Regardless of level, it should cost no more than you'd charge for an item which granted it's wearer a feat with no prerequisites (which has been recommended at 10K to 15K gold). I say this because of the "Extra Spell" feat, which gives a Sorceror or Bard an extra spell known.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Items that Grant Additional Spells Known
- Thread starter UltimaGabe
- Start date
UltimaGabe
First Post
Pax said:
That logic leads to many problems. One such example is an item that grants the Dodge feat. It IS a feat, and therefore should cost 10,000+ according to those guidelines, but all it does is give you a +1 Dodge bonus to AC against a single opponent. Who do you know that's willing to pay 10,000+ for an item that gives them a +1 dodge bonus to AC against a single opponent?
Plain and simple, there's no reason an item like this should cost any more than an item that let you cast the spell at will. True, certain spells are going to be more powerful (anything with a Save or anything reliant on caster level), but you can't cast it as many times as you want. You're very limited in your use of it, as opposed to something you can cast at will. At absolute most, it would cost the same as an item of unlimited castings.
And the level of the spell is VERY important to the cost. Would you want to pay 10,000 gp to have Acid Splash added to your spell list? Very little about the spell is going to be more powerful than the minimum (the only thing I can think of is the range), and yet you have to use up your own spells to power it.
Anybody who says that they wouldn't allow something like this in their campaign is just being dumb and unreasonable. You allow Wizards to overcome their only weakness (via Pearls of Power), and you even allow characters to have items that let them cast spells at Will- but as soon as a Sorcerer wants to overcome his main weakness (one of many, I'll remind you), and he wants to give something up in the process, it's suddenly an artifact.
Load of BS, if you ask me.
UltimaGabe said:
Um. Didn't you notice the part where I said it should cost no more than the cost of one feat? I was setting a logical upper limit for the cost of an item which adds a single additional spell known.
Oh, now THAT line is just going to buy you SOOOOOO much credibility.
...
NOT. :\
Hmmm . . . Am I reading this right?
Does the item give you an extra spell you can cast from you list of known spells? I presume it's like, basically, the same effect as:
1) Adding the spell to a spellbook.
2) Adding the spell to the list of known spells.
3) Adding the spell to the cleric's list of spells.
If so, well, you need to split the item into three items, one for each effect. Why? This item has a different value for each class.
This item would be best for sorcerers, who get more spells to pick from. Next is clerics, who suddenly have access to fireball and other nasty spells. Wizards still get the possibility of casting spells they shouldn't, but it doesn't quite double their list of spells, and it's basically the same as scribing the spell into his or her spellbook.
For the wizard version, it shouldn't cost much more than a scroll.
For the cleric version, it should probably cost about half as much as a pearl of power.
For the sorcerer version, I'd say it's worth almost as much as a pearl of power.
Does the item give you an extra spell you can cast from you list of known spells? I presume it's like, basically, the same effect as:
1) Adding the spell to a spellbook.
2) Adding the spell to the list of known spells.
3) Adding the spell to the cleric's list of spells.
If so, well, you need to split the item into three items, one for each effect. Why? This item has a different value for each class.
This item would be best for sorcerers, who get more spells to pick from. Next is clerics, who suddenly have access to fireball and other nasty spells. Wizards still get the possibility of casting spells they shouldn't, but it doesn't quite double their list of spells, and it's basically the same as scribing the spell into his or her spellbook.
For the wizard version, it shouldn't cost much more than a scroll.
For the cleric version, it should probably cost about half as much as a pearl of power.
For the sorcerer version, I'd say it's worth almost as much as a pearl of power.
Thanee, unless I read the description wrong, I think you are seriously overrating this item. It's not very powerful at all except to sorcerers, and then only moderately so.
Now if it let you use a spell that you didn't have a high enough level for, that's different, but it sounds like this just basically adds a spell to the spell list.
Now if it let you use a spell that you didn't have a high enough level for, that's different, but it sounds like this just basically adds a spell to the spell list.
Thanee
First Post
Anubis said:
It adds spells to the sorcerers spells KNOWN list, which is the most fundamental limit they have.
It would be fine to add one or two spells here and there, but with such an item you could easily afford dozens of lower level spells and thus retain ultimate flexibility, outshining wizards by far!
I find it completely (smart and) reasonable (
) to allow an item, that grants sorcerers additional spell slots, but not one that adds to spells known... not unless the item is EXTREMELY limited (i.e. artifact, or in other words NOT craft-able).Just because sorcerers are slightly less powerful than wizards overall, does not justify to include an item, that totally takes away their biggest class limit.
It's not like sorcerers can't use items already, if they wanted something else... it's quite a difference, however, to cast spells yourself compared to let an item cast them. The first is usually vastly superior.
IMHO the inclusion of such an item would break the sorcerer class.
Bye
Thanee
Similar Threads
