FaxCelestis's page

I actually went and posted comparison photos for most of the relevant maps in this entry. Here's a collected album of all of them and how they appear to someone with deuteranopia, the most common form of colorblindness (and what I have).

http://imgur.com/a/mwCLz

Please, for the love of Desna, if your map involves color, pass it through a colorblind filter ( http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/ ) to see how it looks. Some of these maps are practically illegible for me unless I run them through a daltonizer.

"Tactical Engagement Rings"?

Thunderfrog wrote:

There's an item out there I consistently misread as "Staff of the Viagra King"

There was one item pre-cull that I misread at a glance as Angle's Areola. Now that is a wondrous item! It was pretty good too if I remember right and I'm surprised if got culled.

Who is going to write up the Staff or Rod of Innuendo?

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rods/rod-of-lordly-might

The rod of lordly might is metal and thicker than other rods, with a flanged ball at one end and six stud-like buttons along its length. Pushing any of the rod's buttons is an action equivalent to drawing a weapon, and the rod weighs 10 pounds.

ifyouknowwhatimean

mamaursula wrote:

Ever heard of "The Gift of the Magi"? We cancel one another out.

"I sold my disarming shield to buy you this bag of holding."

"But- but- I sold my ki-pool-charged staff to buy you a portable hole."

"Darling! Since we have nothing left to store, let us store our new magical storage items together on our shanty's mantel!"

"Yes! Let's!"

*WOOSH*

"O all who give and receive gifts, such as they are wisest. Everywhere they are wisest. They are the magi."

I thought the gift of the magi was spellstrike...?

Is it weird that even if I do not make top 32 or top 100 it would soften the blow significantly if I made a few of my favorite poster's top 32 lists?

Like if I made Meepo, Ferros, Angry Wiggles, Mamaursula's, Jeff's, and like 2/3rds of the Jacob's I'd still feel like a winner.

Hell, if I make it onto anyone's keep list, that's enough for me.

Feros wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Having seen some of the items that made it past the cull and not seeing some of my keeper list not on the post-cull list, I just have a hard time believing the post-cull list is correct. There must just not be enough people adding to the list. I know my taste is different, but for items I considered to be in the top 20 to drop below several items I would have put in the bottom 25%...it just can't be.

Unfortunately, that happens every year. I've been surprised by what passed through and what got left behind all three years I've voted. Remember we don't see what items these questionable passes were opposite when they got their up-votes. That can make all the difference.

Now thy have to stand up to the really good items. Most won't make it to the top 100.

Technically speaking, 254 of them won't make it to the top 100.

<.<

That's 28% of the remaining items getting into top 100.

>.>

*Runs*

Just a note: Using these numbers, you are slightly less likely to make it into the top 32 if you made the cull than you are to threaten a critical with a longsword.

Anyone want to (privately, of course) trade keep lists?

I sincerely hope each of you shares your item with us in the Critique My Item thread after the finalists are announced.

I could fall for that rod

That's what she said?

So I just saw two rods that are perfectly formatted, have decent descriptive text, have the right spells and actually have decent effects... The problem... neither really should be a rod.

I am seeing that trend a lot with the rods. If your rod's primary ability mimics the primary ability of another item (regardless of type), then it probably shouldn't be a rod, it should probably be that other item.

Ex:
Generic Rod of Thrashiness
blah blah blah

Description
This rod acts as a +1 holy light mace. When in combat it allows the wielder to bypass the armor bonus from all light Armor.

As a free action the wielder may change the type of damage the rod deals from bludgeoning to piercing or slashing.

Three times per day the rod may cast x spell....

This obviously could and should be a weapon, but I have seen several entries that follow this formula for their rod. I am not complaining, I am just making a note of it and hope that some of the rod designers out there take notice.

I myself did not design a rod and that is because I think the space is a very challenging one to fill adequately in the short amount of time we had. If I had tried to create a rod, I may have also fallen into the trap described above.

Are you aware of the following?

Physical Description: Rods weigh approximately 5 pounds. They range from 2 feet to 3 feet long and are usually made of iron or some other metal. (Many, as noted in their descriptions, can function as light maces or clubs because of their hardy construction.) These sturdy items have AC 9, 10 hit points, hardness 10, and a break DC of 27.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items/rods

And yet they are still people, people who might have missed the first 7 RPG Superstars, weren't privy to the conversations that occur on the dozens of threads leading up to the contest or just might not have what it takes to be a SuperStar, but we're still going to treat them like human beings because we are kind and decent people. Or at least I hope that is the case.

I appear to be a grippli. Am I excused?

Son of a barghest, there's my item. :3

Ok that's like 3 designers with Mommy issues. Weapon, rod, and stave. Maybe I should design a shield that turns into a leather couch you folks can lie down and talk about it on!

That should be a weapon. Freudian chaise lounge of the Oedipal complex +2.

