Coleman's page

Here is my item. I appreciate any feedback and will try to share my thoughts on others' items as time permits. Thanks in advance!

Warbreaker’s Staff
Aura moderate abjuration; CL 11th
Slot none; Price 46,200 gp; Weight 5 lbs.
Description
First crafted long ago by an order of pacifists, this staff appears to be made from glass or crystal, but it is far sturdier. The staff allows use of the following spells:
• Dispel magic (1 charge)
• Sanctuary (1 charge)
• Shatter (1 charge)
Both dispel magic and shatter can only be used to target weapons. In addition to these abilities, the staff grants its wielder the Improved Sunder feat, ignoring any prerequisites. When used in a sunder attempt on a weapon, the staff ignores the first 5 points of the weapon’s hardness, and deals damage as a quarterstaff, with a +2 enhancement bonus to the damage roll. This ability functions even when the staff is out of charges. For all other attacks, including sunder attempts against items that are not weapons, the staff functions as a masterwork quarterstaff. When the staff reduces a weapon to 0 hit points, that weapon appears to transform into the same crystalline substance as the staff itself, before shattering into pieces.
Construction
Requirements Craft Staff, Craft Magical Arms and Armor, Improved Sunder, dispel magic, sanctuary, shatter; Cost 23,100 gp

Ninjad by Jacob!

I know its a lot of work but I would love if Paizo could provide a top 100 list of items that may have come close to top 32, like a incentive for those who want to compete next year.

It feel good for many of us out there to know that we had a real chance to make top 32. Personally I don't think anyone would mind if it wasn't in order from like 1st to 100th but just a list of items in the top 100.

However, on the upside we all have had some great items and I look forward to see the rest of the competition even if I don't make it.

They did that last year...they showed the top 100 from which the top 32 were selected. They also did it the year before, although I think the total was 89. I am reasonably sure they'll be doing the same kind of thing this year, although the actual number may vary a bit depending on how the votes worked out and so on.

I've committed to commenting as much as possible this year. I've participated in the contest a lot in. The past, but haven't always taken part in the commentary here on the boards. I'm posting more this year and I hope to carry that through to the end.

I'm a little surprised at how diverse these lists are. It's almost as though we're all different people who like different things for different reasons with wildly different subtle and secret biases. In any case, the statistics are fascinating.

Very true.

Speaking only for myself, I didn't even reach dedicated, so my list was limited to those items I did see. There were plenty I didn't see, sadly. I don't know how folks found the time to vote as often as they did, but I am impressed.

I look at it as an art rather than a science, so to me using one's own judgment rather than the table seems more appropriate. Opinions will vary, of course, and that's fine....I just wish I didn't get the feeling that pricing was such a big part of the voting process for so many people.

Brigg, that's exactly the kind of reasoning that I think is intended with the item creation rules, and I also think that such reasoning displays a deeper understanding of the game. It is much harder to quantify, though. That's why, for me, pricing was a very small part of my voting process. I most often wouldn't even look at the pricing.

Of all the comments that have been made about voting, I've seen many comments along the lines of "with that spell usable x times a day, the pricing should have been y amount....downvote" but I don't recall seeing even one comment that said "wow, smart design to scale the price back even though the table would say it should be more".

I think people are sticklers for the math because math.

I personally think that the item pricing rules are viewed as a little too concrete in general. I think the first step in the book is to look at other items and price your item according to comparative abilities and so on. After you've taken that step, if you feel it is inaccurate, then you rely on the table provided in the CRB.

I think too many people here go right to the table. Which does not cover every possibility. Without saying too much about my item, it was limited in its ability in a way not addressed on the table. So right off the bat, I knew I was going to have to come up with my own reasoning.

I feel that looking at other items and pricing based on that is a better way, but of course it's much more open to interpretation, so in circumstances like this, many would prefer more consistent rules.

Okay, now that voting is wrapping up I'm interested in swapping lists. I've sent it to everyone who recently commented about wanting lists. If anyone else wants to see mine, let me know! And anyone willing to share, please send me your list!

Good luck to all those still in the contest!

I suppose an important question would be does everyone view the ramble or "So far I've seen" threads in the same light as pit crews in the terms of influence on voting?

