Rod of Withering

[rhpead]

The Rod of Withering seems very lame...

"The rod of withering acts as a +1 light mace that deals no hit point damage. Instead, the wielder deals 1d4 points of temporary Strength damage and 1d4 points of temporary Constitution damage to any creature she touches with the rod (by making a melee touch attack). If she scores a critical hit, the damage from that hit is actually permanent ability drain. In either case, the defender negates the effect with a Fortitude save (DC 14)."

One of my PC wishes to use one, If he has to craft it himself would the DC for it's effect be Higher than DC14? (Wis 18, Lvl 17 Cleric).

Could he use Metamagic feats to improve the DC? Heighten spell?

How would you craft the higher DC item and what would it's Costs / Time to create be?

 

[Silver Griffon]

The DC may be lame, but part of that is because the effects can be devastating!
A few successful Strength drains leads to helplessness: coup de grace time.
A few successful Constitution drains can kill. And each successful drain makes that DC14 Fort save a little bit harder to make next time.
However, I admit that although permanent ability drains are nasty, in practice the difference is usually irrelevant unless the monster/NPC escapes and becomes a recurring villain.
All I'm saying is be wary of letting him pump it up too much.
The listed DC is probably an error, though since the DC of a save vs. a magic item is supposed to be 10 + spell level (contagion is 4th) + the ability bonus of the minimum ability score needed to cast the spell (14 Int for a 4th level Wiz spell, or +2). By that formula it should be DC16. I also don't think its out of line for a PC created item to use his own ability bonus, in fact I think that was probably the intent.
I hope you find this helpful.

 

[kreynolds]

If he has to craft it himself would the DC for it's effect be Higher than DC14?

Not unless he specifically does something about it. Magic items by default have crappy saves (10 + {1.5 x spell level}).

Could he use Metamagic feats to improve the DC? Heighten spell?

Yup.

How would you craft the higher DC item and what would it's Costs / Time to create be?

Just use the new higher spell level of the heightened spell when you're calculating the cost. The time for crafting a rod is 1 day for every 1,000gp in its base price.

EDIT: By the way...welcome to the boards.

 

[kreynolds]

By that formula it should be DC16.

Nope. Its a 3rd level spell for a Cleric, Destruction Domain, and a Bard. The items listed in the DMG always use the more effecient of the spell levels. Items created by players or NPCs use whatever spell level is relevant to them.

I also don't think its out of line for a PC created item to use his own ability bonus, in fact I think that was probably the intent.

Actually, it wasn't the intent. They made another feat in the ELH for this. It's called Enhance Item. Here's a snip...

&nbsp&nbsp&nbspBenefit: Choose any item creation feat that you already know. When you create an item with that feat, adjust the DC for saving throws required by the magic item, if any, by your key ability modifier.
&nbsp&nbsp&nbspNormal: When a character creates a magic item, she uses the minimum key ability score necessary to imbed a spell of a given level, and the associated modifier to adjust the DC for saving throws, regardless of her actual key ability score, which could be higher.
&nbsp&nbsp&nbspSpecial: You gain this feat multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a different item creation feat that you already know.

 

[dcollins]

Two hopefully quick notes...

The Rod of Withering seems very lame...

Part of what you're seeing is a nerfed conversion of a really nasty item from previous editions. The original Staff of Withering (AD&D 1st Ed. DMG, p. 134), on every hit, gave you the option of: (a) spend 2 charges and age the target by 10 years with full penalties (no save), or (b) spend 3 charges and one of the target's limbs shrivel and fall off (no save). Ouch!

One of my PC wishes to use one, If he has to craft it himself would the DC for it's effect be Higher than DC14? (Wis 18, Lvl 17 Cleric). Could he use Metamagic feats to improve the DC? Heighten spell? How would you craft the higher DC item and what would it's Costs / Time to create be?

By the core rules: no. The abilities of listed magic items are fixed and players don't automatically get the option to tinker with them. The DM could choose to allow a heightened-DC version as a house-ruled "new item", and it would be easy to do so. The most obvious thing to do (as mentioned above) is base the spell effect off the heightened spell and caster level, and pro-rate the price up from there (which you'll find gets pretty expensive pretty fast).

EDIT: If you do decide to allow this modified new item, here's my pricing recommendation. The original item has a base price factor of 436 gp (436 x 13 caster level x 3 spell level = 17,000 gp). At the upper level, your player could make one at 17th caster level, heightened to 9th spell level (cost 436 x 17 x 9 = 67,000 gp). This would have a save DC of 10 + 9 + 4 = 23; construction cost 33,500 gp, time 67 days.

 

[Nail]

Re: Re: Rod of Withering

By the core rules: no. The abilities of listed magic items are fixed and players don't automatically get the option to tinker with them. The DM could choose to allow a heightened-DC version as a house-ruled "new item"....(snip)....

dcollins, why do you call things like this "house rules"? I've seen you do this often, for new spells, new magic items, etc. I'm not sure it's appropriate; it seems too strict an interp. of what constitutes a "core rule".

Creating a new magic item is not a house rule. It's a core rule. And in this case, we could create a new magic item with a Heightened spell. Again, not a house rule.

I don't mean to be critical, so please don't take this personally. I'm just asking.

Look: a smiley face to show I'm asking nicely =>

 

[dcollins]

Re: Re: Re: Rod of Withering

dcollins, why do you call things like this "house rules"? I've seen you do this often, for new spells, new magic items, etc. I'm not sure it's appropriate; it seems too strict an interp. of what constitutes a "core rule".

Creating a new magic item is not a house rule. It's a core rule. And in this case, we could create a new magic item with a Heightened spell. Again, not a house rule.

Creating new items using the soft guidelines in the DMG is a DM-only exercise, not transferable between campaigns, and is therefore in the realm of "house rules". DMG p. 11: "As DM, you get to make up your own spells, magic items, races, and monsters!".

Can you quote a rule in any core book that allows a player to take an existing (non-potion/wand/scroll) listed magic item and apply Heighten Spell to it to increase its DC? No -- no such rule exists. While an obvious modification, in no place is this an option specifically given to player characters.

(Note PHB p. 78, "Magic Items and Metamagic Spells: With the right item creation feat, you can store a metamagic spell in a scroll, potion, or wand." No such allowance is given to PCs for, say, a rod or other type of item.)

PCs creating new magic items is mentioned in passing in only one place ("a PC may be able to invent a new kind of magic item", DMG p. 178). It therefore has less solid justification in the rules, and fewer guidelines, than creating new spells, to which new items are explicitly referenced (p. 178, 42, 95). Even researching new spells requires high research fees and the golden rule: "A viable spell is one that you allow into the game." (p. 42) (Even Monte Cook has gone on record as saying the players shouldn't be allowed to look at the "new item" guidelines when making a suggestion.) I do find it odd that so many players and DMs overlook this reference and think that players get to create new items, for free, of their own construction, all the time.

One implication of your suggestion that creating "new items" is core-rule functionality is that every magic item in any accessory supplement, made with those guidelines, must be part of the core rules. And that doesn't make any sense.

Anything that refers to its table as "guidelines" and says "the formulas only provide a starting point... items require at least some DM judgement calls", and is not included in the SRD, cannot be considered core rules.

 

[Silver Griffon]

Thank you kreynolds for pointing out my errors.
I stand corrected.