Sommers's page

I don't know if it would be considered old school or not, but its been a while since I've seen a true "treasure hunt" adventure. Not something where you need to find the artifact to save the world, or its the key to taking over the region from the bad guys or what not. But actually adventurers trying to track down an actual treasure. For the something different, I'm thinking not so much of the go down into the dungeon and kill the monsters kind, but more of an Indiana Jones type of thing where the players have to do some research, following clues, even one treasure pointing to another. If you've ever read the old Forgotten Realms novel the Library of Cormanthor, I'd love that.

I've picked up a few of the Bullet Point products before and really enjoyed them. With the slew of releases this year, a compilation is in order. There's also been only scattered love for the gunslinger for equipment. How about a Loot 4 Less for them?

Sommers wrote:

Did the four of you also do a review of mine? If so, would it be possible to get that feedback outside of the contest itself?

Last year when I was an alternate, Ross sent me the judges' round 2 comments in email. I can't remember when, though, it might have been after the voting closed.

Good luck next year, Sommers! :) (By the way, in the off chance that someone gets DQ'd, it might be a good idea to not talk about your organization just yet.)

Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep an eye out. At this point I'm thinking my chances are just about done, but I'll hold off until its official. Of course, if anyone else in the Top 32 wants to fall on their sword, I wouldn't mind :-)

To the judges, it worked out this year that I'm the only contestant thay submitted a second round entry that wasn't posted, but I would still love to get feedback on what I came up with for next year. Did the four of you also do a review of mine? If so, would it be possible to get that feedback outside of the contest itself?

Thanks for the oppurtunity to compete and get better for next year.

No way. I lived in Macungie for my first five years in the Lehigh Valley, before I bought a place in Bethlehem. Very, very small word.

You know where Bear Creek Mountain is? He lives right up the street from there. He used to own the bar a little bit further up that used to be called The Red Lion Inn.

Sommers -- another eastern Pennsylvanian? Do you ever get back to the Quakertown area?

My dad and cousin still live in Macungie, and my sister and her kids are in Pottstown. I try to get back a few times a year if I can, but its tough to haul the whole clan out there. I was back there, staying in Quakertown, for the Christmas 2010 blizzard with my wife and kids. All sorts of fun driving around in a rear-wheel-drive Charger. :)

Okay, I'll date myself by admitting I've been playing since I was in first grade, back around in 1982. I had played a few times with friends in school, then saved my allowance and bought the Red Box from the Sears Catalog, and picked it up in the Sears Outlet in Quakertown PA. (For you youngsters out there, the Sears Catalog was kinda like Amazon for toys and games, but printed out.) Over the next few years I got the AD&D books the same way, and then through Walden and Borders through high school.

In college at Ann Arbor I played a lot, although I switched over to Shadowrun for a long time. Mostly a player then, but I dis write some stuff up and got some things published for SR in Pyramid mag.

Out in CA in 2000, I started getting big into 3.0 and 3.5. I ran three different games over 6 years, including getting my now wife into it. Unfortunately with marriage and two boys at home gaming time is scarce, but in a few more years the oldest should be about ready for his first quest.:-)

It's looking like it might be a moot point for this year, but I would like to see your feedback for my Gloves of Item Domination.

Thanks.

Aaaaaaannnnndddd I just noticed that Jacob was pointing out the second alternate was used, and wasn't referring to Andrew but Benjamin. I'm really happy that the judges liked my item enough to make it as an alternate, but wow it would suck to know to an absolute certainty that I missed the cut by one.

Arghhhhhh!

Yup, I'm here sacrificing chickens in the basement.

I found out at work on Tuesday by looking at the website. At first I saw Alexander in the Top 32 and was excited. Then I saw it wasn't me and crashed. By chance I kept on going and eventually saw my name in the alternates. Then a bit later saw one of them crossed out. It wasn't til I got home like 5 hours later that I saw the "Bad news, good news" email.

Just in case I did get further, I started mulling org ideas in my mind, but didn't put anything down. I got home on Tuesday and pretty much cranked the whole thing out before I went to bed. Then I spent the next two nights with 5 more drafts, and multiple inputs from my wife. I think its pretty solid, but I wish I had another few hundred words to add some texture and complexity. I have a lot more backstory that are full of plot hooks in my head, just no room for them.

