherd Editing nitpick: Normally something that is spiraling can be assumed to be curved as well, so the "naturally curved" was probably unnecessary ;)
Good: Has a strong visual appearance and this ties in well with the theme of the bow. Well-written, clear description. Extra effects with a ring of the ram was a neat idea.
Bad: Not really sold on summoning a battle ram. [EDIT] Should probably explain why - a longbow that summons a mount seems incongruous with the nature/size of a longbow. I know a composite longbow can be used while mounted, and it is the ranged weapon of choice in Pathfinder, but a shortbow would have felt more appropriate.
Overall: Solid. Did not see it EVER when I was voting, or I would have given it positive votes. Though personally, I'm not a fan of 'adaptive' or 'impact' on Superstar items.
Feros wrote: Courtier’s Solitaire Good: I happen to like what I call "roleplay-enhancers", and at first glance this seems like one...
Bad: ...but it isn't. First, the specific description of how it affects your appearance didn't sit well with me. Not everyone using Bluff wants to appear 'soft', after all, especially a courtier who might be using the ring to lie convincingly about how much power and influence they have. Those should have been phrased as examples, not specifics. Secondly, and more importantly, it automatically detects concealed creatures and makes the wearer aware of their location. This effect negates skill, negates magic, and does not seem able to be countered except by antimagic.
Overall: Significantly underpriced. No one should get a budget 120ft blindsight for only 12K >_> The rest of the ring's abilities have fun potential, but need some rewriting.
Brigg wrote: Living Copperthread Net Good: Great visuals and imaginative concept. It's the exact sort of thing I'd want to spring on players.
Bad: Living Copperthead Net, I CHOOSE YOU. While certainly amusing, the unfortunate downside of this... is it's sort of an elemental gem in net form.
Overall: I'm still a fan. But I have to admit, the monster-in-a-can effect probably dropped its chances in the contest.
(Yes, I talk about 'visuals' and 'thematic' a lot. Art is more my thing than writing, so the first visual impression means a great deal to me.)
Acre wrote: Mail of Ash Woven Ramparts Good: Interesting visuals, although that second sentence sounds like it belongs in a romance novel and should be read aloud by Gilbert Gottfried ;)
Bad: Firstly, no saving throw = not so good, nevermind the 'run a circuit and blind a whole crowd with no save'. Secondly, the description of how it all works is kinda clunky and missing some information; how long do these effects last? Also, a 5ft width is assumed, but not stated, so what if the wearer is Large?
Overall: Thematically cool, has some major issues.
Haladir wrote: Dirk of Treachery Good: Interesting niche and concept. The name was a bit lackluster, but accurate at least (I saw worse).
Bad: Clarity issues with the description.
Overall: Was good, but a bit of a one-shot gimmick item. The big thematic ability stops working after the first attack in an entire encounter, since they can tell you're not their friend anymore ;)
Garrick Williams wrote: Windpath Razor Shamelessly copying Solspiral's layout a bit...
Good: Great thematic, loved the name.
Bad: Clarification needed for how the bull rush works. Does it follow gust of wind, or does it use the wielder's abilities?
Overall: One of my favorites of 2015, in spite of needing some additional rules clarity. The visuals just grabbed me.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Of the Top 32, I really did like Interrogator's Ally, and I thought the Windstrider Mail and Rod of the Iron Rose were pretty neat as well, however they ultimately weren't among my absolute favorites. I should add that I didn't see many of the others; I like the Ophidian Coil now that I have seen it. Still skeptical of earthbreakers due to the Thunder & Fang feat.
I tended to look for A) cool value, B) clarity of description, and C) correct mechanics/pricing/etc, usually in that order. I was more willing to overlook incorrect Price/Cost than I was spelling mistakes and horrible grammar. I also tended to look at items as both a GM (would this break my game?) and player (if I found this, would my first response be "oooh!" or "Appraise check?").
So, my personal Top 12 (in no particular order): Springheart, Interrogator's Ally, Serpent's Tongue, Norgorber's Lens, Ring of the Clockwork Sentinel, Ephemeral Staff, Soulwhisper, Rod of Illusory Casting, Musty Cuirass, Raven Leather, Sickle of Spatial Sundering, and Windpath Razor.
