Clark, Please Give Me Feedback on My Item

[Montalve]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Ok... three more:

Montalve wrote:

thanks Vic :)

I was waiting in the shadows, so any Intel on Hunter's Moon

The judges felt there was too much information missing. Is there a range? (Can you target a dragon two miles away?) How often can it be used?

Thanks Vic I will take the pointers for this :)

[Jeff Lee]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Shadowborn wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

Sorry—we don't have an entry for that. I even checked the database for strays—the first time we see it is when you posted it on page 3.

Huh. That's odd. I got it in under the deadline and even got the message that it was entered when I submitted. Odd, and a little disappointing...though at least this means I didn't actually lose the contest. ;-)

Do you know what date you attempted to submit it?

Same question to you, Freehold DM...

I submitted my entry on December 22nd.

[Freehold DM]

I believe I was in on the 31st, New Year's Eve. I did it right before my friend came over and we got hammered. It's interesting, for a minute there, I thought Shadowborn submitted on my b-day.

[Nermal2097]

Hi Vic

Thank you for taking the time to get back to eveyone on this thread. Would love to see what the judges thought of my Palanquin of Glorious Sight Seeing.

[Vic Wertz]

Ok... three more.

Joel Flank wrote:

Vic, I'd love to hear the judge feedback on my item, the Eyes of the Inner Nature (p.3)

Thanks!

They said it's too metagamey. It also removes a lot of the use for knowledge checks. Also, does it see through disguises, either magical or mundane? What about shapechanging effects?

[Vic Wertz]

Robert N. Emerson wrote:

Thanks, Vic. Mine was Torc of the Sentinel.

Nice flavor, says Wes, but ultimately a spell in a can.

[Vic Wertz]

Curaigh wrote:

Curaigh wrote:

...

BLADEMORPH BALDRIC
Aura moderate transmutation; CL 2nd
Slot Chest; Price8000; Weight 1 lb.
DESCRIPTION

The iron clasp of this simple leather baldric resembles a plowshare when closed.

** spoiler omitted **

now back to reading the Top 32!

Thanks for summarizing Vic. If you get a chance I would appreciate a look at this one. :)

All three judges felt the wording wasn't clear in many places:

You mention the wearer's weapon, and you mention an attack, so when you later just say "weapon," most people would think you're talking about the only weapon you've mentioned thus far—the wearer's weapon. But you're apparently talking about the attacker's weapon.

Also,you have to have a weapon in a sheath. Do you really mean that you can't have a weapon out? Or is it ok to have one out, so long as you have*another* one in a sheath? (Because that's how it's currently written.) What if none of your weapons even have sheaths? Can you not use the item at all?

What does "aware of the attack" mean? Do you have to see it coming? And is that attack otherwise treated normally?

What does "damaged" mean, with respect to the weapon? Does it still function as a weapon? Does it gain the "broken" condition? Can it be fixed before the 4 rounds are up? When you say it can only be affected once, is that per combat, or forever? (If it's forever, you're making GMs track whether or not any given weapon has been damaged by this item for the entire campaign.)

Why is make whole the only spell in the requirements?

Wes didn't like the temporary effect, which felt cheesy... although he would have liked it less if it had been permanent, as that would be too strong.

[Curaigh]

Vic Wertz wrote:

All three judges felt the wording wasn't clear in many places:

You mention the wearer's weapon, and you mention an attack, so when you later just say "weapon," most people would think you're talking about the only weapon you've mentioned thus far—the wearer's weapon. But you're apparently talking about the attacker's weapon.

Also,you have to have a weapon in a sheath. Do you really mean that you can't have a weapon out? Or is it ok to have one out, so long as you have*another* one in a sheath? (Because that's how it's currently written.) What if none of your weapons even have sheaths? Can you not use the item at all?

What does "aware of the attack" mean? Do you have to see it coming? And is that attack otherwise treated normally?

