Board monster just ate my post, let me try and remember what I wrote :P
If all you got was a 3-line snippet, that in itself tells you the kind of reaction your wondrous item elicited from the judges. If it didn't require much discussion to reject, that's a larger issue than any of us can spend time going into detail on.
I think this is really important. The reaction of the judges says a lot if you take the time to re-evaluate your work and pay attention to the feedback, no matter how small.
My urn of the giant horde (see? italicized and lower-case!) was outright rejected by the first two judges, so I obviously didn't get to see everyone commenting on them. Both these judges, however, agreed about some pricing problems and shaky mechanics. This tells me I should probably work harder on that for now, as it seems to be my biggest flaw.
The lack of mention of some aspects of the item tells me things. I've seen loads of items criticized for poor writing, formatting or little attention to detail. I believe the judges would have brought up other major problems as they saw it, so I´m fairly confident that although I might have had weaknesses in that respect, they weren´t blatant enough to raise negative comments. On the other hand, I also know that my concept and flavor weren´t cool enough to merit praises.
I could be reading too much into it, but what isn´t said can be as helpful as what is said. An apathetic reaction hurts, sure, but it shows you were weak overall, as much as a praise or a criticism indicates your strong and weak points. Learn from that. I´m glad for the feedback I got, and I plan to make the most of it. Heck, I´m designing new items already :P
So then he would get the +2 Bonus to save until it was used? Even if it's after that combat when he activated the item? Like for example: hours later in game and another fight later?
I still really like this, I can see it being used by pretty much all the classes and it's that versatility I like in it. I myself try to stay away from items that corner the item to say...one class.
The way I imagined it was using the bonus in response to something, like Fireball. The player says, "Okay, I activate my Knight's Sigil", rolls the d20, adds his character's Reflex save and then +2 from the Sigil for the total result.
Rules-wise, I think that would be a complex interaction to write out properly, to avoid confusion maybe I should have gone with wordings similar to "the next save you make" some spells use.
I'm glad you like the versatility of my item. I really wanted something a DM could reward the party with multiples(for saving a nobleman or winning a tournament or similar), yet each character felt like they got something they wanted.
|
The Low Templar’s Squire
Thanks Neil.
It's reassuring to know that (i) it was an okay idea, just poorly executed, (ii) I didn't do anything so stupid as to be auto-reject worthy, and (iii) that when I looked back on it afterwards the concerns I had about it matched the comments the judges made.
Thanks for putting in the time to get feedback to everyone so quickly -- next year divvy it up between all the judges so you don't have to do all the work!
Thanks for putting in the time to get this feedback to everyone so quickly -- next year divvy it up between all the judges so you don't have to do all the work!
Sean started this thread and first began giving everyone their feedback. Mark jumped in and moved it along. Both of those guys get pretty tied down with their responsibilities inside Paizo. I'm a freelancer, so I have a bit more freedom during my day. That's why I decided to move this along and get all the feedback out the door. Also, it allows everyone to get free and clear of desiring further feedback on their own stuff and turn their attention to supporting the Top 32. So, with respect to what was best for the contest...and having the extra time these past couple of days (i.e., I just finished an assignment, so deadlines currently)...I figured I'd pitch in.
Ersatz Elixir*...I have some issues with this item as written: "First, if poured into the empty container from a magic potion (a standard action), the elixir transforms into a maximized version of that potion. This requires a number of ounces, equal to 1 + the spell level of the source potion." What does this mean, exactly? Does "empty container from a magic potion" mean "the bottle a potion was in before you drank it"? This seems to imply that potion bottles themselves have some kind of history. Could I somehow use this to pick up a clue? Would that be a bad use?
*...How do I figure out how many ounces to use if I don't know what the previous potion was? What if I'm a non-spellcaster in a world where that information is not common knowledge (or I have a low INT or something)?
I know the judges don't have time to review the responses from us entrants, but I wanted to make a couple of comments for those who are reviewing this thread for the purpose of gaining valuable pointers for next year.
First, I really do view the judge's time and comments as a reward for entering RPG Superstars--so above all us, thank you to them.
In my earlier drafts I think I did a better job of explaining the mechanics and answering the above questions, but like many of you can attest, word count runs out very quickly. So the lesson I'm taking away from this (ignored in this very post) is to be less verbose and more succinct. I think simpler is always better. Ultimately, I have enjoyed and benefited from this thread of rejects more than I did from the wonderful items in the top 32.
Hell Brand Tattoo
*...Eesh. Certainly a dark item for evil players and villains. And that's a lot of abilities for 92,000 gp. Definitely a bit of SAK going on in the design, but almost all of those things make good, thematic sense. I'm a little bothered by the Informs ability of manufacturing stuff like claws. The designer should probably mention the damage those claws do would correspond to a creature's size as a natural attack. Clearly, they were going for minor creation to explain the simple tools and what-not, but should probably reference that spell in the description to explain how it works. That puts at least a couple of SIAC effects into it.
*...I don't know. I'm not really thrilled by this concept. But the idea of a magical tattoo could be a lot of fun. This one does more than I'd probably like. But, it's written very well. It has good flavor and mojo. They used the provided tempate almost perfectly. So there's good attention to detail here. I'm inclined to Keep.
*...Super SAK/shopping list.
*...Hell is a place, a proper noun, and thus should be capitalized.
