Judge Mark's Tips for Round 1

[Taylor Hubler]

My advice:

If you have a pile of items and are thinking too much about which of them to use don't use any of them. Toss them all out and start all over.

Not only will it free you up and reset your process, it will certainly help you in the long run.

[Andrew Marlowe]

My tip: Keep It Simple Superstars. Just use the words you need not the word count you have.

Most of the good entries are tight and lean and don't need the full 300 words. I noticed while voting the last couple of years "the wall of text" entries did not seem to fare as well with the voters.

This is not to say high word counts are bad. You can go too far on the other extreme too. Don't strip away what makes your item cool trying to pair it down. This is a balancing act.

Good luck.

[Anthony Adam]

Also, single paragraph 200 words is also wall of text.

Imagine you are using your item at the game table during a rule dispute - is it easy to scan and find the relevant parts of the effects, and any limitations?

Making it easy to scan and read makes it both

a) easy to use at the gaming table, and
b) easy to understand and vote on when we all read them to vote on :P

[Garrett Guillotte]

Andrew Marlowe wrote:

My tip: Keep It Simple Superstars. Just use the words you need not the word count you have.

Most of the good entries are tight and lean and don't need the full 300 words. I noticed while voting the last couple of years "the wall of text" entries did not seem to fare as well with the voters.

This is not to say high word counts are bad. You can go too far on the other extreme too. Don't strip away what makes your item cool trying to pair it down. This is a balancing act.

Good luck.

I didn't have time this year to update stat posts like this one, but the historical sweet spot has been 150-250 words. Still, there's usually a significant batch over 280 that make the Top 32.

[Anthony Adam]

Well, Template Fu, for the first time ever has hit the sweet spot range - the question is, have I just caused a major sweet spot shift and cursed everyone else in that range? :P

[Papasteve08]

Hrmm... Nope.

Nope.

Definitely not.

Uhhh....

Sweet! I have submitted an item that ignores every piece of advice on this thread.

Great job reading the threads before submitting dufus.

[Joey Haeck]

Papasteve08 wrote:

Hrmm... Nope.

Nope.

Definitely not.

Uhhh....

Sweet! I have submitted an item that ignores every piece of advice on this thread.

Great job reading the threads before submitting dufus.

Ignoring every single piece of advice on this thread is pretty exceptional. That takes moxie.

[Mark Seifter]

Joey Haeck wrote:

Papasteve08 wrote:

Hrmm... Nope.

Nope.

Definitely not.

Uhhh....

Sweet! I have submitted an item that ignores every piece of advice on this thread.

Great job reading the threads before submitting dufus.

Ignoring every single piece of advice on this thread is pretty exceptional. That takes moxie.

By my count, it also requires you to submit a staff that has no spells on it but is instead a wondrous item. I think it would almost take planning to do it.

[Taylor Hubler]

You know, it might be interesting to make an item that doesn't follow any of the advice and then not submit it to the contest but submit it to the critique thread as if you had. It would certainly keep those doing reviews and critiques on their toes.

[Papasteve08]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Joey Haeck wrote:

Papasteve08 wrote:

Hrmm... Nope.

Nope.

Definitely not.

Uhhh....

Sweet! I have submitted an item that ignores every piece of advice on this thread.

Great job reading the threads before submitting dufus.

Ignoring every single piece of advice on this thread is pretty exceptional. That takes moxie.

By my count, it also requires you to submit a staff that has no spells on it but is instead a wondrous item. I think it would almost take planning to do it.

...

... Who wants a staff that just has a spell list? Isn't that the opposite of superstar ideas? If a staff is just a clever combination of existing spells, no wonder everyone thinks it is hard mode.

What I really want to know is, why wouldn't EVERY item have wondrous item type, unique abilities? Isn't it the unique ideas that make an item superstar? If you ask me, (and obviously you shouldn't) every item should ring of wondrous item, otherwise its just a clever re-arrangement of stuff that already exists. That's boring. Maybe I approached this contest completely wrong, but in my opinion there isn't an item out there that isn't going to remind you somehow of a wondrous item.

As an example. Take the Groundbreaker Cloak from last year. Pretty sweet item. Now take +1 half plate, put a fin on it, and give it the same ability. Still pretty sweet. Same theme, same style, same unique and fun ability that made it superstar quality, except now it is halfplate instead of a cloak. Why would this be a bad thing?

Like I said, maybe I am way off base, maybe my item gets culled in the first few days. But I would rather submit an item with unique idea(s) than a clever rearrangement of something that already exists.

