RPG Superstar 7 Season Marathon Voter, 8 Season Marathon Voter, 9 Season Marathon Voter. Organized Play Member. 85 posts (277 including aliases). 3 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 3 Organized Play characters. 1 alias.
Wayfinder #9 x2: I used the pre-gen PCs for The Foehammer Promise side-trek adventure (by Neil Spicer, + a bunch of great contributing artists), tweaked to be a band of dwarven outlaws in a home-brew I ran a few years ago (they were led by a custom gunslinger NPC villain). And another time, I ran the adventure itself as a one-shot, with the players choosing and using the pre-gens. We had fun at the table, and I enjoyed the art and maps, too.
Wayfinder #15: I got to play The Witch-Tree Sacrifices side-trek adventure at Paizo Con, run by none other than the author himself, Tim Nightengale. It's a great adventure, and I really enjoyed that. Though it's been almost a year, I think of that adventure from time to time, and it's next on my list to run as a one shot. I've been meaning to do it for a while, but you know how it is with several APs going on at once.
Wayfinder #16: My gm for the Iron Gods AP incorporated Krondarr in our adventure, an NPC from Weal or Woe: Pursue the Iron Princess (by Eric Hindley, with art by Frank Hessefort). We spent time with Krondarr, and fun was had by all.
I've looked forward to this contest every year since its inception, and this year's no exception.
If you've designed monsters before, crafting and polishing an entry is a fun way to hone (and test) your skills. If you haven't, now is the time!
Win or lose, advance or not, I guarantee you'll get satisfaction out of working on and completing a formal design. If you advance or win, well, that's just icing on the cake.
In a couple of our campaigns, we use a d30 as follows:
At the start of each combat, when rollng initiative, the players also engage in a separate roll-off. That roll-off can be anything—a d20, d100, 2d6 or whatever (no bonuses/mods applied). The winner of that roll-off claims the d30 for the ensuing combat.
Then, once during that combat, the player can substitute the d30 for any single d20 roll, such as an attack, CL check, save, etc. The numbers from 1–20 function as they normally would with a d20, i.e. a 20 auto-hits and threatens, a 15–20 might threaten (subject to threat range), and a 1 auto-fails. The numbers from 21–30 are simply used as the result, but don't threaten or auto–succeed, except for a natural 30 on an attack roll, which threatens and auto-confirms a crit.
If a player doesn't use the d30 during the combat in question, they don't get to keep it for the next combat (there's a new roll-off every time), but they can use it for their initiative roll right before handing it off to the new roll-off winner.
They're very pricey (40k gp), but ring gates might do the trick. You could pass notes through them, or stick your head through and talk. Of course, their function goes way beyond just communication, hence the $$.
Joe Kondrak Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9
1 person marked this as a favorite.
KC, This is a pretty cool item overall. I like the concept and visuals, and it's nice to see an inexpensive item (such items are a little under represented in the contest IMO).
Template: Nearly perfect, but the aura should be faint not minor, and I agree with Jacob about "points of... "
Mechanic: Seems pretty clear, but Jacob's question about the number of uses before re-filling is a good one. Regarding the ranged touch mechanic, I think I prefer it as you have it, rather than using the thrown splash weapon rules as Jacon suggests. I found "scalding damage" under the environment rules for boiling water, so it is a thing — I'm on the fence regarding Jarrett's concern about the damage type.
Balance: Since it takes a round to heat the water, 1d4 damage seems low to me. From a player's perspective, that's pretty paltry, and if it were a little more, it still doesn't seem unbalanced or abusable.
Writing: I'd like to see the first two sentences combined somehow for a smoother flow. Also, there are quite a few instances of "is" — I'd like to see more active verbs than "is" or "can be."
PS: at the start, you say liquid, but then later it's water...I assume it doesn't transmute the contents to water...
Since I don't see any rules for determining the size category of the Whirlwind I'm guessing that it has the same size category as the creature which created it...
I agree, and wouldn't try to determine the size category of the whirlwind by looking at its measurements and such. It's just the size of the creature that became the whirlwind. So, a Medium creature's whirlwind can't pick up or damage anything larger than Small.
There are several other threads that have discussed this issue, with posters questioning the same thing. I happen to think it's just an artifact of a small tweak made to the ability's text after it was picked up from the older language, from elementals (SRD).
An arcanist can increase his own CL by 1 by spending 1 from his reservoir (or CL +2 with potent magic exploit)
Also, Destructive Dispel is pretty nice—if the dispel works, the target is stunned for 1 round (edit: target gets a save).
