argo said:
No. First off those charts are not in the
Players Handbook, they are in the
Dungeon Master's Guide and like all material in the DMG is meant as material to aid the DM in running the game, not for the players to wave in his face and cry foul. Secondly, even if you don't buy that argument the DMG still states quite clearly that magic item pricing charts are not
rules but
guidlines and that the DM may need to adjust the price of any new magic items to fit their power.
Now, that doesn't mean that a DM shouldn't allow the player to invent new items. That sort of thing is just rewarding good play and can add a great deal to a campaign. But don't forget that that is exactly what we are talking about... DM approval of a house-ruled item. And I don't think many DM's would let you go makign wonderous-item-wands willy nilly, otherwise you wind up witht the sort of absurd munchkinism where one feat does the work of three.
I guess I must have missed the part where ENWorld posting rules were declared official errata
Scrolls are an incredibly cheap way to get around the wizard's two basic limitations: number of spells per day and not knowing what spells to prepare. And wands are a great way to make sure that your wiz can contribute something every round of combat, even if it's just a simple magic missile, while saving his slots for the big fight at the end. Potions are more of a cleric specality but it is still nice for a team-oriented wiz to be able to hand out items that the rest of the party can use.
Of course, wonderous items do that better
Later.
Well, if you want to be technical about the DMG and PHB, ALL the magic items are in the DMG. Therefore all magic items would fall under the same catagory, that of having to be approved by the DM. Which is actually the case in my games. And I wholeheartedly approve of the DM using rules as guidelines. I only wish more people approached more of the RAW in that way. Rules
as written is a horrible approach to gaming in my opinion. People need more creativity. The entire RAW approach is, in my opinion, the thing most wrong with the 3.x culture. If you were to take that away and approach the entire thing as guidelines (which there is at least one paragraph saying you should do) it would be a better game/culture.
ALL magic items should be a reward for good gameplay. Players shouldn't be able to wave foul no matter what magic item (or spell) the DM doesn't want.
OK, ok, granted that allowing wands and potions would technically be allowing one feat to work for three... but then again, people in my games HATE creation feats. If noone is going to make wands or potions and you think they should be able to, it doesn't hurt. And there is the very real fact that 1) the game system wasn't really very well thought out. (Fine, the very real opinion). And 2) No matter what else you claim, unless you're being absurd, you'll save more gold making the wonderous items in the DMG than you ever will making wands. And the gold you save early on can easily pay the remained of the full price )from if you had taken that feat instead) for the few wands you want to make. Plus the rules for making wonderous items with charges and making one use wonderous items are written down. They really DO have duplicate items. It's not MY fault if the game system designers wrote in a way (and therefore either intended or are pretty bad at noticing these things) for the smarter characters to make potions and wands AND wonderous items for all one feat.
"I guess I must have missed the part where ENWorld posting rules were declared official errata
"
Yea, there was a short meta discussion about it. I didn't participate but I found it an enjoyable read. I understood the point of both sides of the conversation, but basically one side was using the general impression that since the exact items aren't in the DMG it must be house rules, whereas the other side pointed out that, indeed, the rules and tables were there (if complex)... and therefore it was core RAW. Actually, with a few easy additional house (guideline what to accept) rules it's not too hard to allow players to take that table and run.
Oh, and potions... actually, even if you don't allow potions that are in the DMG as wonderous items just because they're duplicates (in obvious disregard of the duplicates that exist), it's STILL better to take wonderous for those potions. Go back and reread the guidlines for potion making. There are a lot of restrictions, and you can make more spells into elixers than you can into potions.
And yes, a *few* scrolls are pretty good. But when I can find a DM that will allow me to trade that feat in for something I'll use more often I definitely do it! To me, I'd rather just buy or find the few scrolls I want... and/or make pearls. MmmMmm Pearls of Power.
Falling Icicle said:
I couldn't disagree more. I've been saved many times by having a scroll handy that had a spell I needed but hadn't prepared (or had already expended). I'm not saying one should go crazy on scroll making, but it's helpful to make a few here and there with spells that can be lifesavers but you can't afford to prepare.
And Wizards should always keep a couple scrolls handy of some of the more staple spells, like Dispel Magic, Invisibility, Stoneskin, etc. You never know when things will go messy and you need an extra one of those spells. It's better to have something and need it than to need something and want it.
Yes, it costs xp, but the experience loss of making a scroll is miniscule (my first level scrolls only cost me 1 xp each - oh no), and it's an awful lot less xp than dying will cost you.
Oh, sure, you're FIRST level spell only cost you one XP. (But then, at first level you only need 1000 to advance, so...) Higher level spells cost more. But I agree. Note that I said "many" scrolls, not "any" scrolls. Definitely have and or make several. Just not many.
