Staff of fire underpriced?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Am I missing something, or is the staff of fire terribly underpriced
(according to the pricing rules... I don't want to comment on the
practical usefulness of it).

I'm getting

CL 8th
Burning hands (1 charge) 1 x 8 x 750 x 0.5 = 3000
Fireball (1 charge) 3 x 8 x 750 x 1 = 18000
Wall of fire (2 charges) 2 x 8 x 750 x 0.75 = 9000
=====
30000

The DMG list the cost as 17750 gp. That's significantly cheaper than a
CL 8th wand of fireballs, even!

OTOH, some staves (swarming insects) are equally overpriced, I think...



--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> Am I missing something, or is the staff of fire terribly underpriced
> (according to the pricing rules... I don't want to comment on the
> practical usefulness of it).
>
> I'm getting
>
> CL 8th
> Burning hands (1 charge) 1 x 8 x 750 x 0.5 = 3000
> Fireball (1 charge) 3 x 8 x 750 x 1 = 18000
> Wall of fire (2 charges) 2 x 8 x 750 x 0.75 = 9000
> =====
> 30000
>
> The DMG list the cost as 17750 gp. That's significantly cheaper than a
> CL 8th wand of fireballs, even!
>
> OTOH, some staves (swarming insects) are equally overpriced, I think...

According to Skip's guidance Wall of Fire as the highest level spell
gets the X1 mulitplier as it is the highest level power despite the half
cost for the two charge requirement. It is still too high though at
28,500gp.

In 3.0 the stave cost 29,000gp. Lord knows why they gave the discount.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>> Am I missing something, or is the staff of fire terribly underpriced
>> (according to the pricing rules... I don't want to comment on the
>> practical usefulness of it).
>>
>> I'm getting
>>
>> CL 8th
>> Burning hands (1 charge) 1 x 8 x 750 x 0.5 = 3000
>> Fireball (1 charge) 3 x 8 x 750 x 1 = 18000
>> Wall of fire (2 charges) 2 x 8 x 750 x 0.75 = 9000
>> =====
>> 30000
>>
>> The DMG list the cost as 17750 gp. That's significantly cheaper than
>> a CL 8th wand of fireballs, even!
>>
>> OTOH, some staves (swarming insects) are equally overpriced, I
>> think...
>
> According to Skip's guidance Wall of Fire as the highest level spell
> gets the X1 mulitplier as it is the highest level power despite the
> half cost for the two charge requirement. It is still too high though
> at 28,500gp.
>
> In 3.0 the stave cost 29,000gp. Lord knows why they gave the discount.

Is it possible to set the caster levels to minimum for the individual
powers? That'd make it come out closer to correct. There's no obvious
difference in wording between the instructions for creating wands and those
for creating staffs, and wands can certainly be created at minimal caster
level. Obviously, this is far more beneficial when making staffs than when
making wands, so it doesn't seem correct - but going by the formula, a lot
of staffs don't quite seem correctly priced for their caster level.

4 X 7 X 750 X 0.5 = 10500
3 X 5 X 750 X 0.75 = 8437.5
1 X 1 X 750 X 0.5 = 375
TOTAL: 19312.5 gp

Still more than the listed price, but not a great deal more.

--
Mark.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
> Symbol wrote:
>
>>Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>>
>>>Am I missing something, or is the staff of fire terribly underpriced
>>>(according to the pricing rules... I don't want to comment on the
>>>practical usefulness of it).
>>>
>>>I'm getting
>>>
>>>CL 8th
>>>Burning hands (1 charge) 1 x 8 x 750 x 0.5 = 3000
>>>Fireball (1 charge) 3 x 8 x 750 x 1 = 18000
>>>Wall of fire (2 charges) 2 x 8 x 750 x 0.75 = 9000
>>> =====
>>> 30000
>>>
>>>The DMG list the cost as 17750 gp. That's significantly cheaper than
>>>a CL 8th wand of fireballs, even!
>>>
>>>OTOH, some staves (swarming insects) are equally overpriced, I
>>>think...
>>
>>According to Skip's guidance Wall of Fire as the highest level spell
>>gets the X1 mulitplier as it is the highest level power despite the
>>half cost for the two charge requirement. It is still too high though
>>at 28,500gp.
>>
>>In 3.0 the stave cost 29,000gp. Lord knows why they gave the discount.
>
>
> Is it possible to set the caster levels to minimum for the individual
> powers? That'd make it come out closer to correct. There's no obvious
> difference in wording between the instructions for creating wands and those
> for creating staffs, and wands can certainly be created at minimal caster
> level.

