Smeazel's page

In order for it to have a walking headroom in between the wooden platform and the floor of A8 on top, there should be at least 10'. That gives you two problems:

Except that there's not a walking headroom. That much the map already addresses. From the description of Area A12: "A narrow space exists under the fishery, with about four feet of room between the floor of the building above and the languid, foamy river water below." Also note that the walkway is right at water level: "A wooden walkway floats on the river surface". So this is all consistent with the height of Area A8 five feet above the water. No problem there. (If anything, A8 may be a bit too high; it seems odd that its floor would be a full foot thick.)

There is still a big problem with Area 13, though...

1. A13 and A14 are lower than A8. You are right that parts of the text makes it seem as if they would be the same height above the water, but they're supposed to be lower.

More than "make it seem"; they're explicitly stated to be the same height above the water. (Area A8 text: "the floor here is only five feet above the river below." Area A13 text: "a huge opening in the floor that drops away to the river shore five feet below.")

The only way I can possibly make sense of this is to assume that the text for Area A13 is in error, and that the room is more or less at water level. (High tide water level, one assumes; otherwise, the room would flood at high tide.) This pretty much has to be the case, anyway, if the eastern door opens out to A12 as the text implies, the walkway at A12 "floats on the river surface". Having the room right at water level seems a bit odd, but I don't see any other way the map could make sense at all... there's definitely something wrong there.

There's another small issue, too; I'm at a bit of a loss as to how the orphans could "lower those buckets via ropes to the walkway in area A12" as the text says. Lower them from where? Surely not from Area A8; the walkway isn't directly under the bay, so there's no way to lower things onto it from there. In fact, there's no open space anywhere over the walkway that the buckets could possibly be lowered from. I guess I'd have to just assume that rather than lower the buckets directly onto the walkway, they'd have to lower them into a skiff that Gaedren positions under the bay for that purpose... but that's not what the text says.

So, anyway, yeah... the Fishery map's got issues.

I know that's normally how multipliers combine, but I wasn't sure whether this case would be different. Though, really, I can't think of any good reason this case would be different, so you're probably right.

Your argument that it isn't called a vulnerability and therefore should stack with it is a good one... that's pretty much what I'd been thinking too, but I wasn't sure it was right.

Thanks for the reply.

Hey, I just had a question about the Body of Ice ability of the Ice cleric subdomain. Namely, does the extra damage taken from fire stack with vulnerability to fire from other sources? In particular, for instance, if a creature of the cold subtype (which therefore had vulnerability to fire) had this ability due to cleric class levels, would it therefore while in ice form take three times normal damage from fire? (x2 due to Body of Ice, x1.5 due to fire vulnerability) Or does the higher vulnerability take precedence, so the damage would still be only x2?

It's not like there's an unending amount of core rules they can put out, which means they're going to either branch our or stop publishing hardcovers.

Actually, I may be alone in this, but I actually liked (and used in my campaigns) some of the weird hardcovers WotC put out relatively late in the 3.5/3E development cycle. Like the Tome of Magic. And Magic of Incarnum (ran a game at GenCon once where the main villain was an ormyrr incarnate). I don't really get this about there being no more core rules that can be put out. Sure there are; there's always room for more interesting options.

Then again, since I do seem to be (not entirely but mostly) alone in this, I can see how from the standpoint of company profitability there surely is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to publishing new rulebooks. I personally may have thought Magic of Incarnum was kind of interesting and worth using, but I'm not sure how well it sold.

All of which is tangential to the main point of this thread, but perhaps leads into something that may be more connected: that part about people not wanting to convert to Pathfinder because not everything from 3.5E can be transferred over, and psionics and epic levels will complete the set? No. They won't. There are plenty of other things in 3.5E that don't have Pathfinder equivalents. Like, yeah, the classes from... well, from any book other than the PHB, PH, and ELH. All the Product Identity monsters. The D&D gods. What if a player played a cleric of Pelor, and is upset that Pelor doesn't exist in Golaria? What if a player has a character designed specifically for the Forgotten Realms, or Eberron, and is upset that it can't be converted over? (Actually, that last one is a little less hypothetical and perhaps a bit less frivolous than some of the other things I've listed; I actually have seen posts by people who explicitly listed as a reason they weren't interested in Pathfinder the fact that it didn't have support for the Forgotten Realms or Eberron or other established D&D settings. Which seems like a silly objection to me, but there it is...)

Sure, there's the fact that psionics and epic levels are in the SRD, and therefore could be converted more or less straight over, whereas those other things I mentioned obviously couldn't, since they're not Open Game Content. Still, the fact is that for that very reason Pathfinder can't, even in principle, have a direct equivalent for everything in 3.5E. Say Paizo comes out with a psionics book (which at this point I agree seems kind of redundant, since a perfectly serviceable one already exists from Dreamscarred Press, but let's grant for the sake of argument that Paizo publishes one of its own). So yay, the player who loves playing psychic warriors is happy with Pathfinder now! But uh-oh, what about the player with the warforged character? I just don't get the argument that once Paizo does psionics and high-level play Pathfinder will be "complete" in some important sense. Complete as far as including everything in the SRD, sure, I guess, but to those who want to replicate their direct 3.5 experience, is the distinction between open and closed content really a meaningful one?

I hasten to add that I am not arguing against a Pathfinder Mythic Handbook (or whatever you'd like to call it). In fact, I'd actually like to see such a book myself. But that particular argument for a Mythic Handbook doesn't seem entirely sensible to me.

I think most posters would agree with the bolded statement. The disputes are over things like the probability of fans making a (successful) game, whether or such a game should be made, and what engine to use/how to write it.

The reason I felt it necessary to make the bolded statement was because there had been some posts earlier in the thread that seemed to me to be rather explicitly arguing the opposite. On rereading the posts in question, though, yeah; I'd kind of glossed over some parts of them, and they weren't saying quite what I'd initially thought they were saying. My bad.

Still, revising that statement to be more in line with the first of the disputes you enumerate, I'd argue that Scott Betts is right that the probability of fans ever making a successful game are fairly low. Having been involved myself in the days of NWN with a very high-profile fan project that seemed to show great promise at first and ended up just kind of petering out and fading away, I have some firsthand experience with fan ambition overstepping actual accomplishment.

But anyway, that wasn't the main point of my post. My main point was that you can make a game using the Pathfinder rules under the OGL without needing a license from Paizo; you just can't call it Pathfinder compatible, use the Pathfinder logo, or use non-open content (like Golarion).

So I guess my main point was in reference to the second dispute you list: whether or not such a game should be made. To which my answer is, why not? You don't need Paizo's permission (though I'm pretty sure as long as you conform with the aforementioned legalities about not using Paizo trademarks or intellectual property, they wouldn't mind). Do I think such a project is likely to succeed? No, not really. Does that mean I think it's not worth trying? Not at all. Go for it.

Except a 12th level character who has invested in Diplomacy doesn't want their skill choice negated. At that level with a combination of buffs and aid another can turn even the most hostile enemies into friends (see Diplomacy DCs).

I once DMd a 3E/3.5E campaign that ran for several years and well into epic levels (having started at 1st), and probably would have gone longer had it not been for the death of one of the players. (Yes, I mean players, not characters.

And one of the most memorable moments near the end of the campaign involved a Diplomacy check.