Just submitted it this morning at 10:00. Now I wait for a few days, and no offense to the Top 32, but hope that someone has a computer crash and I slip in on a technicality. ;P

Sommers wrote:

I saw that the other alternate put his item up here, so I figured I should too. I'm hoping that I can see some of the remarks from the judges that might help me with my alternate entry for the next round.

I'm jumping ahead to this one to make sure you get as much feedback as we can give you. For some reason, I thought Paizo always made sure they emailed the alternates their feedback. I've also included the commentary from the guest judges...

Sommers wrote:

Gloves of Item Domination

*This is kind of an interesting idea. A pair of gloves that let you handle "hazardous" materials more easily in the form of aligned items and intelligent items with an opposing alignment. I could see some faiths creating such gloves so they could more easily handle, transport, and dispose of opposed items without disabling themselves. Frodo could probably have used a pair of these gloves while carrying the ring into Mordor.

*I'm not as happy with the actual power/mechanics of the item's description. Suppressing 1d4 negative levels is a misstep in my book. I'd rather see it be a static amount and really only suppress 1 negative level. And I think you should go with either the +4 bonus on saves in personality conflicts with intelligent weapons or two saves with the gloves' wearer taking the higher result. Glomming on both of these feels too much like power-creep to me. It smacks of the player who's desperate to always win personality conflicts so they can continue to use an intelligent weapon that wouldn't normally accept them. I do like that they specified certain abilities still can't be invoked (like a holy avenger's power). That's a wise design choice.

*Bottom line for me is that I like the creative idea here. The execution is a little wobbly/poorly-designed, but I might be interested in seeing what else this designer has up their sleeve over the rest of the competition.

*Vote to Keep.

*Very niche item.

*Don't model the same thing twice: either give a +4 save bonus, or...

Neil,

Thanks for the feedback. It really helps, because the things that I thought might have caused problems were not at all where the comments came from. I actually didn't think at all of the Frodo to Mordor angle, I was thinking of two longer-term situations. The first is not even on the good/evil axis, but the lawful/chaotic side. For example the chaotic evil warlord that wields an axiomtic weapon versus the mostly chaotic members of his band, or those pesky chaotic good adventurers. The other was more specific, but the case of an intelligent item that the character needs to wield. I was thinking of a sword-in-the-stone situation where the character uses the gloves to override the feelings of the item, and then needs to keep it to continue to prove his worth.

I really appreciate the feedback on the mechanics. I was going for a bit of variability to give a character at least a chance at more powerful items, but looking back almost items only do impart a 1 negative level penalty. I also wanted to give a second chance to the character that failed a first check, but they had to gamble losing their protection against alignment. But I definitely take the point that making it just two saving throws and you pick the better one is a cleaner mechanic.

Again, thanks for the inputs, and the chance to maybe make it to the next round.

I saw that the other alternate put his item up here, so I figured I should too. I'm hoping that I can see some of the remarks from the judges that might help me with my alternate entry for the next round.

Thanks.

Gloves of Item Domination
Aura moderate enchantment; CL 7th
Slot hands; Price 9,500 gp; Weight --
Description
These close-fitting gloves, usually made from dark silk and sewn with mithral thread, are crafted to assist the wearer in utilizing aligned items and dominating intelligent items.
While in contact with an aligned magic item that inflicts damage or imposes a penalty on a character with a different alignment, the gloves of item domination grant a Will saving throw to mitigate the negative effects. The DC of the save is equal to the item's Caster Level +5. This saving throw must be made every time the item is picked up, donned, wielded, or otherwise manipulated. The effect of a successful save varies depending on the punishment of the item.
• If the item imparts negative levels, the gloves suppress 1d4 levels.
• If the item inflicts damage, the gloves reduce the damage by one-half.
The gloves also assist a character in controlling intelligent magic items. Anytime a personality conflict occurs with an intelligent item, the character gains a +4 resistance bonus to his Will save. If he fails the first check, he may choose to immediately make a second Will save, but without the +4 bonus. If the character fails the second save, neither of the gloves' abilities function for 24 hours. If the intelligent item also imparts penalties on characters of an incorrect alignment, these penalties are applied immediately.
Gloves of item domination cannot force a magic item to grant an ability tied to a requirement other than alignment, such as the additional abilities displayed by a holy avenger when wielded by a paladin.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, protection from good or evil, resistance, charm monster; Cost 4,750 gp

