Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sorcerer: more spells known in exchange for xp?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:19:02 AM

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

I'm considering a way to make a sorcerer more versatile whilst not
being strictly better, and an obvious way is for him to pay xp to
learn more spells.

So for example, he could pay 100xp and learn an extra 1st level spell,
and be able to cast it normally thereafter. 200xp for a 2nd level,
etc.

So what's the balance point? I suspect that 100xp per level is a bit
cheap. Maybe 200xp, or 100xp + 500gp.

Ditto for bards, or course, but I think they'd get less benefit so
might want it cheaper.

Opinions?

I suspect that Sculpt Self might allow something along these lines,
but I don't own the applicable book.


--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:19:03 AM

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

Interesting.
One- It should cost a lot in xp and grow exponentially by both spell
level and slot number.
Two- Did you consider the bloodline feat that was for sorcerors; an
added spell for each level 1-9 added to memory as a bonus. However they
don't get to pick the spells ala carte, one bloodline, etc.
Three- Bards would be cooler with an extra spell per level in memory,
but why cheaper than a sorceror?

Dragonkat
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:19:03 AM

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

Jim Davies wrote:
> I'm considering a way to make a sorcerer more versatile whilst not
> being strictly better, and an obvious way is for him to pay xp to
> learn more spells.
>
<snip mechanics>
>
> Opinions?

Well, it's your game, obviously, but consider this:

The CR/EL system is designed off of character level, not "XP spent on
stuff". Consequently, a 5th level sorcerer who never spent any XP for more
spells is hardly the same thing as a 5th level sorcerer who spend enough XP
to have actually be 10th level.

While the damage such a sorcerer will do is the same (5th level), he'll
always have "just the right spell", instead of having to make do.

So, ultimately, you're making it harder on yourself to provide challenging
encounters (not too hard, not too easy).

OTOH, I could imagine a prestige class for sorcerers who, at the expense of
spellcasting levels, acquire some fixed number of extra spells (or slots or
anything else you can imagine.) If you were careful, you would have a
character who was about the right power level, just with a different mix of
abilities than your typical sorcerer.

--
Reginald Blue
"I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my
telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my
telephone."
- Bjarne Stroustrup (originator of C++) [quoted at the 2003
International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces]
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:19:03 AM

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

> The CR/EL system is designed off of character level, not "XP spent on
> stuff". Consequently, a 5th level sorcerer who never spent any XP for more
> spells is hardly the same thing as a 5th level sorcerer who spend enough XP
> to have actually be 10th level.

This "contract" is already broken by item creation feats. You could
have a wizard effectively stuck at some level but who had nearly an
infinite amount of magic available to him.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:19:03 AM

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

Jim Davies wrote:
> I'm considering a way to make a sorcerer more versatile whilst not
> being strictly better, and an obvious way is for him to pay xp to
> learn more spells.
>
> So for example, he could pay 100xp and learn an extra 1st level spell,
> and be able to cast it normally thereafter. 200xp for a 2nd level,
> etc.
>
> So what's the balance point? I suspect that 100xp per level is a bit
> cheap. Maybe 200xp, or 100xp + 500gp.
>

I'd use same calculations as for magic items - ie. spell level *
minimum caster level * whatever cost basis you want. Look up
"[kjd-imc] Item: Spell Converter" thread if you want to see a similar
idea for a magic item. I think I came up with a cost basis of about
2000 gp for unlimited use, so say double that for no slot, and devide
by 5 for xp, and you get an xp cost of 800xp*SL*CL. That might be a
bit hefty...

- Justisaur.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:19:03 AM

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

Justisaur wrote:
> Jim Davies wrote:
> > I'm considering a way to make a sorcerer more versatile whilst not
> > being strictly better, and an obvious way is for him to pay xp to
> > learn more spells.
> >
> > So for example, he could pay 100xp and learn an extra 1st level spell,
> > and be able to cast it normally thereafter. 200xp for a 2nd level,
> > etc.
> >
> > So what's the balance point? I suspect that 100xp per level is a bit
> > cheap. Maybe 200xp, or 100xp + 500gp.
> >
>
> I'd use same calculations as for magic items - ie. spell level *
> minimum caster level * whatever cost basis you want. Look up
> "[kjd-imc] Item: Spell Converter" thread if you want to see a similar
> idea for a magic item. I think I came up with a cost basis of about
> 2000 gp for unlimited use, so say double that for no slot, and devide
> by 5 for xp, and you get an xp cost of 800xp*SL*CL. That might be a
> bit hefty...

