Phrases that are driving you bonkers

[Sulaco]

I second "attune" as another irksome phrase. I'm finding the plethora of magical cell phones to be somewhat annoying.

[Matthew Morris]

Zeeboo wrote:

Covent wrote:

Coridan wrote:

Covent, I am curious. Are the ones you liked showing up again and again or only ones you havent liked?

Honestly I see a much larger repeat rate on what I would consider substandard items. On the excellent items I have only seen them a few times each. In one case only twice.

I am off topic here, but is it good to have not seen my item after many many hours of voting? I keep seeing the same items again and again - it is great to actually see a new item once in a while.

Now back to topic, my newest dislike is the "to activate this item, open up your jugular vein and drain 8d6 points of blood, which the item consumes with relish...."

Will it be satisfied for Saurkraut or onions, if you don't have relish?

[R D Ramsey]

I've seen a decent camping item.

I've even seen a messaging item I liked and would support for top 64, if not top 32.

I've certainly seen top 32 SIAC.

There are no absolute rules.

[Coridan]

I am seeing lately items that do the same thing as PRD items ( ring of sustenence, glove of storing) but at a higher cost. O.o

[Mikko Kallio]

Drejk wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

I think the stigma against something being a spell in a can is over-done. Some of the best items in the game are spell-in-a-can. The thing is the low hanging spell in a can fruit has been picked many times over.

I agree completely. Spells-in-a-can are easy to made and can be very decent items but they often lack that spark which would turn them into something greater than decent item.

Since the voting started I have seen a lot of decent spell-in-a-can items that were good items that could show in published modules but only a few of them were reaching beyond decent-but-unimpressive.

A SIAC played straight is boring and won't make you look very creative. However, a spell effect twisted and changed in a clever way is good design. What's great about these pseudo-SIACs is that you don't need that many words to explain an effect.

[Anthony Adam]

You know what's driving me bonkers most recently...

a new "voting" thread opening every day >.<

When in the forums, click "General Discussion", it's a link that lists all the threads so you don't have to duplicate, triplicate, quadricate or quinticate threads already in existence >.<

[Cthulhudrew]

Whale_Cancer wrote:

Doesn't that qualify under 'no camping items'?

Ah, of course. I'm a bit slow this morning. For some reason I wasn't equating sleeping with camping. Probably because I don't care for the latter and didn't get near enough of the former last night. :)

[michael patrick]

wow.

I just saw a word I was not familiar with in the name of an item. The item opposite it used the same exact word. It is not frequently I see a word I don't know in general, but to see it twice side by side?

It is like "Garflesnorp of Power" compared to "Skeletal Garflesnorp"

wow.

[michael patrick]

Also- one of the Garflesnorp is just COVERED in filigree

[donato]

"...after 24 hours the item's abilities will become known..."

[Ziv Wities]

michaeljpatrick wrote:

I just saw a word I was not familiar with in the name of an item. The item opposite it used the same exact word. It is not frequently I see a word I don't know in general, but to see it twice side by side?

I'm getting some weird pairings that seem too good to be coincidental...

I just got a pair where both items had long, alliterative names :P

[Sigz]

Some items are seriously missing the [evil] descriptor. Not a phrase, I know, but it's something I notice.

[agirlnamedbob]

Clouds Without Water wrote:

I've seen a decent camping item.

I've even seen a messaging item I liked and would support for top 64, if not top 32.

I've certainly seen top 32 SIAC.

There are no absolute rules.

I am so right there with you. I've also seen one "superficial change" item that I actually liked quite a bit. It was presented well and I've played characters who would use items like that.

The fact of the matter is, I think a well put-together item is still going to shine, even if it uses one of the afforementioned phrases or breaks one of Sean's "rules."

They're really more guidelines, anyway... and I will happily sift through all of the "rule-breakers" that maybe missed the mark or needed more polishing to get there in order to find the one pulled it off.

[Mikko Kallio]

Sigz wrote:

Some items are seriously missing the [evil] descriptor. Not a phrase, I know, but it's something I notice.

Are descriptors supposed to be included? As far as I remember, ultimate equipment only lists the schools. no subschools, no descriptors. Or am I wrong?

[Whale_Cancer]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Sigz wrote:

Some items are seriously missing the [evil] descriptor. Not a phrase, I know, but it's something I notice.

Are descriptors supposed to be included? As far as I remember, ultimate equipment only lists the schools. no subschools, no descriptors. Or am I wrong?

