|
I'm very confliced with an item idea I have right now. hopefully i can stay anonoumous while trying to figure this out but...
What is the judges and everyone else's opinion/advice when it comes to abilities/etc. implied, but left up to gm discrection, vs abilities explained with a new rule set system? i know its vague, but there are many real life things that the core books do not stat out, and are left up to gms to decide to include or not, and how to stat.
I wanted to make an item that allowed some cool stuff, but i realized was using too much space in order to rules wise describe things that is usually left up to gms. so, you think its okay to leave that stuff open, only describe it and not stat it out?
hopefully this isnt giving my item away, though now i may not even submit it... hope i can hear some opinions as its driving me crazy. thanks!
The guideline I like to use is that if you can envision an argument at the table over the interpretation, don't leave it up the the GM.
While you may have an original concept, make sure your item's abilities are clearly described: If it needs too much explanation to fit into 300 words, it may not be the ideal item to submit.
|
|
I think the problem is i am basing it off of /using rules from the book that are already vague/gm discrection. and thats the tough part, because i dont wanna stat out and add a new mechanic that was purposfully left out of the core book and left to story/gm. ii really love it though, so i may just try it anyway... i suppose a quick/joke version while trying to be different could be
Wand of Shoe ties
when pointed at a shoe and the command word is given, the shoe laces lace themselves twice as fast as a person would, and a knot is tied in it that greatly increases its resistance to becoming delaced. in addition, this item bestows the sure footed ability on the wearer of the shoes until they are removed.
just an example that is different from my idea, but the idea of "lace twice as fast as a person" how fast is that? and "increases resistance to being delaced" how tough is that normally? etc. but its mostly flavor and gm discrection because the real point is the feat. BUT there may come a time when someone tried to untie it, or time is of the essence, or a character argues they sleep with the shoes on. etc however, those are gm discrection/argument concerns that govern shoes even without the item, the item just points them out more..
hope that bettter explains it without ruining my item's secrecy :/
and ps it doesnt need toomuch explaination or over 300the words, its just, as in the example, i dodnt wanna give a dc for untieing shoes or say how long someone can go without removing them, as i feel that is in the domain of the gm and too uneccasary. like saying an item glows, i dont think i should take time to describe how bright and if someone can use it as a torch or not, as its up to the gm i feel.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7
aka primemover003
|
Well in general you could reduce the action cost of using the item to represent speed... reducing say a move action (tying your shoes) to a swift action.
Adding resistance could be as simple as adding a +2 to CMD vs things like the steal or dirty trick combat manuever used to untie the shoes.
--BirkenVrock
While you may have an original concept, make sure your item's abilities are clearly described: If it needs too much explanation to fit into 300 words, it may not be the ideal item to submit.
Agreed. In particular, I'd avoid new rules systems at all costs. By their nature, wondrous items are special cases, so they seem to be the wrong place to develop new rules that have implications beyond the item (as would rules for pregnancy, cooking, coin collecting, or whatever).
|
|
@owlbearrepublic
now, for somthing like coooking you mentioned, what about having a knife that makes food cooked with it taste better and makes cooking take 1/2 the time? is that awesome for fluff? or is that exactly what the judges dont want? since we can assume some characters cook, and some gms have rules for cooking and some dont. etc.
@owlbearrepublic
now, for somthing like coooking you mentioned, what about having a knife that makes food cooked with it taste better and makes cooking take 1/2 the time? is that awesome for fluff? or is that exactly what the judges dont want? since we can assume some characters cook, and some gms have rules for cooking and some dont. etc.
The subjective nature of tasting, as an example, might be handled as a +5 bonus to the relevant profession check (cooking, chef, etc). That it makes the food taste better is fluff and is a question for people better versed in these things than I.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Wand of Shoe ties
when pointed at a shoe and the command word is given, the shoe laces lace themselves twice as fast as a person would, and a knot is tied in it that greatly increases its resistance to becoming delaced. in addition, this item bestows the sure footed ability on the wearer of the shoes until they are removed.
I try to be very explicit when writing items, particularly if it's something that might be vague. Being explicit doesn't necessarily mean adding more words in all cases though.
Shoes of Swift Tying (because it is a wondrous item not a wand!)
On command, the laces of these pink leather moccasins tie themselves as a swift action. The laces are tied securely but comfortably. The wearer can command the shoes to unlace themselves as a move action or they can be unknotted as a full round action with a DC 10 Escape Artist check*.
