Phrases that are driving you bonkers

[Monica Marlowe]

MidknightDiamond wrote:

mamaursula wrote:

MidknightDiamond wrote:

Okay... so there's some 18 different types of bonuses (alchemical, armor, circumstance, competence, deflection, dodge, enhancement, insight, luck, morale, natural armor, profane, racial, resistance, sacred, shield, size, and trait) as well as the plain "bonus" so... 19 total.

I understand that not all of those bonus types are appropriate for some items types but something, anything, other than "competence bonus" would be a nice change of pace.

As has been pointed out there are plenty of core items and powers that grant competence bonuses. Some items may have deliberately picked matching bonuses to keep them from stacking and unbalancing play. It's a fine line to walk and I think that the designer who looks at the over all system before making an item is far more desirable than the aforementioned "attune for 24 hours then rule the world" items that are still being voted on.

Yes, but it still doesn't mean that seeing it over and over again doesn't drive one "bonkers"... hence the thread.

As I've said elsewhere, many of the phrases pointed out here doesn't make for an autofail either, it's just that we're seeing them so often we have to let off steam somehow.

I can see where that could be the case, I just wanted to be certain that people weren't mistaking "game balance" for "bad design". Filigree and gossamer don't mean it's a bad item either I suppose, but it does mean that those people will be getting thesauruses for their next birthday.

[MidknightDiamond]

mamaursula wrote:

I can see where that could be the case, I just wanted to be certain that people weren't mistaking "game balance" for "bad design". Filigree and gossamer don't mean it's a bad item either I suppose, but it does mean that those people will be getting thesauruses for their next birthday.

As you mentioned, it can be a fine line to walk. I just like to see the more outside the box type uses--competency, while useful for many many reasons, just feels safe to me, low risk.

I'll still take all the filigree, Fleur-de-lis, gossamer, shadows of doom over the Doctor Who and Mary Poppins items I've seen.

[Jeff Lee]

MidknightDiamond wrote:

I'll still take all the filigree, Fleur-de-lis, gossamer, shadows of doom over the Doctor Who and Mary Poppins items I've seen.

Terry Pratchett...Venture Bros...

[Monica Marlowe]

MidknightDiamond wrote:

As you mentioned, it can be a fine line to walk. I just like to see the more outside the box type uses--competency, while useful for many many reasons, just feels safe to me, low risk.

I'll still take all the filigree, Fleur-de-lis, gossamer, shadows of doom over the Doctor Who and Mary Poppins items I've seen.

Or the Fable/video game items. We have established pet names for the worst offenders. I'm still working out a voting-drinking game.

[MidknightDiamond]

mamaursula wrote:

MidknightDiamond wrote:

As you mentioned, it can be a fine line to walk. I just like to see the more outside the box type uses--competency, while useful for many many reasons, just feels safe to me, low risk.

I'll still take all the filigree, Fleur-de-lis, gossamer, shadows of doom over the Doctor Who and Mary Poppins items I've seen.

Or the Fable/video game items. We have established pet names for the worst offenders. I'm still working out a voting-drinking game.

Oh nice! If you finish that I'd LOVE the rules for it. My fiance' and I generally vote together too and that would just be hilarious.

[Aaron Miller 335]

I think I just had that one that they used that word but didn't know what it means?

[MidknightDiamond]

Aaron Miller 335 wrote:

I think I just had that one that they used that word but didn't know what it means?

Evil! You have me all curious and we can't say anything about it. *sigh* This is what I get for trying to go for the Marathon tag.

[Jacob Trier]

Jerry Keyes wrote:

I've noticed an interesting trend with entries having "charges". When did this become so popular? I only recall two Wondrous items having charges (Cube of Force and Gem of Seeing), and only one that would recharge every day.

Normally an item is limited by hit dice, rounds, targets, etc. As a GM I'm not a big fan of charges since it's bookkeeping across sessions (which players aren't always great at). But I'm old and set in my ways. ;)

What is everyone else's feelings on the subject of charges? Is it the wave of the future?

I think some of it might be due to several of the 2012 Top 32 items, including my own, had some sort of recharge mechanic, most of which got positive mention from the judges.

[Eric Morton]

James Raine wrote:

Wow, my "I'm not voting for this item because it doesn't make thematic sense" nemesis just won a vote from me for being paired against an item that made less thematic sense, did more things, and was altogether not interesting.