Darkskull, Robe of Bones, and Phylactery of Negative Channeling have the [evil] descriptor.

[Starglim]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Sigz wrote:

Some items are seriously missing the [evil] descriptor. Not a phrase, I know, but it's something I notice.

Are descriptors supposed to be included? As far as I remember, ultimate equipment only lists the schools. no subschools, no descriptors. Or am I wrong?

Detect magic identifies the item's school of magic but not subschools or descriptors. The detect [alignment] spells pick up items that are chaotic, evil, good or lawful. Thus I believe an item should list its school and, if applicable, alignment, but other descriptors serve no game purpose.

[CouncilofFools]

Sulaco wrote:

The "this item is favoured by" chestnut has been brought up many times, but I'm starting to wince and grit my teeth every time I see "this item appears to be".

Any other repetitious or meaningless phrases getting on your nerves?

I wonder if I would have been so annoyed by "this item is favored by" if a judge hadn't suggested it was annoying. I actually left it out of my submission based on this criticism. The power of suggestion is powerful from them as they are in a strong position to influence us.

I hope people can look past the tropes that seem to be rampant in many of the submissions so as to find the "mojo"... Yet another judge...ism that has stuck with me. ;)

[michael patrick]

Next year I will develop an item that magically applies filigree to lanterns. That should be a hit.

[Eric Morton]

"...clairaudience/clairvoyance, dimension door..."

(Actually not driving me bonkers, just something I've seen quite a few times now.)

[Magical_Beast]

michaeljpatrick wrote:

Next year I will develop an item that magically applies filigree to lanterns. That should be a hit.

If it is full of wisps of shadow and also drinks the blood of the bearer, you sir, have yourself a winner.

[Drejk]

Magical_Beast wrote:

michaeljpatrick wrote:

Next year I will develop an item that magically applies filigree to lanterns. That should be a hit.

If it is full of wisps of shadow and also drinks the blood of the bearer, you sir, have yourself a winner.

Only if it has black, doom and shadow in its name, in any order.

[Jeff Lee]

The Black Doomquill of Shadow Filigree

[BladeMaster0182]

Every item that has a humble, simple, mundane, or nondescript apperance. Stop it. Just stop it. We get it. You were too lazy to think of an item description. Now just stop it.

[zylphryx]

michaeljpatrick wrote:

Next year I will develop an item that magically applies filigree to lanterns. That should be a hit.

But only if you are wearing sandals and hand wraps while camping ...

On the subject of the OP, having the item be tied with a specific Golarion nation/region/etc. ... but that also ties in with the back story issue.

Also, "this item was created by Mr./Ms./Mrs./Dr./etc. X" ... would this not indicate a unique item? AAARRRRGGHHH!!!!!!

I have more and more respect for the judges of the previous contests the more items I read through ...

[thunderspirit]

Belladonna Blue wrote:

Coridan wrote:

I saw an item that said it was useless in the first sentence, then described the uses for it o.o

I saw one like that, too. It made me chuckle. It's completely useless, but it casts meteor swarm 3x a day, makes the user impervious to death, mind control and overdraft fees...

I would buy a magic item that made me impervious to overdraft fees.

Just sayin'... ;-)

[Victoria Jaczko]

thunderspirit wrote:

Belladonna Blue wrote:

Coridan wrote:

I saw an item that said it was useless in the first sentence, then described the uses for it o.o

I saw one like that, too. It made me chuckle. It's completely useless, but it casts meteor swarm 3x a day, makes the user impervious to death, mind control and overdraft fees...

I would buy a magic item that made me impervious to overdraft fees.

Just sayin'... ;-)

Me too. And I certainly wouldn't call it useless! :)

[Steven Helt]

I hate all of these pretty much equally, but if there's a trend in theae items that seems to really sour my mood, it's the half dozen items I keep seeinv that generate shadowy, incorporeal affects (ha!) that are designed to manipulate items or make CMB checks. They're incorporeal, folks! Stop the madness!

[Orcus Of Undeath]

"This mundane looking..." or "Upon closer inspection..."

This item pretty much looses my vote instantly.

[Maurice de Mare]

Items that cost more than 50,000 gp and provide nothing interesting for that amount of gold.

That drives me bonkers.

[MidknightDiamond]

"Originally created by/for..." and pretty much any history or backstory. Especially irksome is the item telling me it is only created by say... the gnomes of Keeblerville, and yet "creator must be a gnome" is not a requirement.