And, if you target a specific spell, you're rolling against the spell's DC instead of the caster level +11. In certain circumstances, this is an easier check. Eg, a 14th level caster that cast mirror image on himself. As a normal dispel, you'd be rolling against 25 (11 + CL14). If you specifically try to dispel mirror image, it would be only 12 (10 + spell level 2) + the caster's casting stat modifier. Please correct me if I'm wrong about this.
I think the efreeti loses the immunity while in troll form. Here's my case (some of this has been mentioned above):
The efreeti's SQ in this case is as the spell giant form I. That's a polymorph spell, so this applies:
Magic / transmutation school / polymorph wrote:
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form
immunity entry in the UMRs indicates that immunity is either (Ex) or (Su)...
Univesal Monster Rules wrote:
Immunity (Ex or Su)
...so the efreeti loses it.
I suppose it could be debated whether the efreeti's immunity depends on its original form. I think it does, and admit that my case hinges on that.
Here's the thing, though; the efreeti has the (fire) subtype, and polymorph effects do not change your type. The (fire) subtype grants immunity to fire, the efreeti is not immune to fire just as a special efreeti ability. It seems to me to be very much clear-cut that the efreeti will not lose the immunity (or the vulnerability to cold, for that matter.)
I've read a lot of threads about polymorph effects and whether they change a creature's type, and there seems to be some disagreement on that count.
Wall of text about polymorph and creature type:
Arguments that they don't are often based around this portion of the polymorph entry:
Magic / transmutation / polymorph wrote:
Polymorph: A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature...
and point out that it doesn't explicitly reference "type". Arguments that they do reference this line in the same entry:
Magic / transmutation / polymorph wrote:
...When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type...
Whichever position you take, some problems arise:
For the "they don't" crowd, just one that I can think of off the top of my head is that the knowledge check to identify creatures becomes muddied. As an example, a party coming across a human druid in the form of a lesser-known animal might want to roll a Knowledge (nature) check to identify the animal. But, it should be Knowledge (local) to identify, based on the druid's humanoid type—and it ends up all metagamey to sort out. Another issue that arises from this position is which spells would or wouldn't work, such as hold animal or hold person (using the druid/animal as an example).
For the "they do" crowd, there are issues, too. For example, you'd become immune to mind-affecting effects when polymorphed via a spell like undead anatomy if it changed your type to undead, which I don't believe is intended (the polymorph spells tell you what changes and what doesn't).
Having said all of that, I lean toward (and accept) your position that polymorph spells don't change your type. But, I still think an efreeti's immunity to fire depends on its original form, even though as you say, the fire subtype grants it that immunity. Consider the analogy of a dwarf, or really any creature whose type (or subtype) lists darkvision. Do those types or subtypes "grant" that darkvision just like the fire subtype "grants" immunity to fire? I'd say yes. Yet, darkvision is one of the specific things mentioned in the rules about polymorph spells as something that depends on a creature's original form, and is lost while polymorphed. I cut the snippet short in my 1st post—here's the longer version:
Magic / transmutation / polymorph wrote:
While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision)
Just because something is granted by a type or subtype, doesn't necessarily mean that it's not dependent on its form. I could see an ability being granted by a type, and still being lost while polymorphed. The magical beast type grants a unicorn its darkvision, and the unicorn doesn't have darkvision as a special unicorn ability, yet, it would seem to lose its darkvision while polymorphed.
Did I improve my argument here? I don't feel too strongly about it, but still lean toward, "The efreeti loses its immunity to fire while a troll via change shape (giant form)."
As a "hot" creature from the Plane of Fire (curls of smoke), it just feels like an efreeti's immunity is dependent on its form.
Joe Kondrak Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9
1 person marked this as a favorite.
On Monday, I offered to do an editing pass (minor or wholesale) on an item or items in this thread. I thought it would be a fun exercise and good practice at the various aspects of design. KC took me up on my offer for his stirgenest quiver.
Well, I got carried away, and ended up doing more of a rewrite than an editing pass. I really like KC's concept, and found it very engaging to dig in. I make no claim that the rewrite is any better than KC's original, and instead hope that comparing the 2 versions will generate some good discussion. In general, I feel that rules language is my strongest area, and that my sense of mojo and balance both need work.
With that being said...
Here's my take on KC stirgenest quiver:
Stirgenest Quiver Aura faint transmutation; CL 5th
Slot shoulders; Price 5,000 gp; Weight 4 lbs.