Any spell in a staff has a minimum caster level of 8 and all spells must
have the same caster level. So obviously higher level powers boost the
cost of low level spells too. If you change this you really start
breaking things.

Obviously, this is far more beneficial when making staffs than when
> making wands, so it doesn't seem correct - but going by the formula, a lot
> of staffs don't quite seem correctly priced for their caster level.
>
> 4 X 7 X 750 X 0.5 = 10500
> 3 X 5 X 750 X 0.75 = 8437.5
> 1 X 1 X 750 X 0.5 = 375
> TOTAL: 19312.5 gp
>
> Still more than the listed price, but not a great deal more.

It would be nice to know what they did because unless someone manages to
retcon it we can only assume that they used the formulas but maybe
included a discount.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <3gh1prFcd4eoU1@individual.net>,
m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid says...

> >> Am I missing something, or is the staff of fire terribly underpriced
> >> (according to the pricing rules... I don't want to comment on the
> >> practical usefulness of it).
> >>
> >> I'm getting
> >>
> >> CL 8th
> >> Burning hands (1 charge) 1 x 8 x 750 x 0.5 = 3000
> >> Fireball (1 charge) 3 x 8 x 750 x 1 = 18000
> >> Wall of fire (2 charges) 2 x 8 x 750 x 0.75 = 9000
> >> =====
> >> 30000
> >>
> >> The DMG list the cost as 17750 gp. That's significantly cheaper than
> >> a CL 8th wand of fireballs, even!
> >>
> >> OTOH, some staves (swarming insects) are equally overpriced, I
> >> think...
> >
> > According to Skip's guidance Wall of Fire as the highest level spell
> > gets the X1 mulitplier as it is the highest level power despite the
> > half cost for the two charge requirement. It is still too high though
> > at 28,500gp.
> >
> > In 3.0 the stave cost 29,000gp. Lord knows why they gave the discount.
>
> Is it possible to set the caster levels to minimum for the individual
> powers? That'd make it come out closer to correct. There's no obvious
> difference in wording between the instructions for creating wands and those
> for creating staffs, and wands can certainly be created at minimal caster
> level. Obviously, this is far more beneficial when making staffs than when
> making wands, so it doesn't seem correct -

Actually, I'd see no real problem with that. Sure, it's much better than
wands, but that's why it's another feat, one you can take at 12th level
at the soonest, making it one of the highest-level feats in the game.

But. It's not possible. Creating Staffs, from the SRD: "The caster level
of all spells in a staff must be the same, and no staff can have a
caster level of less than 8th, even if all the spells in the staff are
low-level spells."