The PCs were making their way into a well-defended tower that was the lair of a major campaign villain who had been a thorn in the PCs' sides since early in the campaign -- not the BBEG of the campaign, but certainly a BBEG. At this point, they desperately needed some information he knew, and figured they were probably finally powerful enough to face him directly, and planned to get to him at the center of the tower and beat it out of him.

Now, the tower wasn't easy going, but they were making their way through. And the villain was taunting them telepathically every step of the way.

So finally at one point the party bard decided to talk back to him, and said something like this:

"You know, this tower is kind of annoying, but we're getting through all your traps and monsters. And you know we're going to get to you eventually. And when we do, you're not going to have a good day. So why don't you just make it easier on both of us and tell us what we need to know?"

He rolled a Diplomacy check, and got almost a 50. So... I decided the villain did tell them what they wanted to know.

(And yes, I realize arguably an Intimidate check would have been more fitting. But given the bard's personality and the way he phrased what he said, a Diplomacy check was defensible.)

Of course, I wouldn't allow a Diplomacy check to suddenly make an NPC the party's best friend for no reason. But in this case, under the circumstances, what the bard was saying actually made sense, and it actually was in the villain's best interest to do what he asked (at least, assuming the villain could be reasoned into valuing his own well-being over his desire to harm the party, which I thought was certainly reasonable). It meant bypassing half the dungeon I'd mapped out, but I figured it was appropriate, and made for a good heroic moment for the bard character.

Generally, I think it's part of the DM's job to be aware of what the PCs are capable of. Once you know that, it's much, much, better to incorporate it into the game, to reward its use with further interesting stories, than it is to try to negate it.

Heh. Trying to incorporate the PCs' abilities backfired on me once. The party wizard (actually an arcane trickster by that point) had gotten into the habit of reconnoitering dungeons by wind walking ethereally through the walls, finding out exactly how the dungeon was laid out and what the party would be up against, and then returning to the rest of the party and leading them through the best path he'd found. Now, obviously there are all sorts of ways I could have foiled that tactic if I'd wanted to, but coming up with a reason in every dungeon why the wizard's abilities didn't work or had unfortunate consequences would be annoying for the players. So... I designed one labyrinth with the explicit expectation that the wizard would do this. The maze was full of twisting paths and dead ends and hazards and would be a huge pain to find their way through normally, but I figured the wizard would scout it out beforehand and find the fastest way through, and the whole thing would be dealt with in maybe five minutes of real time.

So, this one time, with the maze from hell that I fully expected the wizard to short-circuit... he didn't. He'd used that tactic on every dungeon the party had been through recently, and now, when there was a dungeon I'd specifically designed with that tactic in mind, he apparently suddenly forgot he could do it. So the PCs were tediously slogging through the maze the hard way, and the players were frustrated by the stupid maze, and I was frustrated because this would all have been prevented if the wizard would just do exactly what he'd done for the last few dungeons, and... bleah. (I think eventually in desperation when they were about halfway through I may have dropped a hint reminding the wizard of his usual dungeon tactic...)

Anyway, though, I thought the campaign remained fun into the epic levels, and the players seemed to feel the same way. (That one annoying maze notwithstanding.)

I totally agree with what's been said by DreamAtelier and gbonehead and others about the importance of having a story in mind, and a plot with a planned endpoint. This campaign had in fact had a story arc planned out from the beginning, and I knew from the start how I'd expected it to end. And, despite the occasional inevitable surprises from the PCs, it did ultimately end up going overall pretty much how I'd planned... I said at the beginning of this post it probably would have gone longer had it not been for the death of a player, but it wouldn't have gone much longer; it was getting very near the end anyway, and would almost certainly have ended in a few more levels regardless. (The other players didn't feel comfortable continuing the campaign for long after the one player had died, but they did want to have one or two more sessions to wrap up the plot and bring it to a good ending, so I just skipped over a few minor bits I was going to run that weren't really important for the main plot anyway and moved the climactic confrontation with the campaign's main BBEG up a little, so the campaign still came to a satisfying end.)

And yeah, I also agree with what's been said about the importance of having good players. If I hadn't had a good group of players, the campaign wouldn't have gone nearly as well. One major powergamer could have made things really annoying. (Which is another argument for not starting at high levels; if you've played with the same players since low levels, you know them well enough to have hopefully weeded out any problem players by then.)

If I remember correctly parts of the OGL can be used and apply to software.

IANAL, so it's possible someone who knows better may correct me, but according to my understanding:

There is nothing in the OGL that forbids its application to software. There is nothing in the OGL that disallows the creation of a computer game using Open Game Content.

Now, there was such a clause in WotC's now discontinued d20 license -- or more specifically the d20 System Trademark Guide it referenced -- explicitly denying its application to "Interactive Game[s]". But the d20 license was separate from the OGL. (All that meant is that you couldn't use the d20 logo on such a product, or advertise it as compatible with the d20 system.) Similarly, the Pathfinder Compatibility License explicitly specifies "printed books, electronic books, and freely available websites", so you presumably couldn't make a computer game under the Pathfinder Compatibility License either. However, all that means is that you couldn't use the Pathfinder logo and the Pathfinder name in your advertising. You can still use all the Pathfinder rules (at least, all the Pathfinder rules that have been released under the OGL); you just couldn't actually advertise that your product was Pathfinder compatible.

And you would, of course, have to distribute a copy of the OGL (with Section 15 appropriately amended), but that's not a big deal. You could probably include it in the documentation, or in a text file in the game directory, or viewable in-game in the options menu -- I'd probably do all three, just to be on the safe side.

The only obvious possible sticking point I am aware of in the OGL is section 8, which states that "If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content." This could conceivably be interpreted to imply that the game's Open Game Content -- including Open Game Content from the PRD -- must be present in human-readable format. However, even if that's the case, there are ways around it; I've seen it suggested that things like stats, class level advancement tables, etc. could be read by the game from (human-readable) text data files, for instance. Possibly even this isn't necessary, and just having a text file (or PDF file) included in the game directory reprinting all the Open Game Content used in the game would be sufficient to comply with this section.

So... yeah, under the OGL, you could absolutely make a game using Pathfinder rules; you wouldn't need a specific license from Paizo. However, you couldn't call it a Pathfinder game, or use any Pathfinder logos or trademarks. And, as Vic Wertz mentioned way back on Page 1 of this thread, you couldn't actually mention Golarion, or Abadar, or any other specific Pathfinder setting elements that aren't released as Open Game Content -- you'd have to restrict yourself to what's in the Pathfinder Reference Document (and possibly Open Game Content released by third-party publishers, if you wanted to use it). You'd probably have to use your own homebrew setting (or leave it completely setting-neutral and not mention any gods or countries by name). But as far as just making a game using the Pathfinder rules... Sure. Go nuts.

Personally, I happen to sort of agree with Scott Betts that it's unlikely that such a project made by a disorganized group of fans (or even a somewhat organized group of fans) will ever be finished with the quality that could be achieved by a well-funded studio. But if you disagree, well, go ahead and prove us wrong. Nothing's stopping you.

My statements are meant to improve Paizo, not just kiss up to them. Which one are yours meant to do? (<-- yes, that was a low key diss. But don't get offended, it was just to prove a point.)