[michael patrick]

Just saw an item that was similar to what I almost did with my item last year. It was an idea I didn't use, but came very close to using. Glad to know that I didn't use an idea someone else came up with (as far as I know).

[Curchanus]

Pet peeve, When an obviously consumable object does not say its consumable. Like a pouch which is thrown in the air for x effect, costs less than 1000 gp and does not say the epic effect it does results in its destruction, nor states its consumable anywhere in its description.

Its odd to see that mostly overpowered & underpriced, or underpowered & overpriced are the items to choose from, I really have seen too few prices I agree with :/

[Garrett Guillotte]

In order of frequency from most to least in my voting notes, minimum 3 appearances:

• description contains "magnificent", "utilized", "etc.", or "e.g."
  
• "+5 competence bonus"
  
• the cost is more than 100,000 gp
  
• item creates at least one invincible duplicate or illusion that's impossible to disbelieve
  
• item has CL 1st but clearly is not CL 1st
  
• the cost isn't half of the price
  
• the cost is less than 100 gp
  
• item changes everyone's attitude to the wearer; no save allowed
  
• item instantly ends combat; no save allowed
  
• item's effects can be resisted, but the effective (or explicit) DC is 40 or more. Did I mention it was CL 3rd?
  
• an item, spell, setting element, or rule from a core book or the PRD is misspelled or misstated the same way multiple times
  
• item is just like an existing item, but is described by how different it is from the other item to the point that it's not like the original item at all
  
• item is just like another item, except it doesn't have any of the original item's limits
  
• item is/creates an infinite, unlimited mundane consumable (food, ammunition) with no restrictions
  
• "if your are", "if your have"
  
• item grants a skill-like ability but can only be used by characters with feats, special abilities, or enough ranks in that skill to not need the ability
  
• item grants a class ability to the bearer but can only be worn or created by a member of that class
  
• item provides a small benefit at a potentially fatal cost
  
• item is CL Xth, has a requirement that creator must be Xth level
  
• item summons something that isn't in or based on anything in the PRD and isn't statted
  
• the wondrous item is a vampire (shorthanded in my notes as "Billy Corgan")
  
• item has a SIAC effect that is both use-activated and perpetually activated with no difference
  
• it does what an ioun stone does, and its physical description is "like a ioun stone" (HOW? HOW DID MORE THAN TWO OF YOU DO THIS?)
  

[Gary Teter]

Removed a couple posts. Please don't quote exact phrases from individual items.

[atomicb]

Garrett Guillotte wrote:

the wondrous item is a vampire (shorthanded in my notes as "Billy Corgan")

Ha! This is the best. I will be daydreaming of this parody song.

I wish more people knew what it's means.

[Tripp Elliott]

Voted on three items in a row made of troll parts!

[Anthony Adam]

Damned regeneration :P

[KingmanHighborn]

Coridan wrote:

Andrew Black wrote:

There are a lot of great items in the mix, many would be good in a book of magic items or as part of a specific adventure that ignore the SKR advice. The items I want to see in the top 32 are the extreamly creative ones that fit the Fantasy Game setting and avoid the pitfalls of being just another cool magic item.

I have not seen any items like that. Even my own which I designed as a kind of Volvo. Solid, nice, reliable magic item and neat to boot. There has not been any in my pairs I would call Mercedes.

So you haven't seen any items that are way overpriced, break down constaintly, purchased by horrible drivers, and need a computer techincan to fix it, more then a real mechanic?...Just curious. ^-^

As far as the phrase that is annoying me it's the "Soandso's _____ of _____" I was glad they dropped that silliness in D&D and happy it didn't show up in Pathfinder.

[James Raine]

You know what's driving me nuts? Two big things.

1. Items that don't do anything. That's right. I've found at least five thus far that don't actually do anything by themselves: they just reiterate existing game mechanics from elsewhere that are readily available for anyone to use.

2. A typo in your item's title. Seriously, if you can't be bothered to spell a word right in your item's title, I frankly can't be bothered to read the item. I can forgive a typo or two in the item's text (since no one is perfect), but the title? :|

[Jeff Lee]

James Raine wrote:

You know what's driving me nuts?

That ship's wheel attached to your belt buckle? ba-dum-ching!

Seriously though:

Quote:

1. Items that don't do anything. That's right. I've found at least five thus far that don't actually do anything by themselves: they just reiterate existing game mechanics from elsewhere that are readily available for anyone to use.