I've found myself yelling, "Look what you made me vote for," at the screen quite a bit lately.

[Ziv Wities]

Jerry Keyes wrote:

I've noticed an interesting trend with entries having "charges". When did this become so popular?

<snip>
What is everyone else's feelings on the subject of charges? Is it the wave of the future?

Similar to what I said on the subject of attunement, I think charges are a natural specifically for the innovative, mechanics-playful nature of RPG Superstar.

It fixes the price range. Using charges is one of the main way to drastically reduce the price of a high-level effect. That's often desirable, and sometimes necessary, since magic items are often underpowered relative to a spellcaster attempting the same effects.

It provides flexibility and balance. A lot of items use charges like staves do - one charge for a minor power, more for a major power. This can be abused, but if it's well-done, then it's smart design - it provides a clear mechanism for balancing between two powers of wildly different magnitude.

Sometimes, "consumable" is the right use-pattern. Most Superstar items are simply not as straight-out useful as a +N weapon. Some are very niche - they'll be really awesome in some situations, but they probably won't see much everyday use. So, let's say you see your item being knock-dead awesome about 10 times throughout a standard campaign. Do you make it a once-a-day item? That'd be overkill, and it'd mean the price would be figured for way more use than you're actually getting. A once-a-week item? Maybe, but what if 2 of those 10 times were in the same week? That'd suck. Or, hey, you could give it 15 charges, and get exactly what you want.

Recharge methods give you an extra layer of complexity. Again, Superstar items often look for ways to do things differently. It may not be better, but at very least you can aim for being fresh. An expend/recharge mechanic adds that extra complexity - and if it's done well, it can be a cool mechanic that directs you to using the item in a more interesting or thematic manner.

In the first year of Superstar, the coin belt of beguiling did nicely specifically because its use of charges was very well-considered - it had a cool visualization, where coins are detached from the belt in order to consume charges, and overall it had great flavor. Charges can be cumbersome and make using items less fun, but - like anything else - if they're done well, they certainly have their uses :)

[MicMan]

I like items that are usable once per day better. It drives down the price as well and it forces interesting choices (use it now or kepp it for later). In the hands of the wrong people charged items almost never get used or get always used and then the player complains about the item being now useless.

[Ziv Wities]

Eric Morton wrote:

James Raine wrote:

Wow, my "I'm not voting for this item because it doesn't make thematic sense" nemesis just won a vote from me for being paired against an item that made less thematic sense, did more things, and was altogether not interesting.

I've found myself yelling, "Look what you made me vote for," at the screen quite a bit lately.

Don't think of it as voting up the bad item; think of it as voting down the one that's even worse. It's an "OMG this is even WORSE than Twilight!!!1" kind of thing.

Maybe next year, they can double the buttons - for each item, have one button reading "the tamagutchi of cohesiveness is BETTER", and another rading "the tamagutchi of cohesiveness is WORSE". It'll be identical to the current setup, but everyone'll feel a whole lot better about it.

[Eric Morton]

I'd rather have a "tamagutchie of cohesiveness should DIE IN A FIRE" button.

[Dan Jones]

I rather like the charged items. One of my favorite items from the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium was the belt of battle. It gave a constant +2 bonus to initiative, and had 3 daily charges. As a swift action, you could spend 1 or more charges: 1 gave you an extra move action, 2 an extra standard action, and 3 an extra full-round action. I DMed for a ranger archer with one, and he made lots of great tactical decisions using that item.

[Dan Jones]

Dan Jones wrote:

I rather like the charged items. One of my favorite items from the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium was the belt of battle. It gave a constant +2 bonus to initiative, and had 3 daily charges. As a swift action, you could spend 1 or more charges: 1 gave you an extra move action, 2 an extra standard action, and 3 an extra full-round action. I DMed for a ranger archer with one, and he made lots of great tactical decisions using that item.

EDIT: This is actually the standard I judge all wondrous items by. I compare them to this item.

[Joseph Kellogg]

Here's something else that bothers me: Consumables that come with a number of multiple uses, determined randomly. That works fine if you find it as loot, but what if you craft it?

"I spent all that money crafting my dust of dustiness, but since I rolled a 1 on my d6, it only came with 3 pinches!"