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> In article <3gh1prFcd4eoU1@individual.net>,
> m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid says...
>
>>>> Am I missing something, or is the staff of fire terribly
>>>> underpriced (according to the pricing rules... I don't want to
>>>> comment on the practical usefulness of it).
>>>>
>>>> I'm getting
>>>>
>>>> CL 8th
>>>> Burning hands (1 charge) 1 x 8 x 750 x 0.5 = 3000
>>>> Fireball (1 charge) 3 x 8 x 750 x 1 = 18000
>>>> Wall of fire (2 charges) 2 x 8 x 750 x 0.75 = 9000
>>>> =====
>>>> 30000
>>>>
>>>> The DMG list the cost as 17750 gp. That's significantly cheaper
>>>> than a CL 8th wand of fireballs, even!
>>>>
>>>> OTOH, some staves (swarming insects) are equally overpriced, I
>>>> think...
>>>
>>> According to Skip's guidance Wall of Fire as the highest level spell
>>> gets the X1 mulitplier as it is the highest level power despite the
>>> half cost for the two charge requirement. It is still too high
>>> though at 28,500gp.
>>>
>>> In 3.0 the stave cost 29,000gp. Lord knows why they gave the
>>> discount.
>>
>> Is it possible to set the caster levels to minimum for the individual
>> powers? That'd make it come out closer to correct. There's no obvious
>> difference in wording between the instructions for creating wands
>> and those for creating staffs, and wands can certainly be created at
>> minimal caster level. Obviously, this is far more beneficial when
>> making staffs than when making wands, so it doesn't seem correct -
>
> Actually, I'd see no real problem with that. Sure, it's much better
> than wands, but that's why it's another feat, one you can take at
> 12th level at the soonest, making it one of the highest-level feats
> in the game.
>
> But. It's not possible. Creating Staffs, from the SRD: "The caster
> level of all spells in a staff must be the same, and no staff can
> have a caster level of less than 8th, even if all the spells in the
> staff are low-level spells."

Yeah, I saw that on re-reading. It leaves other staffs underpriced too - the
Staff of Size Alteration, for instance, should be about 57,000 gp.

--
Mark.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mark Blunden wrote:
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>
>>In article <3gh1prFcd4eoU1@individual.net>,
>>m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid says...
>>
>>
>>>>>Am I missing something, or is the staff of fire terribly
>>>>>underpriced (according to the pricing rules... I don't want to
>>>>>comment on the practical usefulness of it).
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm getting
>>>>>
>>>>>CL 8th
>>>>>Burning hands (1 charge) 1 x 8 x 750 x 0.5 = 3000
>>>>>Fireball (1 charge) 3 x 8 x 750 x 1 = 18000
>>>>>Wall of fire (2 charges) 2 x 8 x 750 x 0.75 = 9000
>>>>> =====
>>>>> 30000
>>>>>
>>>>>The DMG list the cost as 17750 gp. That's significantly cheaper
>>>>>than a CL 8th wand of fireballs, even!
>>>>>
>>>>>OTOH, some staves (swarming insects) are equally overpriced, I
>>>>>think...
>>>>
>>>>According to Skip's guidance Wall of Fire as the highest level spell
>>>>gets the X1 mulitplier as it is the highest level power despite the
>>>>half cost for the two charge requirement. It is still too high
>>>>though at 28,500gp.
>>>>
>>>>In 3.0 the stave cost 29,000gp. Lord knows why they gave the
>>>>discount.
>>>
>>>Is it possible to set the caster levels to minimum for the individual
>>>powers? That'd make it come out closer to correct. There's no obvious
>>>difference in wording between the instructions for creating wands
>>>and those for creating staffs, and wands can certainly be created at
>>>minimal caster level. Obviously, this is far more beneficial when
>>>making staffs than when making wands, so it doesn't seem correct -
>>
>>Actually, I'd see no real problem with that. Sure, it's much better
>>than wands, but that's why it's another feat, one you can take at
>>12th level at the soonest, making it one of the highest-level feats
>>in the game.
>>
>>But. It's not possible. Creating Staffs, from the SRD: "The caster
>>level of all spells in a staff must be the same, and no staff can
>>have a caster level of less than 8th, even if all the spells in the
>>staff are low-level spells."
>
>
> Yeah, I saw that on re-reading. It leaves other staffs underpriced too - the
> Staff of Size Alteration, for instance, should be about 57,000 gp.
>
Quite a few don't follow the formula. Some may be errors (The Staff of
Swarming fails to include the 1/4 discount on the second power) and some
are way out there.