Probably, at level 20 your best spell is 800*20*9=144,000;
or most of the EP you used to GET to level 20 and far more
than you can possibly have available for extra spells known
(more than 20,000 and you advance after all).

Actually even level 2 spells will always cost more than is
available with the suggested system.

I don't really think Sorcerers SHOULD be able to extend
their spell-lists without extreme costs. Limited lists
is THE main limit on a sorcerer's power vs. a wizard,
especially past level 18.

But were I to do this, my own logic would be that
realistically, for most spells, a wand IS unlimited
uses. The handful of exceptionsa are the ones the Sor
can know anyway.

In fact this is actually less useful than an appropriate
CL wand, based on the fact that you have to use slots.

On the basis that CL more than 5 times Spell level isn't
really all that useful in most cases, and that the wand
price is a slight overcharge, I will assume CL=5xSpell
level. Hence 750 GP x SL x 5 x SL x 1 EP/5 GP=
750 EP times spell level squared.

Expensive, but I could see taking an extra level 3 spell
at that cost as a mid to high level sorcerer.

DougL
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:19:04 AM

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

"WDS" <Bill@seurer.net> wrote in
news:1126820367.149185.235260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

>> The CR/EL system is designed off of character level, not "XP spent on
>> stuff". Consequently, a 5th level sorcerer who never spent any XP
>> for more spells is hardly the same thing as a 5th level sorcerer who
>> spend enough XP to have actually be 10th level.
>
> This "contract" is already broken by item creation feats. You could
> have a wizard effectively stuck at some level but who had nearly an
> infinite amount of magic available to him.

But magic items have a gold piece value, and a character of a certain level
is expected to have a certain amount of gear. If, because of item creation,
a wizard has 10 times the gear he's supposed to have at his level, you have
some benchmark by which to adjust the encounter level. Also, you can adjust
how much gear the wizard has, either by reducing loot gained, or by
increasing expenses.

XP directly to character power has no equivalent controls.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 4:20:47 AM

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

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 20:19:02 +0100, Jim Davies
<jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> scribed into the ether:

>I'm considering a way to make a sorcerer more versatile whilst not
>being strictly better, and an obvious way is for him to pay xp to
>learn more spells.
>
>So for example, he could pay 100xp and learn an extra 1st level spell,
>and be able to cast it normally thereafter. 200xp for a 2nd level,
>etc.
>
>So what's the balance point? I suspect that 100xp per level is a bit
>cheap. Maybe 200xp, or 100xp + 500gp.
>
>Ditto for bards, or course, but I think they'd get less benefit so
>might want it cheaper.
>
>Opinions?

You'd probably want to scale the cost by level of the character as well as
the level of the spell. Otherwise a level 20 sorcerer could spend a couple
thousand trivial points of XP, and fill out their entire L1 spellbook for
essentially no cost at all. While not hugely powerful, it does add a ton of
flexibility, and opens up a lot of previously unavailable vistas as far as
item creation goes.

Alternately, you could make the option only available at certain times. On
level-up, or when aquiring an increase in your per-day allotment for a
given spell level.

Possibly a relevant feat. Set up minimum charisma and character levels
depending on the spell level that the feat affects...Mastery of the Wyrm,
grants the sorcerer 2 extra "known" spells of 5th level, requires 19
charisma, clvl 12...something along those lines.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 5:14:12 AM

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

Jim Davies wrote:
> I'm considering a way to make a sorcerer more versatile whilst not
> being strictly better, and an obvious way is for him to pay xp to
> learn more spells.
>
> So for example, he could pay 100xp and learn an extra 1st level spell,
> and be able to cast it normally thereafter. 200xp for a 2nd level,
> etc.
>
> So what's the balance point? I suspect that 100xp per level is a bit
> cheap. Maybe 200xp, or 100xp + 500gp.
>
> Ditto for bards, or course, but I think they'd get less benefit so
> might want it cheaper.
>
> Opinions?
>

IMHO: if you want XP to convert to smore spells known, be a higher
level!
I know what you are getting at, but maybe a prestige class that adds
many more spells know while not advancing caster level, spells per day,
spells trashed, or familiar etc. is a better way to go?