*...In this instance, they were using it as an adjective, right? I don't know that I'd ding them too hard for that. In actuality, I wish they'd called it a hellbrand tattoo.
*...It's actually not written that well: missing commas, no info on how often you can do inkforms, diplomacy in lower case, "non magical."
*...Yep, you're right. I did like 25-30 reviews today. Maybe I skimmed this one or something? I went back and read it and more flaws become evident. I retract my well-written commentary. And that would certainly push me from an "inclined to Keep" to at least an "on the fence..."
*...It's slotless, but you can only wear one at a time.
*...Can't be removed, ever. Which means if you fight a guy with one of these, you can't loot it as treasure.
*...That would be kind of annoying.
*...It's a "Hell" brand tattoo, but it has a DEMON spirit in it.
*...Now that's just funny. I don't know why I missed that one.
*...Doesn't say "creator must be evil," and in fact doesn't even have any evil or conjuration requirements. Reject.
*...I've noticed a lot of people really enchanted with the notion of Hellknights and Cheliax as a nation they enjoy. It seems more and more like a trend of accepting those elements as not inherently "evil" has crept into the thinking of many gamers. Or, maybe they recognize it as evil, but they're more open to running evil characters or all-evil campaigns. I believe I know a certain developer at Paizo who runs such a campaign... ;-)
*...Regardless, your detailed analysis and rock solid logic have persuaded me entirely off the fence at this point. I'll move the lever over to the Reject side now.
*...Rejected.
The lack of mention of some aspects of the item tells me things. I've seen loads of items criticized for poor writing, formatting or little attention to detail. I believe the judges would have brought up other major problems as they saw it, so I´m fairly confident that although I might have had weaknesses in that respect, they weren´t blatant enough to raise negative comments. On the other hand, I also know that my concept and flavor weren´t cool enough to merit praises.
Keep in mind one thing, though. Because of how rapidly the judges are sorting the items, we pretty much look for a reason to stop reading...i.e., a reason to Reject. So, sometimes, our commentary might not delve into all the reasons we would reject it. Don't assume just because we didn't bring up some other flaw in your design that it wouldn't have also been a reason to reject it.
This is why I keep saying you have to do your homework. You can't just expect us to tell you everything that was wrong with your single 300-word item and it automatically improve you to the point that you'll make it next year. You have to mine this whole thread for all the problems in everyone else's items and learn from the feedback provided to them, as well. That's going the extra mile. That's doing your homework. And, more importantly (in my opinion), that's demonstrating the Superstar chops of getting out there and educating yourself without waiting for someone to come to you and hand you all the answers.
There's real, solid work that has to be put in if you want to take this seriously. And, you know what? It doesn't end just because you make it into the competition as part of the Top 32. You have to bring it every round after that, too. Just ask those competing right now. You have to keep learning and educating yourself. And it doesn't stop when RPG Superstar is over, either. A freelancer has got to keep learning and seeking out a deeper understanding of the game...both for the rules that already exist...and the new ones (like archetypes) that come out later. They also need to keep improving their ability to write well. It's an on-going journey, not a single destination.
But that's just my two cents,
--Neil
Neil - Thanks so much for the reply.
I got the SAIK thing on my own review after reading your other posts.
I liked the well written comment - then got sad as it dried up that was kind of funny.
I never run evil games I was actually thinking of this for a good character - its interesting what other people read.
With regard to pricing (for anyone still looking) I fingured the hit point consumption more than offset the relatively low price.
I am glad I went wit the Tattoo - I had a half a dozen items or so I thought were worthy - I saw variations on most of the others, I like that even if it wasn't quite up to superstar level it was unique. Hopefully that made it at least a little more interesting for the judges - and my peers who take a look.
Again - Thank you for taking the time.
I'll try harder next year.
Origami Familiar*...I actually kind of like this idea. I just think the execution is somewhat lacking. I dislike the "easy way" and "hard way" as described. But I like the thought of an item that temporarily grants varying types of skill bonuses based on the type of familiar it mimics.
*...I don't like the wild empathy connection, though. If it had kept going with the other level-based ability sharing provided by actual familiars (like speak with own kind...which could have been interpreted as speak with animals of the type the origami depicts) would have made this cooler.
*...as written, this is really just a SAK of Skill-Bonuses-in-a-Can...and some wild empathy tacked on. Unfortunately, I have to vote to Reject.
*...Reject but could easily be reworked into a challenger for 2011. A great core concept.
Thanks so much for taking the time to share the judge's feedback for my item.
Thank you, that was an awesome roast!
And thank you for taking all that in the right spirit. I actually considered filtering that one because I didn't want to come across as overly harsh.
Keep in mind one thing, though. Because of how rapidly the judges are sorting the items, we pretty much look for a reason to stop reading...i.e., a reason to Reject. So, sometimes, our commentary might not delve into all the reasons we would reject it. Don't assume just because we didn't bring up some other flaw in your design that it wouldn't have also been a reason to reject it.
Ok, I stand corrected. Too much positive thinking, I guess. :)
Not to be a bother, but I would be satisfied with the unabridged judge's assessment of my Spider Key. Is that going to be a possibility at this phase in the competition?
Not to be a bother, but I would be satisfied with the unabridged judge's assessment of my Spider Key. Is that going to be a possibility at this phase in the competition?
I already did the break down on the Spider Key on page 19 of this thread, towards the bottom.
