There's a comic book character that resembles this item.
Lots of summoning rods etc... This year. I imagine a watering hole teeming with large mammals which is rapidly depleted by the use of summoning rods on both sides of a massive battle somewhere else on the inland seas. And watching twenty turns they all pop back burned, cut, magic missiled into smoking carcasses while the dire vultures bow to their wish gods before giving thanks and gorging themselves.
James Casey wrote: I had to read that twice before I realized it wasn't an erotic body part! Stick to common words people. Fancy words don't equal superstar. yep. Had a Bevis chuckle when I saw it.
Hmmm you say the item is prized by xyz but I am trying to figure out which class and character wouldn't find you a prize... You kill everything!
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Wait wait wait, so that item can be ANYTHING?
I would leave some of these items behind if found. J/K! Vender Trash!!!
boldstar wrote: James Casey wrote: I had to read that twice before I realized it wasn't an erotic body part! Stick to common words people. Fancy words don't equal superstar. yep. Had a Bevis chuckle when I saw it. And yet the word is used correctly, and we are the infantile ones who read it differently.
I feel like I'm missing some kind of niche design space for married gamers.
Are cursed items here? I think some people forgot to put positive effects... lol
Item with drawback vs item with drawback.
Self poisoning weapon showdown
Ah HA. This must be (one of?) the... "euphemistic" staff(s?) everyone is (are?) implying about.
Love the chuck and catch up concept!
Someone please tell me what the obsession with negating attacks is? Some of these items totally strike me as 250 word versions of "Nuh-Uh!"
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
If you've got a nice set of powers, and you're under the word limit by a decent amount, it is not a challenge to tack on more powers.
That material is from that other franchise.
Negating can be as powerful as a plus eleven item in the right circumstance, especially in a large party.
Ugh. I feel like the description of this item was more like I asked the author what the item did over a frothy adult beverage.
Lightminder wrote: Negating can be as powerful as a plus eleven item in the right circumstance, especially in a large party. Touché
Having seen at last one, and possibly two +11 weapons in this competition, I am keeping my hopes up for a full fledged hackmaster +12
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I get why players want items that give them the special abilities of classes that aren't their own, but I think that's exactly why designers shouldn't be giving it to them.
As epitomized by Weird Al... "Word Crimes." Enough said. Down vote for you.
Ahh munchkin sword! I was wondering where you were hiding.
Hey, finally, a really cool shield!
Hahahaha! Well done, Item. That construction requirement made me laugh. You may not believe me, but my current character does have something along those lines.
Jeff Lee wrote: Jeff Harris 982 wrote: We shall see who the evil Jeff is, paladins are just shiny zealots who liked to play football in High school, and their Int stats wouldn't let the into college. I didn't say "evil Jeff." I said "other Jeff." That's how I refer to everyone named Jeff who isn't me. It's to remind everyone who the original is. Wait...am I evil Jeff? lol
When the bearer of the item "speaks the magic word"...
The magic word....
Wow....
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
In my experience most Jeffs are at least a little evil.
Hahaha, super funny commentary on the state of roman church, very insightful and super laugh laden!
GM_Solspiral wrote: In my experience most Jeffs are at least a little evil. There are two Jeffs in my gaming group, and I believe this is correct.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
David S. McCrae wrote: When the bearer of the item "speaks the magic word"...
The magic word....
Wow....
I'm pretty sure it's "please."
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Phew, saw my item finally, getting worried there.
Alliteration is not your friend.
James Casey wrote: Ahh munchkin sword! I was wondering where you were hiding. I just saw one of those, too. I think the only thing it was missing was +5, but I think then it would have been that Hackmaster +12 someone was looking for just now.
Wow, that item would lead to an expansion in the capabilities of fine arts sculptors and cartographers, and bring a form of air show to the shire they hadn't seen before! Up. Toe biggie!
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
This year has forced me to face an unpleasant reality: I acknowledge I am evidently predisposed to vote against anything related to a summoner class feature.
I can't in good conscience vote for an item with that profession as a requirement.
One of the parts of being a superstar is knowing what spells are necessary for the making of your item. I know that comes up every year, but really, if you don't know what spells, materials, or feats are necessary to make your item, you should not enter your item. "All necessary spells" is not acceptable and yet there are several again this year. If you made this mistake, please read the "critique my item" threads and consider entering your own for feedback.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
mamaursula wrote: "All necessary spells" is not acceptable and yet there are several again this year. It's come up so often I've been wondering if it was actually a standard I didn't know about. Like, it gives me cause for self-doubt because of how widespread it is.
Whoa. I actually saw something I liked. Single spell requirement, interesting and applicable use. Expensive but worth it for the effect. Not something I'd plan to purchase, but would consider keeping from loot.
I expect to see you in January.
Moik wrote: mamaursula wrote: "All necessary spells" is not acceptable and yet there are several again this year. It's come up so often I've been wondering if it was actually a standard I didn't know about. Like, it gives me cause for self-doubt because of how widespread it is. It is not, it makes me sad that there are some pretty neat things that fail this part of the test. I hope that the designers who have done this come back to the table and are able to learn how to take the available spells and tweak them for their items next year. There have been some decent ideas that I just cannot vote for because they do not have the necessary crafting requirements fulfilled.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Moik wrote: It's come up so often I've been wondering if it was actually a standard I didn't know about. Like, it gives me cause for self-doubt because of how widespread it is. I think it's more a case of "I loaded this thing with so many spells, if I re-list them all in the construction requirements as I'm supposed to, I'll go over my word count."
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Browman wrote: I can't in good conscience vote for an item with that profession as a requirement. Did Garrett Guillotte make an item that requires Profession (hairstyling) again?
Jacob Trier wrote: Browman wrote: I can't in good conscience vote for an item with that profession as a requirement. Did Garrett Guillotte make an item that requires Profession (hairstyling) again? Haven't seen one like that, but really if your item involves a profession so much that it needs to be tied into its rules, it probably shouldn't be a weapon, armour, shield, ring, rod or staff.
tech item vs tech item fight!
Some of these items look like they were inspired by "50 Shades of Grey".
Jacob Trier wrote: Some of these items look like they were inspired by "50 Shades of Grey". Indeed, whips, chains, and rods
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Oh hello Marathon title. That might explain some things. Like why I haven't seen anything new for awhile. Oh wait, there's one! Thanks for breaking my streak before I stop for the night.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Hooray, found my item! I even got to vote for it with a clear conscience!
Here's an item that does kind of what the item I almost submitted does, except much less convoluted!
Really could've used running by a proofreader, though.
|