Dwarven Brewing Barrel
*So, it's a bag of holding and a crafting item. Meh. Neither element is particularly compelling or Superstar.
*Vote to Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Also, agree. Reject.
*Rejected.
Whoa there Neil whoa! You're setting some form of forum posting record there. That's 4 items in the space of 6 minutes! ;)
Wayfarer's Map
*So now the GM has to mentally track and define all the areas where a Pathfinder has gone before? No. Auto-mapping items are bad.
*Vote to Reject.
*Automapping, makes GM work harder.
*Reject.
*Agreed. Reject.
*Rejected.
Whoa there Neil whoa! You're setting some form of forum posting record there. That's 4 items in the space of 6 minutes! ;)
It's an experiment to see if I can break the sound barrier. ;-)
Bulging Balloon
*Hardness 2? That's leather, that's not delicate.
15 hp? That's more than a wooden door, that's not delicate.
*14,500 gp to displace a creature from a square? No, thank you.
*Reject.
*Sheesh. I couldn't get past the awful name.
*Is this a joke item for a jester character? I keep hearing the Joker's insane laughter in the background. Hah ha hah! Hee hee hee!
*Vote to Reject.
*[redacted]
*Rejected.
Clearly not my best work then. Thanks for letting me know!
What I saw that was wrong with it.
The grammar structure seems off. I would have written it such that the hand that the gauntlet was on becomes a natural attack(more on that later).
Writing it so the gauntlet melds with the person's hand would have been better instead of just saying the gauntlet becomes a natural attack because as written the hand is still there since only the gauntlet became a natural attack, and there is no real reason as to why they can't use it(the hand)*. The item also does not say what type of natural attack it becomes. At least making it into a specific natural attack that is not a claw or anything else that can normally be used like a hand does not make the player not want to argue that he should retain normal use of the "whatever natural attack it is".
A player also needs a reason to buy this item. Why would spend money to lose use of a hand? I understand total use is not lost, but it is not something I would buy as an adventurer. The example of a halfling's bite makes me think that you now have a mouth on your hand. I am thinking your intent was to let the player choose a natural attack to gain, and not necessarily for the gauntlet to become the natural attack after a second reading, but it is hard to tell by how it is written. What also should have been done was to say that even though claws(just an example) can normally be used to manipulate items fully this is not possible because.
PS:I am not a judge, and I got the boot also, but I was giving my opinion as a player, and my thoughts if I had seen this in a book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please ignore his typo above. I'm sure we can all clearly see he meant to put 'go Neal go'...
Who's Neal? ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*adjusts glasses* If my calculations are correct Neil has been posting to this forum for...
...carry the nine, divide by the square...
my god, he's been posting critiques for nearly 27.4 hours a day!
Wait.
No, but seriously, Neil is a scary man. He doesn't sleep. He's like a Bethesda character - he just stands around in the streets, waiting, stock still, until his target appears / a shop opens.
Whoa there Neil whoa! You're setting some form of forum posting record there. That's 4 items in the space of 6 minutes! ;)
Please ignore his typo above. I'm sure we can all clearly see he meant to put 'go Neal go'...
:)
Neil - the Michael Schumacher of the Forumula One!
Brogans of the Spectral Auroch
*I actually don't like the bovine flavor in this item at all. It borders on being a joke item. If it was just a pair of boots that let you make an incorporeal charge, maybe it would read better with some other theme connected to it. I just don't find it compelling otherwise. And the name really kills it for me.
*Vote to Reject.
*How does that +50% damage stack with a critical hit? +50% is nonstandard (compared to +100%), so I don't know if a double double becomes a triple or whatever.
*Incorporeal charge 3/day is basically once per combat, so as a limitation, it's not a significant one.
*Going incorporeal means you could charge through a door if you know there's a creature on the other side.
*There's probably a Scottish/Celt mythological reference to these that we're not getting.
*I'm not really excited for this item, but I'm not really strongly against it. So... weak reject, but wanting to hear what the other judges say.
*So its cow boots of the spectral minotaur?
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Orb of Mists*snip*
Thanks for the feedback! I was really hoping you'd get to it before I left for my trip, and you have almost 45 minutes to spare! I appreciate it!
My only real critique of my critique is that nobody noticed the reason I made it require CL9 - the spells involved only require CL 7, where I felt the item wouldn't be as functional.
And, importantly, thank you for the one keep (Neil, I deduce). Last year, I didn't even get that far, and it's proof I am improving: which is really good to hear. Heck, it's nice to hear any of you liked it at all. Assuming I keep up the pace, in two or three years, I'll have an item unanimously agreed should be in the top 32.
And with that done, I'm going to put this up here too;
Take Three! And the last one before I go on my vacation. Have a good one, boards, I'll see you in a few weeks!
Corpse Bread
Hmm, definately better than your corpse cracker from the almost ran thread. But, you make a lot of formatting mistakes here; you have no commas in the price, you capitalize "moderate necromancy, enchantment" which should actually be ", moderate enchantment" anyways. It should also be Profession (baker), spells should be lowercase, and no funny requirements in the construction requirements.
Your description is pretty good, and I like the idea of what you're doing here, but DC 22 is way too high for CL9 (should be ~DC 17) and even higher in comparison for the 2,500gp price tag and the effects.