I can understand the urge to not influence voting through observations made by post....I held off on commenting for that exact reason. However, I think that reading a lot of those threads last year really helped me with my design this year. So in that sense, it seems an invaluable resource much like a pit crew.

In terms of influence, people have posted about how minimal the impact of an entrant having support of a pit crew is. Do we think that the rant threads would have more or less impact? Or about the same?

Do you guys all support both resources? Or do you want them both limited in some way?

I agree with Anthony and the other folks about those comments. I think there were many comments that pushed things a bit. Sure, maybe there are 8 teleporting boots submitted this year. Even if a comment can't be narrowed down to which 1 of those 8, it still seems way too specific for me. I read most of the "so far I've seen" thread because I think it serves as insight into voters' mindsets, but I didn't really take part because I just didn't want to risk making a comment that could affect the voting.

In fairness, I think there were probably nearly as many "I like this item, it gets an upvote" as there were negative comments....it was a big improvement over last year....but the line seems very blurry.

However, given that no one from Paizo has restricted those threads seems to imply to me that, in general, they must not go against the spirit of the competition.

Coleman wrote:

My concern with that would be how many folks would stop participating once they got some feedback on their item.

I would not take people who want to leave the contest after getting feedback on their own items into consideration when scheduling things. The contestants who are only in it to get feedback on their own items aren't going to care very much about the Top 32 reveal, no matter when you schedule it. I'm more concerned about the subset of contestants who want to get/give feedback on non-finalist items and want to follow the progress of the Top 32. The current schedule forces these contestants who are interested in every facet of RPG Superstar to divide their attention between the non-finalist critique thread and the finalists' threads during the week of the Top 32 reveal, which can only serve to reduce traffic visiting the Top 32 threads.

I think you make a valid point in that regard. I would say that this idea would be worth considering on Paizo's part.

My concern with that would be how many folks would stop participating once they got some feedback on their item. I know that one year I totally blew off the rest of the competition once the top 32 were announced and I was able to get feedback on my item that didn't make it. I didn't participate in any of the subsequent rounds. I imagine it is the same for others.

Since then I resolved to see things through to the final round. I would imagine that if people are still waiting for or getting feedback when the top 32 are announced, they'll at least vote.

Other than that though, I think Eric's idea has a lot of merit.

I remember that item fondly, I even used it for an NPC villain.

Ha very cool! Thanks man.

@Clay - freelance forge is a good place to shop, as are these forums, as is the blazing 9 thread.

@Coleman - good point about the word borderline, the value driven word there though is cheating. It's an insult to people's integrity. Even with the word borderline I'd be hard pressed to keep my temper in check if someone said that to my face or about my friends.

It is a very good idea to have someone else look over your work and if you think of it next year I'm more than happy to give you or anyone that asks for it some notes.

Thanks, SolSpiral, I appreciate it. You gave me some nice feedback on my item last year (the Boulder Thrower's Kit). I didn't rely on any proofreaders this year, but normally I would. My gaming group world normally fill that role. Time constraints this year prevented that.

However, the community here on the boards is nothing short of impressive. I have always been more of a lurker in the past, but resolved this year to try and be a bit more involved. I would feel comfortable asking a number of posters here for advice. I likely will do so in the future, so don't be surprised if I take you up on that.

Thanks again!

Coleman wrote:

As someone who doesn't use a pit crew, I can understand how someone might consider it borderline cheating. I think the original comment had that word "borderline" in there for a reason and I think that is an important distinction.

I'm going to quibble with you on that one. It is a distinction, yes, but only to cover the speaker in case of being confronted. It's like saying a political opponent is guilty of "borderline graft" or that a professional athlete is guilty of "borderline doping" or a marathon runner is guilty of "borderline getting on a bus from mile 8 to mile 21."

When someone adds "borderline" to an accusatory word, when it is pointed out that the other person did no such thing, the speaker can always say "Hey, I just said borderline" - meanwhile, the insinuation has been effectively made and questions have been raised about the other person's integrity.

It's a pretty big bomb to drop, even mitigated by caveats and hemhaws, is what I'm saying.

Yeah, I agree with you to an extent. Although I cannot say what Brother Fen's actual intent was with his comment on pit crews, I did not read it as an accusation so much as a complaint. The validity of the complaint is debatable.