For what its worth - I would love to see a supplement of mystic prosthetics - I think the would be a really cool way to tune both PCs
THE MORTEVOYANT EYE*...Who knew there was a slot called "empty eye socket"...? And what's with all the items requiring that? This is the second one I've seen today. Is there a theme going on in games whereby people routinely lose their eyes or willingly pluck them from their head so they can cyborg themselves with the latest greatest magic gemstone as eyeware?
Presentation values means ...
Thank you Neil. This is the kind of post that makes this thread so valuable. (Not to slight the other helpful posts :)
Neil, thank you again for the huge time investment that you've put into this on our behalf. I've got some great reading material for this weekend now. :)
Astral Tear of the Lonely Wyrm*...This is essentially a flavorful, preprogrammed use of the transmogrify spell lifted straight out of the Advanced Player's Guide. The only difference is a) they've pre-chosen all the eidolon's evolutions to make it dragon-like, and b) They've thrown in a couple of skill bonus evolutions for Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (history) to reflect a dragon's legendary skill with magic and long-lived memories. Meanwhile, the item also grants a +5 bonus on Knowledge checks related to dragons...which would be what?...Knowledge (dungeoneering)...Knowledge (nature)?
*...I'm of two minds on this one. First, the idea isn't all that innovative, even though the flavor lifts it a bit. Two, it's fairly well-written and presented using the provided template. Mechanically, it just leans on transmogrify for the most part. I'm not really inclined to push this one through based on those things. Leaning to Reject.
*...Agreed. Reject.
Thanks so much for this Neil! I'm trying to process the advice for the other competitors too so I can learn even more. That's an incredible amount of feedback collected here!
At some point when it doesn't distract from the competition, I'm going to try to put together my thoughts about SIACs--I've found myself confused by that auto-reject from other people's feedback even before seeing my own. I'm neither consistently more lenient nor more harsh on where I think the line is than the judges, but I often differ, and I think that will be crucial for at least me and hopefully others.
Goblin King Mask*...I don't like this one. Here's why: Once per day the wearer gets to permanently polymorph someone into a goblin (which is fine in and of itself, as that's what baleful polymorph does). But, it automatically charms them and performs a mass charm monster against any other goblinoids within 30 feet? That's a bit odd...and extreme. How long does that charm effect last? Because, eventually, it should wear off. And what's your polymorphed goblin buddy going to do to you then?
*...The later language about every 3rd day inflicting a cumulative -1 penalty on Charisma (up to -6) on a non-goblinoid who wears the mask is kind of harsh and unusually specific.
*...Because of the popularity of Paizo's goblins, wondrous items related to them often seem to be a favorite wondrous item submission. Some have made it through to the Top 32 of prior years. I don't think this one measures up. Vote to Reject.
*...The mechanic of the baleful polymorph doesn't connect to the mechanic of the mass charm.
*...This item requires a touch attack AND a save. That seems wrong to me - it should be one or the other. Reject.
*...And for the low cost of 70,000 gp!
Thank you very much for the time you guys are taking to let everyone know where our submissions went wrong for the judges. It is an incredible amount of work. I have read every critique and have learned a ton.
So, the moral of the story is:
1. Next year streamline the submission. Keep what it does simple with a very cool effect.
2. It should be an item that every PC would want to use.
Thanks again. This is an amazing contest!
That said, we may just do a seminar at this year's PaizoCon where we workshop wondrous items together in a more holistic manner. And, along with some group participation, we may just collectively design a Superstar item that's worthy of making the Top 32. And, for those who can't make it, maybe we'll film it and post that as extra "advice" for next year...if I do, I'll probably just pick and choose those that I think make the best examples to highlight an important lesson.
+1 for a Paizocon workshop. Last year's table was huge, and pre-peated a lot of of SKR's advice threads, I would like to actually workshop something. (hence the blazing items thread :)
Also, it allows everyone to get free and clear of desiring further feedback on their own stuff and turn their attention to supporting the Top 32.
I think this thread might better serve if it opened after One is announced. Put the focus on the Top 32. Those willing to do homework will still be around and it might keep others around longer. (I'm not sure if the voting numbers drop off as much as thread activity, but my guess is yes. :)
Diadem of the Waking DreamSpoiler:*...The first paragraph of rules here is nice, and would make a neat low-level item for a party who just can't seem to ever get enough healing when they hole up for the night in a dungeon crawl. But the second part is too much, and running a dream combat with just one player is pretty lame. Not only are they unlikely to defeat a shadow demon one on one unless they're fairly high level, but what are the rest of the players supposed to do while this is going on?*...The designer should have erred on the side of not-quite-so-wahoo. Reject.
*...I was with this one right up until the second half of the second paragraph. I like the benefits of the long-term care healing with 8 hours of sleep. That's cool. I like the legend lore ability by sorting through someone's subconscious mind. I mean, how often have we all woke up after a good night's sleep and suddenly had the answer to some problem we went to bed with wondering how we'd solve? That's good mojo.
*...But then, we get the wrestling with your own nightmare being spun into an actual combat with a shadow demon. Nooooooo. You were so close, Mr. Designer! Such a battle would be ridiculously easy or difficult depending on how and when someone came by this item and what level they were.
