List of Items (That Anyone Can Edit)!

[JJ Jordan]

Feros wrote:

JJ Jordan wrote:

Can we tell if they did a 25% or a 50% cull yet? I haven't spotted a new item in a while which makes me think they culled at 50%.

If they use past criteria, they will have cut any items that failed to get at least 40% up-votes each time they were paired. So the exact percentage of items could vary from year to year.

Okay, makes sense.

[R Pickard]

Ashiel wrote:

James Risner wrote:

You can't upgrade named weapons

lolwut?

I have to wonder if there's an older ed of D&D that did have that ruling (that you can't upgrade specific magic weapons and armor), because that's not the first time I've heard that. In fact I've even heard oldskool player friends of mine arguing about "houseruling" Pathfinder to make it possible --- when, in fact, but there is indeed no rule in Pathfinder that I can see that restricts upgrades (I'm looking at the section on "adding new abilities" under magic item creation in the PRD).

At any rate, while as far as I know upgrades are kosher, the fact that some folks don't think so isn't entirely out of left field. It would be a good misconception to get rid of though.

[quibblemuch]

DeathQuaker wrote:

...in fact, but there is indeed no rule in Pathfinder that I can see that restricts upgrades (I'm looking at the section on "adding new abilities" under magic item creation in the PRD).

However, if you upgrade a named weapon you do void the warranty. It's there, in the fine print... :)

[Kiel Howell]

So far, 2/8 of my "Keep but not top 32" items have been culled.

2/19 of my "weak keeps" were culled - one I am sad about and really hope the designer submits to the Critique My Item thread.

0/3 of my "keeps" were culled.

0/2 of my "strong keeps" were culled.

That puts me at (keeper items):

Weapon - 12
Shield - 4
Staff - 3
Ring - 1
Armor - 2

[benjamin wilkins]

DeathQuaker wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

James Risner wrote:

You can't upgrade named weapons

lolwut?

I have to wonder if there's an older ed of D&D that did have that ruling (that you can't upgrade specific magic weapons and armor), because that's not the first time I've heard that. In fact I've even heard oldskool player friends of mine arguing about "houseruling" Pathfinder to make it possible --- when, in fact, but there is indeed no rule in Pathfinder that I can see that restricts upgrades (I'm looking at the section on "adding new abilities" under magic item creation in the PRD).

At any rate, while as far as I know upgrades are kosher, the fact that some folks don't think so isn't entirely out of left field. It would be a good misconception to get rid of though.

Pathfinder Society doesn't allow the upgrading of specific weapons or armor, and I know of at least one person that believed that it was a general rule because it couldn't be done there.

[mplindustries]

I don't think all the items that made the cut have been put on the list, yet, because there are some really bad items still in and a few of my top 20 list not there yet.

[R D Ramsey]

Only one on my keep list hasn't shown up on the post-cull list yet. Not bad!

[Eric Morton]

Dragon78 wrote:

Well mine got cut:( How do you know these items got cut/culled?

What you're seeing is a list of items that survived the cut, not items that got cut.

[Dragon78]

Yeah I know, because I no longer see my item on the list.

[Andrew Black]

Eric Morton wrote:

Dragon78 wrote:

Well mine got cut:( How do you know these items got cut/culled?

What you're seeing is a list of items that survived the cut, not items that got cut.

Also these are the items that have been seen since the cull happened and have been recorded by those of us with the time to do it. It is very possible that times have survived that have been seen...just not buy this small % of the voting community.

[James Raine]

List is incomplete, FYI: not everyone is updating the list with what they've seen, and the list is still being added to. While statistically improbable, it is still possible for your item to be in the running and never be added to the post-cull list.

Also, personal score: 8/12 on keeps surviving the cull, one of which I figured would be DQ'd because it was an intelligent item.

[R D Ramsey]

You can't know for sure if your item has been culled. You can only be sure it hasn't if someone lists it, but if no one lists it, it might still be out there.

