Aura strong abjuration; CL 13th
Slot wrists; Price 25,000 gp; Weight 2 lbs.
This pair of gleaming metal arm guards have spiraling sigils inlaid in them, and are polished to a mirror-like sheen. Once per day, as an immediate action, you can have the vambraces nullify and seize a spell or spell-like ability directed at you, provided it is either a ray or a single-target spell. The vambraces ring with the sound of crystal shattering against steel as they nullify and seize a spell. You instantly know the name of the spell you have just seized. Until the end of your next turn, you can place the seized spell on a ranged weapon as you shoot or throw it. The ranged weapon shimmers with an eldritch aura as it flies towards its target. If the ranged weapon hits a creature, then the spell affects that creature. The spell uses the weapon’s range rather than the spell’s normal range. You are considered the caster of the spell for the purposes of dismissing or redirecting the spell, and for controlling the spell’s target (with a charm or dominate spell, for example). For all other purposes (duration, saving throw DC, and so on) treat the spell as if it were cast by the original caster. If the ranged weapon misses, the spell is wasted. If you do not use the seized spell by the end of your turn, it dissipates harmlessly. You must wear the vambraces for 24 hours before they begin to function.
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, spell turning; Cost 12,500 gp
Hmmm.
I have some issues. I dont like some of the save issues. And things based on whether the attacker hits or misses with the ranged attack. I gotta think about that stuff.
I will also need to think through whether the restrictions given (spell or spell-like ability, provided it is either a ray or a single-target spell) is a proper way to describe this and/or subject to abuse.
My knee jerk reaction is to avoid any effect that allows you to auto avoid any spell. Now, the once per day and spell specifics limitations do help with that, but I'm still wary.
I especially wonder if anyone's going to want to take up a slot with an item that might once per day save them from a particular type of spell. And even the shooting it back effect - the main sexiness of this item - only works if they have a ranged weapon handy and relies on them being any good with said weapon.
I don't know, I think I'd rather have most other kinds of bracers instead.
This is like a ring of counterspells plus a rod of absorption plus the arcane archer's ability to stick ranged spells into her arrows.
It's a weird sort of limited combo... like Wes said, you're probably better off using one of the two items or taking levels in arcane archer. But if I could also see this being a monk shtick, he absorbs a spell, zaps it onto a shuriken, and throws it back at someone, much like he's using Deflect Arrows/Snatch Arrows, which is kinda neat.
Discuss some more, eh?
Yeah, this one needs to get into the top.
But if I could also see this being a monk shtick, he absorbs a spell, zaps it onto a shuriken, and throws it back at someone, much like he's using Deflect Arrows/Snatch Arrows, which is kinda neat.
Okay, now that's pretty neat and just bumped this up a few notches in my esteem.
I have to admit, I've never been a fan of spellcatching items...much less items that let you throw them elsewhere (particularly back at the caster). Maybe that's just because spellcasters (especially wizards) already have an uphill battle to take down melee warriors or ranged attackers and their spells are what help them equalize things. Taking that away from them annoys me. That said, this isn't your typical rod of absorption or spell turning effect. Even so, I wish there was a mechanic that only granted the wearer of the spellstrike vambraces an opportunity to "catch" the spells...not an automatic thing. Last year's spell-catch gauntlet handled this better I think. It too let you catch and redirect a spell...or nullify it if you just wanted to harmless dissipate the thing. It also required a Will save to catch a spell (which is tougher to pull off for most warrior types). Now the spell-catch gauntlet had its problems, too. Somewhere between that item and the spellstrike vambraces there's the seed of a cool design. I just don't think either have closed the deal.
My preference would be that if you're going to reward the guy who caught a spell with the ability to use a weapon delivery system (which is probably going to be a weapon he's really good at using) to redirect the spell elsewhere, then you should make it more difficult for him to "catch" the spell from the get-go. Otherwise, if you're going to make it an automatic "catch" then I'd prefer to see the redirection and recasting of the spell to a different target as something that requires a difficult Spellcraft check or something less likely for a warrior-type to have among his best skills. I guess I'm just looking for more of a balance.