*...Instead of going the shadow demon route, this item would completely work out better if they'd just said there was a 10% chance of suffering a nightmare spell...thereby preventing the ability to get enough adequate rest to prepare spells again while also suffering 1d10 points of real damage. That would have been sufficient. Even going the route of a phantasmal killer in your dreams with a set DC to resist would have been okay.
*...It's a real shame, because I'm leaning Reject on this...even though I really, really like everything else about the item. Even so, I'll leave this here for a bit longer until others can take a look at it.
*...This item tries to do too much. The whole...
Thanks so much for posting the feedback Neil and thanks to all the judges for writing it!
It was really helpful to see this and I was already thinking some of the same things about halfway through my reading. I certainly can agree that I tried a little too hard to wow the judges at the end instead of letting the core concept speak for itself.
I have to say, it was a good feeling seeing that this at least warranted some thought by the judges and wasn't a quick dismissal. Gives me hope that I might tighten up my designs enough to make it next year. Thanks again for all the effort you and all the judges are putting in for everyone.
|
So then he would get the +2 Bonus to save until it was used? Even if it's after that combat when he activated the item? Like for example: hours later in game and another fight later?
I still really like this, I can see it being used by pretty much all the classes and it's that versatility I like in it. I myself try to stay away from items that corner the item to say...one class.
The way I imagined it was using the bonus in response to something, like Fireball. The player says, "Okay, I activate my Knight's Sigil", rolls the d20, adds his character's Reflex save and then +2 from the Sigil for the total result.
Rules-wise, I think that would be a complex interaction to write out properly, to avoid confusion maybe I should have gone with wordings similar to "the next save you make" some spells use.
I'm glad you like the versatility of my item. I really wanted something a DM could reward the party with multiples(for saving a nobleman or winning a tournament or similar), yet each character felt like they got something they wanted.
I would try something like "+2 to the next Will save in that combat or round"
But i'm definitely looking forward to what you may submit next year that's for sure!
Protective Perambulator of the Paranoid*...Really? A transforming throne? And the triple-P alliteration for the name is annoying. Just not a Superstar concept or execution. Vote to Reject.
*...I'd swear I saw the throne somewhere before but can't remember where well enough to make a snark. Reject.
As always, thanks for taking all the time to do this.
No real need to go into in-depth agonising over the critique, clearly put you off enough with the name as it was (which was a concept i came up with in the shower after deciding I liked the word 'Perambulator' enough to base an item around it... next time I'll use the bath and not worry about interesting sounding words ;) )
The 'somewhere before' comment likely references Discworld, or specifically, the luggage. I agonised a little over it but while possibly a homage, I considered it different enough to get by.
One question I'll probably get floored for asking, but its nagging me a little now. What exactly IS Superstar in Concept or execution?
I mean, and this isn't ranting about not getting chosen in a temper-hissy fit, execution wise (in terms of used mechanics, requirements, price etc.) this 'should' tick most of the boxes, unless I'm missing something I just don't know about. Not saying its flawless in terms of game rules, and the judges obviously didn't like it, but I was just wondering if this was a case of entering a Care Bears montage for a My Little Pony drawing contest level of screw up?
I totally believe there is always going to be the marmite question on any item (of the Top 32, I personally thought the "Bag of Holes" wasn't 'wow' enough, other items grabbed me straight away though), but perhaps some further musings on what you look for might help.
Ok, perhaps I'm a little annoyed at the entry... weird as it may sound, I'm annoyed because it generated a lack of comments, rather than simply being rejected. Just feel a little lost with nothing to work with (and I'll also admit to having a bad day at work today...)
But thanks again Neil, you are a Superstar of going the extra mile as much as an RPG superstar and you deserve all applause. Bravura.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
Now, you've had 5 hours to relax, that's enough time off -- you should be over in "If I was in the Top 32 I would submit... " providing us all with archetype-feedback by now, otherwise you'll not have all of them done by the time you're due to start responding to our "If I was in the Top 16 I would submit..." posts when they start appearing.
I think he said he wasn't going to respond to them.
Now, you've had 5 hours to relax, that's enough time off -- you should be over in "If I was in the Top 32 I would submit... " providing us all with archetype-feedback by now, otherwise you'll not have all of them done by the time you're due to start responding to our "If I was in the Top 16 I would submit..." posts when they start appearing.I think he said he wasn't going to respond to them.
*I* think that this was supposed to be a joke.
|
|
Now, you've had 5 hours to relax, that's enough time off -- you should be over in "If I was in the Top 32 I would submit... " providing us all with archetype-feedback by now, otherwise you'll not have all of them done by the time you're due to start responding to our "If I was in the Top 16 I would submit..." posts when they start appearing.I think he said he wasn't going to respond to them.
Ah... sorry... I forgot to use a sarcastic font.
Just to clarify -- I'm not expecting Neil, or anyone else, to do this. I was simply seeking to juxtapose & contrast the amount of work Neil (and the other judges) have done with the expectations of a small number of people on here.
:)
|
|
*I* think that this was supposed to be a joke.Now, you've had 5 hours to relax, that's enough time off -- you should be over in "If I was in the Top 32 I would submit... " providing us all with archetype-feedback by now, otherwise you'll not have all of them done by the time you're due to start responding to our "If I was in the Top 16 I would submit..." posts when they start appearing.I think he said he wasn't going to respond to them.
Clearly it's not being taken as such.
I'm sorry, absolutely nothing critical whatsoever was intended.
I'll remove the post.