What does "damaged" mean, with respect to the weapon? Does it still function as a weapon? Does it gain the "broken" condition? Can it be fixed before the 4 rounds are up? When you say it can only be affected once, is that per combat, or forever? (If it's forever, you're making GMs track whether or not any given weapon has been damaged by this item for the entire campaign.)

Why is make whole the only spell in the requirements?

Wes didn't like the temporary effect, which felt cheesy... although he would have liked it less if it had been permanent, as that would be too strong.

Awesome! Thanks Vic it is helpful. Looks like some discussion happened at least, so thanks to the judges as well!! :) I think I can sum up all my errors by saying: get a second set of eyes to look at it. :)

[Vic Wertz]

Let's see about wrapping up page 19...

caelum wrote:

Vic, I'd love some feedback on the Bloodspell Bracers if you get a chance!

Thanks!

Sean doesn't like the concept of torturing yourself to gain more power.

Is the amount of damage needed to activate it based on the spell's original caster level, or the modified CL?

The only limitation for this item appears to be the number of hp you have.

Math from Sean: Assuming the modified CL, you could empower a 7th-level spell, which would normally be +2 levels and act like a 9th-level spell (CL 17th) for 17 hp. A 15th-level spellcaster has on average 52hp, not counting Con bonuses, which is enough to do this three times. And once you rest, it all heals back... so do this on the last battle of the day, then camp, it's essentially three free empowers. (And since Con bonuses could easily be 15–30 hp at that level, it's probably more like four free empowers.) Compare with an empower metamagic rod (3/day, any spell level), which costs 73,000 gp, and your 19,000 gp price tag looks pretty low.

[Vic Wertz]

MakeItADouble wrote:

Hi Vic, TY in advance my item was Ardent Bindings

Wes: "This seems like a great way to get your normally innocuous spell book targeted and destroyed... maybe by other party members."

Clark just didn't get it at all. I'm not sure if he meant that he didn't understand it, or that he just didn't see the point—I suspect more of the latter.

[Vic Wertz]

Nermal2097 wrote:

Hi Vic

Thank you for taking the time to get back to eveyone on this thread. Would love to see what the judges thought of my Palanquin of Glorious Sight Seeing.

Sean pointed out it's just a folding boat for town, but far more abusable: "Even though it reverts if half the bearers are killed, there's no use limit so you can just conjure them again. Basically, they're unlimited fodder for vampiric touch, death knell, and other 'I need to whack someone to power up' effects." Also, adventurers can use this to set off traps—you say the bearers won't cross "dangerous" terrain, but as Sean asked, "who's to say that 10-ft-wide corridor is dangerous until you step on all the glyph traps?"

Lesser mechanical problems:
How fast is a "slow walking pace"? Aura should be "moderate" transmutation, not "medium."

The requirement for bare-chested bearers immediately made two of the judges think of female bearers, and that triggered a joke about the appropriateness of "Glorious Sightseeing" in the name.

[Nermal2097]

Vic Wertz wrote:

The requirement for bare-chested bearers immediately made two of the judges think of female bearers, and that triggered a joke about the appropriateness of "Glorious Sightseeing" in the name.

That had really not occured to me, I delibrately left off the gender to leave it up to the player and GM to discuss themselves what would be appropriate for their game.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Glass Castle]

Thank you for the feedback Azmahel!

And thank you also Vic

Quote:

Sean and Clark both agreed that it's not a Wondrous Item—even though it takes up a slot, it doesn't really function like other Wondrous Items with respect to it's non-movability; it's really a new sort of "tattoo magic."

Beyond that, though, Sean pointed out that command doesn't work on Tiny animals because it's a language-dependent spell. (You'd also have to speak with animals.) It also doesn't seem to have a limit—can you command an entire swarm of rats or bats?
Though both judges ultimately rejected it, they did both say it was a "good try."

Good feedback regarding the limits on swarms-- I had not considered that, and certainly thank you for the other very good feedback and comments :)

-Although I did think I addressed the speak with animals issue (see the item's requirements):

"Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, command, sending, speak with animals; Cost 6,500 gp"

[Larcifer]

if you are still doing this Vic, I'd appreciate the feedback on [The] Evicerated Vocal Cords of the Envenomed Tongue.