Obviously you use it to browbeat people.

That may well be the case, but I'm still upset about the camping items. I was promised no camping items.

Have we learned nothing from Spiderman? Great power should be balanced with responsibility, not a curse or drawback to use.

Over on the GiantITP forums, we have a little thing called "Grod's Law":

Grod's Law: You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use.

When you do:

• The disruptive munchkin ignores it, argues it, or forces the rest of the group to suffer through it. His power remains the same, and he gets more annoying to play with.
  
• The inappropriate powergamer figures out how to circumvent the restriction. His power remains the same.
  
• The reasonable player either figures out how to circumvent the restriction (rendering it moot), avoids the class (turning it into a ban) or suffers through it. His power remains the same and/or his enjoyment goes down.
  
• The new player avoids the class or suffers through it. His enjoyment goes down.
  

Notice how the problem players feel the least impact?

And yeah, you can yell and fiat at your players all you want to stop them from "cheating" the system, but that only works if you have a reasonable group to start with-- ie, one that's not going to disrupt the game through munchkinry.

Dwarven Ürgosh would make an awesome nerd-metal band name.

I haven't run into an item similar to mine in function at all yet. I am not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing.

Oh hey, DC called. They want their ring back.

Oh no. Keeper vs. Keeper.

I mean things like 'This pencil, which has many magical properties related to being a pencil, also functions as magical stabby +1"

I KNOW! I am so done.

Also done with all these specific weapons having the ominous property. It's like ten thousand black cats crossed paths to go break some mirrors in here.

All right, I'll cop to it...I'm biased against weapons.

If your weapon doesn't do something actually interesting, it's likely to lose my vote to a SAK or SiaC. Because versatility is way cooler than dice of damage.

Not sure I'd fully realized that about myself before voting on this category.

Kind of in agreement, honestly. "This shocking burst orichalcum longspear +3" is a huge turn-off for me. Like, your item comes with predefined characteristics? Where's the invention? The ingenuity? I understand that many defined weapons in the core book work in this format, but it just seems lazy and overly defining. Why is every orc-shanking dagger enchanted with icy burst? Why is every warhammer of infinite smiting made of mithral and +3? I can't have a animated athame of asinine alliteration made out of something other than adamantine?

Reading an entry: "But...you can already do that without the magic item? So basically you don't do anything?"

Can you at least switch the <center> tag to <left> or <justified>? It's playing havoc with my eyes and jacking up the item template.

James Raine wrote:

KalEl el Vigilante wrote:

Snorter wrote:

If someone has submitted one as their entry, I hope it goes far, as it's a step on the road to breaking the monopoly that casters have on the crafting aspect of the game.

Well, there's the Master Craftsman feat for Shields, Armor, Weapons and Wondrous items...

Which is nowhere near as good as people seem to think it is. Either you cross class Spellcraft or you sink skill points into a vastly more limited craft skill. And you're spending twice the number of feats.

Cross class isn't a thing anymore. You just get a +3 if it is a class skill. And a feat wouldn't be that bad for say a crafty fighter.

You're still +3 behind, plus since you're not an int-centric character you're buckets of skillpoints behind and don't get as much of a stat mod to the skill checks for crafting, meaning your work takes longer even though you've spent double the number of feats on it. And Master Craftsman isn't a combat feat, so fighters etc. don't get it as a bonus feat. And Master Craftsman forces you to use Craft or Profession, so I guess being +3 behind for non-class is moot, since pretty much everyone gets those, but it has its own issue: you're very severely restricted in what you can craft. Profession: Bowyer/Fletcher will let you make magic bows, for instance, but not swords, while Craft: Leatherworking will let you make gloves but not gauntlets.

If the entirety of a feat's function is to allow you to take another feat, it's not a very good feat. Yes, Master Craftsman lets you do things that you can't do otherwise, but that doesn't mean it lets you do them well.

EDIT: And to stay on topic, the above is also true for an item: just because an item lets you do something new doesn't mean that thing is now necessarily worthwhile. While a circlet of crazed intellect might let me make lore checks for one particular subject while under the effects of a confusion spell, that doesn't really mean that is either a good thing or worth expending my resources on.

Characters get a very finite amount of resources, with feats and levels being the most limited, followed by skill points, so the "effective cost" is something that one needs to keep in mind when designing. "Is this feat worth 1/11th of my feat choices for my entire career?" is practically the same to "Is this bracelet really work 2500gp?", except that feats are worth intrinsically more than items due to their rarity. There is always more gold, and if you're that strapped or you screw up, you can sell your stuff and try again. Feats have no trade-in option (in most cases), and there are few ways to get more feats that don't amount to "level up."

James Raine wrote:

If Round 2 involves mapping, I am going to be one happy Faxy. Maps are my favorite things.