To any of the judges, I'm the other alternate left right now (along with Benjamin Medrano) from the first round. I am in the midst of finishing my organization for the next round for submission in case anyone else drops out. However, I find myself at a bit of a disadvantage in that I haven't seen the feedback from any of the judges as the Top32 contestants have available. Is there any way to get some of that feedback, even if in a private email or such, in case some of the comments may help improve the quality of my work?

Thanks for any help you can provide.

This time, too?

My vote is also for a product pushing the envelope.
I vote for something that pushes a different set of items than another sword or shield: The Genius Guide to Rune Staves and Wyrd Wands.

Although I would also go for an entire book made up of the Loot 4 Less series.

Hi, I just saw this posting and decided to take a shot. You should have an email with 27 spells, almost all divine spells.

Hope that you find them useful.

From the X-Files.

"Tell Scully I've been working out. I'm buff."

Alex vander Kleut wrote:

I don't know if anyone posted this yet, but this is not even what the economics textbook Krugman wrote says. Go to Google Books and find his textbook, then go to page 210. He and his wife basically say the exact opposite of his statement above, that unemployment payments reduce the incentive to quickly find a job.

Reducing the incentive to find a job is not the same as increasing unemployment. So no, he didn't contradict himself.

Here is his exact quote, since I still can't figure out how to do a link...

Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. Most economically advanced countries provide benefits to laid-off workers as a way to tide them over until they find a new job. In the United States, these benefits typically replace only a small fraction of a workers income and expire after 26 weeks. In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

So yes, what it does is make the structural unemployment rate higher, as he says in the very first sentence. It doesn't cause a person to lose his job in the first place, but it can lead to more people taking longer to start looking for a job, which will drive up the unemployment rate as more people do the same thing.

The other point that Bunning was making was that even if you think we should increase the benefits, we should actually pay for it. It was about $20 billion if I remember. After passing an $800 billion stimulus package last year, and driving double digit growth in the budget this year, this was not important enough to find $20 billion to offset it? If Congress can't find the will to do that for a relatively small amount now, how are they ever going to cut the budget from its large growth later on? Every single bit of spending in the federal budget is sacrosanct?

Finally, back to Krugman, has he ever considered some of the other policies he has pushed for might be contributing to the high unemployment rate? The direct cause of high unemployment is not a lack of demand, its a lack of companies deciding that they have a reason to hire more workers. Low demand for the products or services the company produces may give them a reason not to hire new workers. But they can also decide that potential rising costs are a good reason not to hire anyone new.

For example, if the government decides that passing a cap-and-trade bill that increase energy costs is a good idea, a company may decide that the additional cost of energy does not leave enough room in their operating budget to hire any new workers. Or the potential cost for verifying compliance to a new health care program that might pass, compliance which could cost more than the health care, might make a company gun-shy. Or that the large budget deficits from all of that extra spending is going to have to be paid for eventually, and there's a good chance that your company's taxes are going to grow high enough that asking for overtime from existing workers will be more cost effective than hiring new workers.

These are all just off the top of my head. I'm sure that I can find quotes from plenty of textbooks, or economists, that can go into a lot more detail about just such arguments.

This recently appeared in the NY Times, thought I would share becuase I feel Paul Krugman's view on this is correct.

Senator Bunning's Universe

By PAUL KRUGMAN

What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment.

I don't know if anyone posted this yet, but this is not even what the economics textbook Krugman wrote says. Go to Google Books and find his textbook, then go to page 210. He and his wife basically say the exact opposite of his statement above, that unemployment payments reduce the incentive to quickly find a job.

Link to book: http://books.google.com/books?id=dpTBdNGGrtUC&pg=PA210&lpg=PA210&am p;dq=krugman+eurosclerosis+unemployment+incentive&source=bl&ots=GiM UCFpvMz&sig=vCcb2wkdXyBbx7wMDf_pjewae2U&hl=en&ei=FRORS-_BD8H08Q aU9dz2BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB QQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=&f=false