[Eric Morton]

Andrew Black wrote:

It is very possible that times have survived that have been seen...just not buy this small % of the voting community.

True story: After an evening of post-cull voting, I went to add sixty items I'd seen since the cull to the list. Fifty-nine of those items were already on the list. The only item I had seen that no one else had added yet: my own item. The list has grown a bit since then, but not enough to convince me that someone else would have added my item by now had I not seen it and added it myself.

[Tripp Elliott]

I do have a belief that some people probably added the two items they had in the voting cache immediately after the cull, so that there will be some culled items listed in the post-cull database.

[Isaac Volynskiy]

Perhaps we should double-verify post cull items, such as by highlighting if you see it after your first two?

[Rose Stack]

DeathQuaker wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

James Risner wrote:

You can't upgrade named weapons

lolwut?

I have to wonder if there's an older ed of D&D that did have that ruling (that you can't upgrade specific magic weapons and armor), because that's not the first time I've heard that. In fact I've even heard oldskool player friends of mine arguing about "houseruling" Pathfinder to make it possible --- when, in fact, but there is indeed no rule in Pathfinder that I can see that restricts upgrades (I'm looking at the section on "adding new abilities" under magic item creation in the PRD).

At any rate, while as far as I know upgrades are kosher, the fact that some folks don't think so isn't entirely out of left field. It would be a good misconception to get rid of though.

As far as I know, it's generally fine to upgrade a unique item. You may not further enchant a unique item in Pathfinder Society play, though.

[Azouth]

DeathQuaker wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

James Risner wrote:

You can't upgrade named weapons

lolwut?

I have to wonder if there's an older ed of D&D that did have that ruling (that you can't upgrade specific magic weapons and armor), because that's not the first time I've heard that. In fact I've even heard oldskool player friends of mine arguing about "houseruling" Pathfinder to make it possible --- when, in fact, but there is indeed no rule in Pathfinder that I can see that restricts upgrades (I'm looking at the section on "adding new abilities" under magic item creation in the PRD).

At any rate, while as far as I know upgrades are kosher, the fact that some folks don't think so isn't entirely out of left field. It would be a good misconception to get rid of though.

I think because it is a PFS rule people think it is a pathfinder rule too.

[Gennerik]

Sadly, I lost 2 rings and 2 weapons to the cull. I'm still holding out that some of them will still be seen, but...

[Anthony Adam]

Ah well, the spreadsheet counts haven't changed for over a day now, so that coupled with thousands of votes between myself and my games club members, I am pretty confident that for the first time in the history of culling, Template Fu is dead.

So for those of you suspecting you are culled, if it helps, you got as far as the 8 year old Template Fu did :)

[Maurice de Mare]

Anthony Adam wrote:

Ah well, the spreadsheet counts haven't changed for over a day now, so that coupled with thousands of votes between myself and my games club members, I am pretty confident that for the first time in the history of culling, Template Fu is dead.

So for those of you suspecting you are culled, if it helps, you got as far as the 8 year old Template Fu did :)

I feel and share your pain, weird stuff

[Dana Huber]

Aww, say it ain't so, Template Fu. :( Sorry to hear!

[Brigg]

Anthony Adam wrote:

Ah well, the spreadsheet counts haven't changed for over a day now, so that coupled with thousands of votes between myself and my games club members, I am pretty confident that for the first time in the history of culling, Template Fu is dead.

So for those of you suspecting you are culled, if it helps, you got as far as the 8 year old Template Fu did :)

My heart fully and genuinely goes out to you, Anthony. You are a talented designer and a fantastic teacher!

[Feros]

Removed an item that was a mistaken duplicate from the Post-cull list. Check the list carefully and see if all the items are still there. If not, it can be added again pretty easily, but I am very sure that the item in question was a dup.

[Feros]

I can confirm my item made it through the cull and considering the people whose items were culled I am both humbled and amazed.

A LOT of solid designs that I saw (as well as at least nine of my 32 keepers) aren't on that list. The cut this year was particularly brutal.