[Monica Marlowe]

MidknightDiamond wrote:

MidknightDiamond wrote:

Or the Fable/video game items. We have established pet names for the worst offenders. I'm still working out a voting-drinking game.

Oh nice! If you finish that I'd LOVE the rules for it. My fiance' and I generally vote together too and that would just be hilarious.

The rules are easy!

If you see a new item - you take a drink.
If you see an item you've seen before - you take a drink.
If you see an item you hate but have to vote for it - you take a drink.
If you see an item you love - you take a drink.
If you see two items on the screen - you take a drink.
If you see your own item - you chug your beverage.

I highly recommend stocking up before you get started.

[James Raine]

That sounds like a hospital trip.

[Jon Haire]

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Here's something else that bothers me: Consumables that come with a number of multiple uses, determined randomly. That works fine if you find it as loot, but what if you craft it?

"I spent all that money crafting my dust of dustiness, but since I rolled a 1 on my d6, it only came with 3 pinches!"

I think the consumables should be moved out of the wondrous item category and put into a consumable category. Potions, scrolls, elixirs, dust, bags of tricks, cards, etc. I do like a well designed consumable, however.

Last year my entry was a consumable that allowed a second skin to grow over the character's existing skin for a short time.

[Monica Marlowe]

James Raine wrote:

That sounds like a hospital trip.

Cayden Cailean is my copilot.

Though I should probably amend my rules to add -

If you see more than two items on the screen - stop voting.

[Andrew Marlowe]

Breelo Babblebock wrote:

I think the consumables should be moved out of the wondrous item category and put into a consumable category. Potions, scrolls, elixirs, dust, bags of tricks, cards, etc. I do like a well designed consumable, however.

Last year my entry was a consumable that allowed a second skin to grow over the character's existing skin for a short time.

I disagree. Some consumables are actually quite good wondrous items and are definitely not in the same category as potions and scrolls which are exclusively one off spells in a can.

[Jon Haire]

Andrew Marlowe wrote:

Breelo Babblebock wrote:

I think the consumables should be moved out of the wondrous item category and put into a consumable category. Potions, scrolls, elixirs, dust, bags of tricks, cards, etc. I do like a well designed consumable, however.

Last year my entry was a consumable that allowed a second skin to grow over the character's existing skin for a short time.

I disagree. Some consumables are actually quite good wondrous items and are definitely not in the same category as potions and scrolls which are exclusively one off spells in a can.

I never said they weren't good. If I were grouping items, I would put the consumables in one category and have specific rules for their creation. I would also probably have a category for worn or slot items with specifc rules for their creation. Anything that does not have a slot or is not consumable would be a third category of items. Wondrous is a pretty generic term and already includes some weapons and armor.

[James Raine]

...no it doesn't.

[Whale_Cancer]

James Raine wrote:

...no it doesn't.

Necklace of Fireballs? Bracers of Armor?

[Andrew Marlowe]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to imply you thought they were bad. I was just trying to make the point that unique consumables are different than scrolls and potions.

That said--I have liked what you are suggesting when it has been implemented in other games--I guess some days I'm too much of a traditionalist. What can I say? I like the broad scope of wondrous items.

[Iain Reid]

Dan Jones wrote:

Dan Jones wrote:

I rather like the charged items. One of my favorite items from the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium was the belt of battle. It gave a constant +2 bonus to initiative, and had 3 daily charges. As a swift action, you could spend 1 or more charges: 1 gave you an extra move action, 2 an extra standard action, and 3 an extra full-round action. I DMed for a ranger archer with one, and he made lots of great tactical decisions using that item.

EDIT: This is actually the standard I judge all wondrous items by. I compare them to this item.

The belt of battle was overpowered, especially at high level. The 3 charge use was essentially a minimised timestop (9th level spell) where you rolled 1 on the 1d4, usable once/day, for only 12K, with half of a (stackable) Improved Initiative thrown in as icing on the cake.

I played in many Living Greyhawk games where people were equipped with 3 belts of battle, one for each combat of the day. When your item is being bought like that, and is a cookie-cutter solution to almost any fight, something has gone wrong.

[Jon Haire]

Andrew Marlowe wrote:

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't trying to imply you thought they were bad. I was just trying to make the point that unique consumables are different than scrolls and potions.