If it is any help, Dragon's rules for Knowstones (which they admit on
their website have not playtested, and should probably require their
own Item Creation Feat and maybe live in the necklace slot) are
Wondrous Items worn as jewellery (i.e. grabbable) that add to a
sorceror's "Spells Known" at a market price of
"1000GP x spell level x spell level"

I think the XP and creation-cost is what you would expect for a
wondrous item.

So to work out what this would cost in XP, maybe you could turn the
rest of the item creation cost into XP, then scale the price up in the
same that the stat boosting items do for market price from
"Enhancement" to "Inherent".

Aside: I have mixed feelings about the Knowstones: they seem to be
powerful compared to scrolls at a low level (even if they cost a spell
slot to use unlike scrolls) but you are only going to get them
(assuming "Magic Shops" or creation feats) for your third or fourth
favourite spells, and how often are you going to cast them in
preference to your favourites? On the other hand, sometimes you want
to blow your entire spell slot allowance for the day on a spell you
hardly ever use: "Mount" for the whole party when stranded, or "False
Life" just before you go to bed: 4000 GP for a tenth level Sorceror to
keep everyone in the party 15HP over max for the first two hours a busy
day after a quiet day isn't bad, and it grows as the character does.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 7:42:05 AM

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

Chipacabra <chipb@efn.org> wrote:
> "WDS" <Bill@seurer.net> wrote in
> news:1126820367.149185.235260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> The CR/EL system is designed off of character level, not "XP spent
>>> on stuff". Consequently, a 5th level sorcerer who never spent any
>>> XP for more spells is hardly the same thing as a 5th level sorcerer
>>> who spend enough XP to have actually be 10th level.
>>
>> This "contract" is already broken by item creation feats. You could
>> have a wizard effectively stuck at some level but who had nearly an
>> infinite amount of magic available to him.
>
> But magic items have a gold piece value, and a character of a certain
> level is expected to have a certain amount of gear. If, because of
> item creation, a wizard has 10 times the gear he's supposed to have
> at his level, you have some benchmark by which to adjust the encounter
> level. Also, you can adjust how much gear the wizard has, either by
> reducing loot gained, or by increasing expenses.
>
> XP directly to character power has no equivalent controls.

I have considered tracking XP expenditures and treating them something
like LA. For instance, if you've accumulated 11k XP, you'd normally be
6th level. If you've spent 4k of that on *whatever* (item creation,
prestige races -- Bastion Press thing -- and whatnot), then you're only
5th level with more stuff.

If you treat the character as 6th level for XP gain, he doesn't catch up
quite as quickly. He's quite probably about 6th level in actual power,
so it's not like it'd be out of line.

Yes, it means he will catch up 'for real' at some point, as long as
total expenditure is less than a full level's worth of XP. It appears
to make little practical difference -- he hit 'sixth level' about the
same time as everyone else, he stays 'sixth level' as long as everyone
else.

Assuming XP gains are consistent across characters.


A fifth-level character with lots of stuff is more powerful than the
same fifth-level character without lots of stuff. Especially if it's
inherent stuff (as with prestige races). Having extreme XP expenditures
behaving like LA doesn't seem unreasonable.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Always code as if the guy who ends up
keith.davies@kjdavies.org maintaining your code is a psychopath
keith.davies@gmail.com who knows where you live."
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Damian Conway
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:42:44 PM

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

DougL wrote:
> Justisaur wrote:
> > Jim Davies wrote:
> > > I'm considering a way to make a sorcerer more versatile whilst not
> > > being strictly better, and an obvious way is for him to pay xp to
> > > learn more spells.
> > >
> > > So for example, he could pay 100xp and learn an extra 1st level spell,
> > > and be able to cast it normally thereafter. 200xp for a 2nd level,
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > So what's the balance point? I suspect that 100xp per level is a bit
> > > cheap. Maybe 200xp, or 100xp + 500gp.
> > >
> >
> > I'd use same calculations as for magic items - ie. spell level *
> > minimum caster level * whatever cost basis you want. Look up
> > "[kjd-imc] Item: Spell Converter" thread if you want to see a similar
> > idea for a magic item. I think I came up with a cost basis of about
> > 2000 gp for unlimited use, so say double that for no slot, and devide
> > by 5 for xp, and you get an xp cost of 800xp*SL*CL. That might be a
> > bit hefty...
>
> Probably, at level 20 your best spell is 800*20*9=144,000;
> or most of the EP you used to GET to level 20 and far more
> than you can possibly have available for extra spells known
> (more than 20,000 and you advance after all).
>