As someone who doesn't use a pit crew, I can understand how someone might consider it borderline cheating. I think the original comment had that word "borderline" in there for a reason and I think that is an important distinction.

I myself don't consider anyone using a pit crew to be cheating...but I do believe that they have an advantage. While a person who is part of a crew may not always vote in favor of their crewmate's item, I can't see how at least some level of bias wouldn't take place. I think that's unavoidable, and such a bias may not even happen on a conscious level.

Personally I have two friends who I encouraged to enter, but they did not. If they had, I likely would have voted for their items over 99% of others. I think that's just human nature. And if I am lucky enough to advance, I am sure I'll ask for my Pathfinder playing friends to support my entry. Why wouldn't I? They're my friends, of course I'll ask for their support.

For those who were not lucky enough to have others to rely on for proof reading and editing, it's definitely a disadvantage. I think however that you have to try and do something about that. Rather than view it as others having an advantage, try and make it so that you are not disadvantaged. Form a group for next year. Get criticism and feedback from someone, even if they are not entrants themselves.

Everyone who is entering should seek every advantage that they can get.

As someone who has entered for the past few years, I can understand being upset at not advancing. It is disappointing. But you either take that failure as a sign that you need to improve or you take it as a disheartening defeat that prevents you from submitting ever again.

That is a choice of the individual. No amount of change to the process will make that any different. We as creators or just as people choose to either get back on the horse or lay there in the grass. No one decides that for us.

Based on the myriad of posts on this topic, there is clearly no system that will please everyone. No matter what, there will be people who have criticisms of how things work. And some of those criticisms will have merit. But ultimately any changes made will just result in different people being upset.

If your item has been culled or if you don't make it to the top 32, the best you can do is ask for criticism and then listen to that criticism. That's really all that is within your power to do, and ultimately it is all that will actually help you.

If someone whose item was culled instead advanced because the cull was lesser in some way would only prolong things. If your item was on the cusp of not making it, then it isn't going to somehow squeak through to the top 32. Better to find out as soon as possible and work to improve.

Seriously though, can you imagine the amount of multi-classing abuse that would happen if all of the pools were made into one?

My monk1/swashbuckler1/magus1/gunslinger1/ninja1/investigator1 doesn't have to imagine!!! He can do anything muhu hah ha haha

Coleman wrote:

[...]

Clarity can be huge...there are some really complex items that are effectively explained in a succinct manner, and there are some simple items whose explanations meander.
[...]

I admit, I find myself being really biased towards clarity as well. I like to think of it as "elegance" but really it's "I'm kinda new and wow that's really complicated and you lost me 2 paragraphs ago." Which isn't super fair, but with so many items out there to choose from, I'd rather have the one that's easy to remember how it works than the one that I continually forget to use one or more of its abilities. And my votes reflect that preference. :)

Yeah, I find that to be kind of indicative if how the item would work at the table. Would it slow the game down every time it's used and so on. I feel like if it's hard to understand while reading the entry, and I need to read through a couple of times, then chances are it'll also require more work at the table.

I've been fairly critical of rings and weapons and armor, and seem to be giving more leeway to rods and staves.

Why do you think that is? Is it a case if rings and weapons having more weak examples, or do you feel they were easier design choices? Or something else?

I've personally found that most staves are solid...the biggest risk is that they will lack something to avoid the SAK/SIAC trap, but even many of those very standard staves would beat out poorly designed items of other types.

For me, rods were the most vague category from a design sense, so I think I grant some leeway on those items.

I think I've been harshest on weapons and armor because I was expecting those to be the bulk of the entries. There have been plenty of each that are great, but also many that I think were just slapped together.

So my voting trends have really shifted post-cull. Whereas prior to the cull I tended to lean toward creativity over proper templating and grammar and so forth, post-cull I am finding the items much closer in quality, and so my decision is often coming down to more technical aspects.

Creativity is still my main requirement, but I am finding more and more pairs where both items are creative. When that happens, I check for proper templating and then grammar and clarity. Clarity can be huge...there are some really complex items that are effectively explained in a succinct manner, and there are some simple items whose explanations meander.