Nevertheless, the notion of two spellcasters squaring off with spellstrike vambraces could make for an entertaining showdown. They only function once per day, so you've nerfed the primary ability reasonably well. You've also limited this spell-catching item to just rays and single-target spells. So that's good. I see you've gone with spell turning as the primary construction requirement, but I'm thinking imbue with spell ability might be a nice touch as well, as it's accepting a spell from an enemy caster and changing it in a way that imbues the vambraces (and hence, the wearer) with the ability to redirect the spell rather than just reflect it straight back at the caster.
Regardless, this item concept worked to get Gerald Andrews into last year's competition. And now it's also worked for you. Welcome to the ranks of RPG Superstar! Going forward into the next round, make sure you keep bringing the cool ideas and tighten down the execution of them so they come across as professional and polished as possible. Best of luck!
Congrats on making it to RPG Superstar 2010! I asked myself the same three questions for each of the top 32 items. Here are my responses to your item:
Would this wondrous item unbalance or over-complicate my game if my PCs were to find it and use it?
Yikes, I'm imagining an archer PC vs an NPC caster and this feels grossly unbalanced. Being able to automatically steal a spell from an enemy caster as an immediate action and then sling it back on your next ranged attack is huge. Think of what you're taking away from this enemy caster... they lose their spell slot, their attack action, the damage the spell would have done, and they're giving all that to you, essentially for free. You take his attack, use it against him, and then get three or four more attacks of your own (since archer characters can typically fire multiple arrows per round). This is what my gaming group calls an "I win" button. Meaning, if you use against the right opponent, you win the fight. Worse, you can do it all again the next day since this is a once a day thing.
Would my PCs be happy with this item if they were to find it during an adventure?
My PCs would love this item, especially an archer PC, as they would essentially steamroll enemy casters. At the very least, this would force enemy casters to only use area of effect spells instead of direct damage spells.
Do I like the mojo? Does the item spark other ideas for my campaign?
The concept of infusing a ranged weapon with a spell is interesting, I commend you there. I can definitely see a new class of archer-casters built around this concept; it would require a bit more tuning though to make sure it's balanced and appropriate.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
,
Star Voter Season 6
aka raidou
|
At its core, you've got a spell-turning effect here, paired with the arcane archer's signature ability to imbue weapons with spells. I like that you place it in the arms slot, as fitting for a spell catching item. I'm not convinced that this cost is correct. But your design goes beyond what an arcane archer can even do, in that it seems to be an immediate action to catch and load the spell into the weapon./ This allows a potential full-attack coupled with a spell effect on the first strike. Ouch!
An item of spell turning has a base cost of 100,000 gold, which includes three charges a day. Even though your item has only a single use per day, the base cost for spell turning alone is probably going to be in the 30-35K range. Add on the ability to choose your rebound target and get a full attack on that poor dude as well, and you're definitely well under-cost for this items power.
I think the spell-catch theme is a tough one to design around. Yet I also think it's admirable to try. It shows a good sense of pushing the design boundaries, and that's what a contestant in this contest should be doing. Kudos for that, and welcome to this year's RPG Superstar!
Mm, this one seems rather too powerful. The auto-steal the spell is something I'm not keen on. If the spell could be kept when the wearer of the bracers passed his save or was missed by an attack roll... that I could see.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
As much as this item seems over powered, and that wizards are just getting another kick to the privates from fighter classes, its just not, because it is a once per day item. Once per day it really nothing it the long run of dungeon or spell caster boss fight, so it is really more of a flavor piece. It lets your character look like an epic ninja for 6 seconds a day and some player’s will gladly take that over a more ‘useful’ item. It’s more of a ‘holy crap’ button anyway as I see it, to catch that crazy spell that came out of nowhere or was way more powerful than you thought the enemy could cast, though I do think it needs a save or check of some kind to get the spell. The throwing the spell back feature is just what makes it attractive. A good assassin item I think. Good job and welcome to RPG Superstar!
Thanks all, for the advice and thoughts on my item. I definitely want to chat more about it, but at the moment, half my brain is going “Woohoo!” and the other half “Arrgggh, got to design a monster in 3 days”. Thanks again for your support.
I liked the description you used in your entry, looking forward to seeing more of that in rounds to come. Good Luck
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8
|
I am envisioning a PC getting shot with a dominate spell, and resending it with an arrow.
Evil Wizard: "You shot me with an arrow! It hurt! And I'll do anything you want, Master."