That said--I have liked what you are suggesting when it has been implemented in other games--I guess some days I'm too much of a traditionalist. What can I say? I like the broad scope of wondrous items.

Yeah, I'm not trying to pick a fight either. As I vote, I tend to organize these items into categories and I find myself comparing them to existing items.

I'm seeing things in the contest that are weapons, armor, spell-completion devices, etc... Makes the voting harder.

[cwslyclgh]

James Raine wrote:

...no it doesn't.

maul of the titans? gauntlets of anything (gauntlets are listed on the weapon table in the equipment chapter)... etc.

[James Raine]

Whale_Cancer wrote:

James Raine wrote:

...no it doesn't.

Necklace of Fireballs? Bracers of Armor?

Those are not weapons or armor. They are SIACs, the latter being a modular version of mage armor.

cwslyclgh wrote:

James Raine wrote:

...no it doesn't.

maul of the titans? gauntlets of anything (gauntlets are listed on the weapon table in the equipment chapter)... etc.

Maul of the titans shouldn't be a wondrous item, but in this instance is the exception that proves the rule. If someone were to enter the greathammer of the giants or something into RPG Superstar, I'm fairly certain they'd be disqualified. Gauntlets are incidentally weapons.

[Andrew Marlowe]

Evil Paul wrote:

I played in many Living Greyhawk games where people were equipped with 3 belts of battle, one for each combat of the day. When your item is being bought like that, and is a cookie-cutter solution to almost any fight, something has gone wrong.

Could you really do that legally? I have the MIC but we seldom use it but I thought you had to spend a day attuning those belts before they worked...maybe that was an early house rule at my table though.

[Whale_Cancer]

James Raine wrote:

Whale_Cancer wrote:

James Raine wrote:

...no it doesn't.

Necklace of Fireballs? Bracers of Armor?

Those are not weapons or armor. They are SIACs, the latter being a modular version of mage armor.

It's an issue of game terminology vs natural language.

There are things that are weapons and armor (natural language definition) and are counted as wondrous items.

Weapons and armor (game term) are never wondrous items (with the exception of gauntlets).

[James Raine]

Alright, well, my point stands that "Wondrous Item" is a broad-but-well-defined region of item-design-space.

[Iain Reid]

Andrew Marlowe wrote:

Evil Paul wrote:

I played in many Living Greyhawk games where people were equipped with 3 belts of battle, one for each combat of the day. When your item is being bought like that, and is a cookie-cutter solution to almost any fight, something has gone wrong.

Could you really do that legally? I have the MIC but we seldom use it but I thought you had to spend a day attuning those belts before they worked...maybe that was an early house rule at my table though.

It didn't need atunement. Regardless of if it did or not, and regardless of the errors in the item pricing, the issue was that it was an item that everyone would want, all of the time. This is very poor design. Even an item that everybody of one class would want, all of the time, is poor design.

For example a slotless item that allows a cleric to store overhealing is just bad design. It is just something that any healing cleric (ie, 90% of clerics) would always want. Pricing is irrelevant in this scenario - either it is priced too expensive (no buys), too cheap (wow, bargain), or correctly (fair enough), but the decision to buy is gone.

I've seen a few items that, while otherwise solid, fall into this trap. The cause is generally people thinking like a player, rather than as a game designer.

[Orthos]

I personally like charged items. Especially if the choice is between an item with charges that recharges itself over time, and another item that's single-use per day or, worse, single-use then becomes useless.

[The Crusader]

"The true power of this item is only revealed..."

and the much less identifiable randomly thrown in power at the end of the description.

[Jeff Lee]

This shrimp fork allows the user to detect poison as an immediate action upon any food stuck to the fork. Also, it can transform into a 10th level ninja to defend the owner against attacks.

[Adam Moorhouse 759]

I find it helps to read them aloud in a british accent. The bad ones end up sounding like a Monty Python skit.

[Sean K Reynolds]

James Raine wrote:

Maul of the titans shouldn't be a wondrous item

FWIW, I agree 100%.

[Jon Haire]

Adam Moorhouse 759 wrote:

I find it helps to read them aloud in a british accent. The bad ones end up sounding like a Monty Python skit.

I posted this earlier on a different thread. I find myself using the voice Adam Sandler used in Billy Madison when he is in the bathtub comparing shampoo and conditioner.