If after this I still can't decide, I look at pricing. And if that doesn't break a tie and I feel like I have two equally designed items, then I just go with which one I'd rather have as a player.

Also, as a side note, it's really impressive to me how many people have reached dedicated or marathon or champion voter status. Especially given that much of the voting period was the holiday season. I've voted every day...I always have the voting screen up on my phone...and I haven't even reached dedicated.

It really is a testament to the community involvement in this whole contest.

If we go on the cull statistics which have only 27% of rings surviving the cull then they were obviously the "hard mode" of the comp.

I did notice a lot of rings had charges (which I think is a fail), so presumably people just converted their wondrous item to a ring with no other change.

Further, based on the stats - shields, staffs and rods were easy mode
as over 50% survived the cull (which averaged 44% survival).

I don't know if we can draw those conclusions from that info. I get your point, but the fact that more people tried to create a ring and didn't make it passed the cull doesn't mean that rings were harder to design.

I've been voting consistently but not as much as many others, but I've seen a good amount of items. I'd say that there were so many ring entries because I think the design space is pretty wide open. I also think that rings would have been the easiest item to port a wondrous item over to, which I think many entrants did when the change from previous years was announced.

As stated earlier in the thread, I think each item type posed its own challenges. And I am not sure which I would say was the most challenging. But the failure rate for a given item isn't necessarily indicative of how challenging a design that item type had. It could indicate all manner of things.

Yeah, there are traps for each item type for sure. I think with rods, the tricky thing is that they seem the least defined of all existing item types.

Rings are tricky because they can be easily over- or underpowered.

Do you guys think that the label "hard mode" maybe helped folks who decided to create a staff?

Yeah, I agree with what made staves hard. I so think that many who submitted staves stepped it up, as Nazard said. I feel like staves, taken as a category, have been solid.

I also agree that rings and rods also posed inherent design challenges.

Now that voting is well underway and we've all had a chance to see a good number of items, how do you guys feel about the comments at the start of the contest that staves were "hard mode"?

Do you think that's accurate based on what you've seen? Do you think that other item types were actually tougher to design? Do you think that certain item types trend one way or the other, as strong entries or weak entries?

As a reminder, don't discuss specific items, just trends amongst item types.

I think the general quality is up. I've seen a handful of really great items I'd expect to make it to the top. And most others that I've seen are at the very least decent.

I generally read the descriptions of both items first and may make my decision based on those alone. If both are equally good or bad, then I take the format and other technical aspects into consideration. If I still don't have a clear winner, then I look at the pricing and other mechanic details to see if that can break the tie.

So most of the time, I am not even looking at the pricing. I guess I feel that is the easiest thing to get wrong, but also the easiest thing to correct, especially with the help of an editor.

When it comes to the template, it definitely plays a part. But given how odd it is to submit an item by message board, I am more lenient about that than many seem to be. At my second stage of review, I'm more worried with grammar, spelling, and more traditional errors rather than the message board coding. I do realize it's pretty easy to use the template that was provided, but I just feel that it would be an easy correction to make after the fact.

So I'm surprised so many people lean toward the format more than the content. I'm the reverse....content first, then format, then other details like pricing. I suppose I lean that way because I have a buddy who I tried to get to enter, and just looking at the template made his head spin. He's just not an internet savvy type...but I know he is a solid writer and could come up with tons of ideas.

I am also noticing a lot of pairings that seem deliberate for one reason or another... Either they are the same type of item or they play with the same ideas. Luckily came across my item pretty early , paired against an item of the same type. Glad to see it wasn't a strong entry and I could vote for mine with a clean conscience.

Overall quality seems to be better, I'd say, but I haven't voted as much as I'd hoped to by now. Some of you guys are damn impressive reaching star voter status already .

My first two items to vote are a pair of wondrous items.

ha me too. And then my second pair had one wondrous item, and my third had none. 3 of 6 so far.

Would the choice between two wondrous items be a case where we select the equally good/bad button? I voted anyway, but was tempted to hit that button.

Coleman wrote:

For example, I submitted an item last year that pretty much boiled down to a single glove type of item. And so many people in the ramble thread were complaining about single glove items that I was worried that they would influence others to down-vote any and all such items. Turned out not to be the case, but I don't know if it's always that way.