And that point was? What possible point could be proven by a "low key diss"? And why would I want to kiss up to Paizo? The initial round of the contest is anonymous anyway, and the succeeding rounds are voted by the public. I'm not trying to "kiss up to" anyone; I'm just defending the judges because with all the work they're putting into this, I don't think they deserve to have their "honesty" and "fairness" arbitrarily brought into question.

This isn't a today suggestion. This is a 'let’s improve the functionality of the process so that the company can benefit in the long run' type of suggestion.

But you haven't explained why this would benefit the functionality of the process, or what on Earth it would have to do with proving anyone's honesty (or why that even needs to be proved).

But whatever; I'm done here. You're just repeating yourself, and when your assertions are questioned you just resort to an admitted "low-key diss". There's no point in continuing to try to discuss this with you.

(Aargh, first of all, I just realized I made a stupid mistake in my previous post... I kept referring to the item's price being 500 gp... that, of course, was its creation cost. The price was 1000 gp. Granted, I still would have thought that was too low, but it's not as low as I thought... can't believe I made that mistake.)

Anyway...

My intent was for the weapon to turn into a Bane weapon specifically against a single enemy (the one against which the knife points at the moment, not his type, species, or anything of the kind), and only during the knife's effect's duration (i.e. only until that specific creature is dead, captured, or the day is over).

Ah, that helps a lot... if the bane effect only functions for a single day, that's much different from a permanent effect. (I wondered if maybe you meant the effect to be temporary, but the description didn't say.)

Please note it is very limited in combat usefulness, effectively granting +2 to hit and damage against a single enemy 1/day *if* you prepare for 10 minutes beforehand

Bane isn't just +2 to hit and damage... it's +2 to hit and +2d6 to damage. That's a significant amount of added damage, particularly at low levels (and for 1000 gp, characters can have this item at low levels).

As for the preparing for 10 minutes beforehand... that's another thing the description didn't say. It said that carving a wooden figure -- which is tied into different abilities -- took 10 minutes. There's no time specified for depositing the blood onto the knife (and nothing about the wooden figure being required for the unavoidable hunt ability), so I assumed that was, at worst, a standard action.

About "pointing" the knife - I thought of it as simply opening your hand and letting it spin towards the right direction.

Ah... okay, that's very different from what I had inferred. But then, that raises more questions. Do you have to have line of sight to the subject? Is there a maximum range? And I don't get why "applying this effect against a specific enemy would be quite difficult". I'd assumed that the effect was meant to be applied against a specific enemy. Can you not just designate any subject within range? Does the knife choose the subject randomly? The description just says the bane effect works "against the subject to which the knife points"; I'd assumed the user could just point the knife at whoever or whatever he wanted. If that isn't the case, how is it decided what subject the knife is pointing at?

So, overall, yeah, it seems this was mainly wording issues... you knew how you wanted the knife to work, but it didn't all come out in the description (at least, not to me). That's a hard problem to avoid; it's not always easy to try to think of every possible interpretation and to put yourself in the mental shoes of a reader who's coming at the description with no prior information. (I tried to account for every question and possible discrepancy in my own submission this year, and after I submitted still occurred to me that there were a few possible mechanics issues I hadn't addressed, or that I had addressed in ways that seemed contradictory... dang.)

Realistically, I don't know that this particular item would have been a good contest entry, simply because it has enough unique powers that it might not be possible to fit all the necessary details as to how the powers work in 300 words. But since you didn't intend it as a contest entry anyway, I guess that may not be a big deal. Again, I hope I'm not being too nitpicky here... these item has some great ideas behind it; it just seems that some of the mechanics could be made a little clearer.

I feel that displaying all of the entries is a good step towards doing that. It's one of the reasons American Idol does it (besides the ratings..lol). Of course it isn't possible for American idol to show all of the thousands of entries, but they show some of the more humerous ones and a few good ones that just wasn't good enough.

As far as the legal issues are concerned (and I am by no means a lawyer), that's as easy as the suddestion that the earlier poster had by including that on the sign up form.

There are no such legal issues. Paizo owns the rights to all entries. They could display all of them if they wanted to. (Well, okay, there is the possibility that Xaaon of Korvosa pointed out of entries that violate another company's IP, but special exceptions could easily be made of those cases.) The probable reasons why all the entries aren't shown have already been explained; the "legal issues" you bring up are a red herring.

As for "the reasons American Idol does it"... well, as you admit yourself later in the same paragraph, American Idol doesn't in fact do it. They don't show all the entries. Okay, yes, they do show a few of the entries that don't make it, but that doesn't mean Paizo should. So you're saying Paizo should "show some of the more hum[o]rous ones"? No; I think it's classier of them not to intentionally expose people to ridicule. That might be good for American Idol's ratings, but I don't think it would be a good idea for Paizo.

Again, I fail to see how showing all the entries would have anything to do with "an air of honesty and transparency with the judges". How would showing all the entries prove the judges are being honest? If you disagree with the judges' choices, does that really mean the judges aren't being honest, or does it just mean a difference of opinion? And if there is a difference of opinion between respected professional game designers and random message board posters, I'd be inclined to put a little more weight toward the former anyway...

(Besides, for full "transparency", are you expecting the judges to fully explain their reasons for each decision? Do you have any concept of how much work the judges are putting into this as it is? Can you imagine how much additional work would be required if they had to give full explanations for each rejection as well? Do you really think it would be reasonable to pile on all this additional workload? As it happens, in previous years the judges have given some feedback for rejected items posted by the contestants after the decisions have been made... but that was purely voluntary on their part; they were doing the contestants a favor. Requiring the judges to explain their decision on every single one of the hundreds of items submitted is completely unrealistic.)

Sorry, but no, I completely disagree; I think Paizo is doing the right thing in not posting all the entries, and I don't think they should change that policy. And, frankly, while you say you're not posting to "degrade or insult the company", when you go on and on about the need to prove that the judges are being fair and honest you are, yes, insulting them. Please stop.

The Perfect Hunter's Knife has some good ideas and some real imagination behind it, and I think it has a lot of potential, but one of its abilities strikes me as seriously overpowered:

...Unavoidable hunt: The user spills his blood from the knife to another weapon. This weapon gains the Bane property (if it doesn't already have it), exclusively against the subject to which the knife points;

For how long? Does the other weapon now permanently have the bane ability, or is this a temporary thing? Can you do this every day? (And does the other weapon have to be masterwork, as is usual for magic weapons?) If there are no further restrictions on this ability, this is waaay underpriced. You've got something that can create an indefinite number of bane weapons? Yowza. Actually, even if there are further restrictions, this is probably way underpriced. Keep in mind, enchanting a weapon with the bane ability normally costs 2000 gp, and at least two days' work (well, okay, one full 8-hour day of work if you're willing to take the +5 hit to the DC). And now you've got an item that can give the bane ability for free (well, okay, at a cost of one hit point), almost instantly, to a weapon a day? And it costs only 500 gp? That's... yeah, I think you may want to rethink that.