Your reference to "feel free to..." should be cut out entirely. GM digression is not superstar. Or even good enough for a book of magic items. An item either does X, or it doesn't. Further, most intelligent undead aren't the ones who had lives they longed to continue, so the flavor of the item is a little weird. The idea that the undead forget that they're dead is a kinda neat twist on the thing, and might have been a better primary effect for the item.
The time limit for the bread cooling should have been way higher, and the bit about eating it really isn't necessary.
Key to the Soul’s Prison
As the item isn't an actual key, I think you could have done a better job naming this. ghost draught springs to mind. Good template use, though.
I'm not a fan of the fact that this can be charged over and over by any poison, giving the PC as much ghost-time as they want. For the price and the effects (especially as the body can be cured a dozen or more times while unconsious to prolong the effect, so long as the healer is careful) it should be a one-use item. Recharging by any poison is weird anyways, because that poison could be 1cp to 1,000gp to result in the same effect.
The turn-into-a-ghost idea is kinda neat though, though not particularly groundbreaking. Still, it was an overall good shot, but you missed on a few fronts.
Music Box of Mementos
Heh, music box of mentos. *ahem*
First, I see that you have no commas in your price, which is wrong, and second, I see that you have capitals in your spell requirements. Which is also wrong. A little more attention to detail would have been a good idea. Then you italicize "unconsious", and later "rage" which is reserved for spells.
But what really killed you, I think, are two things. One, the "at GMs digression", and two, the ability to transfer class abilities about, willy-nilly. Particularly spells. 3rd level spells might not break the game too much, but that's fourish (assuming the whole party listens) castings of cure moderate wounds every day, for free. That's a little broken.
Oh, wait, and you misspelled "Mage's Lubrication".
Circlet of the Spectral Eye
Hmm, you should have italicized and lowercased your spells - and you missed a semicolon after the last spell before cost, too.
Reading your description, I stop when I reach "a wave of spectral probing". Really not a good term, and up to this point, you really need to work on your writing flow. And, in fact, that's probably your biggest hurdle. You have a few sentances that flow well, but most of them might as well be a new paragraph.
Phantasmagoric Crystal
I think the judges hit all the nails on this item. No clear explanation of how many motes can exist, and some (figment) spells can do damage indirectly, which is way too powerful. If not for the few things that slipped through the cracks, this would be an excellent item.
And also, "greatly coveted by" is too close to backstory for my tastes.
Mask of the Gaudy Eavesdropper
"it is prized for..." No, that's backstory. Items are prized for many different reasons, and that should be left out of the description. This is an item, not a discussion about an item. (this in turn, is a discussion about an item.) You then go on and on about all these sensory organs. How often does a PC need to taste remotely?
Ultimately, it's not exciting. You take these things and maybe use them for some spying, then you sell the ears over and over to be melted down and make a killing as they regrow every 1d4 days.
Cloak of Sidhe
Backstory! *slaps wrists* bad designer! Worse, or at least just as bad, is that the only item worked into a proper sentance is super boring and useless. The other ten powers are just a list - which is bad even before you get into that you have ten more powers than you should.
Pick one power, write no backstory. Done.
Mirror of Monstrous Echoes
Great name, great use of the template.
However, immunity to gaze attacks (because let's face it, you practically never face two different creautres with gaze attacks at once - which might be a critical flaw in the consideration of your item) is waaaay too powerful for any magic item below 100k. And this is only 14k. And, it lets you also replicate that attack in such a way that your allies are all immune to it.
So, a lot of good hits, but in the end, one or two super-critical flaws.
Magician's Handle
Like "the great houdini" right? I could use one of those. While I go get one, you should italicize your spells, okay?
As to the effect of your item, I'm sorry to say it's not really that creative. passwall-in-a-can, basically. With a funny recharge mechanism that requires extra paperwork. Try reaching a little further outside the box next time.
Claw of the Four Dragons
Hmm, a good name, but then you slip up on the template. "Strong Evocation" should be in lower case. Jewelery in "Craft (Jewelery) should be lowercase, too. And it should have ranks tied to it.
Your description of the item is a little clunky, too. It sounds like it's one dragon that is some weird hybrid of those four listed. Then, you start describing it's effects on the wearer without specifying that it's applying to the wearer when worn. Like me saying "This coin is made of gold. Your hair turns purple." You'd be like "Why?". That's exactly this here.
Don't captialize your item name in your description, either. But really, you should work on your polish and flow. It's not bad, but it really shows you needing work.
Hashi of the Impassioned Dawnflower
Okay name, but you need to specify what auras are part of "varied" under aura. Then, you need to not italcize feats, and not capitalize spells. And use "gp" instead of "g" (or nothing) in price and cost. And list Price before weight. And not capitalize head.
And not italicize your description. And not include "intended for", because that's backstory.
Really, really, you need to read all the autoreject threads, more of the forums, especially these feedback threads, the rules... It's too many mistakes to actually get into any meat of the item. Read the rules, understand what is being asked, and then you can try again next year.
Though, this strikes me as a mismash of styles from other systems, like 3.5e and 4e and stuff like that. If so, learn your audience.