/Chucks two copper into the pool

[Mark Seifter]

A staff with only a list of spell trigger spells hardly seems Superstar, but on the other hand, a staff with no spell trigger spells is not a staff at all. There's a reason staves are hard mode.

[Orloff]

Mark Seifter wrote:

There's a reason staves are hard mode.

I'm starting to wonder if staves aren't so much hard mode as a trap to be avoided at all costs.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Orloff wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

There's a reason staves are hard mode.

I'm starting to wonder if staves aren't so much hard mode as a trap to be avoided at all costs.

Staves have room for lots of improvement over the way they are currently presented. Look back to some of the older editions, 3PP, or other game systems.

[Cthulhudrew]

I'm still wondering why rods aren't just lumped in with wondrous items myself.

(I imagine it's a legacy thing.)

[Omnitricks]

I'm putting the finishing touches to my item now but I just would like to ask:

Is making an item more beneficial to a race/class bad? (it can be used by anyone but those of the specified race/class can use it better)
Do the templates have to use the codes e.g. [][/] b,i,u, etc.

[Anthony Adam]

A couple years ago, I fell foul of single class item - voters who don't like/play that class tend to down vote such items.

If you have utility for all classes gives an item wider appeal, so as long as your "single class/race" is tempered without making it seem to be the only best choice for the item. And the item still provides real gain / benefits for general use, the you might get away with it.

It's a fine line to walk though, especially with the ebb and flow of public perceptions, desires, wants, likes and dislikes.

But that's part of the fun of entering :)

[Papasteve08]

Mark Seifter wrote:

A staff with only a list of spell trigger spells hardly seems Superstar, but on the other hand, a staff with no spell trigger spells is not a staff at all. There's a reason staves are hard mode.

With all due respect, I disagree. (and maybe part of the reason I'm not a judge, or have done anything of note in this contest).

A stave that has spell triggers from the existing plethora of spells across all of the paizo products is still just a rehash of existing products, and therefore not the intent of this contest by my understanding.

So we have three possibilities. It either has all existing spell triggers, it has a few spell triggers and unique abilities, or it has no spell triggers and all unique abilities. The first one is not superstar as has been discussed many many times over. Its the reason why SIAC and SAK are popular acronyms that any superstar veteran knows by heart. The last one, according to your advice, is against the rules. So the middle one is a combination of breaking both sets of rules.

In essence, the reason why staves are "hard mode" is because you have created a set of mutually exclusive conditions that the stave has to meet. I personally (again, disclaimer, good chance I am wrong here) think that misses the mark completely on the spirit of this yearly contest. (hat tip to Orloff - I think you are on the right track if this is the case, it isn't just hard mode, its an impossible task)

And maybe this is just an indication of how confusing rule number one is, but I think that rule eliminates every single unique idea out there. I would hate to see someone's great idea get downvoted because voters have convinced themselves it is a repurposed wondrous item. Because by that logic, the Groundbreaker's +1 Half plate would be discarded this year, when last year it was obviously a superstar idea.

[Nazard]

The whole "appeal to all the classes" shtick might actually be harder this year, as there aren't going to be too many fighters interested in a magic staff, or wizards interested in fancy plate mail (unless it has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance, in which case, it's an expensive pile of magical cheese).

Rings can be fairly universal, rods too, and simple weapons like daggers, but if someone has a cool idea for a magical tower shield, the "my witch/sorcerer/bard multiclass can't use that" argument isn't really a fair point to make against it.

[Anthony Adam]

That's an interesting idea there Nazard...

A fighter based staff with fighter based powers... very unique possibly?

[Omnitricks]

Well I just submitted mine. The class/race thing only makes it slightly more effective because it was initially for anyone to use but I'm not too sure about the price and CL thing. Hopefully both doesn't fudge everything up. :|

[Clay Clouser]

Papasteve08 wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

A staff with only a list of spell trigger spells hardly seems Superstar, but on the other hand, a staff with no spell trigger spells is not a staff at all. There's a reason staves are hard mode.

With all due respect, I disagree. (and maybe part of the reason I'm not a judge, or have done anything of note in this contest).

A stave that has spell triggers from the existing plethora of spells across all of the paizo products is still just a rehash of existing products, and therefore not the intent of this contest by my understanding.