Now, I realize that there are some restrictions on this ability. I gather the weapon is only bane against the particular individual creature the knife is pointing at, not against all creatures of its type (though it may be worthwhile to be a little more explicit about this; I think this is what you mean by "exclusively against the subject to which the knife points", but I'm not completely sure). And I know the fact that you have to have line of sight to the desired subject to activate the bane power (so that you can point the knife at it) is a significant limitation. So, yeah, I get that the bane weapon created by the knife is significantly less versatile in some ways than an actual bane weapon. I just don't think that's nearly enough to justify the ability to repeatedly produce such bane weapons with an item that costs only 500 gp (especially since that's only one of its powers!)

Incidentally, the bit about "the subject to which the knife points" could do with a bit more solid crunch behind it, too. If the subject is aware of the knife's nature, can he try to keep away from where it's pointing? Would pointing at an unwilling subject require a ranged attack roll, or would it be resolved some other way? That might sound silly, but it's the sort of question I can definitely see coming up in play...

Anyway, hope I'm not coming across as too nitpicky here; like I said, it's a very interesting and imaginative item, but that one power immediately struck me as problematic, especially with the item's low price...

No, I haven't started Round 2 yet, nor will I until I hear that I passed Round 1. Heck, I just finished my Round 1 submission! And I only entered the contest because I found myself with some time on my hands this Christmas break.

I'd suggest starting Round 2 anyway, just in case. That was my mistake in 2009... I was so sure my Round 1 submission wasn't going to make the cut that not only did I not give any serious thought to a Round 2 submission, but I didn't even bother checking the site to see who'd made it until the night before the Round 2 deadline... so when I saw to my astonishment that I had made it to Round 2, I was left with practically no time to try to cobble together an entry the next day in what few spare moments I could scrape up at work. So I guess it's not terribly surprising I didn't make it to Round 3...

So, yeah... you may not expect to make it to Round 2, but it wouldn't hurt to get a head start just in case. Don't repeat my mistake... ;)

I would venture to say a mediocre artist knows their work is mediocre.

A glance at some of the threads linked from this one should disabuse you of this notion.

ok, i was wondering. then how do we know it's fair? where is the checks and ballances? this is supposed to be like a reality show type of event (at least that was how it was proposed to me back at neoncon) we should be able to view the entries.

Um, what? Okay, you want to compare it with reality shows; think of American Idol. I've never watched it, but I'm pretty sure the producers don't make publicly available video of everyone who ever auditioned for the show. You only follow those who are selected to actually appear on the show; you never see the thousands of people who submitted audition videos and didn't get called back. So think of the top 32 from Round 1 as the contestants appearing on the show.

It makes perfect sense to me that the entries not chosen aren't publicly displayed. Many of them may have been rejected because of blatant rules violations or because of matters that fall in line with the posted "autoreject" reasons, and their creators, realizing their errors, might not now want their mistakes paraded in front of the public so everyone can laugh at how far they went over the word count, or so that they can be publicly lambasted for creating a Spell-In-A-Can. I'd guess the main reason all the entries aren't posted (aside from maybe an issue of the work involved) is just that, to protect the feelings of the contestants who didn't make the cut. And, again, anyone who didn't make the top 32 but wants his entry posted is free to post it himself. (Yes, Paizo gets the rights to the entries, but contestants are still free to post them on the forums here.)

I don't see how posting all the items would have any reflection on letting the community know the judging is fair. I'd put some trust in the judgment of four experienced professional game designers, and anyway, what would Paizo or the judges have to gain by favoritism (or whatever other form of unfairness you're worrying about)? They're using this contest to find new writers; if they didn't render fair judgment and really try to choose the best entries, they'd be hurting themselves more than anyone else. I don't see this as a coherent argument in favor of showing all the entries.

how do you view the other entries?

You don't, yet. When the top 32 are chosen, they'll be posted. At that time, the creators of other entries may or may not choose to post theirs for commentary.

I would just like to wish everyone who entered this year the best of luck. Win or lose I pledge to remain here and support those who make it to the next round. Just remember we are all winners.

Yeah, I should have done that in 2009... I feel kind of bad about not sticking around on the forums after my villain didn't make the top 16. After the top 16 were announced and my villain wasn't among them, I kind of disappeared from the forums (in fact, I think this is my first post here since then), and I really shouldn't have. (It wasn't out of sour grapes or anything like that; it was just that I was busy... but still, I really ought to have stayed around to support the other contenders.)

Anyway, if I do make the top 32 this year, I hopefully won't repeat my other mistake from 2009, which was... well, I was so sure my item wouldn't make the top 32 that I didn't even check the site to see if it had until the night before the Round 2 deadline. Which means, when I found to my surprise that I <I>had</I> made the top 32, I had less than a day to do the complete write-up for the villain. No, I hadn't started on the villain write-up before that; like I said, I was pretty sure my item wasn't going to make the cut anyway, so I didn't spend a lot of time planning for Round 2. What made things worse was that I was working as a teacher at the time and the Round 2 deadline happened to be in the middle of midterms, so I had even less time to put together an entry than I otherwise would have; I had to quickly do what I could on my laptop in what tiny snatches of time I could get between classes. So, yeah, given the absolutely minimal amount of time I spent on it, I guess it's not at all surprising that my Round 2 entry didn't make it. (Not that I can be absolutely sure I would have put together a winning entry even if I had spent more time on it, but I certainly would have had a better chance.)

Still, I guess that was better than the mistake I made last year, which was inexplicably thinking the Round 1 deadline was a week later than it actually was and missing it entirely...

So, anyway, I'm going to try not to repeat this year my mistakes of the past. (Hey, already avoided last year's mistake!) I'll give some serious thought to a possible Round 2 entry well before the deadline. (I don't really expect to make Round 2, because I think my Round 1 entry is kind of boring and of non-obvious utility, but I thought about the same of the twintone flute I entered two years ago and that, to my astonishment, made the cut, so I guess you never know; I'll be very surprised if my entry makes the cut this year, but it won't hurt to be ready just in case.) And whether it does or not, I'll make an effort to stick around this time and support the other contenders.

So, yeah, good luck, everyone, and see you in the later rounds (whether my own entry is there or not).

My best to all of you. I'll be voting for you... Well, some of you... As soon as I figure out where the villains are... Anybody see any villains?... No really... I'm not kidding... Where are they?

Um... if you're really not kidding... you're just a little early. It's not 2:00 PST yet. The villains should be showing up in about twenty minutes.

For Round 3, you'll be doing a Pathfinder Beta stat block for the villain you created in Round 2.

Well, I guess that answers that question. A lot of us over in the Villain Voting thread were overthinking things, then. ;)

OK, looks like there are a number of people uncomfortable with any pictures being posted before voting ends, so I'll wait till after then. No problem.

"The wearer ignores critical hit or sneak attack damage, as if wearing armor of heavy fortification. "

Do you have to choose which? That would indicate the wearer has 4 options rather than 3. I find the wording here a bit vague.

Well, it does say "as if wearing armor of heavy fortification," which protects against both, so I'm pretty sure that's what it's going for--I assume the "or" just means whichever one is happening to the wearer, not that he has to choose which one to protect against. Still, you're right, it would be clearer if it said "and" instead of "or".

So, inspired by a post somewhere in this forum that I can't find because I forgot what thread it was in, I was thinking of trying to create pictures of all the other contestants' villains--I figured it could be fun, and frankly I could use the practice. Vic Wertz verified here that, while contestants aren't, of course, allowed to post pictures of their own villains, it's okay for contestants to post pictures of other contestants' villains, as long as it's okay with the other contestant.