[James MacKenzie]

I'm still curious about the judges' take on the previous year's footlights of the eidolic ensemble, if you have time to let me know.

I'm betting the name didn't work, for starters.

[Vic Wertz]

Light Dragon wrote:

-Although I did think I addressed the speak with animals issue (see the item's requirements):

"Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, command, sending, speak with animals; Cost 6,500 gp"

Adding it to the construction requirements doesn't actually tell you how it comes into play.

[Robert N. Emerson]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Robert N. Emerson wrote:

Thanks, Vic. Mine was Torc of the Sentinel.

Nice flavor, says Wes, but ultimately a spell in a can.

Thanks for sharing that with me, much appreciated.

[Glass Castle]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Light Dragon wrote:

-Although I did think I addressed the speak with animals issue (see the item's requirements):

"Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, command, sending, speak with animals; Cost 6,500 gp"

Adding it to the construction requirements doesn't actually tell you how it comes into play.

Thank you for that tip for next year!

[Vic Wertz]

Light Dragon wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

Light Dragon wrote:

-Although I did think I addressed the speak with animals issue (see the item's requirements):

"Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, command, sending, speak with animals; Cost 6,500 gp"

Adding it to the construction requirements doesn't actually tell you how it comes into play.

Thank you for that tip for next year!

Here's the exact quote from Sean: "Command doesn't work on Tiny animals because that spell is language-dependent. Or is it assuming you're using its speak with animals first?"

[Vic Wertz]

Larcifer wrote:

if you are still doing this Vic, I'd appreciate the feedback on [The] Evicerated Vocal Cords of the Envenomed Tongue.

We had a lot of tongue items this year, so that didn't help you.

Clark thought the name was over-the-top. He doesn't like lying items in general, but he liked a couple of things about yours—it has limits, and not just for evil characters; he also liked the "crippling lie" effect. Overall, he was on the fence, but leaning towards the positive side.

Sean doesn't like blanket immunity. As he put it, "While wearing this item, a person can be the target of discern lies, standing in a zone of truth, and chatting it up with Truthius, God of Lie Detection, and for minutes a day this person can lie without pinging any of those things." He also pointed out that basing the number of uses on the wearer's ability score makes it impossible to price correctly. (That last observation caused Clark to come off the fence on the "reject" side.)

Wes thought it was "icky."

[Vic Wertz]

James MacKenzie wrote:

I'm still curious about the judges' take on the previous year's footlights of the eidolic ensemble, if you have time to let me know.

I'm betting the name didn't work, for starters.

We didn't have a lot of items like that last year, but we sure did this year, and the judges now have a name for them—plot spoilers. They can easily destroy any mysteries the GM is trying to set up, and that's just no fun. If this had shown up late this year, the comments would probably have gone like this:

Judge 1: "Plot spoiler. Reject."
Judge 2: "Reject."
...and the third judge wouldn't have bothered to say anything.

Because yours was ahead of its time, you got some discussion.

Wolfgang thought you were wise to give it a per-use cost—to keep the GM from having to continuously make up story after story that has nothing to do with the story he's *trying* to tell... but Sean pointed out the reverse—PCs could be disappointed by spending gp only to learn nothing useful.

Clark thought that it would be a useful item for a specific, designed adventure, but that as a generally available item, it doesn't work. He liked your "mojo," though.

[Adam Daigle]

You're a good man, Vic Wertz.

[Larcifer]

Thanks Vic,
Pearls of Wisdom gleaned :)

[Maugan22]

Vic, Clark, Sean, thanks so much for slogging though all this,

I'm still interested in some feedback on the folio of origami assailants back on page 3.

[Effigy]

Thanks for keeping this thread going, Vic.
My item was Oberon's Magnificent Pouch of Wonders (waaaaaay back on page 2 I think). Just curious to hear the judges' thoughts on it.

