So far I've seen....

[Deadmanwalking]

Bbauzh ap Aghauzh wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Jeff Lee wrote:

I really hate to see a good item where the author has missed an important detail in the mechanics. Sometimes its as simple as not assigning a DC. Other times its a new feature where the mechanics just aren't fully explained, and I get left wondering "Yes, but what happens under this circumstance, or if this comes up?"

Not just in otherwise good items, but I've noted a distinct trend in items not having a duration for abilities they provide, making said abilities conditional, but permanent...which is clearly not their intent.

So...those items got downvotes, and putting in a duration is important folks, don't forget about it.

This is not necessarily true. Ring of invisibility doesn't have a duration listed, but it does have a duration.

That's because it's based on a specific spell, which (unlike item effects in and of themselves) have an inherent duration. The items I saw were rather definitively not based on such things.

I'm talking things like, oh hypothetically, a +2 weapon that became +4 and frost if you killed a troglodyte with it.

And then no further wording after a statement like that.

[Jeff Lee]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Jeff Lee wrote:

Thanks, but I don't need hyperlinks to feats and spells that are in the Core Rulebook. I'm pretty sure I have most of those down. The judges are probably okay without them too.

Maybe they were referencing the PRD when creating the item? I haven't seen too many that did that yet, but those that have seem to follow the template. Still waiting to see if anyone makes a link that goes to the d20PFSRD, Archives of Nethys, or another 3rd party site...

Fair enough, but I think most people are familiar enough with, say, the Craft feats not to need a link to them. If it were an unusual spell requirement, I could see doing so, though the judges said it really wasn't necessary. The item did have perfect formatting though.

[Andrew Christian]

I'm seeing a lot of arbitrarily high DCs. I'm sure this is from a player perspective as its annoying to spend 30k on an item with a DC laughable to any villain that will face a PC that could afford 30k.

I can't bring myself to vote for those items unless significantly better than the other item.

[KingOfAnything]

Hey! I remember that spell from the 3.5!

[David S. McCrae]

All right, last one for the day.

Still haven't seen my item. :(

[Gregory Connolly]

I can't figure out who is supposed to use this item.

[James Casey]

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

That is not something I expected a weapon to do. I like it!

$10 says that's my item, Jacob.

[nkerklaan]

Yes, I too have often bristled under the tyrannical yoke of the law of gravity.

[michael patrick]

"This item gives a damage bonus to people that are skilled in a profession that my PC happens to be..."

[Genuine]

Can't .... tell... if .... pun .... or just .... mispelling.
:><:

And I still upticked it.

[Jacob Kellogg]

It's easy to tell which contestants have GMs who never let stealth work, or never let them interrogate enemies after a fight, etc...

[michael patrick]

Item that starts out with back story verses item that is all back story.

[Thunderbuckets]

Why would you need to DO that? And so often?

[Jeff Lee]

Yes!!! Then, and only then, will its true powers be...REVEALED!

(Seriously, you guys have no idea how entertained I get reading these things aloud to myself.)

[ryric]

I'm beginning to wonder how many people actually know how to price magic weapons and armor - so many items where the cost is exactly half the price instead of the correct way. For those that don't know, the cost of the magic part is halved, but the cost for the masterwork weapon stays the same. Nearly all magic weapons should have both a cost and price that ends in 3xx.

Also seeing items that obviously were kludged over from a preconceived wondrous item - "This item is an X, but it has none of the properties of an actual X and instead does this other thing." I'm not downvoting items that are rods or rings that could have been a wondrous item originally, but some of these are pretty obvious last minute changes.

[pH unbalanced]

I have now unequivocally seen a reference to my item in this thread.

Yay?!?

[R D Ramsey]

I'm downvoting things that are X, but can be used as a magical weapon +1.

They need to be magical weapons first and foremost. Otherwise they're wondrous items you tacked a few extra words onto.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

I had to go back and check the PRD, I thought staffs and rods that were also useable as a magic weapon used the magic weapon formula to price the base weapon into the final price. I was wrong.

[Thunderfrog]

All I see are things I reject anymore. I havent had the fortune of upvoting good items more than once..

I was told I could alleviate that by just upvoting a misfit item, but I refuse to do so.

[Jacob Kellogg]

I could swear I've already seen an item by this name, but with a completely different set of abilities...

[Jeff Lee]

Thunderfrog wrote:

All I see are things I reject anymore. I havent had the fortune of upvoting good items more than once..

I was told I could alleviate that by just upvoting a misfit item, but I refuse to do so.

Bear in mind that if you vote neither item, your vote is doing nothing to help the selection process, just recycling the items.

Even if you think both items are bad, vote up the less bad of the two.

[frank gori]

going fly fishing after this pairing

[benjamin wilkins]

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

I could swear I've already seen an item by this name, but with a completely different set of abilities...