If it's any consolation, my item was also a single glove, and I pretty much lived in that thread through the voting process.

Bottom line is that if a person finds themselves sensitive enough to constantly wonder if its their item being joked about, then that will be the thread to avoid. Better to lurk in the incessant praise thread and listen to vague compliments hoping that they refer to your particular item.

Still, in a similar venting thread this year, I'll be sure to flag any posts that are too specific.

Yeah, I know that thread was designed for voters to let off steam. I'm all for that, and I actually think it's a good glimpse into voters' thought processes, which is invaluable...my complaint isn't that I'm sensitive so much as I worried that people would be swayed by what they read in that thread. I used my item as an example, but there were plenty of comments there that I think I could say I was reasonably sure I knew exactly what item the comment was about.

As Steelhead pointed out, he avoided that thread for exactly that reason. I would guess there are others out there that might be swayed but who won't avoid the thread.

I just think that people should be more careful and be very aware of their comments and how obvious it may be which item or group of items they may be talking about.

I've always been more of a lurker in the past during these contests, and even just in general. I've been a member of the forums for years, but I've posted maybe a couple dozen times.

Part of that is because I am worried how my posts come across. I remember reading a lot of the Incessant Ramble thread last year, and feeling like I knew exactly what item someone was talking about....which I felt was not fair, nor in the spirit of the competition. I feel that most of the thread was fine, and I get the idea of it, but sometimes people push things a bit too far. They make comments that they think are much more vague than they really are.

Don't get me wrong, I can handle criticism and I think anyone entering this contest shoudl be able to do so, too. And I don't mind giving feedback or criticism when it's requested.

But I worry that posts can influence people during voting, and I would hate to play a part in any negative effect.

For example, I submitted an item last year that pretty much boiled down to a single glove type of item. And so many people in the ramble thread were complaining about single glove items that I was worried that they would influence others to down-vote any and all such items. Turned out not to be the case, but I don't know if it's always that way.

I think people definitely need to be mindful of the impact that any comments may have on the voting, even if they are not obvious.

Just got mine in. Feel pretty good about it. I'm sure that will change, though hah

I must get 3 or 4 emails a week from Paizo....weird that of them all, only the one announcing this year's contest went into my spam folder. Luckily, I checked in to see if the announcement was up yet.

I for one am glad of the change in round 1 and the limited time. I submitted an item last year that made the top 100, and it was the entry I spent the least amount of time on than any previous year, so I think that the less I tinker with an entry, and the less ideas I come up with overall, the better off I am. We'll see if that holds true this year.

Good luck to everyone! I'm looking forward to seeing the items and voting.

Twelfth Page Critiques:

Boulder Thrower's Kit...

Thanks, Feros! I kind of wanted it to be a bit of a choice to use this item or a weapon without being able to simply switch back and forth at will, but perhaps the penalty was too harsh.

Glad that you liked it though...I saw some of your commentson single glove items in the incessant ramble thread and got a little nervous.

Hey all- I know I'm doing this pretty late, but any feedback would be appreciated. I made it into the top 100, so I feel decent about that. I had a few concerns about this item, so I'll be interested to see if they match up with what others thought. Thanks in advance for any feedback.

Boulder Thrower’s Kit
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 7th
Slot hands; Price 69,500 gp; Weight 5 lbs.
Description
This kit consists of a belt pouch and a matching, oversized glove, both sewn from the skin of a hill giant. Without both items, the magic of the kit is useless. Up to 10 small rocks can be placed into the belt pouch. Thereafter, when a rock is drawn from the bag using the glove, it can then be thrown as a ranged attack with a range increment of 20 feet. After being released from the glove, the rock rapidly grows to the size of a boulder, such as those thrown by giants. If it strikes its target, it inflicts 1d8+10 damage.
Alternatively, if the bearer of the kit is targeted by a thrown rock attack, the bearer can attempt to catch the boulder, shrinking it down to a small rock, which can then be placed into the pouch for later use. Doing so requires a DC 15 Reflex save. A failed attempt to catch a boulder grants the attack a +4 bonus to hit the bearer.
Rocks altered by the magic of the pouch are permanently changed. The magic has no affect on stone that has been crafted, such as brickwork. Other items placed into the pouch are unaffected. At the start of any day, if there are rocks available, the amount in the pouch can be replenished up to the maximum of 10. The glove is unwieldy, so any weapon attacks or skill checks made with the gloved hand suffer a -4 penalty. Removing the glove is a move action.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, bull’s strength, stone shape, creator must have 5 ranks in the Craft (leather) skill; Cost 34,750 gp

Appreciate any feedback on my item....thanks for taking the time to do this. I think it's clear everyone appreciates it.