Shampoo is better!

NOOOOOO.... Conditioner is better!

Stop staring at me swan.

[Ziv Wities]

Hmmm. Producing a "Dramatic Renditions of Selected Wondrous Items" podcast does sound like a fun community project... }:-D

[cmjohnst]

As far as the wondrous item as weapon debate goes, the only example I can think of from previous contests is the Malleus Maleficarum from the first year. While I don't necessarily subscribe to one philosophy or another, it's worth mentioning that the judges didn't bat an eye at the book being usable as a magical warhammer. Wondrous items, plain and simple, are just magical items which do something unique and interesting with the rules. If that something interesting involves acting like a weapon of some kind, I don't think it's a big deal!

[Anthony Adam]

Not a phrase as such but please dear god in heaven, please break down the walls of text.

Since the cull, it appears most of the paragraphs went with them.

[Dan Jones]

Evil Paul wrote:

Andrew Marlowe wrote:

Evil Paul wrote:

I played in many Living Greyhawk games where people were equipped with 3 belts of battle, one for each combat of the day. When your item is being bought like that, and is a cookie-cutter solution to almost any fight, something has gone wrong.

Could you really do that legally? I have the MIC but we seldom use it but I thought you had to spend a day attuning those belts before they worked...maybe that was an early house rule at my table though.

It didn't need atunement. Regardless of if it did or not, and regardless of the errors in the item pricing, the issue was that it was an item that everyone would want, all of the time. This is very poor design. Even an item that everybody of one class would want, all of the time, is poor design.

For example a slotless item that allows a cleric to store overhealing is just bad design. It is just something that any healing cleric (ie, 90% of clerics) would always want. Pricing is irrelevant in this scenario - either it is priced too expensive (no buys), too cheap (wow, bargain), or correctly (fair enough), but the decision to buy is gone.

I've seen a few items that, while otherwise solid, fall into this trap. The cause is generally people thinking like a player, rather than as a game designer.

I never thought of that. But I've usually played in campaigns that didn't have custom items, or lots of magic shops, so a lot of magic items were special. And very few players choose Item Creation feats in the campagins I've played in.

Except for one group of super power gamers. :-P

[John Bennett]

Eric Morton wrote:

I've found myself yelling, "Look what you made me vote for," at the screen quite a bit lately.

I'm staring at a pair of these now. Amazingly, this is the first time I've seen either of them.

[Fern Herold]

Shadowborn wrote:

MidknightDiamond wrote:

I'll still take all the filigree, Fleur-de-lis, gossamer, shadows of doom over the Doctor Who and Mary Poppins items I've seen.

Terry Pratchett...Venture Bros...

Haven't seen the Venture Brothers item. Have seen the Scooby-Doo item, though.

[Wolfboy]

This "Which worst is better" thing is starting to kill little pieces of my soul.

I'd say I couldn't fathom how the judges did it in years past, except that'd be a lie, thanks to the new voting scheme. At least they had the luxury of only having to look at design travesties once.

What's worse is that I'm continuing to see items I was voting down last week.

I've seen several new items, which is good. Have yet to see my own item, which makes me sad.

Condorcet, why dost thou vex me so?

[Andrew Black]

Breelo Babblebock wrote:

Adam Moorhouse 759 wrote:

I find it helps to read them aloud in a british accent. The bad ones end up sounding like a Monty Python skit.

I posted this earlier on a different thread. I find myself using the voice Adam Sandler used in Billy Madison when he is in the bathtub comparing shampoo and conditioner.

Shampoo is better!

NOOOOOO.... Conditioner is better!

Stop staring at me swan.

Oh There you are Penguin!

[Eric Morton]

Anthony Adam wrote:

Not a phrase as such but please dear god in heaven, please break down the walls of text.

Since the cull, it appears most of the paragraphs went with them.

I blame the preview button. Had it shown how paragraphs would look in split-screen format, I'm sure the authors of at least half of the problem items would have cringed in horror when they saw their sprawling walls of text.

[MicMan]

Also Paragraphs have a disadvantage: I tend to look at the second paragrahp first, because it usually explains what the item does. If I don't like that I don't read the rest and read the other item and only if that doesn't catch me either do I read all of the text.

Without paragraphs I am forced to at least browse the text from the beginning (unless I spot a "+", then I start reading there).