So far I've seen....

[Thomas LeBlanc]

James Casey wrote:

My problem is when the rod's primary function is as a weapon. A magical Rod's primary function or ability shouldn't be a bludgeoning weapon, that should merely be incidental to the Rod. It even says in the above description that they function because of their hardy construction, not because they are crafted to be a weapon.

Why else have a Rod if you are mainly using it as a Mace or club? Why not go and get a magical mace/club that does the exact same thing in combat. What is the point of the Rod as a magical item if it is primarily serving as a light mace or club with some added on abilities?

No need to get so fiery about it...

[Moik]

Next year?
Rod-chucks. :D
I'm doin' it.
Can't even stop me.

[Edit: Done.]

[James Raine]

Insert 8-Bit Theater Fighter gif here. "ROD-CHUCKS YO"

[Jeff Lee]

Item that steals information vs. item that steals information. What are the odds?

[Sir William]

Jeff Lee wrote:

Item that steals information vs. item that steals information. What are the odds?

I suspect that someone fell victim to an item that steals information.

[frank gori]

Hopefully tomorrow we get our cull?

[Jeff Lee]

GM_Solspiral wrote:

Hopefully tomorrow we get our cull?

One can hope.

[Jeff Lee]

I'll swallow your soul!

[Jeff Lee]

*frowns*

Copying the abilities of an already existing item and adding an extra or two isn't Superstar.

On the bright side, you made me take a closer look at the other item and see its merits despite some missteps.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Many of the items have a good nugget of awesomeness in their center. I have seen about 9 ideas that would make new weapon special qualities, 4 armor special qualities, and a whole slew with a bit of editing that would have been great. I was hard pressed not to steal ideas for the next Wayfinder issue...

[Dana Huber]

Your item's concept: fabulous, a niche design space I've rarely seen
Your item's visuals: Also really cool
Your formatting/technical stuff: Well, you made a minor formatting error but I really like you so I... wait... hang on... you didn't include ANY spells in your construction requirements? Despite this being a magic item? With a magical aura? That produces a clearly magical effect? I, uh....

(You're still getting my upvote for now, but this is just a perfect example of how beautiful concept can be derailed by lack of some basic technical thing. :( I don't know if this was an accident of designer hitting submit before they meant to, or what, but it makes me sad because this error will ultimately keep this item from advancing [or at least I don't imagine the judges could overlook it], and that is unfortunate.)

[Maria Smolina]

dien wrote:

Your formatting/technical stuff: Well, you made a minor formatting error but I really like you so I... wait... hang on... you didn't include ANY spells in your construction requirements? Despite this being a magic item? With a magical aura? That produces a clearly magical effect? I, uh....

There's at least one big cathegory of magic items that does not use any spells, and that's metamagic rods. Only the use of one more more crafting feat in requiremtents is a must-be in any item template, everything else surely has exceptions.

[Dana Huber]

Laik wrote:

dien wrote:

Your formatting/technical stuff: Well, you made a minor formatting error but I really like you so I... wait... hang on... you didn't include ANY spells in your construction requirements? Despite this being a magic item? With a magical aura? That produces a clearly magical effect? I, uh....

There's at least one big cathegory of magic items that does not use any spells, and that's metamagic rods. Only the use of one more more crafting feat in requiremtents is a must-be in any item template, everything else surely has exceptions.

True, and valid; however, this item doesn't have, uh, the other half of the crafting reqs you just pointed out... and is not a rod... and, well, I can't/shouldn't say more than that probably as I'd be getting too specific.

[Brigg]

You, sir, have submitted an artifact.

I'm sorry. =(

[James Casey]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

James Casey wrote:

Why else have a Rod if you are mainly using it as a Mace or club? Why not go and get a magical mace/club that does the exact same thing in combat. What is the point of the Rod as a magical item if it is primarily serving as a light mace or club with some added on abilities?

No need to get so fiery about it...

That's the problem with texting, posting and email... tone isn't conveyed. I didn't mean my post to be inflammatory. If we were in the same room you would have heard it in a very matter of fact tone.

[Brigg]

Not a single word in bold, and "All appropriate Spells" in construction requirements

vs.

"[b]" Tags in the title of the entry and name of item not in the text.