The Deadeye's Snuff
Your spells aren't alphabetized. Okay name though. Except that snuff is traditionally a powder that goes in your nose, or a paste that you put on your gums. This item is really chewing tobacco, which is something different, and shows poor attention to detail or maybe a last second careless change.
Then, in your description, you describe what tradition states the item acts like. What if I don't want to follow tradition. Either an item is, or it isn't, there is no "usually" or "sometimes".
Also, grit isn't a resource. The user has a grit pool, or the grit ability. But, I do like the ability here.
Finally, what happens when you pass that fort save? Can you actually use it? Or, does it just stop you from being nauseated - the item isn't clear on that. Keep an eye for loopholes like that.
And with that done, I'm going to put this up here too;
Take Three! And the last one before I go on my vacation. Have a good one, boards, I'll see you in a few weeks!
Lucky dog! Also: Damn. I look forward to your critiques almost as much as the judges'!
Well, when I come back I'll try to keep getting through them all. Glad to hear you're enjoying them, I'll be here all year!
(except for the next two weeks :p)
Corrupt the Divine
Since this thread seems to be for non-judge feedback as well, if anybody wants to take a look over my item and critique I'd be very appreciative. (I have a thick skin so don't worry about being nice as much as being constructive please)
link should be: here
Once again a big thanks to the judges for doing what they do.
I will give it a go.
You should have written out the word feet for 35'.
I am still reading, but it seems to be an anti-theft device for magic items. My main issue with the item is that it is circumstantial since not many GM's steal items. Sunder is more likely, and it cost over 36000 gp. That is a lot of gp. Trying to steal from a party that is strong enough to have an item that deserves 36000 gp of protection is probably not likely or smart.
PS:Construction Requirements and Cost at the bottom of you item was also supposed to be bolded.
There's no way to connect what you posted to your paizo.com account. If I can find your item, I can repost it here for you from the Reject folder. Unfortunately, I'm not finding anything called "Storyteller"...are you sure that's the name you selected for your item?
Hmm I may have spaced it? as in (story teller), if it helps.. (I do not know if is referrable by account name but I can provide that if it would aid!)
Perchance I could give what description or maybe the spell requirements? Or.. is there some better search criteria to provide if the name is unavailable??
Vendor - Fantasiapelit Tampere
|
Witchbinder's ShacklesSpoiler:*Hrrmmm. I don't know about this one. I see where they're going. Is this really a wondrous item? It's very similar to the earlier one I called out as a cursed item masquerading as a wondrous item. That's because there's not a whole lot of "wondrous" in these shackles. Just an affliction placed upon anyone who wears them. Normally, we call those cursed items like the ring of clumsiness, gauntlets of fumbling, or bracers of defenselessness--all of which could just as easily be slapped on someone like these shackles.*Setting that aside, there are several other things I don't like in this design. Other than the presentation problems (i.e., spell names should be lowercase, they should also be italicized in the descriptive text along with references to other magic items, same goes for your item name if you use it the descriptive text, and you need a space between the price/cost and "gp"), I'm not all that certain that Hellknights are tasked overly much with being witch hunters. Are they?
*I'm also not keen on the item being impervious to a chime of opening or knock spell. I mean, if knock can bypass arcane lock, why can't it affect a magic item like this? And shouldn't arcane lock be part of the construction requirements for this thing? I see we've got arcane mark, but I'm not sure why that's even applicable.
*In addition, I don't like the automatic tracking of the last person locked into the shackles...which can't ever be fooled. We're dealing in absolutes now. And I'm not a fan of that. Regardless, to get that effect, wouldn't you also want to include locate creature or find the path in the item's construction requirements, as well?
*As-is, I can see what the designer was shooting for...and I can understand why they saw this as a potentially innovative place to play around in...but the item isn't Superstar-caliber in my book. Also, 56,000 gp...just to shackle a...
Thanks for the comment! And yes, I'm from Finland, sorry for the bad grammar. But I like the feedback, and hopefully next year I have learned something from you guys. Thank's again for your hard work!
To be honest, Clark. I am extremely disappointed.
To call this thread anything with the word "critique" in it is a joke. I have been provided with absolutely NOTHING to work with. If this thread was called "judge's commentary" I would understand (maybe).
I have been told the Item is poorly crafted and the only point pointed out by the judges is invalid. What gives?
Good question. I'll talk with Neil about his approach of just cutting and pasting comments. I agree it seems more harsh than intended. I think his goal is to get the comments out to everyone. I'm trying to provide some more positive and constructive feedback. This is why we dont just open up our forums for view, but that is essentially what Neil is doing.
I think the copy and paste is fine. After everyone has had the basic review(copy and paste) they can request more detail if the copy and paste is not sufficient, and in many cases it won't be, but at least everyone will have a general idea of what happened hopefully. The specifics can be taken care of later.
Bulging Balloon
*Hardness 2? That's leather, that's not delicate.
15 hp? That's more than a wooden door, that's not delicate.*14,500 gp to displace a creature from a square? No, thank you.
*Reject.
*Sheesh. I couldn't get past the awful name.
*Is this a joke item for a jester character? I keep hearing the Joker's insane laughter in the background. Hah ha hah! Hee hee hee!