Ok... that's probably not the best example but...
While there are a few vague things in the rulebook, there are a lot of things defined in one place that are referenced in other places.
Items glowing is a perfect example. It says in magic item creation that some items give off light, but it's elsewhere that it explains that glowing items are equivalent to a torch.
Be as non-vague as you possibly can without breaking the flow of your description. If you can afford to say "the shoe laces tie so securely that they require a full-round action to remove" instead of "the laces tie themselves securely" you should do so.
|
|
hmm i suppose maybe I'll just cut the fluff. i was hoping it would make the item cooler and describe WHY a bonus/ability is given, but i suppose its better to mention only the things that can be measured. i wish i could come out and say what the aspect is.. lol but i think i got a bettter idea now. thank you guys!
As I wrote in another thread - here you can't ask anything explicitly, but you can and should get feedback from friends, acquaintances, gaming buddies, internet buddies...
You know you've got an issue; so when you pass it around for feedback, you can ask people what they think. And the reactions you get will be exactly what you want - real reactions to your specific item.
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
I’m reminded of my item from last year that didn’t make the cut.
I used a new (old from 3.5) mechanic explicitly not in the Pathfinder books. SKR’s feedback was very straight and to the point, that adding that mechanic would set a precedent he didn’t want set in the game.
I added damage done as a bonus to CMB.
So take this for what it’s worth. Adding a new mechanic is not always advisable. Find an existing mechanic that you can use creatively, within the system of that mechanic.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
I’m reminded of my item from last year that didn’t make the cut.
I used a new (old from 3.5) mechanic explicitly not in the Pathfinder books. SKR’s feedback was very straight and to the point, that adding that mechanic would set a precedent he didn’t want set in the game.
I added damage done as a bonus to CMB.
So take this for what it’s worth. Adding a new mechanic is not always advisable. Find an existing mechanic that you can use creatively, within the system of that mechanic.
On the other end of the spectrum, playing with existing abilities in a new fashion is a good idea.
Both my (poorly written) bracelet of shields and my own shield ring take exisiting mechanics (metamagic, shield bonuses) and go off in their own direction. The key is to make sure they're balanced. Wanda's scarlet gloves of extending allowing the extend spell metamagic to be applied to a witch hex might be balanced, Wanda's cape of chaos magic that removes the saving throw vs hexes, likely not.
hmm i suppose maybe I'll just cut the fluff. i was hoping it would make the item cooler and describe WHY a bonus/ability is given, but i suppose its better to mention only the things that can be measured. i wish i could come out and say what the aspect is.. lol but i think i got a bettter idea now. thank you guys!
It's possible to do this in a less specific way. For instance, lets assume for a moment that the Use Rope skill still existed in Pathfinder (I do this because it's relevant to the shoe-tying example, and because it makes it clear this is not advice on an actual item being entered into the contest.)
Instead of
when pointed at a shoe and the command word is given, the shoe laces lace themselves twice as fast as a person would, and a knot is tied in it that greatly increases its resistance to becoming delaced. in addition, this item bestows the sure footed ability on the wearer of the shoes until they are removed.you could have
These laces can be threaded to any boot or shoe. They can be tied more quickly and easily than normal (granting a +3 bonus on Use Rope checks to tie the shoes) and never become untied by accident.
The flavor of tying more quickly is retained, but it is directed into a simple bonus.
Chief Technical Officer
|
just an example that is different from my idea, but the idea of "lace twice as fast as a person" how fast is that? and "increases resistance to being delaced" how tough is that normally? etc.
I have no doubt that the judges would ask those questions, and if you don't offer an answer, your entry would most likely be well on the way to the reject bin.
|
|
just an example that is different from my idea, but the idea of "lace twice as fast as a person" how fast is that? and "increases resistance to being delaced" how tough is that normally? etc.I have no doubt that the judges would ask those questions, and if you don't offer an answer, your entry would most likely be well on the way to the reject bin.
Yea that's exactly why I posed my question. Because I wanted to make something that helped in tasks not described in detail in the core book, but I did not want to go into the details of it (since I don't think its a good idea to make a whole new rule system for some rarely used mostly RP thing...).
But, I am still debating doing something different, and I have vastly cut the fluff. Now I just have the problem that I got several completely different ideas right before I was about to submit. Do I enter my item I worked hard on and love to bits, but feel isn't quite there, or a new idea that I believe MAY be amazing? LOL I'm trying to merge them, but we'll see.