The Ever Seeking Compass*...Aiyiyi...Just all kinds of messed up in this submission. Poor writing. Poor mechanics. Poor presentation. Vote to Reject.
*...Pirates of the Caribbean called, they want their gimmick back. Reject.
*...Agreed. Rejected.
Looking at the positive side of things, I can only get better. At least you all have a sense of humor. I totally forgot about that movie and the compass in it lol.
Shaman's Rain Stick*...Decent thematic item, but the writing needs work and a closer eye on proper formatting. Reject.
*...For me, this item falls into that category of "good enough for a book of magic items" but the idea/theme just isn't quite Superstar innovative enough to separate itself from the pack. It's an item I'm fairly sure I've seen explored elsewhere. But it's not plagiarizing any prior published item.
*...I can also tell the designer really put some thought into it in making sure the mechanics got thoroughly covered. And, though the template formatting isn't 100% accurate, it's better than several others we've seen so far. Still, those minor problems aren't helping any. This designer is on the cusp of finding the right mix of idea and execution to make it. They're just not there yet.
*...Vote to Reject.
Thanks for the feedback, very encouraging. I'll have to double check the formatting. I'm pretty satisfied hearing that for a first time entry.
Thank you for posting my feedback Neil, it's very much appreciated. I was worried when I posted my item and saw 500 posts already that you guys might run out of steam. You guys are posting machines and I think everyone is very grateful for this.
It's really interesting to see that my item at least got a few keeps at the start, so I'm not doing too much wrong perhaps. Sounds like the marks against my item were poaching class abilities, boring and makes adventuring easy.
I figured it would be okay to sort of poach some abilities, considering how restrictive the ability is, in that is doesn't replace the need for a rogue. Firstly it only helps with traps that have the alarm proximity trigger, which is only like 1/3 of all the traps written in the core book, it doesn't help against non magical traps or any magical one which does not have a password.
Also I didn't think that rogues could use their trapfinding to detect alarm spells (that weren't incorporated into a trap) like they could with firetrap and glyphs? So I thought I was creating something that does less than what a rogue does, but also something a rogue can't do.
On top of that I figured the ability to learn the command words of magic items without detect magic (and possibly with linguistics) would be a nice ability. You only learn the command word, so it's less than if you had the ability to cast identify, but then it works without detect magic or identify.
I checked my item up against all the auto reject categories and never thought of my item as coming up against the makes adventuring easy or makes DMs job harder categories. I figured most DMs would just gloss over what the password actually is and just say that the player knows it, much like with magic item command words. And I figured it didn't make adventuring any easier than say a cleric casting find traps did.
I agree that my item is kinda boring though and thats a fair enough reason for reject. I didn't realize it until after I submitted, that I had refined the item so much that it lost quite a lot of flavor. I think I was too safe in my submission. Spending too much time refining the writing and rules to avoid all possible technical errors, when really a few errors are forgivable if your item is amazing, as I learnt from seeing the top 32 items, which are all fantastic.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this amazing competition, you'll see me next year for sure :)
*...Interesting. It's like a hacker device for pass phrases built into abjuration spells. Of course, this wouldn't affect spells that trigger based on your alignment, race, etc. Just the ones requiring a password. On its surface, I kind of like the idea. It also has vibes of what I imagine a Cyphermage from Riddleport might design...or a high-level wizard arcane-spy-wannabe.
*...Mechanically, however, I'm wondering if a Linguistics or Spellcraft check makes the best vehicle for resolving password hacking. It's certainly an innovative way to go about it. But it also makes this item hard to price. Is 12,000 gp enough? I'm inclined to think it is...
*...Lastly, I'm also left examining this device and considering how often it would see use in a game. Do PCs routinely encounter password-coded abjuration spells? I don't think they do. And that makes this item feel a lot more like a home campaign item.
*...Regardless, there's some spark to this thing. It's written well. They used the provided template perfectly. Mechanically, it's a little suspect, but holds up. And thematically, it's got the seed of a good core idea. I'm inclined to Keep.
*...Only rogues can detect magical traps (like glyphs, symbols, etc.) with the Perception skill. This item lets you bypass that limitation, which means it's stealing from the rogue class. Reject.
*...Awww, c'mon...you telling me wizards wouldn't develop an ability (even in a wondrous item) to bypass one another's wards by figuring out the passcode rather than thunderously tearing down one another's abjurations with dispel magic, etc.? I mean, knock and find traps steal bits and peices from the rogue class, too. Besides, I always hated the fact that you had to be a rogue to bypass magical traps and glyphs. This is case where I think breaking that rule could be appropriate.
*...At-will detect magic to detect it. Dimension door to bypass it. Erase to erase...
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9
|
Phial of Purloined Persona*...Not really a fan of using the creature's Knowledge checks and bonuses...or the 24 drops of blood as the mechanic for powering that kind of ability. Strip that away and this is just a flavorful way to get a bonus on Disguse checks (which should be capitalized, by the way) and a full emulation of a specific individual. And that's just not all that Superstar.
*...Good use of the blood biography spell in the construction requirements, though. Still, I'm going to vote to Reject.
*...Meh. Reject.
It's pretty clear next year I'll have to pull out all the stops and try for something a bit more "out there". My biggest fear was that I was too conservative with my item, and this seems to be the case.
In any case I'd like to again thank Neil and the other judges for taking the time to read my item, and giving me the feedback I need to become an RPG Superstar next year.