[Murlynd]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Murlynd wrote:

Vic, I'd love to hear the judges thoughts on Ashes of Memories Lost.

Thanks!

Clark liked the dust and the core concept ... (edited for brevity)

Well, I'm very encouraged that I'm at least heading down the right path. :)

Thanks Vic!

[James Olchak]

Man, Vic showed up to give critiques and I missed it? I thought this thread was dead months ago.

Well, if he comes back, mine was the Elemental Fink, back on page 2.

[Vic Wertz]

Maugan22 wrote:

Vic, Clark, Sean, thanks so much for slogging though all this,

I'm still interested in some feedback on the folio of origami assailants back on page 3.

Consensus was that it was really a monster disguised as an item. (Clark kind of liked it; nobody else bothered to comment on the quality, as it was clearly getting rejected due to the non-itemness.)

[Vic Wertz]

Effigy wrote:

Thanks for keeping this thread going, Vic.

My item was Oberon's Magnificent Pouch of Wonders (waaaaaay back on page 2 I think). Just curious to hear the judges' thoughts on it.

Basically, you combined two existing magic items and two existing spells, and didn't bring anything of your own to the party. Wes also thought that the effects you chose were kind of incongruous. Clark thought your particular combinations brought the whole lot dangerously close to lesser artifact territory, and the name of that item even supported that conclusion. Finally, Clark and Wes both hated that you used the name Oberon, as it made the whole thing feel trite and cliched.

[Vic Wertz]

OamuTheMonk wrote:

Well, if he comes back, mine was the Elemental Fink, back on page 2.

You actually had both Clark and Sean on the fence for a while as they debated whether it was "too metagamey" or not. (To be honest, I'm shocked that they had to debate, because I think it's a very blatant metagaming item that brings videogame sensibilities to Pathfinder in the worst kind of way... but then, I'm not a judge.) Wes came down firmly on the "too metagamey" side.

Sean disliked that it can "simultaneously do three specific-spell-targeted dispel magic spells as one action," and Wes didn't like that there was no way for monsters to thwart it.

[James Olchak]

Woo Hoo!

Hey, the fact there was discussion counts as a success. I was just hoping it wasn't a quick reject.

[Vic Wertz]

OamuTheMonk wrote:

Woo Hoo!

Hey, the fact there was discussion counts as a success. I was just hoping it wasn't a quick reject.

Clark especially was fighting for you for a while.

[Effigy]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Effigy wrote:

Thanks for keeping this thread going, Vic.

My item was Oberon's Magnificent Pouch of Wonders (waaaaaay back on page 2 I think). Just curious to hear the judges' thoughts on it.

Basically, you combined two existing magic items and two existing spells, and didn't bring anything of your own to the party. Wes also thought that the effects you chose were kind of incongruous. Clark thought your particular combinations brought the whole lot dangerously close to lesser artifact territory, and the name of that item even supported that conclusion. Finally, Clark and Wes both hated that you used the name Oberon, as it made the whole thing feel trite and cliched.

Much appreciated, lots to mull over for next year.

[Mynameisjake]

Vic, if you're still giving notes, would you mind taking a look at St. Cyr's Cup? Thanks in advance.

[Vic Wertz]

Mynameisjake wrote:

Vic, if you're still giving notes, would you mind taking a look at St. Cyr's Cup? Thanks in advance.

Oddly, you actually weren't the only person who had submitted a cup with moving figures on the outside.

Clark felt that a cup of poison detection just wasn't Superstar. Sean pointed out that neutralizing poison once per day normally costs 5400gp, so your item was way underpriced.

[Mynameisjake]

Thanks, Vic.

Paizo continues to impress me with its commitment to its customers and fans. Best of luck in these uncertain economic times.