Sorry yours isn't on the list Anthony, but I'm still voting strong and adding new items to my personal post-cull list. If I see anything that isn't on the list, I'll put it up ASAP.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

That was not a cull, that was a slaughter! Much better than the 25% cull of the last couple years, might I add. Many less annoying items survived. I know that is kind of harsh, but it makes for much better voting and means I get to nitpick each item more. Analyze each one to see what was done, how it compares to existing game terminology, and how novel/useful it really is.

That being said, 4 of my 32 keeps did not make the cull. One of which may have been DQed pretty early, as I had not seen it since a week into voting. I don't know why it may have been, I thought it was a pretty solid item. But I only saw it once and I saw most of my keeps at least 3+ times.

[Donald Robinson]

Well, looks like I'm only in it for the voting now. I am now under the assumption that I designed my item for an area of the game in which people do not care for.

Congratulations to all of you that survived! Can't wait to see the top 32 and the new round. :)

[Amaranthus]

Still have not seen my own item in the wild. Glad to see its on the "post-cull" list though.

[Tripp Elliott]

Donald Robinson wrote:

Well, looks like I'm only in it for the voting now. I am now under the assumption that I designed my item for an area of the game in which people do not care for.

I prefer to think of it that maybe you're just ahead of your time.

[Sean McGowan]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

That being said, 4 of my 32 keeps did not make the cull. One of which may have been DQed pretty early, as I had not seen it since a week into voting. I don't know why it may have been, I thought it was a pretty solid item. But I only saw it once and I saw most of my keeps at least 3+ times.

I had 42 items in my favorites folder. 10 of those would seem to have been culled. Well, it just makes winnowing my list for Mikko's mini-contest that much easier, I guess...

[James Raine]

Bunch of items on the list are bordered. What for?

[mplindustries]

Having seen some of the items that made it past the cull and not seeing some of my keeper list not on the post-cull list, I just have a hard time believing the post-cull list is correct. There must just not be enough people adding to the list. I know my taste is different, but for items I considered to be in the top 20 to drop below several items I would have put in the bottom 25%...it just can't be.

[Feros]

mplindustries wrote:

Having seen some of the items that made it past the cull and not seeing some of my keeper list not on the post-cull list, I just have a hard time believing the post-cull list is correct. There must just not be enough people adding to the list. I know my taste is different, but for items I considered to be in the top 20 to drop below several items I would have put in the bottom 25%...it just can't be.

Unfortunately, that happens every year. I've been surprised by what passed through and what got left behind all three years I've voted. Remember we don't see what items these questionable passes were opposite when they got their up-votes. That can make all the difference.

Now they have to stand up to the really good items. Most won't make it to the top 100.

[Brigg]

Feros wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Having seen some of the items that made it past the cull and not seeing some of my keeper list not on the post-cull list, I just have a hard time believing the post-cull list is correct. There must just not be enough people adding to the list. I know my taste is different, but for items I considered to be in the top 20 to drop below several items I would have put in the bottom 25%...it just can't be.

Unfortunately, that happens every year. I've been surprised by what passed through and what got left behind all three years I've voted. Remember we don't see what items these questionable passes were opposite when they got their up-votes. That can make all the difference.

Now thy have to stand up to the really good items. Most won't make it to the top 100.

Technically speaking, 254 of them won't make it to the top 100.

<.<

That's 28% of the remaining items getting into top 100.

>.>

*Runs*

[Feros]

Brigg wrote:

Feros wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Having seen some of the items that made it past the cull and not seeing some of my keeper list not on the post-cull list, I just have a hard time believing the post-cull list is correct. There must just not be enough people adding to the list. I know my taste is different, but for items I considered to be in the top 20 to drop below several items I would have put in the bottom 25%...it just can't be.

Unfortunately, that happens every year. I've been surprised by what passed through and what got left behind all three years I've voted. Remember we don't see what items these questionable passes were opposite when they got their up-votes. That can make all the difference.