*Vote to Reject.
*[redacted]
*Rejected.
Hey, no problem. Here were my difficulties during creation.
1) Name.... the frackin name sucked no matter how many times I kept renaming it. So, I was hoping that the name wouldn't matter too much.2) Hardness 2/ HP 15 being delicate. This is something I wrestled with. I originally had it at Hardness 0/HP 5, but read the section where magical weapons get +2 hardness and +10 hp per +1 enhancement.... so.. I guessed that this would be an equivalent +1?
3) I thought the item was a little more powerful than just using it to displace enemies. To me, it was also the ability to trade a standard action to use it on myself for an additional 5 foot step (effectively).
Thanks for the input
Veneficium Charm
*So, it's just a container for ingested poisons? I mean...a simple vial won't suffice? It has to be a magical gemstone so you can hide it easier and pull off Sleight of Hand checks easier when applying it to food and drink? We don't even get a mechanical bonus explaining how that might make it easier to deliver the poison.
*This is an item that might make it into a book of magic items. But it just doesn't have enough mojo for Superstar, primarily in the mechanics and innovation department.
*Also, how often do situations come up in a game where you need to poison someone with an ingested poison? A lot less often than applying one to your blade, I'd think. This thing might see use...what?...maybe a handful of times over the course of an adventuring career? Unless of course, you're the dastardly kind of player that likes to slip poisons into his fellow PCs' ale during happy hour just for kicks. In which case, that's a pretty sad way to play the game.
*Lastly, I'm really annoyed by wondrous items that supposedly appear in multiple forms. If this thing can be a locket on a necklace, it should take up the neck slot. If it's a ring...well, then it's not even a wondrous item...but, it should obviously take up a ring slot. And so on...Pax vobiscum.
*Vote to Reject.
*I'm not even sure this one makes the cut into a book of wondrous items, unless I needed some filler.
*This is barely even "meh" which means it is substantially less than Superstar.
*Reject.
*I'm a poison pill ring, except I'm an 18,000 gp magic item.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Oh man, Here comes with pain... I can take it, I can take it!
Shadow Eye
*It's just a shadowy dimension door SIAC to help thieves teleport away some place they can use Stealth. Is this Superstar? Not particularly, no.
*Vote to Reject.
*Completely agree. Reject.
*Rejected.
Crown of the Hellion
*Really poor design, mechanics, and execution. Even the lead-off sentence has poor grammar.
*Vote to Reject.
*+1 to ability scores? No. Not Superstar.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Spell Pearl
*We already have mechanics for turning spells into one-use items, I'm not sure this is needed.
*And I'm not sure anyone would pay 8000 gp for a one-use item like this.
*Doesn't even include Construction info.
*Reject.
*Agreed. Lots of presentation errors here, enough to kill it on sight since it's missing the construction requirements in their entirety. But they also failed to use game terminology correctly (i.e., "Caster level" vs. "caster level", etc.). Originally, I figured this item might get mixed up with a pearl of power, and then as I kept reading, I thought it was more like a rod of absorption. Either way, the idea isn't novel enough to keep around.
*Vote to Reject.
*Rejected.
Mutinous Wheel
*Um, no. Plot device item. And honestly, how often do you really expect to see this 80 lbs. wheel in actual gameplay?
*Vote to Reject.
*It's a plot device not a Superstar wondrous item.
*Vote to Reject.
*Would have been more useful as a feather token... but also wouldn't have been Superstar then.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Pole of the Fisher King
*It's heroes' feast-in-a-fish, provided you can catch it with a successful DC 20 Survival check? Or, it's a ring of sustenance so you don't have to eat at all. So, which is it? Feast or famine? Either way, it's very SIAC-ish.
*Vote to Reject.
*Not Superstar.
*Vote to Reject.
*Rejected.
Torc of Zealous Tenacity
*Okay. It's tight design. Does exactly what it sets out to do. It's about the equivalent of having the Endurance-Diehard feat chain in an item. The only difference is that unlike the Diehard feat, you're not even debilitated by the disabled condition for that 1 round and you can take full actions...i.e., you're normally limited by being staggered and only capable of single move actions. Thereafter, this item makes you pay for that extra mobility/survivability with 1d4+1 points of additional damage, making it far more likely you go below negative Con (except your Wisdom modifier might help offset some of that).
*Personally, I would have liked to see some additional explanation in the item. It doesn't quite go far enough. For instance, are you considered to be automatically stabilized by this torc the way the Diehard feat works? If the 1d4+1 points of damage from the strain of acting takes him below his Con score + Wis modifier, does he immediately die? Why is it a Wisdom check rather than a Constitution check to avoid the dying condition? I do like that he made it an ability check rather than a Will or Fortitude save, since saving throws scale more quickly than ability checks. That's smart design.
*I was also thinking maybe the Diehard feat should be an additional requirement in the construction of this item? You could throw stabilize in there, too. Or even something more powerful like heal to indicate the potency of what this item does. Basing it around false life feels a little misplaced to me. But it's certainly different. And I get the thinking on it. Still, it could have been useful to compare this item to an auto-stablizing item like a periapt of wound closure just to see what kind of spells it's based around (i.e., it's heal-based with a conjuration aura).