Heh. This seems like a fun item to me and I know I've had players who would go to town with it. Congrats!
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Matt,
Very cool item. It's nice to see a good wondrous item geared towards the non-casters in the party. My concern is that it seems to be a little too targeted to characters who use ranged weapons but I love Sean's comment above about a monk character using them on a shuriken. Anything that provokes that kind of imagery has some good mojo.
Congratulations and good luck in the coming rounds.
Very nice item. I'd definitely look for a pair as I play a lot of monks and stone giants. I'd suggest a Reflex save vs the spell's DC to successfully snatch the spell unless the user has the Snatch Arrow feat. This makes the item a bit more Monk niche, but it goes well with the theme of grabbing the spell out of mid-air, while also minimizing the potential for abusing the item. (Friendly high level mage casts spell on low level archer, who snatches it, imbues it, and auto-kills an enemy from outside of return spell range.)
Also, clarification for touch spells needed. Can I "snatch" a touch spell? If so, when the weapon hits, does the spell auto-hit too? If not, whose touch attack score is used?
Archers tend to stink as a balance for their ability to inflict damage without being smacked back. So I have a soft spot in my heart for this one, as I know a player who just loves playing archers. Hell, in 2e, I was in a party where the fighters were archers, making the rogues the frontline fighters. There is no love more pure than a player for the archer archetype. I support efforts to let archers OWN someone once per day. After all, Golarion's more high powered anyway.
You get my completely irrational attention next round. Congratulations and rock on.
Was thinking more about this most awesome item. Could the Vambraces snatch a Heal spell? Long range full healing?
Reading the Ambraces I was immediately annoyed because Matt did not tell us when the wearer can make the immediate action to grab the spell. I am assuming it is before the wearer makes the save, but theoretically he won't know what the spell actually is (unless he's made a Spellcraft check). Actually, I think this item might be well-balanced because not knowing which spell you are grabbing limits the utility of the item - especially since it can only be used once per day. Thoughts?
This one is pretty decent. It's one of those items that could be really useful over the course of an adventure.
My biggest problem with this is where you say "you instantly know the name of the spell you have just seized." My understanding of this item is that any class can use it: if this is true, then a fighter wearing these knows the name of a spell but doesn't necessarily know what that spell does. One could argue that some spells are self-explanatory, but there are many that are not. For example, if I'm a fighter wearing these and I absorb a spell named dimensional anchor, I know the name of that spell but don't necessarily have any clue what the heck dimensional anchor does. Does it summon a big anchor from another dimension to come crashing down on the enemies? Obviously, this isn't an issue for spellcasters wearing the bracers, but it is for other classes that have no knowledge of magic (such as the aforementioned monk using the shuriken). Now I'm not suggesting that you should have written "you instantly know the name of the spell and exactly what that spell does" because that would come off as forced and clumsy. If I were to use this item in a campaign, I'd definitely require spellcraft rolls for finding out what something does.
I get what you were going for here and I'm looking forward to what you do in future rounds. Congratulations!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I like these but don't love em... however, I really like the notion of the wearer NOT knowing exactly what spell they've just caught, or at least requiring a Spellcraft check to identify it. They know they've caught an "incoming" but have to turn around and let it fly unless they have sunk some skill points into knowing a bit about magic.
I think the concept is fun, and I think spellcasters have enough juicy advantages, most of which are only countered by OTHER spellcasters, that I don't have a bit of a problem with the idea of a fighter-type throwing their own mojo right back in their face. Plus, it doesn't work on AoE and it also doesn't work on targeted spells that affect multiple targets (e.g., horrid wilting, slow, chain lightning, mass hold person, or even a spell like magic missile if directed at multiple targets).
In sum: Good, solid item, hits the right notes. I think the verbiage is a little overdone ("crackling with eldritch energy" - a little over the top) but the item is a perfectly good one; it just doesn't fire my imagination the way some of the others have done.
Thanks all, for the kind words and critique of the vambraces. I’ll be able to comment more once I make this round’s deadline.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012
,
Star Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9
|
I like this a lot. Stealing a spell and turning it into a ranged effect is exactly something my archer character would love to use.
There's plenty of edge cases around this item, and the fact that these can automatically catch any spell makes these too powerful, but it doesn't kill the item for me.