Well...it IS named "Top 32: Create a Map". So some kind of mapping is probably not an unreasonable thing to expect. :-)

Hush, you. I'm expecting some sort of dastardly, M. Night Shamallamadingdong-level twist to dash my cartographic hopes and dreams against the Cliffs of Despair.

"Create a map...OF A BARN! FOR KOBOLDS! TO SCALE!"

/me goes sobbing in the corner, crying "My cathedral. MY CATHEEDRAAAAAAAAL. Whyyy-yyy-yy-yyyyyy?! IT WAS SO PRETTTYYYYYYYYY!".

Announced on the 20th, eh? I turn 31 on the 21st. Howsabout y'all give me a very happy birthday and put me in the top 32 for my gift? ;)

Some of you might recognize me from the various RPG Superstar competitions over the years, in particular from 2012 when I placed in the top 16. Hi!

I am pleased to announce (as I have quite heavily hinted in this thread on the GitP forums) that I have been working on a new subsystem for Pathfinder under Dreamscarred Press' oversight loosely based upon the concept of Truename Magic from D&D 3.5's Tome of Magic. I say loosely because while the project began as a skill-based magic system, we quickly came to the conclusion that wouldn't be very controllable and would end up with the same issues that the poor, poor Truenamer had. So it's undergone some revision. Think of the Advocate, presented in the playtest document, as sort of a Warlock/Swordsage hybrid with Psychic Warrior elements. That's probably the best 3.5 approximation of how the class works, though there's no real analogue.

The playtest document is available here. You can leave comments on the document itself or on this thread: I will see both and make any changes as necessary to the final document.

The playtest includes (for now, this may be expanded later):
A new base class: The Advocate, who changes the universe through the power of his words.
A new archetype: The Paladin of the Holy Word, a holy knight who exchanges his spellcasting ability for a limited ability to speak edicts.
A new prestige class: The Rhetorical Blade, a warrior who fights with his razor-sharp wordplay.
25 new feats: Ranging from suffixes that alter edicts as they are spoken, to benefits for speaking the true name of your weapon.
49 edicts: Words of esoteric power spoken by an advocate that invoke his will upon the world around him.
28 litanies: Mantras spoken by an advocate that provide long-term personal effects.

This is not the entirety of the final product. There is more completed or still being worked on: this is merely "phase one".

I hope you'll still be able to taste ice cream after playtesting this material. I know I'm still able to, but maybe I have some sort of weird racial immunity.

I appreciate your support and your feedback, and wish you the best with the playtest!

I'm jumping ahead on this one because I already critiqued it. Someone PMed me the whole text in their list of favorites, so you made that person's favorite list. I was not as big of a fan.

I'm the person in question who put it on their keep list. I'll admit that it isn't the pinnacle of game design, but it has something going for it. A lot of people here would call it mojo, but I wouldn't necessarily peg it as that. I think what struck me about this item was a lesser version of what struck me about the sewing form of the steel seamstress and the phylactery of a thousand races: the designer on this item saw a vacant spot in the game and decided to fill it. Most items here did this. However, the designer on this item...I don't know, it's an intangible thing. I feel like the designer on this item looked at this vacancy and went, "I'm going to fill that" and then went and did it, instead of prancing about with what ifs and why don't I's. I felt like, when I read this item, that this designer was fearless and was willing to challenge the scope of what "is" and what "isn't" the game.

I guess what I'm saying is that the willingness to delve into what others might call "too steampunky" or "too sci-fi" says to me that this designer is perfectly willing to think outside of the box. That is a thing that shows promise; mechanical design can be taught, formatting and templating can be trained, but invention? That's something you either have or you don't.

Breach Master’s Epaulets

I loved this item. It made me start my keep pile.

Choker of Spell Stifling

I loved this item, but I thought it needed some additional fleshing out for using it on an unwilling target.

Here's my item (apparently a top 100 item? The mind, it boggles):

Cloak of a Thousand Daggers
Aura Moderate Transmutation; CL 11th
Slot Shoulders; Price 12,500 gp; Weight 5 lbs.
Description
A cloak of a thousand daggers appears as a sheet of thin metallic scales attached to a shoulder clasp. The cloak may be activated or deactivated as a move action. When activated, the scales untwine and reveal themselves to be daggers, hovering around the wearer's shoulders.

When activated, and a creature attacks the wearer in melee combat using a non-reach weapon, the cloak automatically makes a counterattack, using the wearer's Base Attack Bonus plus Charisma modifier as their attack bonus. Treat the daggers as if they were +1 weapons. This ability uses one of the wearer's attacks of opportunity for the round. The wearer may opt not to use this ability with a mental command.