*Regardless, everything else is tight. The designer used the provided template flawlessly. He's given heavy consideration to the differences between what this item lets you do and what the Diehard feat can do (i.e., this item is a notch better than the feat, but you pay a heavier price for it...both monetarily and physically). Is 12,000 gp enough for what it does? A periapt of wound closure would run you 15,000 gp. So, I don't know. Maybe it should be a little more. For now, though, I'm going to say...
*...Weak Keep.
*I like good low power items. Its just different enough from the feat both good and bad. Good execution.
*This is a KEEP for me.
*Kept.
*Would work much better as a feat.
*Weak keep
*That's because at its core, that is what it is--a pimpy DieHard feat. Which also explains why the "false life" creation requirement is kinda lame, since really this come more from feat land than from spell land.
*Meh, it's a feat in a can.
*And it's power stems from the user's Wisdom bonus, so this is better on the cleric... who can already heal himself... and is already good at Wisdom checks (and thus can avoid the disabled/dying condition as per the item)... so he can heal himself back up to positives before the 1d4+1 damage kicks in and risks killing him.
*Reject.
*Having read all our keeps, this one doesnt hold up in my view. I am switching my vote to Weak Reject. I'm glad we kept it around, it has just been eclipsed by better items.
*I've recorded your modified vote accordingly.
*Rejected.
Dagon’s Gift
*"Created from a drop of Qlippoth blood..." Meh. Not without the Craft Wondrous Item feat, which they failed to cite.
*"civilised" vs. "civilized"...Queen's English.
*Increases the DCs of the item's effect with harvesting of specific material components. No other wondrous item does that. Why start now?
*And it's just a ranged weapon to inflict tentacles and rage on someone as a consumable 1,300 gp item.
*Vote to Reject.
*Turning an enemy into a raging tentacle monster is a MIAC, not Superstar.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Okay. That brings us to the end of Page 7.
I have no idea how many requests for feedback remain, but I'll have to call a temporary halt for now. The Top 32's Round 2 entries will take up the better portion of my weekend. So, they'll have a higher priority until Tuesday, probably. At that point, I'll see what I can do to pick up the pace on the remaining items here.
|
Okay. That brings us to the end of Page 7.
I have no idea how many requests for feedback remain, but I'll have to call a temporary halt for now. The Top 32's Round 2 entries will take up the better portion of my weekend. So, they'll have a higher priority until Tuesday, probably. At that point, I'll see what I can do to pick up the pace on the remaining items here.
Thanks for your time, sir. See you next week.
Wow I'm late getting this up for critique. I'm guessing the attempted faux table didn't go over well?
Gnomish Quick Poison Crafting Kit
Aura Moderate Transmutation; CL 7th
Slot none; Price 28,000 gp; Weight 3 lbs.
Description
Created by a gnomish assassin who never seemed to have the right poison on hand, this clever contraption allows a poisoner to create new poisons quickly and on demand. The kit is made up of a small metal box covered in dials and sliders with several removable glass phials along one side. As a full round action the user makes a Craft (Alchemy) check and produces a single dose of poison. This is an injury poison, it has no onset time, frequency 1/rd for 4 rds., and cure 1 save. The Fort save DC is 15+User's Int Modifier. The effect is determined by the user's craft check and may do damage to any physical ability of the user's choice.
Craft Check | Effect
under 15 | failure
15-19 | 1 damage
20-24 | 1d2 damage
25-29 | 1d3 damage
30-34 | 1d4 damage
35-39 | 1d6 damage
40+ | 2d4 damage
Creating a poison expends one charge from the kit. When created the kit has 10 charges and a charge can be refilled with 100 gp worth of replacement poison components. All poisons created with the kit lose their potency 10 minutes after creation.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, Minor Creation or Poison, creator must have 7 ranks in Craft (Alchemy); Cost 14,000 gp
I am on page 8, so close. Tuesday it is then or maybe Wednesday. :)
Mutinous Wheel*Um, no. Plot device item. And honestly, how often do you really expect to see this 80 lbs. wheel in actual gameplay?
*Vote to Reject.
*It's a plot device not a Superstar wondrous item.
*Vote to Reject.
*Would have been more useful as a feather token... but also wouldn't have been Superstar then.
*Reject.
*Rejected.
Ah, that makes sense now that I think of it like that. Thanks Neil.
True Stuff.
That hurt a lot less than i was expecting. Of course, given this contest's reputation, i guess i was expecting Clark (or more specifically, Clark's avatar) to come to my apartment and break my legs or something.
I realized after i had submitted it that while I saw significant awesomeness in the item, that doesn't necessarily mean others will, too. And yeah, it was totally a SIAC.
Keep bringin' on the judgement, guys! It might not be obvious, but it's appreciated!
Can I get the critique notes for my "Barrister's Gavel of Pleading"? I don't have the write up on this computer. Thanks.
When time and energy allow, could I ask for feedback on this item I submitted? Thanks!
Pouch of Scoundrel’s Deeds
Aura faint necromancy; CL 3rd
Slot - ; Price 4000 gp; Weight ½ lb.
