Wands? - Anyone use?

[Chorn]

What are the exceptions? =\

Mordenkainen's Lucubration and Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer are the exceptions. Both mess around with spell preparation which the sorcerer cannot do outside of the Arcane Preparation feat.

 

[Staffan]

This is for a found item and not for an item that is created. The rules for creating an item are pretty specific and based on the creator.

Actually, that differs with item type. Wands, scrolls and potions have straight costs that are exclusively based on caster level, spell level, item type, and additional costs (e.g. an additional 100 gp per identify charge). Wondrous items, rods, and rings have a straight item-based cost, which may or may not have any relationship to caster level and spell level.

 

[dcollins]

I mean with the formulas just being guidelines and all that, I think the cost for a magic item should always be the same, derived from the effect mostly, regardless of which way you get the prerequisites together.

The formulas are not just guidelines for potions, scrolls and wands (spell storage devices). In this case they are hard-and-fast rules that are in the PHB alongside the feats that create them.

It's the other distinct category -- armor, weapons, rings, rods, wondrous items -- which have unique descriptions, guideline formulas only in the DMG, and (as written in the DMG), fixed caster levels, etc.

 

[Thanee]

Yeah, do you think that item pricing is actually completely different between these groups, when it comes to class differences? That is, there (obviously) are differences with the wands and such, but are they also there with the wondrous items and so on?

Bye
Thanee

 

[irdeggman]

Maybe he's got me on Ignore?

[poke]

I give up.

-Hyp.

No I don't. The quote from the DMG refers to cooperative creating where one character must decide who is the creator. It does not refer to creating an item for someone else - which is what I was referring to. For example a wizard crafts a special sword for his fighter liege. The rules don't address the fighter fitting into the equation at all since he can't craft a magic item in the first place.

 

[irdeggman]

Yeah, do you think that item pricing is actually completely different between these groups, when it comes to class differences? That is, there (obviously) are differences with the wands and such, but are they also there with the wondrous items and so on?

Bye
Thanee

???? Wonderous items have a fixed price based on the item itself regardless of who makes it. The only thing necessary is that the character meet the prerequisites necessary.

Now as far as pricing for items that have class differences - like wands and potions it depends on what you are trying to accomplish.

If you are fixing prices for Ye Olde Magic shop then the price a PC can reasonably expect for a 'generic' item would be based on the minimum level neccessary to make the item. If a PC was making an item and wished to sell it, it would only be fair for the DM to use the actual pricing method from the DMG (before accounting for any bartering). The same logic would reasonably be used when an item is available at higher than the minimum level necessary to make.

 

[Thanee]

A more specific example (from above).

If there is an item, that allows to use Hold Monster at will (based on the lowest possible level to make it, which is 7th (4th spell level)), what price would a wizard have to pay, if he wanted to craft such an item?

Obviously, the wizard has to be at least 9th level and know the spell, which is a 5th level spell, but is the price based on the item itself then calculated as for caster level 7th and spell level 4th?

Bye
Thanee

 

[dcollins]

Yeah, do you think that item pricing is actually completely different between these groups, when it comes to class differences?

It's absolutely different. It's very clear in both the PHB and DMG. Pricing is based on the caster level selected by the creator for potions/scrolls/wands. Pricing is fixed for other types of items.

For your example, the answer is "whatever it says in the book for the specific item description". It's not a potion/scroll/wand, and so needs a specific description in the rulebook. You must be using "Variant: New Magic Items" for the DM to allow it in the game. Therefore you're talking about DMG guidelines, and the real price is whatever the DM decides it's balanced at.


Disclaimer: This does get slightly less clear if one accepts the DMG errata erasing the fact that caster levels are fixed for non-potions/scrolls/wands. If you accept that creators can set caster levels for any item, then the answer is "the rules never say exactly what the price would be".

Previously there was a very sharp, simple, strong distinction between the two categories of items. Now, officially, it's a big unknown as far as pricing altered caster level items. In fact it's the primary reason why I believe that errata doesn't make any sense.

http://superdan.net.home.comcast.net/dndfaq2.html

 

[Thanee]

Disclaimer: This does get slightly less clear if one accepts the DMG errata erasing the fact that caster levels are fixed for non-potions/scrolls/wands.

Wasn't the errata exactly the other way around?

Just to be sure, the current, official version is, that you need to be 17th (caster) level to create a Pearl of Power, right?

Bye
Thanee

 

[Henry]

No I don't. The quote from the DMG refers to cooperative creating where one character must decide who is the creator. It does not refer to creating an item for someone else - which is what I was referring to. For example a wizard crafts a special sword for his fighter liege. The rules don't address the fighter fitting into the equation at all since he can't craft a magic item in the first place.

Actually, the quoted passage doesn't say that - it makes no mention that the participating creator must be a spellcaster. Even if you wanted to read that "with each participant contributing one or more requirements" literally, contributing XP is contributing a requirement - in fact, it goes on to mention the term as "XP required."

Fascinating, because I had no idea this passage was in 3.5! Looks like I have something to spring on my players next game...