[Guy Humual]

Guy Humual wrote:

Nod’s Grimoire
Aura Strong Transmutation; CL 16th
Slot ---; Price 25,000gp; Weight 3lbs;
Description
The cover of this book bears a strange metallic seal that is both an eye and a fanged mouth. The book is locked tight and there are no obvious keyholes. The only way to open the Grimoire and activate the magic writing is with a drop of blood. It needs to be the reader’s own and it is placed into the ocular mouth. This act opens and animates the seemingly endless pages. The reader need only concentrate and the book's thin pages turn on their own. Unattended it automatically shuts and locks itself. Breaking the seal destroys the magic and permanently removes the writing within. Opening the lock through any other means only reveals a blank book of onionskin paper. As long as it remains enchanted alterations vanish the moment the book seals.

Nod's Grimoire can be used to recall anything the reader has ever experienced, with perfect clarity, even memories that have been magically removed (provided that the reader knows to search for them). The book will only organize itself to reveal what the reader desires. Without direction the pages aren’t found in chronological order. Randomly flipping through the book will only yield disconcordant snippets of past events. Only when the reader concentrates will Nod’s Grimoire sort itself. Although the book can be used to remember anything, wizards find it especially useful as Nod’s Grimoire can be used to prepare spells, even if a wizard normally needs multiple spellbooks to store those spells.

1/day a reader can search their memories and take 20 on a Knowledge check. Using the book in this way is mentally fatiguing and always takes a minimum of one hour.
Construction
Requirements Craft wondrous Item, modify memories, secret page; Cost 12,500 gp

bump

[Vic Wertz]

Guy Humual wrote:

Nod’s Grimoire

Clark said that you didn't really provide any mechanics here. *You* probably know what it does and does not do, but you didn't really tell us. Can the bearer just walk into a room once, then leave and review the book, rolling spot checks or other checks over and over until everything in the room is discovered? What are it's limitations?

Sean doesn't know what happens if you put spells in it and then try to look at your memories.

(I think you clearly view those two things—sense memories and memorized spells—as mechanically related, but that's neither intuitive nor supported elsewhere in the game, so I can see why Sean balked at that.)

Also, you were at 301 words.

[Guy Humual]

Thank you so much Vic! I've been waiting so long for some feedback. Thank you for your time. Getting feedback positive or negative is helps turn this experience from an exclusively negative one to a positive learning experience. I know I'm pushing my luck but could I quickly ask for some clarifications on your commets?

Vic Wertz wrote:

Clark said that you didn't really provide any mechanics here. *You* probably know what it does and does not do, but you didn't really tell us. Can the bearer just walk into a room once, then leave and review the book, rolling spot checks or other checks over and over until everything in the room is discovered? What are it's limitations?

I'm not sure what you mean by spot checks. The book allows you to take 20 on knowledge checks. That's it's only function for non-wizards.

Vic Wertz wrote:

Sean doesn't know what happens if you put spells in it and then try to look at your memories.

I wish I had more words to clarify that. You aren't actually supposed to write spells into the grimoire, as the books magic automatically erases anything written within, but ideally you record your spells into a proper spell book (which presumably you'd leave at home) and then only use the grimoire to prepare/memorize your spells each morning. I suppose you could write your spell directly into the grimoire, supposing you could add the spell in a single sitting, and then simply use the memory of recording that spell to prepare it in the future, but there would be no actual recording of the spell and it would be completely inaccessible to anyone else but the author.

Vic Wertz wrote:

(I think you clearly view those two things—sense memories and memorized spells—as mechanically related, but that's neither intuitive nor supported elsewhere in the game, so I can see why Sean balked at that.)

It's not the memorized spell that you'd be using to prepare spells but the memories of recording the spell that the reader would have been using to re-memorize the spell. again I simply didn't have enough words to clarify anything. I suppose I could have killed the description . . .

Vic Wertz wrote:

Also, you were at 301 words.

Damn it! I edited the heck out of that entry and I could have sworn it was exactly 300 when I submitted it. I guess it would have been passed on even if I had of met the word count but it's another failure to add to the list. :(

Anyways Thanks again for that Vic! That was really helpful and much appreciated.

[Vic Wertz]

Guy Humual wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by spot checks. The book allows you to take 20 on knowledge checks. That's it's only function for non-wizards.