Of the Top 32, I only ever voted for 1 of them.
Noting that I wasn't able to do any voting post-cull, So of the winners, I either didn't vote for them or I didn't see them, bar that 1 (one of the non-earthbreaker weapons).
About 95% of the items I had shortlisted as my favorites did not make the cull ;)
Mikaze wrote: Yeah, gotta say, when I think Spanish Inquisition and horrible things like it, the last thing that comes to mind is "there's too much good there". The Spanish Inquisition, and other things like it, are what happens when Lawful Good goes so far off the rails it wraps back around into Chaotic Evil ;P
Despite the slightly goofy image, I don't see the tooth fairy as any less threatening than your average goblin - who are just as likely to pick up a pair of pliers and try to steal someone's teeth. The difference is your average goblin does not have the tooth fairy's superior ability to coup-de-grace - although ghouls are still a TPK's best friend.
Of course, since all the tooth fairy seems to want is your teeth, it would be a pretty vicious GM (at least in my opinion) who decides to coup-de-grace her players with fey dentistry. I do agree that this guy is more like a CR 1/3 or 1/2 though, just because it has the tools to be truly nasty.
The pipefox was adorable; no less so than the carbuncle. Or the fairy dragon, for people who aren't so fond of mutant chameleons. There are always a few cute creatures that get slipped into the pages of a Bestiary.
Bestiary 4 apparently has 300-odd monsters in it. We've been given previews of three. Not yet enough for me to judge the merit of the entire book on ;)
Purchased and reviewed (as quillblade apparently, because my account likes to randomly determine my post name with a 1d2). Thoroughly enjoyed. Will definitely be using this in future!
My only wish is that there was more love around the place for the humble devil. Themes of temptation (and redemption) are favorites of mine, and devils are temptation tied up with ribbons. It's not that they aren't thoroughly evil and out to take your soul... it's just that they're so polite about it, and able to quote you an exact exchange rate for your soul - for your convenience, of course.
CrystalSpellblade wrote: Both of them are affecting the base weapon, not what the weapon may be doing. Good point, neither are actually changing the size of the weapon. Y'all can ignore my earlier post :)
Actually there is precedence for these two effects not stacking with one another written in the enlarge person spell where it states: Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.
Though I suppose you could argue that this only applies to creatures because it's the enlarge person spell.
Marphod wrote: Ssalarn wrote: Cheapy wrote: Maybe they were meant to be replacements for Improved Familiars. <snip>
What does this mean? It means your archetypical Pilferer familiar may not provoke AoOs from using the Steal maneuver, but it is going to provoke one when entering the square to Steal and another to get out. It loses all levels of evasion, so it is screwed when encountering any spell. It can sneak around really well, but that's about it. It means your archetypical Infiltrator is never going to be flatfooted, but again, screwed against spells. To make things worse, the Familiar's eventual SR is only against divination and mind affecting. The master can watch it get roasted alive all the faster.
<snip>
Well, the Pilferer and Infiltrator archetypes didn't seem to be intended for use in combat - I know, I know, class features are almost always judged based on their combat effectiveness. Generally speaking, people avoid using their familiars at all because of the problems you mentioned - they have no AC, few hit points, and are thus squishy as hell.
I still think those Archetypes' abilities can be useful, in non-combat situations, when the familiar can use Stealth (or you can cast invisibility on it), and it can creep around stealing keys to jail cells off sleeping guards, pick the pockets of unsuspecting noblemen, etc. Of course, this is generally done with Sleight of Hand, as the steal combat maneuver isn't exactly subtle. Really, it's more of a Final Fantasy "Mug" maneuver until you get Greater Steal.
That said, while I do see reasons to take these archetypes in certain flavors of game, they are admittedly very situational, and removing Evasion just hurts.
To the above: agreed.
Although there is one other thing that confuses me here. To my knowledge, familiars do not have their own skill ranks because they do not possess actual Hit Dice, only effective Hit Dice. Correct me if this is heinously wrong.