FIGHT!!! (LOL)

[Brigg]

That "Absolute Garbage" makes me laugh every time.

(To clarify, I am not calling an entry garbage)

[Aaron Miller 335]

298 word vs 299, then a 93 vs 86.

[The black raven]

Some people do like their classical iconography. Saw several items that actually belong to the Hermes family (Asclepius included). Thank the Greek Gods that they did not put copyright on it ;-)

[Thomas LeBlanc]

James Casey wrote:

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

James Casey wrote:

Why else have a Rod if you are mainly using it as a Mace or club? Why not go and get a magical mace/club that does the exact same thing in combat. What is the point of the Rod as a magical item if it is primarily serving as a light mace or club with some added on abilities?

No need to get so fiery about it...

That's the problem with texting, posting and email... tone isn't conveyed. I didn't mean my post to be inflammatory. If we were in the same room you would have heard it in a very matter of fact tone.

I was slyly referencing an item that fit nicely into your rant.

[Nickolas Floyd]

Seriously, what self-respecting adventurer would wear this item into battle?

[Aaron Miller 335]

A good one vs a new good one!

[The black raven]

It is good that you like the Dragon Empires. But that will not be enough to save your item :-/

That the other item is actually a SiaC staff masquerading as a different item will be though.

[The black raven]

You make my eyes hurt. But at least I understand how you do your thing, unlike the other item.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Aaron Miller 335 wrote:

A good one vs a new good one!

I seem to be getting a lot more closely matched pairs since yesterday.

[Jaragil]

First item I've seen this year where the name has nothing to do with what the item does. I mean absolutely nothing. Complete nonsense. Still, it's a fairly good item, so I'll vote for it, but hopefully I'll get an answer later about what the designer was thinking.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Jaragil wrote:

First item I've seen this year where the name has nothing to do with what the item does. I mean absolutely nothing. Complete nonsense. Still, it's a fairly good item, so I'll vote for it, but hopefully I'll get an answer later about what the designer was thinking.

There are quite a few items where I have had to search for "(noun in item name) Pathfinder" to see if it even was part of the lore/rules.

[Maurice de Mare]

Downvoting copyright.....

[The black raven]

OP shield vs OP ring. Choices, choices ...

[The black raven]

Staff of misspelling, you are still more interesting than the SiaC weapon.

[Maurice de Mare]

water item vs water item.

Water item won

[The black raven]

Seen 2 items recently that do basically the same thing but couched in very different themes and mechanics and visuals. Rather OP (and open to rules lawyering IMO) in both cases though.

[The black raven]

How can that armor even dare to be paired up with this fantastic weapon this far into the voting ?

Man, I love no-brainers :-)

[pH unbalanced]

stroke that brassy hilt...

[Jacob W. Michaels]

dien wrote:

Your item's concept: fabulous, a niche design space I've rarely seen

Your item's visuals: Also really cool
Your formatting/technical stuff: Well, you made a minor formatting error but I really like you so I... wait... hang on... you didn't include ANY spells in your construction requirements? Despite this being a magic item? With a magical aura? That produces a clearly magical effect? I, uh....

(You're still getting my upvote for now, but this is just a perfect example of how beautiful concept can be derailed by lack of some basic technical thing. :( I don't know if this was an accident of designer hitting submit before they meant to, or what, but it makes me sad because this error will ultimately keep this item from advancing [or at least I don't imagine the judges could overlook it], and that is unfortunate.)

I'm not sure which item this is, but if it has some other way to have its abilities -- such as a hex, oracle mystery or some other class ability -- I personally wouldn't hold the lack of spells against it. The apple of eternal sleep from APG, for example, has Brew Potion, Craft Wondrous Item and eternal sleep hex as its requirements.

(Not sure if your later post about it not having certain other requirements also includes this.)

[Dana Huber]

Jacob W. Michaels wrote:

dien wrote:

Your item's concept: fabulous, a niche design space I've rarely seen

Your item's visuals: Also really cool
Your formatting/technical stuff: Well, you made a minor formatting error but I really like you so I... wait... hang on... you didn't include ANY spells in your construction requirements? Despite this being a magic item? With a magical aura? That produces a clearly magical effect? I, uh....