I was susggesting minimum caster level. The way all items work. And
since that's usually based off of Wizard minimum caster level not
Sorcerer, it'd be slightly lower. So a level 9 spell would be 800*9*17
= 122,400. Still pretty rediculously expensive even at 20th lv that
would be an aditional what 6 levels, and it certainly isn't worth as
much as a single level. A first level spell remains 800, so it'd be
easy to get a few of those at higher levels.

If you compare to a feat which seems reasonable, feats are supposed to
be about 1/2 a level... So call it equal to 1/2 the xp for the level
the spell slot becomes available (for sorcerer) making it 1000 xp times
the spell level (except for 1st which is 500).

> Actually even level 2 spells will always cost more than is
> available with the suggested system.
>

2nd lv would be 800*2*3 = 4800 that's pretty hefty, but not beyond
being tempting for a high level sorcerer.

> But were I to do this, my own logic would be that
> realistically, for most spells, a wand IS unlimited
> uses. The handful of exceptionsa are the ones the Sor
> can know anyway.
>
> In fact this is actually less useful than an appropriate
> CL wand, based on the fact that you have to use slots.
>
> On the basis that CL more than 5 times Spell level isn't
> really all that useful in most cases, and that the wand
> price is a slight overcharge, I will assume CL=5xSpell
> level. Hence 750 GP x SL x 5 x SL x 1 EP/5 GP=
> 750 EP times spell level squared.

That gives 60750 for a 9th lv spell. That seems more reasonable.

Wands are seriously not as useful as having some spells, due to
increased save DCs from high stats feats etc. Wands & Scrolls are far
more useful for no save / utility spells that don't have durrations you
need to worry about.

- Justisaur
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 5:03:52 PM

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

Justisaur wrote:
> DougL wrote:

> I was susggesting minimum caster level. The way all items work. And
> since that's usually based off of Wizard minimum caster level not
> Sorcerer, it'd be slightly lower. So a level 9 spell would be 800*9*17
> = 122,400. Still pretty rediculously expensive even at 20th lv that
> would be an aditional what 6 levels, and it certainly isn't worth as
> much as a single level. A first level spell remains 800, so it'd be
> easy to get a few of those at higher levels.

Nope, an item that casts at higher than minimum CL costs at higher
than an item at the minimum CL (with a partial exception for staves).
And this "item" casts as class level. Unless you specify otherwise
the sane assumption is thus that CL is class level for this power.

In any case, for a power usable only by sorcerers and bards why do
you use the Wizard minimum caster level. This would be especially
odd for something like a Bard's control monster. Level 3 spell so
he can cast it at IIRC CL 7, Wizard's ALSO need CL 7 (since it is
level 4 for them), but your power uses CL 5!

So a Bard can buy the spell based on Spell Level 3 and Caster
level 5 even though AFAIK NO ONE in the universe can cast it
that way? I do not think that item costing works that way.

Or does a Bard's charm monster cost him more EP than any of his
other level 3 spells?

DougL
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 11:54:06 PM

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

Jim Davies wrote:
> I'm considering a way to make a sorcerer more versatile whilst not
> being strictly better[...].

They're called Scrolls.

> Opinions?

They're also called Potions, Wands, Staves, and Miscellaneous.
There's even a feat that gives you +1 known spell, and various other
munchkin feats that give a few more than that.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 1:30:13 AM

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

DougL <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope, an item that casts at higher than minimum CL costs at higher
> than an item at the minimum CL (with a partial exception for staves).

That's only true for scrolls, potions, wands, and staves. Other items
use the lowest possible caster x spell level for the effect, even if the
item's actual caster level is higher than that.

> In any case, for a power usable only by sorcerers and bards why do you
> use the Wizard minimum caster level. This would be especially odd for
> something like a Bard's control monster. Level 3 spell so he can cast
> it at IIRC CL 7, Wizard's ALSO need CL 7 (since it is level 4 for
> them), but your power uses CL 5!