 

[Spinner]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

>>>>Is it possible to set the caster levels to minimum for the individual
>>>>powers? That'd make it come out closer to correct. There's no obvious
>>>>difference in wording between the instructions for creating wands
>>>>and those for creating staffs, and wands can certainly be created at
>>>>minimal caster level. Obviously, this is far more beneficial when
>>>>making staffs than when making wands, so it doesn't seem correct -
>>>
>>>Actually, I'd see no real problem with that. Sure, it's much better
>>>than wands, but that's why it's another feat, one you can take at
>>>12th level at the soonest, making it one of the highest-level feats
>>>in the game.
>>>
>>>But. It's not possible. Creating Staffs, from the SRD: "The caster
>>>level of all spells in a staff must be the same, and no staff can
>>>have a caster level of less than 8th, even if all the spells in the
>>>staff are low-level spells."
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I saw that on re-reading. It leaves other staffs underpriced too -
>> the
>> Staff of Size Alteration, for instance, should be about 57,000 gp.
>>
> Quite a few don't follow the formula. Some may be errors (The Staff of
> Swarming fails to include the 1/4 discount on the second power) and some
> are way out there.

Besides all these crazy made-up discounts, does anyone see it as *desirable*
to drop the min caster level? Would it make staves more affordable on the
lower end (and is that a good thing)? Myself I like the idea of low-level
staves with creative mixes of spells ... or even of single-spell staves
(where the benefit/difference over the wand is that thing about using the
activator's CL and Save DCs).

Spinner

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Spinner" <bprentic@uwo.ca> wrote in message
news:3gjeonFcn3o2U1@individual.net...
>
> Besides all these crazy made-up discounts, does anyone see it as
*desirable*
> to drop the min caster level? Would it make staves more affordable on the
> lower end (and is that a good thing)? Myself I like the idea of low-level
> staves with creative mixes of spells ... or even of single-spell staves
> (where the benefit/difference over the wand is that thing about using the
> activator's CL and Save DCs).
>

Drop the CL? No.
But the discounts for the second and third+ spells are wayy too small for
additional powers that use the same charge pool. Something on the order of
1/4 for the second spell and 1/8 for each other additional(or 750 x spell
level for a 0-4th level spell)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

It actually makes more sense to take into account the cost modifier for
no. of charges and then determining the discount in order of
expensiveness (most expensive = x1, 2nd most = x0.75, rest = x0.5). But
for some reason they don't.

It means you can make staves with multiple abilities that are cheaper
than a wand with just one of those abilities, which seems very wrong.

e.g.

A staff with a 5th level spell and a 4th level spell.
It costs 5 charges to activate the 5th level spell, but 1 for the 4th
level spell. CL is 10.

Cost of 5th level spell = 5 x 10 x 750 x 1 / 5 = 7500
Cost of 4th level spell = 4 x 10 x 750 x 0.75 = 22500

Total cost = 30K

Cost of wand of 4th level spell with CL of 10 = 4 x 10 x 750 = 30K

Same price, but the staff is tecnically better. Raise the charges to
activate the 5th level spell and it becomes cheaper than the wand.
Stick another 5th level spell in there with high number of charges to
activate and it becomes cheaper again.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Spinner" <bprentic@uwo.ca> wrote in message
news:3gjeonFcn3o2U1@individual.net...

> > Quite a few don't follow the formula. Some may be errors (The Staff of
> > Swarming fails to include the 1/4 discount on the second power) and
some
> > are way out there.
>
> Besides all these crazy made-up discounts, does anyone see it as
*desirable*
> to drop the min caster level?

Personally no I don't.

> Would it make staves more affordable on the
> lower end (and is that a good thing)?

Staves are high end magical items and already benefit from the powers of a
similar type discount. If you lower the caster level you end up adding
discounted wand powers into your saves (you get you use your own caster
level anyway!) and while all powers use charges you are on the road to a
serious niche invasion.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118146103.629221.177300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> It actually makes more sense to take into account the cost modifier for
> no. of charges and then determining the discount in order of
> expensiveness (most expensive = x1, 2nd most = x0.75, rest = x0.5). But
> for some reason they don't.

According to Skip's article they should. Do you have an example where they
don't actually do that?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Spinner wrote:
<Re: Craft Staff>
> Besides all these crazy made-up discounts, does anyone see it as *desirable*
> to drop the min caster level? Would it make staves more affordable on the
> lower end (and is that a good thing)? Myself I like the idea of low-level
> staves with creative mixes of spells ... or even of single-spell staves
> (where the benefit/difference over the wand is that thing about using the
> activator's CL and Save DCs).