Until then though, I think I might try submitting a PFS scenario.
Pipe of Smoke and Flame
Hello Mr. Spicer,
Thank you for taking time to review my submission.
Here are my thoughts on the responses.
*..."fire ball" is not a spell.
I didn't realize I put a space in there. Fireball, obviously, is a spell. I think the comment was rather that there was an accidental space. It's funny the little things you miss no matter how many times you review something you wrote.
*...DCs are really low for all abilities for an 80,000 gp item
I totally agree and was confounded by the rules on DCs for magical items. I was very surprised by the limit of items to have a DC based on the lowest level and attribute able to create the item. I didn't want to violate the rules to make the item more realistic, though, so I left them as they would be. I didn't like it though. Maybe there is a rule I missed somewhere though.
*...This is really just a SAK.
Argh, confounded by SAK. I thought I was following the guidelines in the Auto-Reject advice. So, after you posted I went back and read them again, thoroughly, and I understand now the mistakes I made.
Basically, even though all the functions of my item came from a common theme (Smoke and Flame), there were too many of them.
Perhaps if I had just stuck with one or two of the primary abilities, I would have done better.
IE:
I could have just made it a Pipe of Smoke (better name would be here) with these powers
Then I would have had more room to customize those functions to make them less like the relative spells.
*...The use time for this is wonky, as it says you need a full-round to pack and light it, but then it doesn't say how long it burns afterwards.
Okay, big hole there. Didn't even occur to me that I had left that out of the final draft. Hence the importance of another set of eyes reading your item before you submit (shakes fist in mocking anger at "lazy" friends).
*...Pricing is off.
Ok, I worked for hours on pricing, and apparently still got it wrong. I have a college degree, took calculus, can add big numbers in my head, and work in finance. Soooo....how the heck do I keep getting this wrong?
My total was 77,709. I rounded up to 80,000 based on comparable items in the book (placed it between the Greater Horn of Blasting and Helm of Brilliance).
Maybe later, after the contests have ended, someone can go over these rules for us and explain what we're doing wrong.
*...the DCs are inappropriately low compared to the level at which a PC would have to be to acquire this item.
The comment "compared to the level at which a PC would have to be to acquire this item" suggests that magical items have to be designed to take into consideration the "Table: Character Wealth by Level".
Maybe I'm "old school", but I thought of that chart as just a guideline. But, I can understand using it as a ruler for corebook magical items. I just didn't realize that was part of the magical item creation rules and so didn't reference it. If I had, I would have tried to restrict it down to 6th-8th level range, I suppose, which would have constricted my choice of spell-like abilities and may have actually saved my item.
I think the main point of that comment, though, was the DCs, which again were based on the rules. There must be a legitimate way around that. I know in the past people have been cited for giving an item a higher casting level or a higher attribute modifier than the minimum level to create the item.
IN SUMMARY:
1) Space in the spell name "fireball"
2) Left off duration of the item's use
3) Too many functions, should have just focused on a couple
4) Set DCs higher (review rules to figure out how)
5) Figure out how the heck woundrous item pricing really works
Thanks again!!
Ken
Pipe of Smoke and Flame
Aura moderate evocation; CL 9th
Slot none; Price 80,000 gp; Weight -
Description
This smoking pipe’s bowl is cut from a red dragon’s bone and carved to appear as a dragon’s head. Filling and lighting a pipe takes a full-round action. While smoking the pipe and for one hour thereafter, the user gains resist energy (fire) 10. By drawing on the pipe and blowing smoke as a standard action, the user can perform any one of the following spell-like abilities:
- Haze: The user can blow smoke into the face of another person to cloud his mind as per the daze spell (Will DC 11 negates), except that the range is 5 feet.
- Obscure: The user can blow smoke around him, creating a concealing haze as per the obscuring mist spell, except that winds are only half as effective in dispersing the smoke and fire has no affect.
- Smoke Cloud : Three times per day, the user may blow a 20-foot radius smoke cloud as per the pyrotechnics spell feature (Fortitude DC 13).
- Smoke Form : Three times per day, the user may transform himself and all his gear (including the pipe) into smoke as per the gaseous form spell, filling a 10 foot square, except that winds are only half as effective against it, and anyone caught within chokes as per Smoke Cloud.
- Dragon's Breath : Once per day, the user can breathe a 30-foot cone of fire as a per a young red dragon’s breath weapon, dealing 6d10 points of fire damage (Reflex DC 14 half).
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, daze, fire ball, gaseous form, obscuring mist, pyrotechnics, resist energy; Cost 40,000 gp
*..."fire ball" is not a spell.
*...This is really just a SAK.
*...DCs are really low for all abilities for an 80,000 gp item
*...The use time for this is wonky, as it says you need a full-round to pack and light it, but then it doesn't say how long it burns afterwards.
*...This one's simply trying to do too much. Reject.
*...Agreed. SIAC and a SAK for sure.
*...Pricing is off.
*...A failure in properly referencing a spell name in the template and the DCs are inappropriately low compared to the level at which a PC would have to be to acquire this item.
*...Vote to Reject.
The comment "compared to the level at which a PC would have to be to acquire this item" suggests that magical items have to be designed to take into consideration the "Table: Character Wealth by Level".