2. A typo in your item's title. Seriously, if you can't be bothered to spell a word right in your item's title, I frankly can't be bothered to read the item. I can forgive a typo or two in the item's text (since no one is perfect), but the title? :|

1. I've seen them to and had to reread, then read it again, and finally scratch my head and vote for the other item.

2. That kills me too, but I still mark it as an overall formatting error and take the time to read the submission. I'd hate pass up a good item just because the person had nervous fingers during submission.

[Shadders]

Garrett Guillotte, I have a little chuckle now whenever I come across a "Billy Corgan" item. Thank you. :-)

[Dan Jones]

I'm kind of sick of "fist-sized" orbs, baubles, boulders, stones, chunks of rock, pieces of metal, spheres of crystal, etc. etc.

I'm also sick of hearing about some legendary famous original creator I've never heard of because he's not actually legendary or famous.

I'm kind of peeved at non-standard save DCs. Heighten Spell exists for a reason.

Super-duper expensive SIAC are getting kind of ridiculous, as are 100,000+ gp items or 10,000+ gp one-use items. Or magic items that cost several lifetimes wealth to give a tiny mundane bonus that can be achieved a different way. Like, "This magical anvil grants you a +2 bonus on Craft armor checks forging mithril horseshoes for undead nightmares." A commoner blacksmith can just get Skill Focus craft metalworking (works for all metals and all metal items, not just mithril and/or horseshoes, regardless of the amount of death the horse-like monster that is probably immune to undeath actually has), or he can get a masterwork anvil or hammer (masterwork tool), or he can just pay a couple silver pieces (or maybe even copper pieces!) for an (untrained) assistant to give him a +2 Aid Another bonus by just taking 10 on a Craft check. He's not going to spend 30,000 gp for such a paltry bonus. And neither is 99.9999999% of PCs. Quite possibly literally.

I'm also not a fan of items that have major penalties for use, especially if they can either be totally ignored (grafting these claws to your hands take 1 hour and hurt a lot--just graft them on your day off!) or totally overwhelm the benefit (this iron helmet gets nailed directly into your head, granting you a +1 armor bonus to AC but subjecting you to 2d6 points of Dex drain).

Yuck. Enough ranting by me!!! :-P

[Darkwolf117]

Dan Jones wrote:

... 10,000+ gp one-use items.

I agree with most of what you said, but this is actually something I've found interesting on a few. It's not a very common design choice, and if the effect is actually interesting and/or worth its cost, it may get my vote (depending on how broken/balanced or stupid/cool its opponent is, of course).

Also, I'm kind of thinking of this as a blanket 'consumable.' Some of the ones I'm thinking of were certainly consumables, but did have at least a couple uses. 10K or more for an actual single use item is less cool (though again, sorta depends on what it does as well).

Garrett Guilotte wrote:

the cost isn't half of the price

Funny thing, I actually thought this at first for one item, then remembered that material costs on certain spells are usually factored in identically in the price/cost. So, while it looked off at first, the item in question was actually done correctly.

Of course, if you mean for things that obviously do not have that excuse, then yes, that is a problem :P

[Cheapy]

I have a fear that some interesting items that would've hit the top 32 in previous years won't this year due to tripping one of the voters' pet peeves, and the voters' not being able to look past that. Or if the item is too long, and due to the rate that people go through these they just think "Eh, this item is too long" and voting for the other, all while missing the subtlety that makes the longer one well designed. I suppose the subtlety issue exists for shorter items as well.

Here's to hoping that the system works!

[michael patrick]

Cheapy- I wouldn't worry about that. The voters are not all of one mind I am certain.

[Matthew Morris]

I went through a couple just now where I kept thinking, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[Jacob W. Michaels]

Inconceivable!

[Drejk]

And I learned a new English word.

[Garrett Guillotte]

Darkwolf117 wrote:

Funny thing, I actually thought this at first for one item, then remembered that material costs on certain spells are usually factored in identically in the price/cost. So, while it looked off at first, the item in question was actually done correctly.

Of course, if you mean for things that obviously do not have that excuse, then yes, that is a problem :P

Good point. It looks like the two that were bad enough on that mistake to make my notes had a cost that was lower than half the price, which I can't figure out how to legitimately do. Are there groupons in Golarion?

[michael patrick]

The plethora of items that allow ease of travel (teleporting, dimension door, extra-planar travel, flying goats, etc.) leads me to believe that a lot of the entrants really hate getting from point A to point B. Getting there is half the fun. That's pretty much what fantasy fiction is all about.