No. Staffs are OK as it is, and the small stuff's supposed to be in
a wand. Level 1/1 wands are a bit too cheap as it is, giving them free
casterlevel as a staff might just be a disaster.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:
> <IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118146103.629221.177300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > It actually makes more sense to take into account the cost modifier for
> > no. of charges and then determining the discount in order of
> > expensiveness (most expensive = x1, 2nd most = x0.75, rest = x0.5). But
> > for some reason they don't.
>
> According to Skip's article they should. Do you have an example where they
> don't actually do that?

There seems to have been a bit of a mix up here:

Skips article says (as per RAW) to order the discounts according to
spell level, highest first. i.e. Irrespective of any multiple charges
modifier

I'm saying it makes more sense to order the discounts according to what
the base cost of each spell is _after_ you apply the multiple charges
modifier.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:
> Now that my neurons are firing again I don't think that this is such a big
> deal.

No, it's not really. More of a curiosity than a problem.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118237772.743553.45780@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Symbol wrote:
> > <IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1118146103.629221.177300@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > It actually makes more sense to take into account the cost modifier
for
> > > no. of charges and then determining the discount in order of
> > > expensiveness (most expensive = x1, 2nd most = x0.75, rest = x0.5).
But
> > > for some reason they don't.
> >
> > According to Skip's article they should. Do you have an example where
they
> > don't actually do that?
>
> There seems to have been a bit of a mix up here:
>
> Skips article says (as per RAW) to order the discounts according to
> spell level, highest first. i.e. Irrespective of any multiple charges
> modifier
>
> I'm saying it makes more sense to order the discounts according to what
> the base cost of each spell is _after_ you apply the multiple charges
> modifier.

Right, sorry. I really was having a bad day yesterday. My ratio of
correct:wrong apparently sank to Copian levels (well, not quite I did
actually get some things right).

Now that my neurons are firing again I don't think that this is such a big
deal. Using your earlier example.

Staff (CL 10, 50 charges)
5th level spell, 5 charges per use and 4th level spell at 1 charge per use
= 30K

Wand(CL10, 50 charges)
4th level spell, 1 cpu = 30K

The staff is more versatile but you are trading versatility for
functionality. Come what may you are getting 50 uses out of the wand but
potentially as few as 10 out of the staff. Even one use of the 5th level
power will remove 5 potential castings of the 4th level spell.

The staff still edges it but the difference, to my mind, is minimal and
staves are more difficult to create. Perhaps putting an upper limit on the
max number of charges per use would help mitigate things if you are still
concerned. After all, non of the examples have a power than requires more
than three per use.

Staff(CL10,50 charges)
5th level spell, 3cpu. = 5 X 10 X 750 X 0.333 = 12,500gp
4th 4 X 10 X 750 X 0.75 = 22,500gp

Total = 35,000gp

Not a massive ammount of difference but it is at least more expensive than
creating a versatile wand.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Symbol wrote:
> <IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>It actually makes more sense to take into account the cost modifier for
>>no. of charges and then determining the discount in order of
>>expensiveness (most expensive = x1, 2nd most = x0.75, rest = x0.5). But
>>for some reason they don't.
>
> According to Skip's article they should. Do you have an example where they
> don't actually do that?

Where is this article? I'd like to read it (seeing as the
pricing of Staves is a subject that crops up in here about
2-3 times a year).

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Knutsen (usenet) wrote:
> Symbol wrote:
> > <IHateLashknife@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>It actually makes more sense to take into account the cost modifier for
> >>no. of charges and then determining the discount in order of
> >>expensiveness (most expensive = x1, 2nd most = x0.75, rest = x0.5). But
> >>for some reason they don't.
> >
> > According to Skip's article they should. Do you have an example where they
> > don't actually do that?
>
> Where is this article? I'd like to read it (seeing as the
> pricing of Staves is a subject that crops up in here about
> 2-3 times a year).

The list of articles is at:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/rg

This particular one is 'Making Magic Items - Part 3':

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041221a