So, the purpose of this thread is to see who it's okay with. In other words, if you don't object to my having a crack at coming up with a picture of your villain, post here and let me know.

Mind you, this isn't a guarantee that I'll actually get to it... I don't have a lot of free time, and this may be trying to bite off way more than I can chew. But at least one other contestant has expressed interest in doing this, or possibly splitting the workload, so even if I don't get to it there's a chance someone else will...

Posting artwork based on your own villain is definitely *not* OK.

Right; that I already figured. Like I said, I planned to skip my own villain; I knew that would be against the rules.

I don't have a problem with you posting artwork based on somebody else's villain—so long as it's ok with them.

Fair enough. So, I guess that means we'll have to ask if it's okay.

So... who's up for having a picture drawn of their villain after they're posted? Wait--rather than clutter this thread with that, maybe I should start another thread for this question...

[EDIT: Done]

what happens if the cleric finished all her spells and she has no more fuel for possitive channeling?

do you use the last potions of cure moderate wounds that youhave reserved to fightversus the evil lord? or do you try to sleep well under a ehaling device?

See, I don't think that question works, particularly, because for the money you spent on the blanket, you could have a lot more potions instead. Of course having the blanket would be better than not having the blanket. The question is, is having the blanket better than having other things of comparable cost?

high level characters might not need it, but low level would be grateful...

Except that at the cost of this item, low-level characters wouldn't have it. 18,000 gp. By the standard guidelines for character wealth by level, a character wouldn't be able to afford this item till at least 7th level, and even then it would take up most of his wealth. (And chances are there are other higher priority items he'd rather get.) If you follow the guidelines stated in the Pathfinder RPG of a PC putting typically no more than 25% of his wealth toward magic items other than weapons and armor, you're talking 11th level before he'd be likely to have this.

I don't know. I think I did overstate its uselessness in my initial post, but I'm still not sold on its being something that would really get PCs excited.

Actually, maybe the main problem (other than its being maybe a little bland, as the OP said) is that's overpriced. I could see its being much more desirable if it weren't so expensive. Hm... let's do some rough cost estimating here... Cure light wounds at caster level six, use-activated, one charge per day... that would be 1 x 6 x 2000 / 5 = 2400 gold pieces. (There's also arguably the x2 for no space limitation, but I wouldn't apply that in this case... since you're sleeping while it's working anyway, the space limitation, or lack thereof, isn't all that important.) Granted, what this does isn't really cure light wounds, and at high levels it heals significantly more damage than that, but on the other hand it also takes eight hours to work, so shooting the cost up to 18000 gold pieces seems excessive. Even using cure serious instead of cure light, that's still only 7200 gp. This is only a quick estimate, and may not be the best way to figure out the item's price, but still, I'm curious to know how the 18000 gp cost was arrived at...

This just puts writers who can't draw at a disadvantage during the voting. Especially if it's some kickass art! :)

Well, that's assuming you're posting a picture of your own villain. Personally, inspired by... a comment in some other thread that I was going to link to but can't find now... I was thinking of trying to make pictures of all the other villains. (Could be fun, and I could use the drawing practice.) I mean, sure, posting a picture of my villain could be construed as trying to comment further on it before the round is over, but I don't know that it's a problem to post a picture of someone else's villain; I'm allowed to comment on those, after all...

(I suppose one could argue that if I draw pictures of all the other villains I'm putting myself at a disadvantage by having my villain be the only one left out, but, eh, I don't think it'd be a major factor. Actually, though, this whole plan hinges on my having the free time to actually do all this artwork, and given the typical amount of free time I have lately, that seems unlikely...)

Here's what I think of this one, camping item that is a major heal. Every adventurer would want one. Two actually. That's a problem.

Heh. Seems we have opposite opinions of the item... you think every adventurer would want one, I thought no adventurer would want one. Hm... anyone want to chime in as a tiebreaker? ;)

[EDIT: Though, actually, now that I think about it more, I may have been underestimating the desirability of the item. 5 times Hit Dice is a lot of hit points... that would be enough to heal many characters up to full even if they're almost dead--not barbarians or high-Con fighters, sure, but definitely most bards, wizards, and so on. Sure, like I said, most PCs don't rely on natural healing overnight... but then most PCs don't have items like this.]

Well, the <redacted> <redacted> is <redacted>, but my <redacted> is <redacted> if <redacted> <redacted> <redacted>, so <redacted> and <redacted>. <redacted> are usually <redacted>, but <redacted>, and <redacted> <redacted> <redacted>

<redacted>...

I figured it would be <redacted> to just <redacted> a <redacted>, so <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> the <redacted> <redacted> after <redacted> <redacted> <redacted>. The <redacted> of <redacted> was <redacted> <redacted>, so <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted>.

<redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted> <redacted>.

<redacted>.

I was going to point out the classic Bag of Holding for an example... It needs secret chestand that spell places a chest on the ethereal plane. The contents of the bag are just an unspecified extra-dimensional space. Pretty classic i would say.

An even better example would be the Haversack... it does not even specify that the storage is extra-dimensional, it just is. As an added point it always gives you the specific item you need when you reach in. No need for a unseen servant or anything else... rather wondrous.

Yeah, that's true; in general, magic items don't necessarily have spells that exactly duplicate their effects, and very often it's perfectly okay to have a spell that matches the feel of the effect even if what it actually does is something completely different. Obviously, if an item does duplicate a specific spell effect, it had better have that spell in its prerequisites, but otherwise there's a lot of subjectivity and adaptation involved in choosing prerequisite spells, and getting too hung up on whether or not a specific spell really does exactly what the item does is counterproductive.

Hey, in honor of the villain round of RPG Superstar, I thought I'd start a thread where we can share favorite villains from our past campaigns (as long as they're not in any way related to the villains we entered in the contest, obviously). I don't mean to limit this to the Top 32... anyone's welcome to share a villain here.

One villain I remember particularly fondly from one of my own past campaigns went by the name of Mr. Gainseley. (That's what he always called himself; I don't remember whether or not I even ever gave him a first name.) In many ways, Mr. Gainseley wasn't much of a villain. I don't even think he'd really qualify as a villain for the purposes of this contest, in fact; he didn't have big plans of conquest or mass destruction; he was pretty much just a petty conman. (He wasn't even really evil; his alignment was chaotic neutral.) But I think the reason I like him so much (aside from the fact he had an accent that was just fun to do... vaguely Liverpudlian, but not exactly) was because he ended up being far more effective as a villain than he had any right to be.

Mr. Gainseley was a 0-level character. (This was, of course, back in the days of second edition... in 3E/Pathfinder terms, I'd say he'd probably be about a level 7 or 8 expert.) He would not have lasted a round against the PCs in a fair fight. But he still remained a recurring villain, and one the PCs loathed far out of proportion to his power or even to his actions. They were constantly talking about him, and planning how to get the better of him next time they crossed paths... and they never did. Not because he had any powerful abilities or magic items (I don't think he owned a single magic item, actually), but just because he was always one step ahead of them and had anticipated and prepared for what they were going to do. (I didn't cheat in his favor; I really did plan for those eventualities...)