So we have three possibilities. It either has all existing spell triggers, it has a few spell triggers and unique abilities, or it has no spell triggers and all unique abilities. The first one is not superstar as has been discussed many many times over. Its the reason why SIAC and SAK are popular acronyms that any superstar veteran knows by heart. The last one, according to your advice, is against the rules. So the middle one is a combination of breaking both sets of rules.

In essence, the reason why staves are "hard mode" is because you have created a set of mutually exclusive conditions that the stave has to meet. I personally (again, disclaimer, good chance I am wrong here) think that misses the mark completely on the spirit of this yearly contest. (hat tip to Orloff - I think you are on the right track if this is the case, it isn't just hard mode, its an impossible task)

And maybe this is just an indication of how confusing rule number one is, but I think that rule eliminates every single unique idea out there. I would hate to see someone's great idea get downvoted because voters have convinced themselves it is a repurposed wondrous item. Because by that logic, the Groundbreaker's +1 Half plate would be discarded this year, when last year it was obviously a superstar idea.

The third option you mention isn't against the rules as at that point you would just have a magical quarterstaff and would need to list it as such. What makes a staff a staff though is having spells, so yes to an extent it will be a rehash of current abilities. However, finding that sweet middle ground is what will make a superstar staff. It has to have a spell list to be a staff but it also has to have unique abilities and a tight theme that ties everything together.

To your second point about rule 1, you are absolutely right. There are items that can be easily re-purposed from wondrous to one of this years theme. The rule is really more for obv cases. Making up a item off the top of my head imagine you where voting and saw a +1 longsword that can be wrapped around the waist as a belt and then all its other abilities where belt related or had nothing to do with being a weapon,it obviously started as a belt and was shoe horned in because it was someones baby. Like you said though many superstar items last year could easily have been re purposed for this year. (to toot my own horn) My nightsbane quiver from last year for example could have been made into a bow with very minimal effort.

[Doc_Outlands]

Anthony Adam wrote:

That's an interesting idea there Nazard...

A fighter based staff with fighter based powers... very unique possibly?

Wow, that's ... DON'T DISTRACT ME!! MUST FOCUS ON MAP SKILLZ!

But yeah - having submitted my item for this round, this intrigues me. I may have to chase this rabbit a bit...just to see what happens...

[Doc_Outlands]

Clay Clouser wrote:

My nightsbane quiver from last year for example could have been made into a bow with very minimal effort.

I get the impression that "industrial knock-offs" would be rather common in a fantasy setting - "I love that quiver, make me one!" "Hmm, I can't make wondrous items, but I *can* make a bow and make it do much the same thing." "But I like my bow..." "Give it, ya whiner..." :magicmagicmumbomagicjumbo: POOF! "Here, meet your bow, now known as Nightsbane, capable of everything that jerk's clever quiver design could do, but IN A BOW! HA!"

(Wizards ... oneupsmanship victims to a fault...)

[Papasteve08]

Clay Clouser wrote:

The third option you mention isn't against the rules as at that point you would just have a magical quarterstaff and would need to list it as such. What makes a staff a staff though is having spells, so yes to an extent it will be a rehash of current abilities. However, finding that sweet middle ground is what will make a superstar staff. It has to have a spell list to be a staff but it also has to have unique abilities and a tight theme that ties everything together.

I think you are missing my point a little. You are exactly right. A long piece of something that has unique abilities is a quarterstaff, and a weapon, not a stave. but what about an actual stave, that has 10 charges per the staves rule, and has abilities that cost charges, but none of those abilities (read: 'spells') are actually spells picked from the long list of existing spells? What if that is what is unique about it?

In essence even what you describe is a weapon with wondrous item abilities. Which is the point I am trying to make, that is superstar.

Clay Clouser wrote:

To your second point about rule 1, you are absolutely right. There are items that can be easily re-purposed from wondrous to one of this years theme. The rule is really more for obv cases. Making up a item off the top of my head imagine you where voting and saw a +1 longsword that can be wrapped around the waist as a belt and then all its other abilities where belt related or had nothing to do with being a weapon,it obviously started as a belt and was shoe horned in because it was someones baby. Like you said though many superstar items last year could easily have been re purposed for this year. (to toot my own horn) My nightsbane quiver from last year for example could have been made into a bow with very minimal effort.

I know exactly what you are saying here. My point about that is, if the thing is that obvious... its probably not good anyways, and therefore not superstar. I remember your nightsbane quiver, it was one of my favorites last year. I think that makes my point exactly, that it could have easily been a weapon or a slotless wondrous item. It shouldn't get downvoted because someone jumps to the conclusion that you just re-purposed your wondrous item. Whether it is a cloak, gloves, ring, sword, bow, shield or staff shouldn't matter. The idea is what we are talking about and voting on.