Description
Fashioned to resemble a hornet's nest, this larger-than-usual quiver is meant to be worn over both shoulders, and has several compartments allowing it to conveniently hold up to 10 pounds of any combination of arrows, crossbow bolts, or thrown weapons.
Once per round, when its owner draws an arrow, crossbow bolt, or thrown weapon that deals piercing damage from the quiver, the projectile takes on the appearance of a stirge (including the insectoid creature's blood-sucking proboscis) for 1 round. During this time, if the projectile strikes and damages a living creature, the creature must succeed at a DC 14 Fortitude saving throw to avoid the projectile sinking in and becoming attached. A creature with one or more of these projectiles attached to it suffers a –1 penalty to its Constitution for each attached projectile. Removing an attached projectile is a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
When making a ranged attack with a projectile or thrown weapon transformed by a stirgenest quiver, the attacker gains a +1 circumstance bonus on the attack roll (to a maximum of +5) for each projectile attached to the target creature. Attached projectiles that were drawn from another stirgenest quiver do not count for the purposes of this ability.
Construction Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, greater magic fang, summon nature's ally I; Cost 2,500 gp
Joe Kondrak Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Northern Wind’s Sting:
Jarrett, others have covered some of the language and formatting issues, so I won't address those aspects. I like the imagery and theme well enough, but the mechanics seem a little complicated. I think I'd like the dart more if its mechanics were more elegant, and its ability more unique (something with more of a wow factor when you successfully hit with the dart, possibly as a single-use dart).
Shield of Gruesome Visions:
Kate, I think it's better after revisions, but there are still some areas that need work. First, I tend to agree with Mikko regarding the disconnect between its form and function. This relates to the general idea of slot affinity (for example magic headbands tend to relate to mental effects, boots lean towards movement effects, and so on). Putting that aside, for your item as-written, you could rearrange and reword some parts to be more concise. Here's one example: at the end you write, "The bearer can use the shield's ability three times per day." If you combined that with the paragraph's first couple lines, you could save some words and make the whole passage smoother to read. If I were tasked with editing that, I would start the paragraph something like this (very roughly), "Three times per day, upon making a successful shield bash attack, the wielder can cause the bloodstains on the shield's surface to coalesce into a disturbing scene as a free action."
Also, your price should not be exactly twice your cost, as both the price and cost need to include the value of a masterwork heavy steel shield.
Stirgenest Quiver:
KC, I really like the overall concept of arrows (and other ammo) taking on the qualities of stirges—it's a cool idea. Regarding the language and wording, I think it needs some work to make it more concise and smooth flowing.
Regarding the mechanics, what do you think of going with Con damage instead of a penalty, if the projectile isn't removed quickly (eg, at the end of its turn, a creature with an embedded projectile takes X)? As it's written, I assume the penalty lasts as long as the projectile is "embedded", but you might want to include text to that effect. Also, I like the bonuses for shooting at a target that already has "embedded" projectiles, but that part could use some re-wording, too. Overall, I know what's going on, but the mechanics in general could be more elegant.
One other thing, did you consider going with more of a summoning or polymorph-type of effect, along the lines of, "If you're damaged by one of these projectiles, it becomes a stirge in your space (an attached stirge if you fail a reflex save)?
I notice when I'm trying to give feedback on items, especially once I know that I like the core concept, my first impulse is to start editing it in my head. I don't have the time to keep up with a large amount or quick turnarounds, but if anyone participating in this thread specifically asks for an editing pass, I'd be willing to do that (for a limited number, according to my time available). It would help me practice my editing chops, and the author and myself might both learn something in the process (eg, is it better or worse after minor or wholesale changes?).
Joe Kondrak Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brigg, I really like this latest revision. It's lookin really good!
At this point, it seems done or nearly done. If it were mine, I might boost the price very slightly, but pricing is kind of an art, and subjective, so I may be off base—it's priced within reason.
Your point about the move action and action economy seems well thought out, especially since the contest is now votes-only. For interest only (not arguing for or against), I found this old thread that talks about magic item action economy. Seems like you've got a good handle on it.
I'll be entering something for sure. I have one idea that's near complete, but I'll think on it a little before submitting in case a better idea(s) come to mind.
I agree, the summoner's turns taking longer than the other players' turns is a potential issue, but that can be avoided if the summoning player takes steps to keep things moving.
