D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 DMG Errata has been posted at WOTC

[Caliban]

BUT! and this is where dc misses the boat and the rules dont cover, the item made by the 20th level caster has a higher "Sale Value" which is unfortunately synonymous with the game term "Market Value"

Where does it say it has a higher "Sale Value", in the rules? I agree that items with level based spell effects have a variable cost based on the caster level, but I don't see where items like belt's of giant strength have their cost adjusted by the caster level. (Although as a DM I would probably increase the value if the caster level was significantly higher than the default. It's just not spelled out in the rules.)

 

[Staffan]

They didn't fix the price on the lesser metamagic Rod of maximization either. It's about twice as expensive as it should be.

 

[Plane Sailing]

They didn't fix the price on the lesser metamagic Rod of maximization either. It's about twice as expensive as it should be.

I don't know about that... my sorcerer has one and it is an incredibly powerful item that is useful at every caster level up from when you get it! I was just discussing with my DM and we reckon that it is far more valuable from the party/PC point of view than the more expensive Staff of Fire! If it was half the current price it would be astonishingly brilliant...

 

[reiella]

For many items, the caster level is irrelevent (in regards to cost), it's the effect that determines the cost.

Stat increasing items, AC and Resistance items, etc. They all have their cost determined by the effect they create, not the caster level for the item.

In general, items that generate a level based spell effect are the ones that have their price determined by the caster level.

Actually, I think for any of the items it's caster level is important; and part of why I'm hoping that there is an increased cost for boosting the caster level of some wonderous items such as the belts, although I'm unaware of any such in the RAW.

If the object that you target is a magic item, you make a dispel check against the item?s caster level. If you succeed, all the item?s magical properties are suppressed for 1d4 rounds, after which the item recovers on its own. A suppressed item becomes nonmagical for the duration of the effect.

It -should- have a result (even if minor) on the cost, imo.

[ Edit / Clarification ]
It should as a balance reason, in my opinon, if you allow for divergence from the base-line of items. Also doing as such, currently, I think would, in fact, be a house rule.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

no fix of PrCs not counting towards levels for the 10% xp hit tho...

Andy Collins has written that that was a mistake and that there is no penalty for PrC and we should consider what he said official errata. And yet when the official errata is released it is not there. Now that there is official errata and this is not included, but yet they are deffnitely aware of the problem, the only conclusions I can draw are that the rules committee has decided that Andy is wrong and that PrC penalties are correct or that the whole 3.5 process is riddled with more problems than 3.0 which at least got all its errata out in a timely fashion.

 

[Caliban]

Actually, I think for any of the items it's caster level is important; and part of why I'm hoping that there is an increased cost for boosting the caster level of some wonderous items such as the belts, although I'm unaware of any such in the RAW.



It -should- have a result (even if minor) on the cost, imo.

[ Edit / Clarification ]
It should as a balance reason, in my opinon, if you allow for divergence from the base-line of items. Also doing as such, currently, I think would, in fact, be a house rule.

Oh, I agree that it should have an effect on the price. I'm just saying that under the item pricing guidelines in the DMG, it doesn't have any effect, unless the item is generating a level-based spell effect.

 

[jgsugden]

Andy Collins has written that that was a mistake and that there is no penalty for PrC and we should consider what he said official errata. And yet when the official errata is released it is not there. Now that there is official errata and this is not included, but yet they are deffnitely aware of the problem, the only conclusions I can draw are that the rules committee has decided that Andy is wrong and that PrC penalties are correct or that the whole 3.5 process is riddled with more problems than 3.0 which at least got all its errata out in a timely fashion.

Right Hand: "Damn, where is he? What is he doing?!?!?!?!?"

Left Hand: "BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You'll never find out! I work in shadows ... causing chaos you'll never understand!"

Different people work in different areas at WotC. Don't assume that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing .... or saying.

It is pretty clear that the failure to mention the exception to the experience penalties for prestige classes was an accident.

 

[Staffan]

I don't know about that... my sorcerer has one and it is an incredibly powerful item that is useful at every caster level up from when you get it! I was just discussing with my DM and we reckon that it is far more valuable from the party/PC point of view than the more expensive Staff of Fire! If it was half the current price it would be astonishingly brilliant...

Ah, my bad. The Maximize rod is OK. It's the Quicken rod that's overcosted.

Compare it to the other rods. You'll note that there's a rough progression for rod costing:

1: A regular Rod costs ~4 times as much as a Lesser Rod. A Greater Rod costs ~9 times as much.

2: A rod that gives a +2 feat costs ~3 times as much as one that gives a +1 feat. One that gives a +3 feat costs ~5 times as much, and one that gives a +4 feat costs ~7 times as much.

The only rod that doesn't match roughly match these guidelines is the Lesser Quickening rod. It ought to cost about 20,000 gp, but the actual cost is 35,000. The other Quickening rods match, it's just the Lesser that's out of place.

 

[James McMurray]

One of our GMs with lots of spar time typed this over at Exodus.

The formula I came up with works great for determining the baseline:

it's roughly (max spell level affectable)^2*300

so for lesser, it's 3^2*300 (2,700), rounded up a smidge to 2,750

regular is 6^2*300 (10,800), rounded down a smidge to 10,750

greater is 9^2*300 (24,300), rounded down a smidge to 24,250

Then you multiply that by (metamagic level)^2-(metamagic level-1)^2

so for maximize, you multiply by 5 (3^2-2^2), giving you
lesser maximize: 13,750
maximize: 53,750
greater maximize: 121,250

then you add 250 to the last number (probably just to make the number rounder, maybe the intrinsic value of the rod itself)

so 14K, 54K, and 121.5K are the prices for a +3 metamagic rod (right out of the book).

The above formulas work for all 12 examples of rods in the SRD *except* the two I mentioned. I'm sure someone did it for some balance reason, but why not make the regular and greater quickening ones also more expensive? It just isn't consistent and just another lame WotCism (that's my new term for their "weird" stuff).

 

[dcollins]

Sean K Reynolds doesn't work at WOTC anymore, he wasn't the one who wrote the 3.0 DMG, and what he says contradicts the pricing guidelines for magic items in the 3.5 DMG. Also, your first quote is two years old, and only relates to 3.0. So I wouldn't really put much weight in what he says on this particular subject.

Check again, the first quoted thread is dated 7/11/2003 and specifically titled "[3.5] Errata/FAQ not included? Confirm or deny."