Your description says that the user "recall[s] anything the reader has ever experienced, with perfect clarity," suggesting to at least some readers (including Clark and myself) that it delivers a completely immersive memory. Clark is essentially wondering if you can "look around" in that memory and spot things you didn't consciously notice before.

This is exactly what the big problem is—you didn't communicate a clear idea of what does and does not happen with the "memory," and what can and cannot be done with it.

Guy Humual wrote:

You aren't actually supposed to write spells into the grimoire, as the books magic automatically erases anything written within, but ideally you record your spells into a proper spell book (which presumably you'd leave at home) and then only use the grimoire to prepare/memorize your spells each morning... It's not the memorized spell that you'd be using to prepare spells but the memories of recording the spell that the reader would have been using...

Again, *you* know that, buy you didn't actually communicate any of it to the reader. This is what Clark refers to as a "home campaign item"—you and your group might have an intuitive understanding of it, but you haven't really considered how it actually works with respect to the rules of the game, or how it might be used and abused by anyone else.

Guy Humual wrote:

I simply didn't have enough words to clarify anything. I suppose I could have killed the description . . .

Honestly, even without the description, I think you'd have had a very hard time explaining what was in your mind in that many words. Perhaps switching to an item you could properly explain in fewer words would have been a better choice.

I also have to say that even if you didn't have a word limit, I think you'd have been bounced for the concept—we get a ton of "record and playback" type items every year, and the judges are rarely enthusiastic about them. You did have a nice twist with the spell thing, though.

After your additional clarification, I'm wondering why you made it a book, and not, say, something more like a scrying pool. That's the kind of choice that would have helped you communicate your idea in fewer words—you don't have to explain how a scrying pool lets you see memories, but you *do* have to explain how a book does.

[Guy Humual]

Wow! Thanks again for the wonderful feedback Vic!

Vic Wertz wrote:

Your description says that the user "recall[s] anything the reader has ever experienced, with perfect clarity," suggesting to at least some readers (including Clark and myself) that it delivers a completely immersive memory. Clark is essentially wondering if you can "look around" in that memory and spot things you didn't consciously notice before.

I see your point. I was of course thinking that the very nature of a book wouldn't allow the visual information necessary for spot checks and their ilk. If someone didn't see the foot prints on the initial spot check, reading the memories of that event wouldn't reveal anything new, however had they spotted the foot prints they might have been able to identify them after reviewing the memory over and over.

Vic Wertz wrote:

Again, *you* know that, buy you didn't actually communicate any of it to the reader. This is what Clark refers to as a "home campaign item"—you and your group might have an intuitive understanding of it, but you haven't really considered how it actually works with respect to the rules of the game, or how it might be used and abused by anyone else.

I'm sorry about that Vic, my explanation in my previous post wasn't there to suggest that you or anyone had missed the obvious, only to clarify what I had been trying to communicate. I see your point.

Vic Wertz wrote:

Honestly, even without the description, I think you'd have had a very hard time explaining what was in your mind in that many words. Perhaps switching to an item you could properly explain in fewer words would have been a better choice.

I like the book idea myself, for the reasons explained above, and also a book that reads the reader is kind of creepy IMO. I thought that uniqueness of the concept was a plus, even if my trimmed down version was less then half of my initial first draft, but as it turns out . . .

Vic Wertz wrote:

I also have to say that even if you didn't have a word limit, I think you'd have been bounced for the concept—we get a ton of "record and playback" type items every year, and the judges are rarely enthusiastic about them. You did have a nice twist with the spell thing, though.

D'oh! Why don't we have such an item then? I looked through my D&D book collection and didn't see anything like this anywhere. I know as a player/DM having an item like this would greatly aid the plot at times. I suppose I should have thought up something for combat but honestly this sort of story based item is far more interesting to me and I would love to see more items like this in the game.