Once per round, as a swift action, the wearer may fire one dagger from the cloak at a target within 30'. To do so, he makes a ranged attack roll as if he were throwing a dagger, substituting his Charisma modifier for his Dexterity modifier: should he hit, he inflicts damage as normal, substituting his Charisma modifier for his Strength modifier. The dagger dissipates after striking, and a new one takes its place within the cloak instantaneously.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, animate objects, telekinesis; Cost 6250 gp

Reviews of items I saw during voting to follow.

SO HERE YOU ARE

Sadly, my three favorite items didn't make the top 32. I'll put their names here, and if their owners want to come forward with full text (tomorrow at the soonest, please) for my specific reviews, please do so.

AND THE HAT-EATERS ARE

*drumroll*

Hostess' Earrings!

Sewing Form of the Steel Seamstress!

And Phylactery of a Thousand Races!

AM BARBARIAN's periodic reviews are also pretty great.

My math could be off (so please forgive me if it is), but the list shows 508 items (thus far). So, I think that means that any one item on the list has about a 6.5% chance of being in the top 32 (assuming there are no other items not listed). Adding two more items to the list drops that to 6.47% which is about the same.

Wasn't a math major so please forgive me if I did that wrong.

This just in: making top 32 is statistically more likely than rolling a natural 20.

WHY HELLO THERE MY ITEM, YOU GLORIOUS SEXY BEAST YOU

COME HITHER SO I MAY VOTE FOR THEE

Oh hey, when did I make Dedicated.

Cthulhudrew wrote:

Feros wrote:

(Note to self: If I make it to the encounter round, I want to write a scenario where the PCs are both chasing and being chased. :p )

Make sure to include lots of doors. :)

Ohh! Good idea. An entire Escherian landscape with doors and stairs!

If only I'd gone with my first Wondrous Item idea- the Banana Peel of Outrageous Laughter. ;_;

I wrote up a gag item once. Saxophone of Hillacious Chase Scenes. Magic instrument that, whenever you get involved in a chase, animates itself and follows you around playing loud, raucous music and has a knack for causing you and your pursuer to stumble across police officers, little old ladies with big canes, girl scout troops selling cookies, bathers changing in tents, and couples making out, all of whom get incensed and join in the chase.

Now brainstorming a new bard spell: animate saxxity yak.

DAT SEWING ITEM

oh man

You had better be top 32 or I'll eat something that's not my hat because I already promised I'd eat my hat for something else.

How many torcs could a wood orc torque if a wood orc could torque torcs?

Amazingly elegant blood item pulling on rules from a source I was not expecting to see in this competition at all. Item, if you are not top 32, I will eat my hat, and there will be pictures.

First vote of the day: 80 word top 32 item.

Today will be better than yesterday, I can feel it.

This may be a naive question, but do many sessions really stop for an hour or so, so a character can have a dream?

In my admittedly unencyclopedic experience, the only times our games have had dream sequences were when it was plot oriented. Otherwise, it was just, "…and you wake up the next morning in your bed of whores and empty ale kegs, you disgusting murder-hobos."

James Raine wrote:

Treppa wrote:

This item's name makes it sound like it would chafe. A lot. Where you wouldn't want to chafe.

You have a problem with the codpiece of sandpaper and lemon juice?

I wonder if it matches the brassiere of glass shards and salt?

I thought set bonuses were a downvote…?

This item's name makes it sound like it would chafe. A lot. Where you wouldn't want to chafe.

You have a problem with the codpiece of sandpaper and lemon juice?

Auto Reject Rule #28:

French words in any item description. Ka-peesh?

For a moment your avatar looked like a tall stein of Guinness.

Perhaps my brain is trying to tell me something.

James Raine wrote:

Item costs more than a 20th level character is expected to have in total.

Item costs more to make than a 20th level character is expected to have in total.

ಠ_ಠ

...

I haven't seen that one yet. Oi!

Seen it four times now.

It haunts me. Like a very fabulously wealthy ghost.

Item costs more than a 20th level character is expected to have in total.

Item costs more to make than a 20th level character is expected to have in total.

ಠ_ಠ

one trend I am seeing, which is not good, is the tendency to overwrite the item... to create a very good or great item and then spoil it by adding one last paragraph that goes too far, or adds an extra arbitrary and unrelated ability, turning a great items into a 'meh' item.

Agreed. I keep finding myself saying, "I would've voted for you if you could have shut it down a paragraph earlier."

First off, meal men use the PRD! PFSRD is for losers! (joking {but not really [actually, just a bit]}) Secondly, I am more of a book person. Look in the combat chapter under "Big and Little Creatures in Combat" to see the space and then look under the "Armor Class" area to see size modifiers. It is a crowd, not a single creature, thus each crowd member would need to be hit individually I think. I am unsure, lack of specified mechanics leaves this open to interpretation, which is reason #2 this item was auto-reject for me. Which made it seem like even more of a joke item.

I was under the impression (though this may be from a 3.5 book, not a PF one) that crowd stats was basically using the Swarm subtype on creatures larger than Tiny.