Crown of Energy
Aura moderate abjuration and evocation; CL 5th
Slot head; Price 36,500 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Description
This five-pronged crown appears to be crafted from glass or crystal. While worn, it grants the wearer the ability to absorb an incoming energy attack of any one type (acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic). For this attack, the wearer suffers no damage. After absorbing such an attack, the crown is filled with the absorbed energy, and thereafter grants immunity to attacks of that energy type. While the wearer is immune to the one energy type, she also gains vulnerability to the remaining four energy types. As a standard action, the wearer may discharge the stored energy in a ranged touch attack that deals 4d6 damage of the appropriate energy type. Once the energy is discharged, the crown is once again empty and the immunity and vulnerabilities are gone until a new attack is absorbed.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, protection from energy, scorching ray; Cost 18,250gp

Yeah but with the number of damage focused characters in that group, how many fights are going beyond one round? Seems like the real problem here is that with 9 players, their is a very high chance of the PC's going through most encounters like a hot knife through butter.

I'm in the same game as the OP and there aren't 9 players. There are 9 characters, but we only usually have 5 or 6 in play for any single session because some players can't make it every time. So a couple of the guys who make it to every session have a second character they run to make up for those who are missing and so on.

The GM isn't having too much trouble coming up with challenging encounters. The major issue is some of the other players think the alchemist outshines their characters. He does....but not because the class is inherently more powerful than another, it's because he spent more time crafting his character.

I think a lot of people underestimate how long it takes to really master playing this game.

Yeah....I think you summarized the way I feel and a lot of what the others have said on this thread. I really think it's a case of experience character building versus inexperienced.

One of the difficulties I see is that you have 9 players, two of which who likely have animal companions, and one of which (sorc) may be summoning creatures regularly. Thats a much larger party than standard.

The party size is actually more like 5 or 6 charactrers. We rotate a bit as different players are able to make it to the game or not. Neither of the rangers have animal companions (one of the problems they have with their characters, in my opinion) and the sorceror focuses most of his spells on inflicting damage and doesn't use summoning spells at all.

The main issue with the game in question isn't the GM coming up with viable threats....as many have pointed out, the party is a blast heavy group, designed around inflicting damage. That leaves the group vulnerable in a few ways. He's run a couple of encounters that made this very obvious....a couple of hags using illusions and charms and the party was basically at each others' throats.

The main issue is that some of the players feel their characters are outclassed compared to some of the others. The OP and myself feel this has more to do with how they built their characters (for instance, neither of the rangers choosing to utilize an animal companion gives you an idea of what we're dealing with).

The GM is reacting to complaints from a couple of the other players more than he is complaining himself about the party's strength. He agrees with their concerns a bit....especially about the alchemist....but it's much more in reaction to the other players.

I know when I'm in a group and it seems my character isn't holding his own compared to the other party members, I usually try to figure out a way to improve my character....not complain and have the others weakened till they're as effective (or ineffective) as mine.

What's really funny is that the overall "equalization" of the classes and what they can do in 4th edition was what our group found dissatisfying about that system and made us decide to go with Pathfinder. And now we're dealing with this...hahahaha

The sorcerer bloodline powers your referring to are Spell-like Abilities (SP) not Supernatural ones.

Ah that makes sense....thanks for pointing that out, I was thinking they were the same.

Im surprised that more people dont think that 100 points dmg average is too much for 9th lvl.

He doesn't average 100 points...the only way he'll deal 100 points in a round is with perfect rolls. He hasn't done that much yet. I think he gets 3 bombs a round and does 4D6+8 or so. So if he hits with all three on one target, he'll likely do about 65 points. Significant, but easily achieved with other classes.

My fighter/rogue can do just about that under the right conditions. Granted, it's only to one target, but he also doesn't run out.