Now thy have to stand up to the really good items. Most won't make it to the top 100.

Technically speaking, 254 of them won't make it to the top 100.

<.<

That's 28% of the remaining items getting into top 100.

>.>

*Runs*

I meant most of the questionable items, smarta$@! :p

[Brigg]

Quotes are paraphrased!

Feros wrote:

Brigg wrote:

Feros wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Post-cull list may or may not be accurate!

Questionable items may have a problem!

Smart-arse reply

I meant most of the questionable items, smarta$@! :p

^.^ Yeah, I can get behind that. It's going to be tough competition up until end-of-voting.

[James Raine]

Brigg wrote:

Feros wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Having seen some of the items that made it past the cull and not seeing some of my keeper list not on the post-cull list, I just have a hard time believing the post-cull list is correct. There must just not be enough people adding to the list. I know my taste is different, but for items I considered to be in the top 20 to drop below several items I would have put in the bottom 25%...it just can't be.

Unfortunately, that happens every year. I've been surprised by what passed through and what got left behind all three years I've voted. Remember we don't see what items these questionable passes were opposite when they got their up-votes. That can make all the difference.

Now thy have to stand up to the really good items. Most won't make it to the top 100.

Technically speaking, 254 of them won't make it to the top 100.

<.<

That's 28% of the remaining items getting into top 100.

>.>

*Runs*

Just a note: Using these numbers, you are slightly less likely to make it into the top 32 if you made the cull than you are to threaten a critical with a longsword.

[Jacob W. Michaels]

1d20 ⇒ 19

Sweet.

[Scott LaBarge]

I only use keen longswords, so hopefully that's good news for me too :-)

[Curaigh]

James Raine wrote:

Just a note: Using these numbers, you are slightly less likely to make it into the top 32 if you made the cull than you are to threaten a critical with a longsword.

will my luck hold?: 1d20 ⇒ 16

...not quite...

[Isaac Volynskiy]

C'mon: 1d20 ⇒ 19

[Jacob Kellogg]

1d20 ⇒ 18

So close, yet so far away. :(

[Eric Morton]

1d20 ⇒ 2

Well, good thing I'm dual-wielding longswords while hasted.

1d20 ⇒ 11
1d20 ⇒ 7
1d20 ⇒ 15
1d20 ⇒ 5
1d20 ⇒ 17
1d20 ⇒ 17
1d20 ⇒ 1

Also, good thing I have Improved Critical (longsword).

[Feros]

1d20 ⇒ 13

Blech!

[quibblemuch]

Oh no! The rod I really really liked does not appear to be on anyone's "current voting pool" list. I'd already planned an adventure around its existence... I hope the designer posts to the critique forum, when it is open.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

quibblemuch wrote:

Oh no! The rod I really really liked does not appear to be on anyone's "current voting pool" list. I'd already planned an adventure around its existence... I hope the designer posts to the critique forum, when it is open.

I'm pretty sure GM_Solspiral has a doc with every item he saw contained within. Or at least that is what I thought one of his posts meant. ;P

[frank gori]

quibblemuch wrote:

Oh no! The rod I really really liked does not appear to be on anyone's "current voting pool" list. I'd already planned an adventure around its existence... I hope the designer posts to the critique forum, when it is open.

PM me the name I'll see if I have it... if you don't have the name an aporximation with key words might be enough

[frank gori]

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

I'm pretty sure GM_Solspiral has a doc with every item he saw contained within. Or at least that is what I thought one of his posts meant. ;P

226 pages of them... chances are I have it if you're looking for it. I had that rod :P

[James Risner]

I just added the 255 in column E that I've seen post cull. I can't use google calc well enough to merge the lists.

@quibblemuch, did you need a particular item? I've got data sniff of all items pre and post cull I've seen so far.

[Mikael Sebag]

James Risner wrote:

I just added the 255 in column E that I've seen post cull. I can't use google calc well enough to merge the lists.

Sweet, thanks!