My friends have not been helpful at all as far as looking at semantics and theme and format and balance... but have surprisingly been helpful with the "wow" factor. Which apparently I need more of.
And even indirect comments on here have helped my brain juices to flow, giving me a hint of other people's perspectives!
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Yea that's exactly why I posed my question. Because I wanted to make something that helped in tasks not described in detail in the core book, but I did not want to go into the details of it (since I don't think its a good idea to make a whole new rule system for some rarely used mostly RP thing...).
My opinion is that you're probably right—and that's an indication that your item may not be right for the contest.
My friends have not been helpful at all as far as looking at semantics and theme and format and balance... but have surprisingly been helpful with the "wow" factor. Which apparently I need more of.
This is, if I have understood anything the judges have said so far, the most important thing about your item. If you are even the least bit in doubt that you item lacks wow-factor, try to find something else, or tweak it until you get there.
My advice: Listen to your instinct and to your friends. Shake the idea bag, and see if something amazing pops out. Don't worry about the deadline being close or the work you have done so far. I got my item from a general idea to what I feel is a pretty solid entry in about two days over the holidays.
Thinking on this a little longer, you have to consider something else: why a particular thing wasn't described in detail in the core rulebook.
Almost exclusively, if something isn't described, or if its glossed over, it's not really important. Shoe-tying isn't covered in the core rulebook, because it ultimately doesn't matter except perhaps if someone is playing a prank on another character.
Spell components are mostly glossed over, because they serve a purpose in the game, but aren't a core part of gameplay.
IMO, an item that does anything with an aspect of the game that is deemed not really important is probably not a superstar item. Maybe in a perfect world, a wand of shoe-tying could be superstar, but a pair of shoes that do little more than tie themselves up probably will never be. Nor will, say, a pouch that never runs out of spell components. It's dealing with something that was deliberately chosen to be glossed over to make the game more interesting.
There are, of course, plenty of existing, yet under-served rules that could be handled. Like pinning in a grapple, or Use Rope... ever. An interesting item touching on those rules would be much more superstar than an interesting item that applies to something that is normally ignored in-game.
There are, of course, plenty of existing, yet under-served rules that could be handled. Like pinning in a grapple, or Use Rope... ever.
Not anymore. No Use Rope skill in Pathfinder rules. :)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
This thread may be relevant to this conversation.
Think of the typical players of the game, and their PCs. More to the point, think of the Pathfinder RPG iconics. Can you picture Valeros, Seoni, Feiya, & co. using -- no, wanting, lusting after, fighting over -- this item?*
I think THAT's what the judges are looking for. Something players really want for their Pathfinder characters. If you dumped a treasure chest you just stole from a dragon out on a table, do you, as a player, want to go for the shoe-tying item?
As a designer, it may be a fun mechanic to play around with. As a world-builder, it may be a great item that adds verisimilitude to the fantasy world. As a DM, it may create fun and interesting ideas for plots.
But as a PC adventurer making your way in an action-adventure fantasy world, is this item your first-round draft pick in the pile of loot?
Because if it is, then that is Superstar.
*bear in mind too, that it can't be overpowered, or unbalanced. I know it can be a tricky line to walk between awesome and too much. The goal is to come up with a cool item that a PC would want, but that still fits neatly into the space it belongs in.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yes, Grapple (link). It's a bit of an odd nut.
I think survival is probably a good place for knots that aren't tying people up. I was actually just kidding about using escape artist to untie a knot that doesn't have you tied up.
Yes, Grapple (link). It's a bit of an odd nut.
I think survival is probably a good place for knots that aren't tying people up. I was actually just kidding about using escape artist to untie a knot that doesn't have you tied up.
If it's just a regular knot, no stress and not a character for some reason incapable of knots I'd call it too much rolling to assume it takes anything and get on with something else. Of course, I doubt that's the intended use anywhere.
However, to return to subject, I can feel what you mean with "how much to clarify". My mechanic borders with a couple of things, but I want it differently so I explain everything that works in a not-usual way. Even then I'm still having quibbles about an effect I hadn't thought of putting more words to.
To give a little of my own experience: My rule to myself on explaining somewhat new, different or somehow unclear, went something like: If it's prone to putting submission over 300 words, though it was only around 200 before, it's too complicated. If I can't put it clearly, understandably and clarifyingly in one sentence (which does not stretch over 3 lines), it's either too complex or in need of rewriting.
Well, anyway, best of luck.