I think the alchemist is a potent class, but I really don't think it's overpowering. I'm pretty sure a 9th level wizard would be capable of at least comparable damage output.

The alch seems capable of pooring out tons of damage quickly, but then being next to useless once he does so.

No SR for bombs. They aren't spells.

Do you know if this is the official ruling? I was just checking it out, and it doesn't address it in the class ability description. It does list it as a supernatural ability and it says in the description that the bombs contain some of the alchemists magical power.

I'm pretty sure there are other supernatural abilities that SR works against.....like the base sorceror bloodline attack (firebolt, etc.).

I can see the argument going either way.

Sorry....should've clarified. We don't generally have 9 characters in the group at any one time. We have a few players who can't all be there every time we get together, so we generally have about 6 of those listed. No henchmen or NPCs or cohorts or anything like that.

The infiltrator isn't archery based.

The fighter is generally devastating. But he does miss more often when compared to the alchemist and gunslinger when they are making touch attacks.

I think the touch attacks are the main gripe....but I'm also playing a fighter/rogue and I don't feel that he is less effective than the gunslinger or the others.

I feel it's the builds and choices that the players have made. I think it seems you guys feel that way too.

Hey guys-

I play in the same group as DD-Rex and I wanted to add my comments.

I don't think the issue that the DM has is so much about the newer classes being overpowered in and of themselves. I think that a couple of the other players feel that their core-class characters are overshadowed by some of the newer ones that we have in the group.

The classes in the group are as follows (all started as 8th level):

- Fighter 8 (classic STR build with power attack, cleave, etc)
- Oracle 8 (mystery is battle, I believe)
- Ranger 8 (Infiltrator)
- Ranger 8 (Dual wield build)
- Alchemist 8 (feated out to maximize the number of bombs/day and number he can throw/round)
- Sorceror 8 (fire bloodline)
- Magus 8
- Gunslinger 8
- Fighter/Rogue 5/3 (Dex build, geared toward sneak attacks and crits, with a high CON to help tank)

I believe that the issue lies mostly with how well some of the players have built their characters.

Seeing this list, do you guys see anything that would indicate that the Gunslinger, Magus, Alchemist, or Oracle would have such strong advantages over the other characters?

I'm personally playing the last two characters, the gunslinger and the fighter/rogue....and although the gunslinger can deal some solid damage with his pepperbox, I think the fighter/rogue is the more effective character.

Okay....here is my item. If you guys still have time, I'd appreciate a critique. It's not 100% exactly as it was submitted....I wound up having to retype it and submit it from another computer because I was traveling at the time and was stuck where I was due to severe snow, and could not make it home in time to get my original entry in. Let's just say that alone was a learning experience that I will keep in mind next year.

Sorry it's not identical, but I would appreciate any feedback that might have been given.

Thanks!

Pipe of Pleasant Palaver
Aura Moderate Transmutation; CL 7th
Slot - ; Price 15,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Description
Finely crafted yet plain, this smoking pipe can be used to influence those around the wielder. Once per day, when tobacco or any other type of leaf is burned in the pipe’s bowl, the smoke compels those within a 30 square foot area (centered on the wielder) to listen to what the wielder has to say. This effect lasts as long as the user concentrates, up to a total of 10 minutes. The wielder gains a +10 bonus to all diplomacy checks made to shift an individual’s attitude toward him. Anyone whose attitude improves by at least one category is considered to be affected by the pipe. Anyone affected is treated as being under the effect of a calm emotions spell, and depending on their new attitude toward the wielder, are subject to additional effects. Those with an attitude of indifferent are subject to a -4 penalty on saves against suggestion or mass suggestion spells, so long as they are cast by the wielder of the pipe. Those of friendly or better attitude are subject to this save penalty, and additionally treat the wielder as if he is under the effect of a glibness spell. The pipe and its magical smoke replace the material components required for suggestion and mass suggestion, so the DC for any attempt to recognize the casting of these spells through use of Spellcraft is increased by 10. Casting either spell does not count as a break in the wielder’s concentration.
Construction
Requirements Craft wondrous item, calm emotions, glibness, 7 ranks in Diplomacy; Cost 7,500 gp