Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cheiromancer" data-source="post: 3179589" data-attributes="member: 141">I wonder how a rod of absorption was costed.  A staff of spell turning would be 7th level x 15 caster level x 375 = 39,375 gp.  Maybe the ability to store spell energy is worth a 25% premium over having it reflect a spell back on your opponent?  How much would a rod of spell energy cost, one that worked like a rod of absorption that had absorbed 50 charges?  Presumably a fair bit less than a rod of absorption.  Or what if it only absorbed charges, but this didn't charge up the rod so you could cast your own spells (a rod of ablation)?  If these two functions were equally valuable, then they should be worth 20,000 gp each; when combined one is the base price, and the other receives a 50% premium.  Each is a "different" function, since the rod can absorb spells while the user is using charges.Now suppose these derivative rods were rechargeable; you could cast mage's lucubration into a rod of spell energy, say, or antimagic field into a rod of ablation in order to restore charges.  Would you double the cost?  I think that would be a fair way of pricing a rechargeable item.  Of course you don't have to posit these other items in order to decide that a rechargeable rod of absorption (that you cast spell turning into) would cost 100,000 gp.A staff of the magi works more or less like a rechargeable rod of absorption.  Except that it converts the potential to charges that power the staff, instead of making it available for the caster to use for his own spells.  Kind of a backwards form of Staff Mastery, there.  I can't think of why the staff of the magi doesn't communicate information on how many spell levels are cast at the wielder.  The element of risk it introduces should provide a fair discount.I guess I'm chewing over the 250,000 gp.  I don't see it as providing a huge premium over a rod of absorption; if there is a modest premium it would be made up by the "risky absorption" feature.  So I'd think more like 100,000 gp than 250,000 gp.But that's based on the notion that converting a charged item to a rechargeable item would result in a doubling of cost.  That's the same factor as making something a use-activated item.  But when a use-activated item is inappropriate (use activated items of CLW or true strike or whatever), a rechargeable item probably would be OK.This will sound funny, but  I need to ask it: "Is staff of the magi a staff?  If so, then the following applies:The save DC indicates that it is a 3rd level spell (all the other DCs are 14 + spell level).  Though it's a pretty dumb 3rd level spell that does a maximum of 8 points of damage (save for half).  Maybe it is a maximized, not-an-action casting time spell that does d8 in a 10-ft. radius, d6 out to 20-ft., and d4 out to 30-ft.. The not-an-action casting time would explain why all the charges could go off at once. Still a pretty dumb spell, though.  And I don't know why a 1-charge retributive strike would have a 50% chance of destroying the wielder, either.  Double damage I could see.   Re: 510K for a staff of necromancyFunny how 510,000 gp comes to be described as "cheap," isn't it?  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I'd think that 31st level should be the minimum CL for an item that casts 16th level spells.  (2 x Spell level) -1.  32 is fine, though.  I don't really see any logical reason it would be higher; the way CL works for staves, it would be silly to make it any higher.</blockquote>

Verification