Magic items that use specific monster rules

[ChrisLKimball]

Hey Guys i was just wondering if anyone knows of any examples of magic items using specific monster rules/abilities (not universal monster rules). I ask as I ponder formatting. Thanks.

[Mike Kimmel]

Most of the time when a magic item references a monster, it simply says (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary). See: efreeti bottle, golem manual, and others. I can't think of an item which references a specific monster ability.

[ChrisLKimball]

That is something at least although that formatting doesn't seem to continue into the PRD! There is the cyclops helm in Emerald Spire but i don't have a none internet version of the text. I do have Talisman of Soul Drinking from book of the damned vol. 3 which references "as if the amulet were a living Cacodaemon using its soul lock ability (Bestiary 2 64)"

again not a strong reference, but depending on the obscurity of the source probably worth using this.

[Anthony Adam]

Might be worth checking seans advice thread, I seem to recall giving class/monster feats and abilities in an item dilutes the uniqueness of the creature and could get frowned upon. I might be wrong, but I half recollect something along those lines.

[Rose Stack]

Anthony Adam wrote:

Might be worth checking seans advice thread, I seem to recall giving class/monster feats and abilities in an item dilutes the uniqueness of the creature and could get frowned upon. I might be wrong, but I half recollect something along those lines.

He specifically advises against doing any class-in-a-can stuff, but notes that monster abilities are different because they're not usually open to PC's. An item that gives a player a monster ability isn't automatically NOT innovative the way that class abilitIes are by default things you could already do if you just took levels in that class.

[ChrisLKimball]

I think I picked something that is innocuous enough and theming fitting to my item that it shouldn't really be a problem, although that is I guess for the masses to decide, but yes I have read Sean's rules, and agree with mechaPoet's assessment. Although I almost broke the no vomiting rule! Which seems out of date now that we have spells like "vomit swarm"

[Thomas LeBlanc]

ChrisLKimball wrote:

I think I picked something that is innocuous enough and theming fitting to my item that it shouldn't really be a problem, although that is I guess for the masses to decide, but yes I have read Sean's rules, and agree with mechaPoet's assessment. Although I almost broke the no vomiting rule! Which seems out of date now that we have spells like "vomit swarm"

So if there is only 1 item that uses a monster ability, we know that is your item and it is no longer anonymous...

While it isn't breaking the no vomiting advice (not a rule), breaking anonymity is breaking a contest rule.

[Anthony Adam]

The problem with vomit, blood, and gore is a simple one...

Some people wont vote for each/all of them, so if you want to maximise your vote gain potential, don't use them.

Blood and Gore, I can live with, and they are unlikely to affect my voting, vomit makes me feel ill/queasy and I will down-vote such items more often than not.

That's personal feelings and my reactions to those sorts of things, but hopefully illustrates how such things can adversely reduce your vote gaining potential.

[ChrisLKimball]

and redesigning, #$%&

[Neil Spicer]

Traditionally, the judges had a love/hate relationship in evaluating items which cited specific monster rules. If it grants a monster ability to a PC, it might have redeeming value. A corset that grants the compression squeezing ability, for instance. Yes, it's a universal monster rule, but some items are pretty cool if they explore that territory, because it's thematically on point and elevates the item's mojo.

Of course, you also run the risk of running into Monster-in-a-Can territory if you take it too far. Does the item wind up turning you into the actual monster? Or, does it essentially manifest as the actual monster? If so, it's pretty much just a Monster-in-a-Can, and, as such, it kind of lacks Superstar mojo, because you're depending on someone else's cool monster design or monster ability design to prop up your item. That approach doesn't tell us much about you and what you're capable of inventing from whole cloth. And that's really the goal of RPG Superstar. It's meant to identify Superstar designers, not just cool items.

That's sometimes a hard distinction to make for some folks. But, as an example, if someone came up with a really imaginative, evocative item whose primary (or only) purpose was to convey a troglodyte's nauseating stench under certain circumstances...I'd be more inclined to down-vote that item, because it's not treading enough new ground for me to want to see that designer in the Top 32. Instead, a Superstar item should have enough new, creative elements to it (not just mechanically, but flavor-wise, too) that I want to see what else they can do in future rounds. That's my final litmus test for separating the good designs from the great designs...and that's because I'm looking beyond the design for the great designer behind it.

But that's just my two cents,
--Neil

[The black raven]

Neil Spicer wrote:

Does the item wind up turning you into the actual monster? Or, does it essentially manifest as the actual monster? If so, it's pretty much just a Monster-in-a-Can, and, as such, it kind of lacks Superstar mojo, because you're depending on someone else's cool monster design or monster ability design to prop up your item.

Actually one item I was considering did both. And it nagged at me that it was inappropriate. Thanks to this post I better understand why.

Well, I still have 4 other item ideas which do not fall under this umbrella (though likely under others).

I am realizing also that I tend to think of items that are either utilitarians, variations of existing items, or assemblages of things that already exist.

It is as if my creative mind was focussed on playing with / building on existing things rather than creating whole new ones :-(

I am tempted to blame the relentless minmaxing part of my mind.