By the book, a /control monster/ effect costs (3 x 7 x factor),
regardless of who creates the item, because that's the best possible
combination of caster level and spell level for the effect.

> So a Bard can buy the spell based on Spell Level 3 and Caster level 5
> even though AFAIK NO ONE in the universe can cast it that way? I do
> not think that item costing works that way.

Correct. Do note that wizard creators get the same cheap cost as bard
creators, though.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 5:26:52 AM

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

Behold! for ringofw@hotmail.com spake unto the multitude thus:

>Jim Davies wrote:
>> I'm considering a way to make a sorcerer more versatile whilst not
>> being strictly better, and an obvious way is for him to pay xp to
>> learn more spells.
>> So what's the balance point? I suspect that 100xp per level is a bit
>> cheap. Maybe 200xp, or 100xp + 500gp.

>IMHO: if you want XP to convert to smore spells known, be a higher
>level!

But that doesn't actually work very well: frex, a bard knows 4 1st
level spells all the way from 5th to 15th level, and a sorcerer NEVER
gets to learn more than 5 spells of any level above 0.

>I know what you are getting at, but maybe a prestige class that adds
>many more spells know while not advancing caster level, spells per day,
>spells trashed, or familiar etc. is a better way to go?

I dislike prestige classes. They're a kludge that makes a bad fix for
problems that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

>If it is any help, Dragon's rules for Knowstones (which they admit on
>their website have not playtested, and should probably require their
>own Item Creation Feat and maybe live in the necklace slot) are
>Wondrous Items worn as jewellery (i.e. grabbable) that add to a
>sorceror's "Spells Known" at a market price of
>"1000GP x spell level x spell level"

Suggests 200xp times level squared. 200xp for a first level spell is
fine, but I'm not sure that 3200xp is right for a 4th level, and
14400xp for an 9th level is getting silly. That's more than half a
level at 20th (though as Epic Sorcerers never get to learn spells
except by feats, perhaps this isn't completely daft).

>I think the XP and creation-cost is what you would expect for a
>wondrous item.
>
>So to work out what this would cost in XP, maybe you could turn the
>rest of the item creation cost into XP, then scale the price up in the
>same that the stat boosting items do for market price from
>"Enhancement" to "Inherent".

It's not really a bonus so there's no case for treating it as a
special type. It's slotless, but I assume that's already taken into
account.

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 5:26:54 AM

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

Behold! for "Dragonkat" <dragonkat2flame@yahoo.com> spake unto the
multitude thus:

>Interesting.
>One- It should cost a lot in xp and grow exponentially by both spell
>level and slot number.

Exponentially gives an unreasonable rate of increase, which means
it'll be too cheap at low levels or too expensive at high.

Slot number? I infer that you'd want the first extra spell to cost x,
the second 2x, etc. Personally, I'd do it the other way round as the
relative benefit decreases.

>Two- Did you consider the bloodline feat that was for sorcerors; an
>added spell for each level 1-9 added to memory as a bonus. However they
>don't get to pick the spells ala carte, one bloodline, etc.

Don't have the book.

>Three- Bards would be cooler with an extra spell per level in memory,
>but why cheaper than a sorceror?

Because they get fewer spells per day but almost as many spells known,
so there's less benefit.

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 1:06:58 PM

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

Keith Davies wrote:
> I have considered tracking XP expenditures and treating them something
> like LA. For instance, if you've accumulated 11k XP, you'd normally be
> 6th level. If you've spent 4k of that on *whatever* (item creation,
> prestige races -- Bastion Press thing -- and whatnot), then you're only
> 5th level with more stuff.

Just to put your comments in perspective...

To spend 4k XP on item creation, the character would have had to spend
50,000gp in materials (1/25th of the item cost in XP = 4k, half the item
cost in materials = 50,000gp). If your 6th level characters have access
to this much money, you are already breaking one of the contracts of the
game, that of character wealth per level (which for a 6th level
character should be only 13,000gp). Of course you could be letting the
item creating character use all the resources of his entire party, but
that also just doesn't seem believable.

Alex
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 2:30:14 PM

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

Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> It's not a huge stretch. All it takes is for the other PCs to buy all of
> their magic items from their friend instead of from NPCs. (In my game, I
> allow the buyer to participate in the item creation and pay XP costs, as
> if he were providing a prerequisite.)