If you go back and read SKR's original 'rules' thread you will notice something highly important at the bottom. To paraphrase, it says "none of these rules matter if you come up with an awesome way to break them". People seem to forget that and just dismiss good ideas because it breaks some loose code, or bothers you because you are tired of reading about your 300th pair of boots. (or this year, your 272nd musket). Neil Spicer, one of the very highly respected designers on these boards? his idea (Last Leaves of the Autumn Dryad) was essentially a SIAC and a SAK. And it was awesome. It broke rules, and look at how well he did.

I am not trying to be combative - I love this contest and the fun that is wrapped up in every stage. But I do want to make the point that a "staff that has no spells on it but is instead a wondrous item" might not be a clear-cut dump/down-vote. It might actually be a stave that makes you say "wow, that's cool". A Nightsbane Longbow and a Groundbreaker +1 half plate shouldn't be downvoted either just because it is armor and weapons, but every bit as good of an idea as it was when it was a cloak and a quiver.

[Mikko Kallio]

Superstar-level design involves a lot of things that may look like paradoxes but really aren't. I'll show an example with staves sometime when time allows.

[Kiel Howell]

Staves are definitely harder in the rules of this contest. I have LOTS of ideas for how to revamp staves but without being able to introduce/re-do rules that makes it pretty hard.

Plus...for this contest I had ideas that weren't staves. That's what it really boiled down to.

[Jacob W. Michaels]

Doc_Outlands wrote:

Anthony Adam wrote:

That's an interesting idea there Nazard...

A fighter based staff with fighter based powers... very unique possibly?

Wow, that's ... DON'T DISTRACT ME!! MUST FOCUS ON MAP SKILLZ!

But yeah - having submitted my item for this round, this intrigues me. I may have to chase this rabbit a bit...just to see what happens...

Maybe not a fighter-based staff, but what about one that's spells were based on one of the other classes with an expendable resource, like ki or grit/panache? That might be something I'd upvote, depending how it was done. Expand staves a little bit...

[Garrick Williams]

Jacob W. Michaels wrote:

Doc_Outlands wrote:

Anthony Adam wrote:

That's an interesting idea there Nazard...

A fighter based staff with fighter based powers... very unique possibly?

Wow, that's ... DON'T DISTRACT ME!! MUST FOCUS ON MAP SKILLZ!

But yeah - having submitted my item for this round, this intrigues me. I may have to chase this rabbit a bit...just to see what happens...

Maybe not a fighter-based staff, but what about one that's spells were based on one of the other classes with an expendable resource, like ki or grit/panache? That might be something I'd upvote, depending how it was done. Expand staves a little bit...

Why didn't I think of that? However, i think such a staff would need much more than that to be Superstar. Just changing the resource isn't enough.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Omnitricks wrote:

Well I just submitted mine. The class/race thing only makes it slightly more effective because it was initially for anyone to use but I'm not too sure about the price and CL thing. Hopefully both doesn't fudge everything up. :|

Watch what you say! You not only said about when you submitted it, but told us there is a class and race limitation which may be unique. If so, you just identified your item, which is a DQ.

[David S. McCrae]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Omnitricks wrote:

Well I just submitted mine. The class/race thing only makes it slightly more effective because it was initially for anyone to use but I'm not too sure about the price and CL thing. Hopefully both doesn't fudge everything up. :|

Watch what you say! You not only said about when you submitted it, but told us there is a class and race limitation which may be unique. If so, you just identified your item, which is a DQ.

EEK! Seconded! I hope you don't get DQ'ed. That will suck. x.x

[Omnitricks]

I didn't think that the vague "when" would end up an identifier. The race/class limitation though was already asked many posts before it because I was asking about the fifth tip "Consider who can use your item" along with templates.

[Anthony Adam]

You should be ok, Omni, the nature of some of the item types lend themselves to class specificality, so I doubt your entry is the only one. :)

[David S. McCrae]

Anthony Adam wrote:

You should be ok, Omni, the nature of some of the item types lend themselves to class specificality, so I doubt your entry is the only one. :)

That's a relief! My empathy went into overdrive when I saw posts indicating people whom already knew they were DQ'ed.

My heart sincerely goes out to the pre-voting-time DQ'ed.