That's exactly right. You should always consider the final price you've calculated for a wondrous item...as compared to what level a PC would likely need to be to have the gold on hand to acquire it...and then compare that item (and any DCs for its abilities) to the power of the monsters and adversaries they'd be facing (i.e., CR-appropriate monsters, NPCs, etc.). If those monsters and NPCs can routinely (and easily) beat the DCs of your item's powers, you've designed and/or priced it wrong. Wondrous items need to pretty much come into play at points in a PC's adventuring career where they would be useful and potent. Otherwise, it's just an item no one would bother wasting money on...since it wouldn't impact any encounters where it would see use.
Maybe I'm "old school", but I thought of that chart as just a guideline. But, I can understand using it as a ruler for corebook magical items. I just didn't realize that was part of the magical item creation rules and so didn't reference it.
This is part of the "art" of wondrous item pricing and why it's important to compare your designs to items that already exist in the game. Those items have already been priced appropriately for the CR and PC wealth level where they would ordinarily come into play. That's why you'll find more than a few items in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook that break the rules according to the wondrous item pricing table.
Remember: The most important element of pricing a wondrous item isn't the pricing table under crafting wondrous items. Instead, it's the comparison. However, I've always found the best route is to price it according to the table first. Then, go back and compare. If something seems out of whack, that's when you start adjusting it down or up to bring it in line with comparable items that already exist. And, lastly, you should also look beyond just comparing it to other wondrous items. You should consider what a potion or scroll or ring or wand or staff with comparable abilities would cost as well. If someone could stock up on a metric ton of scrolls to mostly duplicate what your wondrous item can do, you should make sure your item is adequately priced in comparison to that, as well.
But let's also remember one thing here. The judges don't have the time to check the pricing on each and every submission that comes in for RPG Superstar. That would take us forever. But we do eyeball it and compare it to what we know. Thus, in a lot of our comments about pricing, you'll see us call out a wondrous item's pricing as being worth 6 or 8 or 10 scrolls of a spell that can do pretty much the same thing. Only, where the scrolls are finite, the item itself lets you do that same thing 1/day. Thus, the item should cost you more than the sum of the scrolls. Those types of comparisons let us quickly ballpark how an item should be priced. But we don't get down to counting every single gold piece. So don't agonize over it. Just make sure you item's price makes sense as outline above and you'll be fine.
I think the main point of that comment, though, was the DCs, which again were based on the rules. There must be a legitimate way around that. I know in the past people have been cited for giving an item a higher casting level or a higher attribute modifier than the minimum level to create the item.
In my opinion, it's never good to give a higher casting level or higher attribute modifier than the minimum level to create an item. You calculate the DCs of your item's abilities according to the minimum. And then you price your item so it makes sense in relation to when and where it would be used...plus how often it can be used. And, always, always, let the existing wondrous items be your guide.
My two cents,
--Neil
Nightmare Flask*...Interesting flavor to this thing. <cut>
Thank you Neil, thank you judges. Your comments were very enlightening - I wouldn't argue with a single mechanical critique, since everything appears spot-on, and a lot of good points regarding the details.
Prince the Nightmare Flask was an absolute nightmare (no pun), so I'm actually a bit relieved to know that I was at least right when I thought that I had gotten the pricing wrong.
The breaking-the-flask mechanics were included as a hedge against PCs buying armloads of flasks, using them once to avoid terrible fear effects, and then removing them and storing them forever. I was hoping to leave open the possibility that an old PC, after several adventures of doing this, might face the awful prospect of their storehouse being raided and three dozen nightmare flasks of theirs all being broken at the same time - cue 36d10 damage and a GM laughing maniacally.
But anyway and again, thanks. Good luck to the 32!
Not to be a bother, but I would be satisfied with the unabridged judge's assessment of my Spider Key. Is that going to be a possibility at this phase in the competition?I already did the break down on the Spider Key on page 19 of this thread, towards the bottom.
Sorry! Did a thread search and didn't see it. Thanks for the feedback!
Coin Spider*...First, they put the template together almost perfectly. Really good presentation. The list of commands (though lengthy) remind me a little bit of an apparatus of Kwalish (or the crab) in that it's a construct with a variety of possible functions. Is that SAK? Yeah, maybe somewhat. And some of those functions, I don't care for as much (like the Record thing which could make a GM's job harder...but I like that it's got the same limitation as sending with the 25 words). Some of the other abilities (like Trip and Restraint) aren't defined enough in game terms to explain how they're used. I think that's an oversight. The designer was probably running out of words to expound very much, but that's the breaks.
*...I like the overall core idea of this pet "spider"...but in some ways, I think it might be better served to stat up as a variant golem or something. In fact, Craft Construct probably ought to be in the requirements. Bottom line, there's enough troublesome things here that I can't quite champion it. But it was a bold swing for the fences. Vote to Reject.
*...I might reject this because it makes adventuring easier, but it's really an "escape" strategy once you've been captured, or a way to generate some (very) limited intelligence neither of which are game-breakers for me.
*...I might reject this as a SAK (which it really is) but some of the effects are things that are expensive/hard to find/otherwise unavailable in other items or have lots of class limitations that aren't really material to their application.
*...I might reject this because I despise spiders...but I'm trying to be a better man than I used to be.
*...If I was a Level 5-10 PC and I got one of these, I'd be pretty damn happy. As a DM, I wouldn't be very concerned. Its a smart, tight design with high utility. I like it. Keep.
