Another comment by Andreas was that a Wizard or other spellcaster should have to make some sort of attack roll to successfully target a fireball or similar spell. My comment at the time was that such an attack roll would remove the need for a saving throw from such spells, which would hurt rogues and the like.
I have since recalled that the rules for grenades in d20 Modern are almost exactly like those Andreas proposed, where the user of a grenade must make an attack roll to target the grenade, and victims receive saving throws for half damage (a fact that annoyed me to no end, since more than half the party had at least one level of Fast Hero to get the Evasion talent, but nevermind).
That being the case, I propose that the correct ruling would be exactly as expressed: In order to successfully target a spell whose area of effect is determined by pinpointing a grid intersection (so, fireball is included, but lightning bolt and magic missile are not - and I'm sure there's a more elegant way to express this notion, but I can't think what it is, but anyway, you get the idea) the character must make an attack roll against the grid intersection.
The AC of a grid intersection is 10. The attack roll is modified by -2 for every range increment between the wizard and the target point, determined by the range of the spell, as follows:
Short Range: Range increment is 10 feet.
Medium Range: Range increment is 40 feet.
Long range: Range increment is 100 feet.
If the attack roll hits, the spell affects the intended area. Otherwise, roll a d8 scatter dice, as for a grenade-like missile. On a roll of 1, the spell targets an intersection in a direct line further away from the wizard than intended. Other results cause the spell to move in a different direction, as per normal. The spell is centred on an intersection 1 square away from the intended target for every range increment between the wizard and the intended target.
For example, Luc wants to fireball some orcs who are 300 feet away. Because Marius has been good enough to get up close to the orcs, Luc has carefully calculated just the right spot to centre the fireball to hit them all, but miss Marius, a distance of 310 feet from the sorcerer.
Fireball has a range of Long, so 310 feet is 3 range increments away from Luc. To hit the desired spot, Luc must make an attack roll at a -6 penalty against an AC of 10 (alternatively, he must hit AC 16 - the math is the same).
If Luc hits, the fireball goes off as expected. If he misses, he must roll a scatter die. The fireball is then centred on an intersection 3 squares away from the intended target.
It is, of course, impossible to score a critical hit when aiming spells in this fashion.
The downside of this rule is that it slightly weakens spellcasters - suddenly their offensive spells are a lot less reliable. The upside is that I no longer need to get frustrated at players who take the token and work out the exact placement of the spell for absolute best effect, when their character couldn't possibly have that sort of perspective.
Anyway, that's that.
Sunday, 11 July 2004
Critical Saves
Another comment that was made a while ago, this time by Andreas, was that a natural 20 on a saving throw, instead of causing the character to automatically save, should instead allow the character to take no damage from the effect.
This is certainly a decent idea, and doesn't damage the game over-much, except for one detail: there exists the case where a character can save only on a 20. In such an instance, the character either takes full damage from the attack, or takes no damage. This is similar to the case found in many 2nd-edition house rules on critical hits, where a natural 20 did double damage.
That being the case, I offer the following house rule as an alternative that does basically what Andreas suggested, fits the existing rules, and solves the problem just outlined:
When a character must make a saving throw against a spell or other effect, where a successful save causes the character to take reduced damage or a reduced effect (so, also includes the like of "Will partial" saves), a character has the possibility of rolling a "critical save".
If the die roll on the saving throw is a natural 20, this roll is considered a lifeline. The player should immediately roll a second saving throw against the same DC, using all the same modifiers. If this second roll is also a successful save against the effect, the character has rolled a critical save. In this instance, the character is completely immune to the effect, taking no damage or being otherwise affected.
This is certainly a decent idea, and doesn't damage the game over-much, except for one detail: there exists the case where a character can save only on a 20. In such an instance, the character either takes full damage from the attack, or takes no damage. This is similar to the case found in many 2nd-edition house rules on critical hits, where a natural 20 did double damage.
That being the case, I offer the following house rule as an alternative that does basically what Andreas suggested, fits the existing rules, and solves the problem just outlined:
When a character must make a saving throw against a spell or other effect, where a successful save causes the character to take reduced damage or a reduced effect (so, also includes the like of "Will partial" saves), a character has the possibility of rolling a "critical save".
If the die roll on the saving throw is a natural 20, this roll is considered a lifeline. The player should immediately roll a second saving throw against the same DC, using all the same modifiers. If this second roll is also a successful save against the effect, the character has rolled a critical save. In this instance, the character is completely immune to the effect, taking no damage or being otherwise affected.
Taking the Hit
Ages ago, Johannes mentioned something about wanting an option in D&D for a character to voluntarily take a hit in order to get some bonus. For instance, he might do so to draw his opponent's weapon out of the way, or to protect the party wizard, or whatever.
The problem with allowing this is the core system is that the abstract nature of damage and hit points in D&D doesn't really make allowance for such actions, in the same way that it doesn't allow for specific injuries.
(Case in point: the PCs capture an enemy warrior. They tie said warrior up, and interrogate him. Then, as punishment for his crimes, they decide to cut off his hands. How does the system adjudicate this? It doesn't, and with a good reason: it would really suck if that happened to a PC, and anything allowable for a PC has to be allowable for an NPC. That's a weakness in the system, though, since the action is certainly a reasonable thing to want to try.)