Congrats and best of luck in the competition!
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka JoelF847
|
Great job making the top 32! Your item is overall well written, and doesn't have any glaring rules issues, but I have to chime in on the side of overpowered in general, and definately for the price. The big concern I have is that it gives access to higher level spells and effects than the characters are likely to have. Since the main villain in an adventure is generally CR 3 or 4 higher than the PC level, and a classed level creature is CR class level -1, this means that in those fights, a PC is facing off on a spellcaster 4 or 5 levels higher than they are, which is 2 spell levels higher. This means that 8th level characters fighting a 12th level wizard could use the bracers to catch a disintigrate spell and shoot it right back at the wizard (or any other spell that would normally be out of reach.)
Chaning the bracers to use some sort of check to catch the spell instead of making it automatic would be my preferred solution, but upping the price would also work to some extent.
Contributor
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Boxhead
|
These are pretty cool but, in addition to some of the concerns above (no save?), I really dislike the idea that you immediately know the spell's name. The Core Rulebook name of spells is probably often very different from their "in character" name, I would think. At least, quite a few of my characters rename spells...
I'd much prefer if the character just knew what the spell did, or even something vaguer. Just school (including subschool), and level. Or even a more generic term- offensive, defensive, persuasive, etc.
But still, very cool idea.
Matt,
Cool idea. I do like these. Commenting this late I've somewhat cheated myself the opportunity to really get in an original or distinct comment.
I think you just need to limit this item a little and it would be fine. Knowing the spell you've caught for example would be a great limitation as others have mentioned. That makes it a little more "interesting" if you don't know what spell you're throwing where.
From a design standpoint, sometimes I think less is better. If an item is too darn convenient, that's where you run into trouble. Then again, if it's not useful characters just sell items for the gold. The trick is finding the balance between those extremes.
I wish you good luck and I’m looking forward to your monster in Round Two! Whoohoo!
The first thing I would suggest is that imbuing your weapon with the spell should take a move action (much like redirecting a spell). That way the wearer won't get the benefits of the spell and a full attack.
A Spellcraft check makes sense for this. Of course, I like the idea of an archer just flinging back a spell with no clue what it does. "I knew he wanted to kill me, so I figured it was bad!"
I'm voting on the side of requiring a save to catch the spell, like Gerald's gauntlets did.
This is great example of how one idea (catch a spell and throw it back) can bring us two superstar items that take it in different directions. Nice work!
Like the hourglass of the insightful conjurer this is a very cool but very underpriced item.
The problem is, items which let you block a spell AND items that let you store/re-cast a spell both have stiff level limits, usually with a different cost for each spell level. And if you don't include such limits then you have to assume you're dealing with level 9 spells and price accordingly.
This has panache, though. Letting you send the spell back with a weapon was a twist that just screams "Up yours, casters!"
And your presentation was pretty solid, aside for the quibble about when you take that immediate action to catch the spell, which is a good point but (I think) a minor one. Whenever I read 'immediate action in response to X other action', I just assume that it happens immediately after the other action is declared, but before any dice are thrown. Is that what you meant?
Well, after completing my monster and catching up on sleep, I’m putting down some thoughts on everyone’s comments on the spellstrike vambraces. Thanks to everyone for taking the time to write feedback.
A check to seize a spell: I got feedback from my friends that the vambraces could have a check of some kind to seize the spell, rather than it being automatic. I thought about it, and considered a few things, I thought about how in 3.0 the Deflect Arrows feat needed a DC 20 Reflex save to stop the arrow and how that was removed from the feat in 3.5. This hasn’t made the Deflect Arrows feat overpowered. I considered it from the point of view of the wearer; it would suck to have this cool ability and try to use it, only to fail the check. You only get to use it once per day, so being able to pick your moment to use it and have it work is important. Scaling this check would also be very troublesome so as to not make it too easy or too hard for all the different classes of character who could wear the vambraces. Also, none of the other standard spell absorbing/reflecting items require a check.
Power and costing: spell turning is 7th-level, so a spell in a can, once per day, slotted item would cost: (7x13x2000)/5 = 36,400 gp. Which is about one third of a ring of spell turning, which works 3 times per day.
The reflection would be automatic, would happen immediately and would reflect 6 +1d4 spell levels, which is probably two spells (or is likely to partially reflect the second one).