As a player, I pre-select a short list of candidates from the longer list, and then limit myself to that short list during a session. This reduces the time spent deciding what to summon, and 2 or 3 candidates are enough to cover most situations. With a short list, it also makes it easier to have stats at the ready, whether you prefer cards, hero lab printouts, or shortcut links on your device. Having your minis or pawns ready to go ahead of time helps, too.
Limiting yourself to a handful also saves time on your subsequent turns, because it's easier to "know your monsters" when the list is short. One last thing that helps is simplifying your monster's tactics according to basic roles, like attack, flank, or interpose.
I like that tip above about letting other players drive the summoned monster(s) now and again.
Joe Kondrak Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9
2 people marked this as a favorite.
@ Covent, I agree wholeheartedly. The pricing table is kind of a backup for "gut-instinct" pricing.
That idea is supported by this:
Magic Item Gold Piece Values wrote:
The easiest way to come up with a price is to compare the new item to an item that is already priced, using that price as a guide. Otherwise, use the guidelines summarized on Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values.
Joe Kondrak Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tothric wrote:
Boulder Helm of the Stubborn
Hi Tothric. I like your core idea of a dwarven boulder helmet that adds effects to bull rush combat maneuvers. Could it also or instead add an effect when making a melee attack as part of a charge?
I think Jacob covered quite a bit regarding the item's formatting and language. Besides what he pointed out, I noticed that you use helmet and helm interchangeably, and I think I prefer "helmet" throughout. Also, in the 2nd sentence, whether you use helm or helmet, the possessive usage should have an apostrophe, i.e. the "helm's" or "helmet's". The craft feat feat should be "Craft Magic..." instead of "Craft Magical".
Regarding the victim being pushed 5 feet into the air, I like the visual, but can't think of what the mechanical effect of that is. I'm just thinking out loud, but what if it was 10 feet, with a d6 of falling damage and/or knocking the victim prone (kind of like the item's set-against-a-charge ability). I'm thinking of it kind of like an awesome blow or awesome charge combat maneuver. I don't know how it would fit exactly, but the Charge Through feat also comes to mind.
This is a small thing, but in your description, you mention "...marred by various impacts against foes". My opinion is that descriptions for items shouldn't presume an item's history. Since players/characters can craft the item, it wouldn't be marred by impacts when it was brand new.
I just submitted my 2nd entry for this issue. That's it, unless I become suddenly inspired this evening.
Good luck to all of you that submitted something, especially to Tothric and those of you submitting for the first time!
Waiting to hear if you made it in can be nerve-wracking, but whether you make it in or not, it's a fun process to create and write, it's rewarding to complete your own formal design, and it's a good way to practice your design-chops.
I want to take this time to personally thank everyone who took the time to critique the Living Copperthread Net.
I've gleaned a lot from the community-at-large and I'd like to put them in a little list...
... ...
Great post, Brigg! It's well written and contains some great analysis. If you continue with that approach, attitude, and level of insight for your designs and posts, you'll go far in RPG design.
I'm surprised, honored, and excited to see that my monster made the cut. I'll be reading the entries and all the comments later tonight and tomorrow to see what I'm up against. This morning I saw the Taniwha and really like it.
It'll be fun and enlightening to read comments about my own entry, too.
Many, many thanks to the judges, sponsors and entrants who made this contest possible. I'm just getting my feet wet, but I can already tell that designing & writing for RPGs (Pathfinder especially) is very rewarding.
Anyone can submit to Wayfinder as far as I know, experienced or not. I have virtually no experience myself and haven't let that stop me. Start with a good idea, follow the guidelines, polish your idea and put forward your best effort, submit...and who knows? If your article gets in, that's fun and enjoyable. If it doesn't, it's still a fun and refreshing mental exercise to see your idea through to completion.
That is an excellent piece of artwork. I can't believe you're not already working in the industry (assuming you're not). In addition to the quality of your workmanship, the POV in that image really draws me in.
I expect I'll be seeing your art in Paizo's and other RPG products at some point. If I make into the next Wayfinder, I'd be seriously hoping that you were assigned my submission.
I just flipped through the PDF and it looks fantastic! Kudos to Tim, Paris and everyone involved. This issue is filled with cool stuff, cover to cover.
One of the things I was most looking forward to was seeing the art for my bestiary submission, the Flue Hag. It's awesome—better than I ever imagined. Who did that?
I can't wait to get my hands on a print copy. Unfortunately, I'm not at PaizoCon. The print issue is only one of many reasons I wish I was. I hope you're all having a blast there—happy 4th!