I actually intended for the PCs to eventually end up having to work with Mr. Gainseley at some point against a greater foe (considering how much they hated him, it would have been interesting to see how that played out), but players ended up moving away and the campaign ended before that happened. Oh well...

I may bring Mr. Gainseley back in another campaign sometime... after all, the PCs never did end up defeating him, so he's still out there somewhere... and I did enjoy doing that accent...

Anyway, anyone else have some favorite villains they'd like to share?

Oooo a clue. How much do you want to bet that one of the villains is trained in classical ballet. ^_^

I've used a ballerina as a major villain in a campaign I ran before, but I didn't invent her... she was actually canon. (The Ghost Dancer, from the Nightmare Lands in Ravenloft.)

That being said, the "dancing villains" didn't make me visualize a villain who was actually a trained dancer, as much as it did all the villains in the round dancing together in a chorus line. (Though granted, it was kind of a vague visualization since I don't know what the other villains in the round look like yet. When I do, it'll probably become even more amusing...)

Bring on the dancing gir.... er... villains!

The dancing villains? Now there's an interesting mental image...

Here's my item. What do you think of it? I thought it was alright, just too bland.

To be honest, I think part of the problem with the item might be that it wouldn't necessarily be all that useful for PCs. How many times do PCs rely on natural healing during sleep, anyway? They usually just cure themselves into being better. Now, think how many potions of cure light wounds (or even cure moderate wounds) you could get for the price of the sanative shroud. (Answer: 360 (or 60). Or, heck, you could get 24 wands of cure light wounds for the price.) And those work instantaneously and don't require a full night to take effect. Which do you think most PCs would rather buy? Sure, in the long run the sanative shroud is the better bargain, but that's a very long long run, and most PCs would probably prefer the heap of potions (okay, they wouldn't buy 360 potions all at once, but still).

Now, I can definitely see this item having its place. It might be good for hospitals, and maybe even some very high-class inns. There are even many circumstances under which it would be very useful for PCs. But it's not something that it seems to me a lot of PCs would necessarily be thrilled about, and that seems to be one of the criteria for the contest.

Yeah, I'm in the same boat, actually. Mechanically, there's nothing all that special about my villain; no wacky templates or multiclassing. So I don't know that statting up the villain I submitted for Round 2 would really be the best way to demonstrate my rules fu. I'm really curious how Round 3 is going to work.

Of course, I could very well not make it to Round 3, in which case the whole matter as moot for me... but I'll try to keep hope alive. I got much more positive comments about my item than I was expecting, so I'm hoping my villain goes over as well, but we'll see...

Okay, I figured that was it. Oh well.....

If it's any consolation, I think this is definitely one of those entries that could have made it into a book of items, even if it didn't get picked for the contest. Like I said, there's nothing seriously wrong with it. There's just nothing about it that really stands out. But it's a perfectly decent magic item.

Damn. Guess I'm out of luck. Oh well, at least I have this...

*runs fingers through thick, soft, full head of hair*

Ah, so your avatar is not a self-portrait, then... ;)

Nobody at all going to comment? I understand Clark is backlogged, that's cool.

I think maybe the reason nobody's commented is because you've already pretty much covered it:

I know they're a spell in a can and not very inspired. What else can you tell me I didn't do to advance?

What else does there need to be? I don't see any serious flaws there, but if it's just a spell-in-a-can without some serious flavor or style to make up for it (and the sentence about clerics with the War domain isn't nearly enough, IMO), that's enough for it not to make the top 32.

Bard’s Army Sack

Nice item conceptually, but I'm inclined to agree with Whitman--the layout and mechanics are kind of a mess. Listing the puppets' stats inline like that makes them a pain to try to decipher. Listing them in standard monster format would make it more readable... but like Whitman said, you'd have been better off just saying they worked like animated objects (with maybe an extra special ability (like the emanating voice) or another tweak or two) and avoided listing the stats altogether.

I disagree. Almost any mundain item could be made into a superstar quality item. The problem here is that you limited your self to much.

Agreed; there's no reason there can't be a book with Superstar quality. I'm actually rather fond of magic books, personally, and have created quite a few custom types for my home campaign that have unique effects. Don't know if they'd be Superstar effects, necessarily, but a book doesn't have to be boring. (In the Ravenloft setting, there's a magic book of folktales--the Tome of Terror--that draws the reader in as a character in the tales; if he survives the tale he gets out of the book, but if he dies in the tale he's stuck there forever. Obviously, this item would be completely inappropriate for the RPG Superstar contest for a number of reasons--it's a plot device rather than an item a PC would want to have; it's really a minor artifact rather than a wondrous item; and it would be very hard, if not impossible, to describe it adequately in under 200 words... but I bring it up to show that magic books don't have to be bland.)

I don't know if the main problem I have with the Trainer's Manual is that it's too limited, though. There is some truth in that--just giving a skill bonus isn't all that interesting--but what bothers me more is the duration of that bonus. The item description never mentions how long the bonus lasts... is it permanent? If so... um. Hm. That doesn't sit well with me. I don't know of any items or spells that give a character permanent bonuses to a skill. One could, I suppose, argue that this means your item fills an unexplored niche, but I'm more inclined to say that there's a reason there are no items or spells that do this.

For instance: stacking issues. You say it's a competence bonus. Competence bonuses don't stack. So that means that any time an effect would give a competence bonus, you have to worry about this one character with the weird permanent competence bonus who doesn't get it. This could be gotten around by making it an inherent bonus (though I think that generally applies only to attributes) or an unnamed bonus, but I think the whole matter of granting permanent bonuses to skills should just be avoided in the first place. (Come to think of it, it definitely shouldn't be an unnamed bonus, because those do stack, and you wouldn't want a character to be able to use multiple copies of the book to raise his skill arbitrarily high.)

There are spells and items that give permanent (inherent) bonuses to attributes, but bonuses to skills... okay, for another thing, there are a lot more skills than there are attributes. Suppose different items existed that gave permanent bonuses to different skills (and if an item existed that gave a permanent bonus to one skill, there doesn't seem to be any reason it couldn't happen for other skills, too). If a character gets and uses multiple such items, now he can end up with permanent bonuses in lots of different skills, for each of which he's got to keep track (for stacking purposes) of how much of his skill is due to the items... this could be a logistical nightmare. So... yeah. Like I said, I think there's a reason there are no existing items or spells that give permanent bonuses to a skill...

I have the feeling my propensity of role-play opportunity over utility doomed me. Maybe the clockwork raccoon would have done better.. Anyhow, one more for the pile.

Core wrote:

Crystal Orb of the Suffering Thoog

Aura moderate divination; CL 8th

Slot —; Price 42,000 gp; Weight 11lb

Description

This crystal sphere is 8 inches in diameter and appears to have a hairless humanoid creature trapped within. The creature is diminutive, eyeless and has vestigial wings on its back that vaguely look like featherless chicken wings. The creature appears to be alive and will shift and contort inside the orb, occasionally making odd gestures with its infant-like limbs. If the orb is separated from its owner or is discarded, it will attempt to follow its owner by rolling on the floor. The orb is surprisingly tenacious when following its owner, albeit slow-moving at 5 feet per round.