I had that a moment ago, except it was two items with virtually identical names right next to each other. They were vastly different in both type and implementation too. The trouble was, there wasn't really a clear winner in terms of who got the vote. Both were really well designed, they just hit on a similar vein when naming their respective items.

[Jacob Kellogg]

Think of it less like "voting" and more like "sorting". Clicking the button for Item X is NOT saying "I think this item should be in the Top 32".

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Clouds Without Water wrote:

I'm downvoting things that are X, but can be used as a magical weapon +1.

They need to be magical weapons first and foremost. Otherwise they're wondrous items you tacked a few extra words onto.

If you look at the PRD, staffs that can be used as a weapon list the weapon bit after the other powers. Rods that can be used as magic weapons list that before the other powers. Usually, but there are a few niche cases.

Or are you talking about items that are not usually a weapon, but the description says they can be? If so, that is a wondrous item in my opinion. I think the confusion may be that items in this category were being rejected in previous years as being a magic weapon, not a wondrous item.

[Nazard]

Just saw an awesome item. It doesn't quite do what that old fan favourite from some years ago did, but if you change those seven words back to the original, it would.

[Jeff Lee]

Ia! Ia!

[Browman]

I hadn't thought of that, but it is brilliant and even formatted properly. Well done.

[R D Ramsey]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Clouds Without Water wrote:

I'm downvoting things that are X, but can be used as a magical weapon +1.

They need to be magical weapons first and foremost. Otherwise they're wondrous items you tacked a few extra words onto.

If you look at the PRD, staffs that can be used as a weapon list the weapon bit after the other powers. Rods that can be used as magic weapons list that before the other powers. Usually, but there are a few niche cases.

Or are you talking about items that are not usually a weapon, but the description says they can be? If so, that is a wondrous item in my opinion. I think the confusion may be that items in this category were being rejected in previous years as being a magic weapon, not a wondrous item.

Staves and rod are not what I'm talking about.

I mean things like 'This pencil, which has many magical properties related to being a pencil, also functions as magical stabby +1"

[CalethosVB]

I'd kill things in-game to have either of those items. They're both awesome. But, there can be only one.

[James Raine]

Clouds Without Water wrote:

I mean things like 'This pencil, which has many magical properties related to being a pencil, also functions as magical stabby +1"

I KNOW! I am so done.

Also done with all these specific weapons having the ominous property. It's like ten thousand black cats crossed paths to go break some mirrors in here.

[R D Ramsey]

Two sets of armor that together would make a nice beach.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

James Raine wrote:

Also done with all these specific weapons having the ominous property. It's like ten thousand black cats crossed paths to go break some mirrors in here.

Bane, ghost touch[i], and [i]throwing are the ones I am seeing often.

EDIT: Failed to preview text. Another issue that crops up every year...

[Jacob Kellogg]

Clouds Without Water wrote:

Two sets of armor that together would make a nice beach.

I had that same pairing!

[Nazard]

Plot-device item. The designer was even kind enough to tell me what plots should transpire if I chose to include the item in my game.

[frank gori]

Hunting vs fishing

[Wesley Lee]

Oh my, too many: This appears to be blah blah that is way over priced to be a blah blah.

If you are very specific build (aka my favorite character) you get a super awesome item for dirt cheap!

Cannot forget snakes:
looks like a snake, made from a snake, venom, fangs.

Cannot forget the needles
This dagger is needle thin, this needle (use stats of dagger).

ok back to voting

[Venitas Ethilist]

Finally found a high quality item. Then I looked at the item it was competing against, and found that one to be of even higher quality. Now the first item doesn't get a vote. =(

[Jacob Kellogg]

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

I could swear I've already seen an item by this name, but with a completely different set of abilities...

And now it's the other way around: I'm looking at an item whose effect I'm sure I also saw on a different item.

[Hidari]

Just got a what the.... item.

[Matt Morris]

I get the impression many rings started their lives as gloves.

[Jacob Kellogg]

ChesterCopperpot wrote:

I get the impression many rings started their lives as gloves.

As did several "gauntlets".

[pH unbalanced]

But you're never going to fight one of those there.

[Isaac Volynskiy]

It's hard to tell if the creator of this item really likes [redacted] or really hates [redacted].

[Jacob Kellogg]

Oooh, that's a clever, clever shield! I love it!

[Anthony Adam]

Fell asleep in the history and backstory before getting to what it did >.< - I'm getting old maybe.

[Tripp Elliott]

Hidari wrote:

Covent wrote:

And someone loves Bards, and did it well... My, my class specific items are difficult, my hat off to you good sir.

Maybe you had the same bard item, but I stumbled upon a really cool one actually.

We need more bard items, I might make one next year.

**is a bard lover**

Check out my Bosun's Call from last year.

[R D Ramsey]

There's a staff the other characters in your party would hate to have just walking along with them.

[James Casey]

Ugh Wall of text vs. Wall of text

[pH unbalanced]

Yeah, that would have been a really cool Wondrous Item.