I see now that this was clearly a bad choice for a 300 word item. I wish I'd know that you guys were getting multiple items like this though, I know I never would have attempted it otherwise :(

Vic Wertz wrote:

After your additional clarification, I'm wondering why you made it a book, and not, say, something more like a scrying pool. That's the kind of choice that would have helped you communicate your idea in fewer words—you don't have to explain how a scrying pool lets you see memories, but you *do* have to explain how a book does.

Interesting point, but I think I like the book idea better, and it's not like a scrying pool would of helped helped out with those spot check misconceptions ;)

Again thank you so much for your input Vic, you showed me the item's flaws, and you really helped me see why the item was rejected. Again, getting feedback helps make this a positive experience rather then an exclusively negative one. Paizo Rocks!

[Jacob Trier]

Hey Vic, awesome that you are doing this.

Could you dig up the notes on the Helm of the Triumphant Charge?

[Vic Wertz]

Guy Humual wrote:

D'oh! Why don't we have such an item then? I looked through my D&D book collection and didn't see anything like this anywhere. I know as a player/DM having an item like this would greatly aid the plot at times.

Here's my own opinion:

Though there's a difference between player memory and character memory, actually trying to delineate that line in the rules is not such a great idea. If having a character remember something—even something the player has forgotten—is important, the best solution is for the GM to simply say your character would remember that.

And if there's a *reason* why a character shouldn't remember something, then having an item that bypasses that reason probably isn't a great thing from the GM point-of-view either.

In short, if you have a reasonable GM, you probably don't really need this type of item.

[Vic Wertz]

JaceDK wrote:

Hey Vic, awesome that you are doing this.

Could you dig up the notes on the Helm of the Triumphant Charge?

Sure. Wes thought you went overboard with the Intimidate skill. You get a bonus to it, a special use of it, and even use the item a number of times based on your ranks in it. Overall, he felt that that made it easy to exploit (though he didn't give examples) and had strange effects.

Sean doesn't get why you chose charging as the action—he doesn't see an obvious connection between charging and intimidating. If you'd chosen bull rush or overrun instead of charge, he said, it would have at least tied to your theme a bit more. He really didn't like that the uses per day is tied to ranks in a skill—no other item in the game works like that.

[Andrew Judd]

Vic Wertz wrote:

So, it's hard for me to tell who's had feedback and who hasn't (or who still cares). If you still want feedback, can you please just drop the name of your item in here? I'm not promising I'll get to them, though!

I completely forgot about this, so I guess I'll throw my name in, just in case: Whispering Tankard. Thanks again for any feedback if you do give it.

[Vic Wertz]

Andrew Judd wrote:

]I completely forgot about this, so I guess I'll throw my name in, just in case: Whispering Tankard. Thanks again for any feedback if you do give it.

Not much to go on here, but neither Sean nor Wes actually understood what the item really was supposed to do. (Wes was particularly baffled by contact other plane as the requirement.)

[Christine Brockley-Blatt]

Hi guys,,
Please could you give me some feedback on my item. I would appreciate your feedback.

thank you.
Chris
Spectacles of the Student
Aura Moderate Divination and Transmutation; CL 11th
Slot Eyes; Price 78,400 gp; Weight less than 1lb
Description
These spectacles are small, round reading glasses with a gold frame that has the fine detail of hands holding the glass where the frame joins the arm of the glasses. The arms themselves are gold with polished ivory ends, to sit comfortably behind the wearer’s ears. The lenses themselves are like polished crystals which never seem to get dirty.
They are mainly used by wizards to reduce the time taken to commit spells to memory. The hour that it normally takes to prepare a whole spell list is reduced to 15 minutes, whilst for a smaller portion of that list, the normal 15 minutes is reduced to 3 minutes.
While wearing the glasses, the wearer can fill one empty spell slot in one round instead of the usual 15 minutes, allowing an adventuring mage the opportunity to have the right spells during a combat.
The wearer gains a +2 bonus to concentration checks when casting defensively in a combat, as they focus the vision and make the wearer aware of incoming attacks.
Twice per day, the wearer can view an item or a room and the legend or story of the object will come to mind as if the wearer had cast the legend lore spell. This requires the wearer to study the object or room in question closely for at least 10 minutes.
The first set was made by an adventuring mage by the name of Dalghal, whose view on life was that everyone had something to learn and that even the masterful of spell casters and sages were students of life, hence the name.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wonderous Item, spells haste, Legend Lore ; Cost 39,200 gp