Any creature looking directly at the Crystal Orb of the Suffering Thoog will have its thoughts broadcast to the owner (Will DC 19 negates), as spell detect thoughts. This effect can occur more than once at the same time. If the orb's owner is unusually cruel or mistreats the Crystal Orb of the Suffering Thoog, the owner's thoughts are broadcast to everyone with in 60 feet at inopportune times (Will DC19 negates).

Construction

Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, detect thoughts;

Cost 21,000 gp

For what it's worth, I like the flavor of this item... but it's hard to see what it's good for. I think Clark Peterson has asked with respect to other items, why would a PC want this?, and I think that question applies here too. Okay, yeah, detect thoughts can be handy, but the fact that it only works on creatures looking directly at the orb really limits it, maybe to the point of uselessness.

Plus, mechanically, there are way too many things about it that are subjective and/or hard to adjudicate, or just aren't addressed. How do you tell whether someone is "looking directly at" the orb? Does it work like a gaze attack? How do you determine whether the orb's owner is "unusually cruel", and what constitutes mistreating the orb? When the orb tries to follow its owner, can it sense where he is and how to get there, or can the owner lose the orb by going around a corner? Is the creature actually alive, and if so what are its stats? Is it affected by mind-affecting magic? By death effects? What happens if the orb is broken--is the creature freed, or does it die, or disappear?

I really like the mental image this brings up (world's creepiest hamster ball); the description of the creature is great, and I like the name. This item probably has a place somewhere--but this contest probably wasn't it.

Come on people,

Update those profiles!

Done (finally).

Visit my profile and find out more about me than you could have possibly ever wanted to know!

(Uh... not that there's really all that much about me there. But it's not like there's all that much you want to know about me anyway, right?)

So when that time is up and they do not renew the copyright, then Paizo (or whoever) could buy and own it.....

Actually, when copyright expires, it doesn't mean someone else can buy the property and own it. It means it passes into the public domain and nobody owns it. (Or everybody owns it, depending on how you look at it.)

You can't buy properties from the public domain. If you could, there wouldn't be anything worthwhile left in the public domain. One company would already have bought all rights to Greek mythology; another would own the game of tic-tac-toe... Oh, and someone would definitely have bought the rights to the Bible; think what a lucrative property that would be...

Off-topic, but does anyone else find that list a little strange? Not because of what is on it but because of what is not on it...

Why the Beholder, but not the Destrachan? Why are Yrthaks open content, but not Displacer Beasts? Seems odd to me...

Okay, I'm replying to a post several days old and a few pages back (and one that was admittedly off-topic to begin with), but in case you're still curious...

One thing that all the items on the list have in common that the ones you mentioned don't is that they all date way back to the earliest editions of (A)D&D. The gauth is a bit of an exception; it first appeared in the second-edition Forgotten Realms Monstrous Compendium Appendix in 1989, and I'm guessing it was declared product identity only because it's a beholder variant, and the beholder is PI. But all the rest date all the way back to first-edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, if not to basic. Aside from the gauth, the latest arrivals were the githzerai, the githyanki, and the slaad, who all first appeared in the first-edition Fiend Folio in 1981 (the kuo toa were also in the Fiend Folio, but had first appeared in an adventure module several years before); and the yuan ti, who didn't make it into a monster book until the first-edition Monster Manual II in 1983, but had appeared previously in a 1981 module called Dwellers in the Forbidden City. All the other monsters on the list were in the first-edition Monster Manual way back at the beginning of AD&D (and may have even appeared in Basic D&D before that; my Knowledge (Gaming) check fails me here).

So, not counting the gauth, every product identity monster from the 3E SRD goes all the way back to first-edition Dungeons & Dragons--and even the gauth was in second edition. Contrast that with the monsters you mentioned, the destrachan and the yrthak--both of them (as far as I know; someone please correct me if I'm wrong) were created specifically for 3E, and never appeared before the third edition Monster Manual.

So the criteria for a monster's being declared product identity, it seems, are more than just being a unique and interesting monster. It had to do with being, in some respect, a defining part of the game--and part of that has to do with having roots way back in the early editions.

At first, I didn't see my name, because I wasn't expecting to.

Heh. Yeah, same here.

Okay... so, if they're in alphabetical order, then my name would be right about there... and nope, it's not there. Okay, well, no surprise, really; obviously I was hoping my item would make the cut, but I wasn't really--oh, wait, there it is. Huh? Oh, they're in alphabetical order by first names...

After slapping my forehead I realized...of course! My email! After a hasty "be right back" I pulled up my email in record time and read Vic's hearty congratulatory note and instructions.

Wait... there was an e-mail notification? Holy cow. I haven't had a chance to check my e-mail in days; I guess I ought to read the notification and see if there are any important instructions I missed.

(...)

Okay, I guess need to create my profile. I'll get that done later tonight.

(For whatever it's worth, I think this message may mark the first time I've ever used the phrase "Holy cow". I'm not sure why I decided to use it here...)

On a related note, am I the only one who ended up dropping the first villain concept he came up with in favor of something else?

Nope. In fact, I went through exactly the same process as in the previous round. I had an idea I was going to use, but wasn't quite certain about it; I wasn't sure I could explain it adequately within the word count limit, but I had other concerns about it too. And then, when I went to actually write it up, I found that indeed it required too much explanation to fit in the word count limit, so I had to come up with something else... which in a way was something of a relief, because it meant I didn't have to agonize over whether my other concerns were deal-killers or not; the word count limit was absolute, so I'd have to come up with a different idea anyway.

We'll see whether this pattern repeats in later rounds. I kind of hope not...

(Yeah, seriously, my first villain idea had way too much backstory to fit into 500 words... and the backstory was essential enough to the concept that I couldn't just leave it out. Maybe at some point I'll post my first villain idea somewhere...)

Great minds must think alike, Goblin, because I've been suspecting something along those lines all along.

Me too, actually... though I also considered the possibility Paul Worthen brought up about everyone being given the same villain to stat up. I don't think that's really going to be the case--mostly because the last contest generated some material that was later used (or at least referenced) in Pathfinder products, and sixteen copies of stats for the same villain wouldn't be particularly useful--but it's possible. I think the villain-shuffling scenario is more likely.

If they do pull a villain-swap, though, I had some of the same concerns that some of the other posters in this thread have already brought up... but maybe the Paizo Powers That Be have already anticipated those issues and have thought of ways to avoid them.

Or maybe we're overthinking this and all the Round 3 contestants are just going to be statting up their own villains after all...

Okay, now to reply to some of the comments:

I would be less wary if it had a limited number of uses per day, perhaps drawing upon haste or Quicken Spell as a prereq, but other than that I do like messing with the bardic music mechanics.

I did actually consider listing haste as a prereq, but ultimately decided I didn't think it really fit, flavor-wise. The idea of the item isn't that it's letting the bard play another tune quickly in between turns; it's that it's playing two sounds at the same time, so haste didn't strike me as quite right.

As for limiting the number of uses per day, again, I did consider that, but my reasoning was like Rob McCreary said--bards are already limited in their number of uses of bardic music per day, so there's already a limit built in; a bard who uses this constantly is going to burn through his bardic music uses in half the time. Then again, thinking more about the matter now, that may not be as significant at higher levels when bards have many more uses of bardic music to spare, so, yeah, maybe including a 3/day limit might have been a good idea after all...