Description
This small drawstring pouch appears to be empty. Once per day as a move action the user can reach into the pouch and cause a replica of his hand to appear from the opening of similar container (i.e. pouch, bag or pack) in the possession of a target individual. This hand is shaped from the user’s life force and is identical to the hand created by the spectral hand spell. You must have a line of effect to the target.
The user can use the conjured hand to perform a Steal maneuver, a Dirty Trick maneuver or a Sleight of Hand skill check to take something against the bearer of the target container. The conjured hand lacks significant strength and if it is used for another purpose (i.e. grappling, unarmed attack, etc.) the hand disappears without harming the target and the hit points used to create the hand are lost. If an item is stolen from the target, it must be able to fit through both container openings in order for the user to gain possession of it; if the object won’t fit through one of the containers, the user can opt to drop it in the target’s square. The target’s container used to create the hand cannot be affected by a Sleight of Hand take attempt or a Steal maneuver using this item. The conjured hand disappears when the user withdraws his hand from the pouch or at the start of the user's next turn, whichever comes first.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, spectral hand; Cost 2000 gp.
Star Voter Season 6
|
Spell Pearl*We already have mechanics for turning spells into one-use items, I'm not sure this is needed.
*And I'm not sure anyone would pay 8000 gp for a one-use item like this.
*Doesn't even include Construction info.
*Reject.
*Agreed. Lots of presentation errors here, enough to kill it on sight since it's missing the construction requirements in their entirety. But they also failed to use game terminology correctly (i.e., "Caster level" vs. "caster level", etc.). Originally, I figured this item might get mixed up with a pearl of power, and then as I kept reading, I thought it was more like a rod of absorption. Either way, the idea isn't novel enough to keep around.
*Vote to Reject.
*Rejected.
Thank you very much. As expected, you guys hit on everything I had already noticed prior to actually reading my commentary. I'll admit I knew about a few other mechanics existing, but didn't think it'd be that much of a problem as I wasn't trying to come up with a new mechanic as much as build off one already in existence. Anyways, I'm not trying to explain myself. I just want to thank you guys for the commentary and, to be honest, I'm a bit relieved because I thought it was going to be much worse. Like I said before, my own worst critic, as most of us are.
And I wish I'd thought about a rod of absorption. Heck, my rogue has one in a campaign I'm playing in here at home! Lol. Thank you to all the judges.
I really wish I'd noted the rod of absorption!
Cloak of the North Star
review:
RC, thanks for taking the time to review my item. I'm sure the judges shared one of more of your observations.
First, this item is a "makes travelling easy" item that judges have said a number of times is not exciting or superstar.
I'm not sure I agree, that it makes "traveling easy", unless you mean in short, limited, combat-situations.
Second, you include the phrase "subject to GM digression", which means you don't know what the effects of the item might be, that shows lack of forethought or carelessness, both of which are very bad.
I'll assume you're referring to the actual phrase I had in the item text "subject to GM discretion." I agree, in hindsight, this could have been left out. Actually, I was aware of many situations regarding this ability, but I edited them out, thinking I could take a short-cut to the word-limit.
Third, you grant free 5-foot steps, which is super powerful. Admittedly, for the price tag I kinda get it, but still. It messes action economy up. Fortunately, it does so in a kinda good way.
Really, this is the ability I should have focused on. The ability to determine true north and the water walk were admittedly "add-ons". Yes, its a powerful ability, that's what I wanted to be "wondrous" about the item. I honestly thought the option for companions to move a paralyzed or unconscious wearer of the cloak around was "handy". Note, this is not the same as a simple 5-foot step.
And last, your last ability is just a tacked on SIAC. It doesn't add anything, or fit with the theme, and make it feel amateur. If you must add in more abilities (which you should try not to anyways), they should be tightly tied to what you already do.
Initially, I envisioned the cloak as being able to animate on its own to swim and carry the wielder through a body of water, but I later opted for water-walk, which again, proved to be "un-Super-Star-like."
Thanks again for the time.
|
|
Hey all, I got the judges' feed back on the doormouse, and appreciate/understand/agree with it all, but I'd also like feed back from fellow players and DM's such as yourself. I figure, the more feed back the better chance I'll have next year. It is on page three, just so you know, and reposted here. Also, as I stated previously, it wasn't submitted in this format. This is just the format I use for my own personal recordings.
Aura: strong Conjuration CL: 7-13 Slot: none Price: 20,180 – 47,100 gp Weight: 1 lb
This tiny metal rodent stirs to life when the command word is given and the Door Mouse is held near the target. Sniffing the air, it moves into the key hole and begins to eat through the lock mechanism. A must have for most adventuring parties without a rogue, these little lock pickers come in a variety of different materials and levels of effectiveness. But all of them will disable a lock by eating through the components that lock a door. These mice can even be used to disable traps. However, due to their indiscriminate nature, they have a 15% chance of accidently triggering the trap while disabling it.
Creating a link between the user and the mouse, any traps triggered by the Door Mouse eating through a lock are directed at the one who activated it. Distance does not alter this effect, but standard save rules apply and moving more than 50ft from the Door Mouse disables it. The Door Mouse takes one minute to eat through the lock and can be used once per day. An iron mouse eats through a DC10 lock, steel a DC15, gold DC20, mithral DC25, adamantine DC30.