(You're still getting my upvote for now, but this is just a perfect example of how beautiful concept can be derailed by lack of some basic technical thing. :( I don't know if this was an accident of designer hitting submit before they meant to, or what, but it makes me sad because this error will ultimately keep this item from advancing [or at least I don't imagine the judges could overlook it], and that is unfortunate.)

I'm not sure which item this is, but if it has some other way to have its abilities -- such as a hex, oracle mystery or some other class ability -- I personally wouldn't hold the lack of spells against it. The apple of eternal sleep from APG, for example, has Brew Potion, Craft Wondrous Item and eternal sleep hex as its requirements.

(Not sure if your later post about it not having certain other requirements also includes this.)

I suppose I really wasn't being clear. :P (I think I can answer this one without being too specific, but if any mods disagree, my apologies.)

It's a magic weapon that has, in its construction requirements, a gold price. And that's it. Nothing else. No feats. No class features. Nothing at all except a GP value. And it's not the only item I've seen like that, except, for the others, that lack of correct item construction was usually paired with an overall subpar design. This one jumped out at me merely because the actual item was GOOD (in my opinion), and paid close attention to mechanics in the item itself, and it was disappointing to see it fall down on literally the last part of the entry.

[Brigg]

An item that can create a pool of water.

vs.

A Cannonball.

And all I think is "CCAAAAANNNNNOOONNNNNBBBBAAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!"

[The black raven]

This item has no formatting and is likely a joke. But I keep on upvoting it because the alternative is actually so much worse :-/

[The black raven]

OverPriced and OverPowered. Have to vote for that other THING instead :-(

[The black raven]

So corny :-))

[The black raven]

2 undead-hating items. A nice change from all the undead-loving items ;-)

[R Pickard]

Wow, seem to be getting a lot of stuff I've seen before and/or a lot of low-quality stuff than before. Think I'm gonna wait if there's a cull before further voting.

[Brigg]

Your fantastic and wonderful concept is unfortunately overshadowed by a glaring design flaw. And I mean GLARING design flaw.

I am still upvoting you because even though I noticed this flaw, the execution of your item is just...wow. You have something there, and it's just...almost there. it just needed a little more revision.

I WILL be commenting specifically on your item after the voting.

[Rose Stack]

Brigg wrote:

Your fantastic and wonderful concept is unfortunately overshadowed by a glaring design flaw. And I mean GLARING design flaw.

I am still upvoting you because even though I noticed this flaw, the execution of your item is just...wow. You have something there, and it's just...almost there. it just needed a little more revision.

I WILL be commenting specifically on your item after the voting.

You may want to wait until you see the creator specifically ask for feedback on it, which they may not.

[Andrew Marlowe]

Brigg wrote:

Your fantastic and wonderful concept is unfortunately overshadowed by a glaring design flaw. And I mean GLARING design flaw.

I am still upvoting you because even though I noticed this flaw, the execution of your item is just...wow. You have something there, and it's just...almost there. it just needed a little more revision.

I WILL be commenting specifically on your item after the voting.

I would wait and see if the designer puts this item up for review in the critique thread. I'm sure you just want to be helpful but some designers will have put themselves out there as far and possibly farther than they are comfortable with.

Just something to think about.

*Edit* This is what I get for not refreshing the page before replying. Sorry Brigg did not mean to dogpile.

[Brigg]

No, no. You two are fine. It's better you guys tell me these things because I'm still new to this community and am still acclimatizing myself to the etiquette. This is my first year entering as well. Not getting too specific about items has been a fun challenge!

Thank you both for your replies.

[Maurice de Mare]

I upvoted my item!

All is well :->

[Rose Stack]

No problem, Brigg! It's my first year too, but I'm sure there will be plenty of interesting things to comment on in the Critique My Item thread that will emerge after the top 32 are revealed. ;)

[Kiel Howell]

You all should take a gander over the last couple years' Critique My Item threads...lots of interesting commentary and feedback.

[Monica Marlowe]

The black raven wrote:

Some people do like their classical iconography. Saw several items that actually belong to the Hermes family (Asclepius included). Thank the Greek Gods that they did not put copyright on it ;-)

The good news is they would have had to renew that copyright for the last 2500 years, so we're all good!