Maybe something could be added to the prerequisites - creator must be a bard, or at least minimum ranks in Perform, something like that.

Well, sculpt sound is a bard spell that's not on the spell list for any other class, so the creator already kind of has to be a bard anyway. ;)

I wasn't enamored of the name, so I kind of put this one off but have finally gotten here and am glad I did.

Honestly, I wasn't enamored of the name either. ;)

(Okay, two winking smilies in two consecutive sentences... I think that means I've already used up my quota for this message.)

Like I mentioned in another thread, I was reading over the Bad Item Stereotypes thread from last year the morning of the deadline, and was relieved to see that my item didn't meet any of the stereotypes there... except that there was a lot of emphasis put on having a catchy name, and my item's name, well, wasn't.

Originally, I had just called it the "Twin Flute", but on realizing the importance of having a good name for the item I figured that name was way too boring and just wasn't going to cut it; I had to come up with something better. So I changed it to "Twintone Flute", which was, well, slightly less boring. Still not a great name, I knew, but, like I said, it was the morning of the deadline, so I didn't have a lot of time to come up with the perfect name for it. (Yeah, in retrospect, I really should have read the threads from last year's contest sooner, instead of waiting till the morning submissions were due...)

I think the double-maintain ability is fine as an at will. Being able to START 2 powers in the same round I'm less sure about.

Hmm... you raise a good point, and I think your solution may be a good idea. I admit I hadn't really considered that.

The writing is above average, but I don't like the mechanics for some reason that I'm unable to pin down. They just don't feel right to me.

Yeah... that's another thing I mentioned in another post in a different thread... I realized after I'd submitted that part of the way I'd implemented the mechanics was kind of clunky. Specifically, what bothered me was the very last sentence, about targets being granted a +2 bonus to their Will saves. Instead of doing that, I should have just said the DC of the saves was lowered by 2. Amounts to pretty much the same thing, but it's more elegant and avoids issues of stacking bonuses and such.

I don't know if that's the same thing that was bothering you about the mechanics, but that's one thing I think I should have done differently.

Anyway, thanks, everyone, for all the comments! I'm really surprised by how much positive feedback this item has gotten (pleasantly surprised, of course)... I was hoping I might be able to somehow squeak by into the Top 32, but my item seems to have gone over a lot better than I expected! I just hope my apparent underestimation of my submissions carries through into the next round... ;)

(Oh, dang, I'd already used up my winking smiley quota, hadn't I? Um... okay, ignore that one, then.)

Oh, wow... my item actually got picked for the top 32! Hey!

Sorry I haven't been around to comment lately; the last week has been horribly busy for me. I work as a teacher, and this is finals week at the school where I teach, so I've been busy preparing the final exams. Plus, I'm also an actor (not making enough that way yet to quit the day job, though, obviously), and I was at movie shoots several nights this last week. So... it's just all around been one of those weeks for me; I think I've been averaging maybe two or three hours of sleep, and haven't had time left for much else. But I did manage to get my Round 2 entry in just before the deadline, and I should be around more from here on out, so I guess it's all good.

Jeffrey Scott Nuttall is in. Gerald, yours was noted previously.

Whew! Sorry for the triple submission; just wanted to make sure it was getting through...

Zavanix

Male Pixie Sorcerer 12 (aberrant bloodline)

Description:

The pixies of the Verduran Forest are generally benevolent, but sometimes they can be too curious for their own good. A few have delved into secrets better left alone, and tainted their bloodlines by contact with strange and alien realities. One pixie, Zavanix, in whom this taint ran particularly strong, decided to explore the possibilities offered by association with these realities, embracing and strengthening his ties to them. Over time, this uncanny influence twisted his very soul, turning him from his natural goodness toward chaos and evil.

At first glance, Zavanix looks like an ordinary pixie, with a snub nose and tousled red hair. But there’s something about him that seems somehow off. Maybe it’s that his body isn’t quite symmetrical, maybe it’s that his features seem to shift slightly when you’re not looking directly at him, but whatever it is, there’s something hard to put your finger on that's subtly wrong.

Motivations/Goals:
On the surface, Zavanix’s actions seem purposeless and nonsensical. One day he might slaughter an entire household and leave their corpses splayed in grotesque positions among symbols painted with their blood; another day he might break into a stronghold just to rearrange the furniture. It would be tempting to call him insane, but that’s not really accurate—there is a logic behind Zavanix’s actions, but it’s a kind of logic utterly foreign to normal minds. Everything he does fits into a design that only he understands. At times, Zavanix may do something that seems wholly altruistic, but it’s still a part of the incomprehensible pattern. Ultimately, Zavanix’s actions, as random and unconnected as they appear, are weaving an intricate incantation that’s forging a connection to another level of existence. Already it’s started to open gates and bring bizarre monsters into the world, many unlike any sages are familiar with. If Zavanix continues much longer, eventually all Golarion could be subsumed into an alien reality.

Zavanix isn’t working completely alone. He’s allied with cults of Lamashtu that approve of his goals. He’s also not above recruiting children to carry out some tasks—they’re easily persuaded to do what he wants, and to keep him a secret. Of course, the children are ignorant of his real goals—they just think their fey friend is asking them to play innocent tricks on adults.

Schemes/Plots/Adventure Hooks:
A young girl begs the PCs to rescue her father, who is being held captive in a nearby dungeon. She’s been put up to this lie by Zavanix, who’s setting a trap for the PCs for his own reasons.

A local charity turns out to be an unwitting part of Zavanix’s machination. Do the PCs shut down the charity despite the good it does, or let it continue and risk the apocalyptic consequences?

In the center of Carpenden, a dangerous portal has opened to a nameless world. Divination suggests that only Zavanix would know how to close the portal—but how could he be persuaded to help?

I hope for the next contest they remember that the quality of their best submissions will relate to the amount of freedom allowed within given parameters.

I... don't think that's necessarily true. In fact, I think it's just about the opposite of true. Laxer guidelines won't necessarily result in better submissions, and seeing whether writers can write within the guidelines is important. I don't think 200 words is unreasonable. Yes, there are items that can't adequately be described within 200 words. So don't submit those items. In the real world of publishing, you'll have guidelines too that not all your ideas will fit.

I am concerned when the examples of what they are looking for do not follow the guidelines the contest gave.

What examples? They never said that all the existing wondrous items are good examples for the contest. In fact, they've explicitly said that many of the items from the SRD would not have done well in the contest.

I don't think a point system is necessary, and I think it would be far more trouble than it's worth. You don't get rated on a point system in the real publishing world.

I admit it was a little hard for me to get my item under 200 words (I do tend to be a bit verbose at times). In fact, my first idea for a submission I didn't use in part because I couldn't get it down below 200 words without leaving out what I thought was essential information. Do I think I could have submitted a better, more interesting item if I had a larger word limit--or no word limit? Sure. But that's not what the contest is about. It's not about just submitting the most interesting wondrous item you can, period. It's about submitting the most interesting wondrous item you can within the given guidelines. I think there are reasons for the 200-word limit, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable.

EDIT: In fact, someone posted another thread in this forum about a call for open submissions for an upcoming product by Goodman Games. The guidelines for submissions include a word limit--and explicitly say that going over the word limit will be cause for immediate rejection. See, this happens in real freelance work, too; it's not just in this contest.