CONSTRUCTION: Craft Wondrous Item; minor creation, major creation, Cost iron10,090 gp, steel 12,985 gp, gold 15,890 gp, mithral 19,960 gp, adamantine 23,550 gp
And with that done, I'm going to put this up here too;
Take Three! And the last one before I go on my vacation. Have a good one, boards, I'll see you in a few weeks!
Deadeye's Snuff** spoiler omitted **
Thanks for the feedback!! Some great pointers on things that I missed (alphabetizing the spell list, and using traditionally in my item description) as well as the ambiguously placed save at the end. Guess that wasn't really needed, but I was thinking that since Paizo's official desc for Tobacco use has some liability, I would include a touch of that. Prob not needed.
I did find some references on the web (and we know the internet is always right!!) of chewing tobacco being referred to as snuff. I did wrestle with the name before submission, I thought Deadeye's Snuff sounded better than Deadeye's Twist (as this description was a form of "Twist Tobacco" - odd how much i read about the stuff considering i hate tobacco lol).
Thanks for getting my item in before your vacation :)
Enjoy!
|
|
I'm not a judge, but here's my critique.
Wow I'm late getting this up for critique. I'm guessing the attempted faux table didn't go over well?
Gnomish Quick Poison Crafting Kit
Aura Moderate Transmutation; CL 7th
Slot none; Price 28,000 gp; Weight 3 lbs.Description
Created by a gnomish assassin who never seemed to have the right poison on hand,
We start with backstory. Unnecessary.
this clever contraption allows a poisoner to create new poisons quickly and on demand. The kit is made up of a small metal box covered in dials and sliders with several removable glass phials along one side. As a full round action the user makes a Craft (Alchemy) check and produces a single dose of poison. This is an injury poison, it has no onset time, frequency 1/rd for 4 rds., and cure 1 save. The Fort save DC is 15+User's Int Modifier. The effect is determined by the user's craft check and may do damage to any physical ability of the user's choice.
Craft Check | Effect
under 15 | failure
15-19 | 1 damage
20-24 | 1d2 damage
25-29 | 1d3 damage
30-34 | 1d4 damage
35-39 | 1d6 damage
40+ | 2d4 damage
Depends On A Skill Check. That's a reject, table aside.
Creating a poison expends one charge from the kit. When created the kit has 10 charges and a charge can be refilled with 100 gp worth of replacement poison components. All poisons created with the kit lose their potency 10 minutes after creation.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, Minor Creation or Poison, creator must have 7 ranks in Craft (Alchemy); Cost 14,000 gp
Neither minor creation nor poison (note the lack of capitalization) is a transmutation spell. Where does the aura come from? Is anything actually transmuted, or are we conjuring poison?
I get where you're going with this, but there's the pricing-something-that-gets-better-as-the-user-gets-better problem, there are refillable charges, the aura mechanics are off, and there's nothing specifically gnomish about it. Furthermore, if I've got 28K (or 14K) to spend on a poisonmaking device, I could spend those thousands on a whole lot of poison, instead. The device does get around the ridiculously long times it takes to craft poison, but really, the solution to that is outsourcing the job to NPCs.
You should keep a copy of all items(anything submitted if you make to later rounds in the future) exactly as they were presented to the judges. You might catch a mistake the judges did not, even if it is likely.
So this is combination trap disabler and lock picker. I think it does too much. I also don't like the idea of being attuned to a trap. I know the word attuned was not used in your item, but if distance means I have to make the save anyway that is the best word I can think of.
An item that makes you better at picking locks and/or disabling traps, and had a second minor feature would have been better than something that does it for you, but always puts you at risk.
I like the idea of it, but not the execution.
|
|
You should keep a copy of all items(anything submitted if you make to later rounds in the future) exactly as they were presented to the judges. You might catch a mistake the judges did not, even if it is likely.
So this is combination trap disabler and lock picker. I think it does too much. I also don't like the idea of being attuned to a trap. I know the word attuned was not used in your item, but if distance means I have to make the save anyway that is the best word I can think of.
An item that makes you better at picking locks and/or disabling traps, and had a second minor feature would have been better than something that does it for you, but always puts you at risk.I like the idea of it, but not the execution.
What do you think of this version (the one with the edits that I meant to post last time)
Aura: strong Conjuration CL: 3 Slot: none Price: 9600 gp Weight: 1 lb
This tiny metal rodent stirs to life when the command word is given and the door mouse is held near the target. Sniffing the air, it moves into the key hole and begins to eat through the lock mechanism. A must have for most adventuring parties without a rogue, these little lock pickers come in a variety of different materials and levels of effectiveness. But all of them will disable a lock by eating through the components that lock a door. These mice can even be used to disable traps. However, due to their indiscriminate nature, they have a 15% chance of accidently triggering the trap while disabling it.
Creating a link between the user and the mouse, the door mouse is disabled if the one who activated it moves more than 50 ft away while it is active. The Door Mouse takes one minute to eat through the lock and can be used once per day. An iron mouse eats through a DC10 lock, steel a DC15, gold DC20, mithral DC25, adamantine DC30.