So when the archetypes say "Treat X, X, and X as class skills", how does that work? If the base animal has no skill ranks in those skills, it doesn't even get the +3 bonus. Or is this just another way to say that if the wizard/etc has a rank in those skills, the familiar gets a +3 bonus when it uses its master's ranks?
I'll admit first up that I haven't had time to go through all of the suggestions thus far, so I apologize if any of these have already been done in one form or another!
I was a little uncertain about the early focus on the steal combat maneuver - while it is a cool gimmick, and a lot of the ideas are great, it would be disappointing if the Trickster became entirely about stealing thing. Not every rogue is a thief, and not everyone taking the trickster path is a rogue. I noticed Umbral Reaver was doing a series of ideas for spellcasting tricksters, so I kept mine to a more physical theme. Some of these would probably have minimum Tier requirements.
Blind Man's Intuition: A trickster possesses incredible awareness of her surroundings. As a free action, she can spend 1 mythic point to gain blindsight 100ft for a number of rounds equal to her mythic tier.
Flowing Water: Once per round, when the trickster makes a successful Reflex save against an area attack (such as a spell or breath weapon) or is missed by a melee attack, she may move up to her speed as an immediate action. This movement does not provoke attacks of opportunity, however the trickster cannot end this movement in any square threatened by an opponent.
Ghostly Step: For a number of rounds equal to her mythic tier, trickster can use the run action without suffering any penalty to her Stealth checks. These rounds do not need to be consecutive. While using this power, the trickster does not touch the ground, rendering her invisible to tremorsense and immune to any effect, such as many traps and some spells, that require a creature to make contact with a surface. Additionally, a trickster can spend 1 mythic point as a swift action to become invisible while using the run action.
Run Like The Wind: A trickster may use the run action for a number of hours equal to their mythic tier without having to make Constitution checks or suffering nonlethal damage. At the end of this run, they must return to their normal movement and begin making Constitution checks every hour as per the forced march rules. Additionally, a trickster can spend 1 mythic point as a swift action to double their charging or running distance for 1 round.
I might be reading too much into this myself, but from memory there are only two classes that don't get proficiency in ALL simple weapons, which are the Wizard and the Commoner.
Making splash weapons count as simple weapons in terms of proficiency is probably to counter the fact that they have made some relatively potent alchemical splash weapons (at least compared to the original set of options), and might not want peasant armies lobbing several d6s worth of explosives each round. Although they could take a pellet grenade as their one proficient simple weapon, I suppose.
Justifying such an army's existence and where they get their funding from is another matter.
As for the wizard, he's usually got better things to do with his standard actions than throw a grenade - unless he's out of spells :) I believe every other class gets simple weapons proficiency, so making splash weapons a simple weapon rather than an ambiguously defined non-weapon makes sense to me.
Given I'm currently playing an alchemist in a war campaign who has been making and lobbing fuse and pellet grenades, the rule we run with is that yes, they count as splash weapons, but I can only add my Int to one of the damage types done by the pellet grenade.
I would love to be able to masterwork alchemical items, however as written there are no rules for it. You'd probably have to discuss that with your GM or players and house rule it in.
Bought and downloaded this today, however rather than a PDF file I find the .zip ONLY contains an unknown ".hl" file that Windows 7 does not recognize and refuses to open. I am guessing this is the Hero Lab file mentioned above. Unfortunately it does not seem to contain the PDF I bought it for >_>
Speaking as someone who has played in a number of 3.5 and Pathfinder RPG games now where the focus was on skill use, social battles and intrigue, along with some tactical combat and dirty fighting, I'm all for a book containing something along these lines and was disappointed that there would be no book dedicated to the subtler side of D&D. Though I do realize that playing the game this way is somewhat rare, and there would be less of a market for an entire book dedicated to such.
Still, there's no reason why a book focused on such things wouldn't contribute to combat situations... it would be a very different flavor of combat, however. Performance Combat and Spell Duels aren't everyone's cup of tea either :)
|