*...Item is a shopping list of abilities.
*...Alert: doesn't say what size of creature, so it activates when a fly or a worm moves by.
*...Restraints:...
Thanks Neil, much appreciated.
Can anyone tell me what a SAK is?
The word limit player havoc with my entry as it was tough to cut it down. I spent 4 weeks on this and still struggled to get the word limit right and the clarity on what the item is intended to do. Have a far greater respect for designers after doing this.
I knew the requirements would bite me, but I had to cut down and going with Animate Object (as the Figurines of Wonderous Power) saved a lot of words. I wonder if it would have been better to go over by about a dozen words?
My other concern was the duration and limitation, but that doesn't seem to be in the judges comments.
The wire bit was original intended to be a garrotte but I couldn't find any PF book that I could refer to so players could get the stats without me using up precious words.
edit: Oh yeah my other concern was the price, but that doesn't seem to be in the comments. Was it right or were the other factors more of a concern that the price wasn't really noticed?
Can anyone tell me what a SAK is?
Swiss Army Knife.
Also, if you're bumping up against word count that hard, it might be best to abandon the concept altogether and go with something else.
Genteel Rogues Handkerchief*Automatic magical trap disabling? Not a good design decision.
*We also have "then" vs. "than" in the second statement. The "Trapfinding" class feature should be lowercase. Spell names should lowercase and italicized and alphabetized. Lots of little inconsistencies and presentation issues.
*...really just boils down to a set of thieves' tools (which are both masterwork and give you a +5 bonus?). Close, but no cigar.
*Why add the autodisarm?
*Just as a way to hide your lockpick set in plain sight, this item would have been a Keep.
Hey Niel just wanted to say thank you for critiquing my item (Genteel Rogues Handkerchief), and i feel kinda foolish now for adding what i did. I imagine i might have had some errors here and their, ill make sure to keep a better eye on those in the future.
I just did not feel like having a magic item that simply hid your thieves tools as "Super Star" guess i put a little to much on the item. Thanks again for the critique, my original idea was just a nifty way to hide your thieves tools, considering one of my players likes to play rogues quiet often. He hates it when i disarm him of them during particular games, but with your info i think i might actually try my hand again next year. Nice to know had i not overdone it, it might have had a chance.
Can anyone tell me what a SAK is?Swiss Army Knife.
Also, if you're bumping up against word count that hard, it might be best to abandon the concept altogether and go with something else.
Cheers mate...I can understand some of the comments now.
I would have switched to another idea if I had one that was any good. Naturally I'm disappointed not to make the 32, but I'm happy with my entry and its an improvement on the previous year. Probably a significant improvement given there was a judge or two saying this year's entry was worth keeping.
Star Voter Season 6
|
Hope it isn't too late to submit--this was my submission for this year. Personally, magic item creation is one of my biggest challenges, so I really welcome advice to get over this "hump."
Firebrand’s Cravat
Aura moderate enchantment; CL 11th
Slot neck; Price 38,000 gp; Weight —
DESCRIPTION
This silk neckband, dyed crimson and cobalt, grants a +4 competence bonus on the wearer's Diplomacy and Perform (oratory) checks.
Once per day, as a full-round action, the wearer may make a DC 15 Perform (oratory) check. If successful, she may make a single suggestion to up to 11 creatures, within 210 feet of the wearer, who hear and understand the performance; the suggestion must be to cause injury, death, or other physical harm to a specific creature or object known to the listeners. This effect lasts for 11 hours or until the completion of the suggestion.
Additionally, creatures affected by this suggestion or any violent compulsion effect created by the wearer (such as a suggestion bardic performance or suggestion spell) gain the effects of the rage spell as long as they are within 30 feet of the wearer.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, eagle's splendor, mass suggestion, rage; Cost 19,000 gp
Firebrand’s Cravat
*...Really, it's more of a SAK of SIAC mass suggestion with a layered rage on those who fail their saves against the suggestion. Not really inclined to champion this one, even though it's presented fairly well. Vote to Reject.
*...Agreed. Reject.
Not to complain, because I know you guys have worked real hard answering all these post, but could I get a little more specific critique than "meh" and what amounts to 'boring'?
What wasn't specific enough about "...The template wasn't followed very well..." and "...[The idea's] not all that interesting...not innovative..." along with the implication that it's an overpriced Spell-in-a-Can of continuous mind blank with the tacked on monster ability of telepathy?
The Ever Seeking Compass*...Aiyiyi...Just all kinds of messed up in this submission. Poor writing. Poor mechanics. Poor presentation. Vote to Reject.
*...Pirates of the Caribbean called, they want their gimmick back. Reject.
*...Agreed. Rejected.
Neil, I can correct the poor writing by proofreading and taking more time with the article or submission. It was rushed and it showed.
I can also improve the presentation with a little editing and again proofing the document before submitting.
Do a little research to make sure that my item is not similar to something Jack Sparrow has used lol.
The question I have is with the mechanics. Basically, are mechanics the details that cover all operating procedures and rules for the item? As with the general requirements to use the item, activation, duration, magical effects, uses per day, and correct spells for creation. Basically you want to answer any questions the reader may have?
Using 300 words makes it difficult to hash out a complicated item like the one I submitted. So is it better to take a simple and specific idea and rock it out?
Thanks for posting the feedback, that was a great undertaking to complete the whole list.