[Charles Evans 25]

Christine Brockley-Blatt wrote:

Hi guys,,

Please could you give me some feedback on my item. I would appreciate your feedback.

thank you.
Chris
Spectacles of the Student
Aura Moderate Divination and Transmutation; CL 11th
Slot Eyes; Price 78,400 gp; Weight less than 1lb
Description
These spectacles are small, round reading glasses with a gold frame that has the fine detail of hands holding the glass where the frame joins the arm of the glasses. The arms themselves are gold with polished ivory ends, to sit comfortably behind the wearer’s ears. The lenses themselves are like polished crystals which never seem to get dirty.
They are mainly used by wizards to reduce the time taken to commit spells to memory. The hour that it normally takes to prepare a whole spell list is reduced to 15 minutes, whilst for a smaller portion of that list, the normal 15 minutes is reduced to 3 minutes.
While wearing the glasses, the wearer can fill one empty spell slot in one round instead of the usual 15 minutes, allowing an adventuring mage the opportunity to have the right spells during a combat.
The wearer gains a +2 bonus to concentration checks when casting defensively in a combat, as they focus the vision and make the wearer aware of incoming attacks.
Twice per day, the wearer can view an item or a room and the legend or story of the object will come to mind as if the wearer had cast the legend lore spell. This requires the wearer to study the object or room in question closely for at least 10 minutes.
The first set was made by an adventuring mage by the name of Dalghal, whose view on life was that everyone had something to learn and that even the masterful of spell casters and sages were students of life, hence the name.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wonderous Item, spells haste, Legend Lore ; Cost 39,200 gp

(edited, tidied up)

'Weight less than 1lb' may not have been a good start - I don't recall seeing that used as a description for weight anywhere in the core rulebook; this is a minor nitpick, however.
From the way that you've explained how your item works, you give an impression that you don't appear to have mastered the rules with which you are dealing. The usual fifteen minute period for a partial spell inventory preparation is the minimum for even just one spell. Your item provides conflicting times, saying that a fifteen minute equivalence can be done in three minutes, and that a single spell (which would usually take fifteen minutes) can be done in a round. To illustrate with an example, suppose a low level 'cohort' wizard of a much higher level master borrows his master's Spectacles of the Student to prepare his spells one morning: The low level cohort can prepare upto ten spells. If the cohort uses these glasses how long does it take him to fully prepare all those spells in one go? 12 minutes (representing the equivalence of four 'shortened' fifteen minute blocks)? One minute (representing one spell slot filled per round)? Some other time altogether? I think that the confusion the item causes here is one of the principle problems that it presents.
On a personal note, I consider the haste spell as aiding physical actions, so I have some doubts as to its suitability as a requirement for making an item intended to enhance the speed of a mental activity (spell preparation). I would have preferred to see some more 'mind affecting' spell listed here than haste. I acknowledge that the judges have on occasions foregone literal readings of spells in the interests of recognising creativity, however, and this particular item construction requirement may not have been something they would see as a problem.
I would have to see it in play, but I have a feeling that an item which allows a wizard to fill an empty spell-slot in one round, an unlimited number of times a day, may be slightly undercosted at 78,400 gp, without taking into account any additional powers. This is another major concern to me, and I can certainly imagine a party of mid to high level wizards making sure that there is at least one pair of these in the group, and handing them round a lot. I also feel that the legend lore power is not sufficiently themed with the other powers (which do at least pertain to spell-preparation/casting), and that with that the item is starting to stray into swiss army knife territory...
By the way, the Core rulebook contains the feat 'Craft Wondrous Item', not 'Craft Wonderous Item'.
Now for the usual disclaimer, of I know I'm not a judge, but I hope that in some small way this feedback has been useful to you. :)