CONSTRUCTION: Craft Wondrous Item; knock; Cost: 4800
Door Mouse
As someone who plays rogues often I really like this item. A lot. The only qualm i have with it is the part where the "wielder" still takes damage from the trap if it's set off.
My first thought: the percentage chance to set the trap goes up from 15% to 30% or 40%, what have you. If tripped the trap makes a sunder check against the mouse, potentially destroying it.
As a result of it's potential to be destroyed, maybe it's cost should be lessened.
However, let me reiterate: I really like this item! the image of the party rogue (or whoever) sending out this little mouse to do his dirty work fits in with what i call a smart character - why risk your life if you don't have to? I do understand why the judges might not have liked it, given that it reduces risk to the party... But i don't necessarily agree in this case.
D20 games all seem like constant arms races between the PCs and the NPCs - the Door Mouse hardly seems like an unbalancing item when compared to things like Cape of the Mountebank or spells like Windwalk.
You should keep a copy of all items(anything submitted if you make to later rounds in the future) exactly as they were presented to the judges. You might catch a mistake the judges did not, even if it is likely.
So this is combination trap disabler and lock picker. I think it does too much. I also don't like the idea of being attuned to a trap. I know the word attuned was not used in your item, but if distance means I have to make the save anyway that is the best word I can think of.
An item that makes you better at picking locks and/or disabling traps, and had a second minor feature would have been better than something that does it for you, but always puts you at risk.I like the idea of it, but not the execution.
What do you think of this version (the one with the edits that I meant to post last time)
** spoiler omitted **
If a party has no rogue then they should be stuff with having to think their way past traps and locks to a large extent. Bypassing the lock is not so much a big deal, but traps are actually XP so the party should have to deal with them on their own.
An 85% chance to bypass a trap is not much different than a device allowing you to speak the correct words to get your desired results in a social encounter(challenge).Helm of Etiquette: This Helm is regal in it's appearance, and whenever you would commit a faux paux the item corrects your badly chosen words. Instead of rolling a diplomacy check(replacing the disable device check in your case) roll the percentile dice. If you get 85 or below you get the desired results.
I don't think my Helm of Etiquette would make it at most tables. Now I understand a social encounter is not a trap, and the ramifications are different, but at the time my fake item is similar to your item.
Maybe assigning an actual disable device check modifier to the mouse would be better, and/or making it a limited use item or a one use item.
Door Mouse
As someone who plays rogues often I really like this item. A lot. The only qualm i have with it is the part where the "wielder" still takes damage from the trap if it's set off.
My first thought: the percentage chance to set the trap goes up from 15% to 30% or 40%, what have you. If tripped the trap makes a sunder check against the mouse, potentially destroying it.
As a result of it's potential to be destroyed, maybe it's cost should be lessened.
However, let me reiterate: I really like this item! the image of the party rogue (or whoever) sending out this little mouse to do his dirty work fits in with what i call a smart character - why risk your life if you don't have to? I do understand why the judges might not have liked it, given that it reduces risk to the party... But i don't necessarily agree in this case.
D20 games all seem like constant arms races between the PCs and the NPCs - the Door Mouse hardly seems like an unbalancing item when compared to things like Cape of the Mountebank or spells like Windwalk.
My issue with the 15% chance was the no matter the the complexity of the trap the chance is the same. Pit trap(DC 15) or some mechanical device that can make the entire room collapse, and rebuild itself(DC 35).
Another issue is that what if the result of the trap are location based. Does the mouse teleport the monster to you or you to the monster if it a trap that summons a monster, as an example. I have seen traps where it would require a lot of GM adjudication to make the trap work across distance.
PS:I do wish my item has been as flavorful as his though.
edit:moved the "DC 35"
|
|
You should keep a copy of all items(anything submitted if you make to later rounds in the future) exactly as they were presented to the judges. You might catch a mistake the judges did not, even if it is likely.
So this is combination trap disabler and lock picker. I think it does too much. I also don't like the idea of being attuned to a trap. I know the word attuned was not used in your item, but if distance means I have to make the save anyway that is the best word I can think of.
An item that makes you better at picking locks and/or disabling traps, and had a second minor feature would have been better than something that does it for you, but always puts you at risk.I like the idea of it, but not the execution.
What do you think of this version (the one with the edits that I meant to post last time)
** spoiler omitted **
If a party has no rogue then they should be stuff with having to think their way past traps and locks to a large extent. Bypassing the lock is not so much a big deal, but traps are actually XP so the party should have to deal with them on their own.
An 85% chance to bypass a trap is not much different than a device allowing you to speak the correct words to get your desired results in a social encounter(challenge).Helm of Etiquette: This Helm is regal in it's appearance, and whenever you would commit a faux paux the item corrects your badly chosen words. Instead of rolling a diplomacy check(replacing the disable device check in your case) roll the percentile dice. If you get 85 or below you get the desired results.
I don't think my Helm of Etiquette would make it at most tables. Now I understand a social encounter is not a trap, and the ramifications are different, but at the time my fake item is similar to your item.
Maybe assigning an actual disable device check modifier to the mouse would be better, and/or making it a limited use item or a one use item.
What do you think, 3 times per day?