The changes between versions 1 and 2 were quite substantial, but how many changes did I make after that? Let's have a look at the third version, and I'll describe my thought processes and decisions.
- Name a deity whose favored weapon is a sword and who likes fire? I think the first deity that comes to mind is Sarenrae (though I'm sure there are other deities that also fit that description). Sarenrae is also called the Dawnflower, which ties nicely into the fire-blossom theme I picked for the item.
- To be consistent with the theme, I'll change the weapon to a scimitar, Sarenrae's favored weapon. Luckily enough, a scimitar costs and weighs exactly as much as a longsword, so there's no need to adjust those numbers.
- I intended to change the name to aurora's edge or edge of the morn, but Jacob W Michaels's comment on part 2 got me thinking. While I think that having "dawn" or a (near-)synonym of that word in the name would certainly fit an item with a Dawnflower theme, I realized that "fire blossom blade" is actually a very good name for an item with the theme I chose, that of a sun/fire deity whose title includes the word "flower". So I'm not going to change the name after all. (Hence the question mark in the title.)
- Another change I planned to include was that when you use up the three daily charges, the flaming ability goes inert until the charges are renewed at dawn, thus creating an interesting decision to make when you only have one daily use left. That would also have been another layer of thematic linking (renewed at dawn - the Dawnflower), but in the end, I decided against adding another ability that could have been seen as a drawback. Had I included it, I would have lowered the price, but not by much.
- The second version of the item had a minor formatting mistake: the item's name should not be italicized unless written out in full. So I changed each instance of "the blade" to "the sword".
- I decided to add a bit more flavor text to describe the secondary effect.
I ended up changing the item much less than I originally intended, which is good, I think. As I stated in a recent discussion, one should strive toward simpler rather than more complex items. While the old adage "the best writing is rewriting" is true, there's a point after which the text no longer gets better. The ability to resist changing and adding more and more is an invaluable quality in a designer.Fire-Blossom Blade
Aura moderate evocation; CL 10th
Slot none; Price 16,315 gp; Weight 4 lbs.
Description
Both the scabbard and hilt of this +1 flaming scimitar are inlaid with rubies arranged in patterns resembling blossoming flowers. Upon drawing the sword, glowing words briefly appear along the blade's surface, praising Sarenrae the Dawnflower, then fade from view.
Three times per day on command, the sword causes its wielder to burst in a fiery explosion that sends gouts of flame, each shaped like the wielder, out to a 20-foot radius. As part of the action, the wielder may make a full attack action with the sword, targeting creatures caught in the burst as though they were within her melee reach. Each attack must target a different creature. The fire damage dealt by the flaming ability is increased to 2d6 for the duration of the full attack.
After the attacks are resolved, the flames produced by the explosion converge, and the wielder emerges in an unoccupied space of her choice within the burst, unscathed by the explosion.
Construction
Requirements Craft Magic Arms and Armor, fireball; Cost 8,315 gp
Despite the new flavor text added, the word count is still only 187. Based on my own experiences from 2013 and 2014, I usually read shorter items first in the voting booth, and long items really have to grab me the moment I start reading or I'll just skim the text, especially once voting fatigue sets in.
Would this item make the Top 32? I really don't know; the surprise twists for round 1 mean that it's much harder to predict what is going to be popular and what the judges like, and I'm biased anyway. At any rate, I think it'd have a chance, whereas the the first version would never even get past the cull.
Anyway, that's all for now. I hope you found it useful! Everyone who's entering RPG Superstar this year, I wish you the best of luck! Next week I have a special announcement, and the week after that I'm very likely post some map-making advice for round 2.
Discuss
- Which of the three names I proposed do you like the best? Can you think of other names that would fit the Dawnflower theme and the mechanics equally well or even better?
- In your opinion, would the limitation (when you run out of daily uses) have been an interesting addition or just a waste of words?
- If you have any questions or comments, fire away!
I'm not fond of the drawback idea. I think something like that can work, but not in this instance.
ReplyDeleteI once drafted a wondrous item that caused you to turn into a swarm when reduced to 0 or lower hitpoints once per day. I realized that on-dying items usually aren't Superstar because the item doesn't do anything until the rare chance you need it. So, I added a second ability you can activate once per day, which was the ability to summon a swarm to carry you a distance if I'm remembering correctly. However, I needed to tie the two effects together mechanically to avoid feeling like a SAK. The obvious solution is having both abilities use the same once-per-day usage, but that means a player would never use the active ability in fear of being unable to use the on-dying effect when they needed it. So, I came up with a compromise. The player can use the active ability once per day. After activating the on-dying effect, the PC's hair color changes for 24 hours. During this duration, they cannot use either ability. It's a drawback, but one that makes sense and does not punish the player for using the item for its intended purpose.
I guess what to take away from this is that the drawback of disabling one ability when using another only works if the opportunity cost makes sense. With your item, it doesn't make sense to me because all it does is punish the player for using the item in a way it was intended.
Good point! Drawbacks are usually a bad idea, and I think I made the right call that I left it out. Thanks for the comment!
DeleteI agree, though I do believe drawbacks can work if done well. The easiest way is to make the drawback optional or present it differently so it doesn't look like a drawback. For example, the sword's text could say the wielder can use the ability twice per day, but can choose to do it a third time at the cost of deactivating the flaming property until the sword regains its daily uses next dawn. Despite the sword being exactly the same, the player will feel like it's an optional bonus rather than a drawback.
DeleteThat's an excellent piece of advice! Presenting it as an optional bonus is a great idea. :-)
DeleteI like Fire-Blossom Blade as the name. Aurora's Edge is a nice name that would better fit a blade with a different flavor.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment! Agreed, the more I thought about it, the more convinced I got that there was no reason to change the name.
DeleteIn Paizo style, you make a full attack rather than make a full attack action.
ReplyDeleteThree times per day on command, the sword causes its wielder to burst in a fiery explosion that sends gouts of flame, each shaped like the wielder, out to a 20-foot radius. As part of the action, the wielder may make a full attack action with the sword, targeting creatures caught in the burst as though they were within her melee reach. Each attack must target a different creature. The fire damage dealt by the flaming ability is increased to 2d6 for the duration of the full attack.
Does this shoot fire out across the entire 20-foot radius with each use? For instance, would this set a small room on fire? If there are allies or bystanders nearby, are they affected by the explosion? If so, how are they affected?
If it doesn't cover the entire radius with fire, would it be better to say something like the explosion "sends gouts of flame toward targets up to 20 feet from the wielder"?
After the attacks are resolved, the flames produced by the explosion converge
They presumably converge on the wielder. If the wielder is standing on something flammable or sharing a space with another creature, does the fire affect them?
Yeah, it's still a bit rough around the edges--if this was a contest entry or freelance assignment, this would probably be the first version I'd send out to my crew to review. As for the flame effect, generally speaking magic items (or spells, or feats) only do what they say they do. So, the only mechanical effects are the full attack, which deals more fire damage than it normally would, and the "move to a space of your choice" effect. I like your suggested change to the description.
DeleteThe flames meet in the square where the wielder wants to be after the full attack.
Anyway, other than the things you mentioned here, how did you like the item?
I like it! The effect is very cool and would perfectly suit the fighting style and flavor of an experienced whirling dervish.
DeleteSince it's a standard action to activate a command word and the full attack is made as part of that action, wouldn't that mean the wielder still has a move action afterward?
ReplyDeleteYes, the wielder can take a move action after or before the attacks.
Delete