I think the vambraces are weaker than this theoretical item in several ways.
It only works on certain types of spells (rays and single target spells). (Having it only work on certain types of spell makes it easier to determine how the reflected spell affects the new target.)
The reflection doesn’t happen immediately.
The wearer of the vambraces has to use an action to do the reflection effect (and it has to be done on the wearer’s next turn).
The ranged weapon has to successfully hit an enemy to bounce the spell.
One advantage is that the wearer doesn’t have to reflect the spell onto the caster, s/he can aim for someone else.
I also looked at it from the art side of pricing, it has to be something that people would want to buy. As Sean and Wesley said, they would probably prefer an item that didn’t require such a combination to be effective.
I also got feedback from experienced players that most true archers would prefer bracers of archery. Greater bracers of archery cost 25,000 so I wanted them to be competitive with other items that use the same slot. I also wanted to make it so that the vambraces would work for a wide variety of classes: monks with shuriken, a rogue with a thrown dagger, or even a fighter who can pull out a javelin.
Andrew Black: glad you liked my description of the vambraces, I’ll do my best to keep up the good work. I’ll be quite interested to see what you think of the description of my second round entry.
Ph34r_n0_3V1L: Nice thoughts on touch spells, I did consider the possibility of delivering healing spells at range. It would be a good combo, but does mean both the wearer and the healer having to use their turns to do it.
Steelhead and Nicolas Quimby (Hydro): I can understand your concerns about when can you use the immediate action to seize the spell. The rules for immediate actions are a little open to interpretation, I agree with Hydro that as a DM I would rule after the spell is declared, but before saving throws etc. I made it an immediate action to use the vambraces so the wearer could use them when it wasn’t his/her turn, and so that the wearer couldn’t use them if caught flat-footed.
Minorelementx, Eric Hindley, and Jim Groves: I added the instant knowledge of the spell’s name to prevent the wearer from getting ‘egg on their face’. For example: the wearer seizes a spell cast by a Lich. The wearer doesn’t know what it is and shoots its back, only to fully heal the lich because it was negative energy spell. I know there are issues with player vs. character knowledge with just knowing the spell’s name, but this way shooting back a spell using the vambraces shouldn’t make the situation worse, hopefully.
Dennis Baker: Glad you mentioned the ‘Wonder Woman’ deflecting bullets thing. I came up with the idea for the vambraces as a combination of the two things that bracer type objects do, they protect from and deflect attacks, and they are something archers wear to protect their arm and wrist.
Erik Randall: I did think of making it some kind of action to put the spell on the ranged weapon, the only problem with using a move action is that if the wearer doesn’t have a ranged weapon in hand, then drawing the ranged weapon and putting the spell on it wastes the whole round.
Okay, you've got me there- the price you've set is indeed perfectly fair relative to the price of a ring of spell storing, and I retract my criticism.
I'm still not always as familiar with the high-end of the magic items chapter as I should be- I knew rings of spell storing existed, but I didn't remember just how cheap they were. On reflecting, I'm honestly flabbergasted that the pricing for the ring is by-the-formula (7 x 13 x 400 x uses per day), even though it takes an incredibly powerful wiz/sor self-only effect and puts it in the hands of anyone. But the precedence is still clear- it is the items chapter which is correct and my gut which is incorrect on this one. :)
These are neat. Honestly, I don't have a problem with the way they work- at the end of the day, it's only a 1/day effect, so it would more or less suck if it weren't automatic. And it's not like you're guaranteed a hit when you return fire, so... it works for me.
Not a problem Hydro, as we both know, pricing items is an art as well as a science. The pricing of items is always subject to people's opinion of how much use the item would get. I'm not saying that I've priced the bracers perfectly, but I did put in a lot of thought about it, and I'm hoping I got a reasonable figure. I was really glad when I looked through the judges' comments and noticed that they didn't say anything about pricing.
Would the vambraces work with siege weapons? Ballistae, catapults, trebuchets?
Would the vambraces work with siege weapons? Ballistae, catapults, trebuchets?
Good question, this was also thought of by one of my friends during the design process. It should work, but it isn't overpowered. It mostly trades the increased range of the siege weapon for a worse chance to have the spell hit the target.