And what about NPCs buying magic from a character who can create it? I
had that happen to one of my characters when word got around that he
could create magic items. I had to turn some of them away because I
didn't have the time nor XPs to make so much stuff.
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 7:34:57 PM

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

Alex Johnson wrote:
> To spend 4k XP on item creation, the character would have had to spend
> 50,000gp in materials (1/25th of the item cost in XP = 4k, half the item
> cost in materials = 50,000gp). If your 6th level characters have access
> to this much money, you are already breaking one of the contracts of the
> game, that of character wealth per level (which for a 6th level
> character should be only 13,000gp). Of course you could be letting the
> item creating character use all the resources of his entire party, but
> that also just doesn't seem believable.

It's not a huge stretch. All it takes is for the other PCs to buy all of
their magic items from their friend instead of from NPCs. (In my game, I
allow the buyer to participate in the item creation and pay XP costs, as
if he were providing a prerequisite.)
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 9:23:48 PM

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

Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
> Alex Johnson wrote:
>> To spend 4k XP on item creation, the character would have had to spend
>> 50,000gp in materials (1/25th of the item cost in XP = 4k, half the item
>> cost in materials = 50,000gp). If your 6th level characters have access
>> to this much money, you are already breaking one of the contracts of the
>> game, that of character wealth per level (which for a 6th level
>> character should be only 13,000gp). Of course you could be letting the
>> item creating character use all the resources of his entire party, but
>> that also just doesn't seem believable.
>
> It's not a huge stretch. All it takes is for the other PCs to buy all of
> their magic items from their friend instead of from NPCs. (In my game, I
> allow the buyer to participate in the item creation and pay XP costs, as
> if he were providing a prerequisite.)

Also, item creation isn't the only thing to spend XP on. It is in core,
but I did mention in my post Bastion Press' "prestige races" -- you
spend XP to buy steps along certain paths that develop inherent
abilities. These usually cost some 1000n+500 XP points, where n
increases by rank along the path.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Always code as if the guy who ends up
keith.davies@kjdavies.org maintaining your code is a psychopath
keith.davies@gmail.com who knows where you live."
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Damian Conway
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 10:47:00 PM

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

> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> It's not a huge stretch. All it takes is for the other PCs to buy all of
>> their magic items from their friend instead of from NPCs. (In my game, I
>> allow the buyer to participate in the item creation and pay XP costs, as
>> if he were providing a prerequisite.)

WDS <Bill@seurer.net> wrote:
> And what about NPCs buying magic from a character who can create it? I
> had that happen to one of my characters when word got around that he
> could create magic items. I had to turn some of them away because I
> didn't have the time nor XPs to make so much stuff.

That hadn't occurred to me, but it's a reasonable situation (and a cool
idea from the world-building point of view).
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
September 21, 2005 7:06:47 AM

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

Bradd W. Szonye <bradd+news@szonye.com> wrote:
>> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>>> It's not a huge stretch. All it takes is for the other PCs to buy all of
>>> their magic items from their friend instead of from NPCs. (In my game, I
>>> allow the buyer to participate in the item creation and pay XP costs, as
>>> if he were providing a prerequisite.)
>
> WDS <Bill@seurer.net> wrote:
>> And what about NPCs buying magic from a character who can create it? I
>> had that happen to one of my characters when word got around that he
>> could create magic items. I had to turn some of them away because I
>> didn't have the time nor XPs to make so much stuff.
>
> That hadn't occurred to me, but it's a reasonable situation (and a cool
> idea from the world-building point of view).

It is. I'll have to remember it.

Well, actually I already do a certain amount of this. All members of
the Wizard's Guild are required to produce a certain amount of magical
goods for sale by the Guild. Low-level members are typically kept on
call for direct spellcasting, higher-level members might get away with
crafting a magical weapon or two annually.

It's often the same for clerics in the church as well, though not stated
quite as abruptly (more like each is required to "provide spellcasting
services to the public, within the guidelines of the church").

In both cases you can get out of it by performing other tasks for the
organization. It's usually less time and effort to just put the time in
and do the spellcasting/enchanting required.


Keith
--
Keith Davies "Always code as if the guy who ends up
keith.davies@kjdavies.org maintaining your code is a psychopath
keith.davies@gmail.com who knows where you live."
http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Damian Conway
!