[The Golux]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Orloff wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

There's a reason staves are hard mode.

I'm starting to wonder if staves aren't so much hard mode as a trap to be avoided at all costs.

Staves have room for lots of improvement over the way they are currently presented. Look back to some of the older editions, 3PP, or other game systems.

Yeah. It may be hard to proceed with a staff, but there's a lot to be done to make one better than the generally terrible staves that already exist. Can't do anything about them being overpriced, but they can at least have more interesting abilities. One thing I noticed is that the ACG staves have alternate methods of gaining charges, which helps make staves more usable during an actual adventure.

[skyshark]

As a first time contender, should I include an explanation of cost for my item, since I have not found pricing anywhere for one of its particular ability, or only submit the exact text (name, cost, construction, etc.) for my item in the submission?

[Jeff Lee]

skyshark wrote:

As a first time contender, should I include an explanation of cost for my item, since I have not found pricing anywhere for one of its particular ability, or only submit the exact text (name, cost, construction, etc.) for my item in the submission?

No explanation. Just the item.

[Jacob W. Michaels]

Only submit the exact text.

[Donald Robinson]

skyshark wrote:

As a first time contender, should I include an explanation of cost for my item, since I have not found pricing anywhere for one of its particular ability, or only submit the exact text (name, cost, construction, etc.) for my item in the submission?

As the above have mentioned. Do not post notes or explanations for anything. Just post the item as it would appear in one of the books. If you feel something needs an explanation, try to re-work it. As far as pricing goes, some of it just comes down to guess work (some items would be super expensive, but are worthless at high levels; others super cheap, but way too powerful at low levels). Just do your best as far as the price goes based on the charts, adjust for the level range you would expect to see it used at, and go from there. A price error is forgiveable in my eyes (unless it is just way, way wrong).

[William-Scott Hathaway]

skyshark wrote:

As a first time contender, should I include an explanation of cost for my item, since I have not found pricing anywhere for one of its particular ability, or only submit the exact text (name, cost, construction, etc.) for my item in the submission?

Don't include an explanation. Just submit the item following the appropriate template. As long as you believe the price makes sense, somebody who looks it over should be able to see where you are coming from and why you priced it as such.

[Omnitricks]

We can't edit our entries once we put them in right?

[Jacob W. Michaels]

Correct.

[skyshark]

Thanks for all the help. The cost doesn't need an explanation to justify it, I just figured it would help if anyone was trying to get the pricing down to the exact copper piece.

[Mark Seifter]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Superstar-level design involves a lot of things that may look like paradoxes but really aren't. I'll show an example with staves sometime when time allows.

Indeed, it is no paradox with staves. It's really no different than saying "A weapon with enhancements and nothing else, like a +2 holy keen vorpal falchion, is not a Superstar weapon, but an item that doesn't start with a weapon with at least a +1 enhancement, for instance a magic pastry, is not a magic weapon."

[Doc_Outlands]

Pricing is - based on what I have seen and heard and met head-on myself - part formula, part art, part guesswork, and part sheer audacious chicancery.

[Mark Seifter]

Here's a new tip, but it's based on the time of this post, so I won't add it to the top list:

New Tip) Why haven't you submitted yet? The contest closes in a little over 3 hours by my count. Your internet could go down. Something else could come up. For Shelyn's sake, submit your item now!

[skyshark]

Mark Seifter wrote:

Here's a new tip, but it's based on the time of this post, so I won't add it to the top list:

New Tip) Why haven't you submitted yet? The contest closes in a little over 3 hours by my count. Your internet could go down. Something else could come up. For Shelyn's sake, submit your item now!

ok ok ok, i'll stop mulling over how I can make it better...submitted.

[Mark Seifter]

One last tip that most of you were probably doing anyway, but it's just sad when someone doesn't follow it:

Probably Last Tip) Check the wordcount with a preview on paizo.com, even if you checked the wordcount elsewhere: We don't count wordcount exactly the same as your word processor. Based on my voter tags, you know I voted a bunch the last two years. And each year, there are too many items with ~301 words for coincidence. I can't believe that people didn't check their wordcount at all and just happened to be just over by chance; I believe it's from checking wordcount elsewhere and getting a lower count. So check it here too!

[Jacob W. Michaels]

My word count on Paizo came over 1 word longer than it did on MS Word on my computer.

[Kiel Howell]

That preview function on the submission is priceless! It was around 20 words less than my word processor (Google Drive Document).