Anyway, in terms of the taking the hit question, there are two problems. Firstly, if the warrior wishes to take the hit in place of the wizard, he might reasonably expect his armour to have some impact on the success of the blow. This, if allowed, causes a huge problem - the warriors in the group can then cluster around the wizard, rendering him immune to damage. This isn't so much a problem when tried by PCs; it's a major problem when the NPC wizard hires a bunch of peasants to stand around in full plate and take attacks for him.
The second problem is one of hit points. Let's assume that the character basically wants to allow his opponent to stab him, to thus get the opponent's weapon out of the way (as was done in the Wheel of Time, and as is a really stupid thing to do in combat, but anyway). Alas, even if the 10th level Fighter takes an automatic hit as a result of this, he probably has a hundred hit points, and can just shrug it off.
So, here's what I would suggest: If a character wishes to voluntarily take a hit, that character automatically foregoes the benefits of his armour class. In fact, the character automatically takes damage from the attack as though he has taken a critical hit from the attack. Sneak attack damage applies to this attack as well, if applicable.
Two more vicious variants are possible: after the character takes the hit, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage taken), or die (essentially, giving a free coup de grace to his opponent). Alternately, the character takes a normal (non-critical) hit. Sneak attack damage does NOT apply. However, the damage done applies to the character's Constitution, rather than his hit points.
Truth be told, I don't like the notion of a character voluntarily taking a hit any more than I like the notion of characters taking called shots to specific body parts, or facing the possibility of permanent injuries. But, if I were implementing this sort of thing, that is how I would do it.
The problem with allowing this is the core system is that the abstract nature of damage and hit points in D&D doesn't really make allowance for such actions, in the same way that it doesn't allow for specific injuries.
(Case in point: the PCs capture an enemy warrior. They tie said warrior up, and interrogate him. Then, as punishment for his crimes, they decide to cut off his hands. How does the system adjudicate this? It doesn't, and with a good reason: it would really suck if that happened to a PC, and anything allowable for a PC has to be allowable for an NPC. That's a weakness in the system, though, since the action is certainly a reasonable thing to want to try.)
Anyway, in terms of the taking the hit question, there are two problems. Firstly, if the warrior wishes to take the hit in place of the wizard, he might reasonably expect his armour to have some impact on the success of the blow. This, if allowed, causes a huge problem - the warriors in the group can then cluster around the wizard, rendering him immune to damage. This isn't so much a problem when tried by PCs; it's a major problem when the NPC wizard hires a bunch of peasants to stand around in full plate and take attacks for him.
The second problem is one of hit points. Let's assume that the character basically wants to allow his opponent to stab him, to thus get the opponent's weapon out of the way (as was done in the Wheel of Time, and as is a really stupid thing to do in combat, but anyway). Alas, even if the 10th level Fighter takes an automatic hit as a result of this, he probably has a hundred hit points, and can just shrug it off.
So, here's what I would suggest: If a character wishes to voluntarily take a hit, that character automatically foregoes the benefits of his armour class. In fact, the character automatically takes damage from the attack as though he has taken a critical hit from the attack. Sneak attack damage applies to this attack as well, if applicable.
Two more vicious variants are possible: after the character takes the hit, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage taken), or die (essentially, giving a free coup de grace to his opponent). Alternately, the character takes a normal (non-critical) hit. Sneak attack damage does NOT apply. However, the damage done applies to the character's Constitution, rather than his hit points.
Truth be told, I don't like the notion of a character voluntarily taking a hit any more than I like the notion of characters taking called shots to specific body parts, or facing the possibility of permanent injuries. But, if I were implementing this sort of thing, that is how I would do it.
Tuesday, 15 June 2004
Review: Expanded Psionics Handbook
Ah, psionics and D&D. Has any subsystem had a more troubled history, across all editions? In 1st, it was a badly implemented afterthought that easily became a munchkin's paradise. In 2nd it was maginally better, but still with the dangers of munchkinism. Worse, it wasn't part of the core rules, and used systems that bore no resemblance to the rest of the game. In 3rd edition, the problems with the system were dealt with, and the munchkinism disappeared. Alas, so did all the fun - 3rd edition psioncs was horribly weak, and linked to a psionic combat system that was either impossibly wasteful or immensely destructive, depending almost entirely on the luck of a single roll or two.
Now, we get to the 3.5 revision. In general, I felt this was a big step forward, but it did increase the power level overall. Therefore psionics, although theoretically still compatible, became even more underpowered. Step in Bruce Cordell, the guy who wrote the 3rd edition psionics rules and (in my opinion) Wizards' best serving designer.
The Expanded Psionics Handbook is a 222-page full colour hardback. There are eight chapters and an appendix. Before I get to describing the chapters, though, let me say one thing in general: this book is dull. This is not a book to read for fun, or as an ideas factory. Its only utility is for adding psionics for a game, and I'm going to review it based solely on that criterion. If you have no interest in a psionics system, stay away.
Chapter 1 covers psionic races. This was something of a surprise, as I didn't expect anything like this. However, in hindsight, I think it was almost a good idea. There are several familiar races here, such as the Githyanki, the Thri-kreen, and so forth, and a couple of new races. The reason I say 'almost' a good idea is that the races we've seen before are all either taken from the Dark Sun setting (and of limited use elsewhere), or have a Level Adjustment (and so are of limited use in general), or are new. There's nothing really wrong with the new races, except that they are new. I've posted on this before - we know what an elf is, but do we really know what a dromite is?
Chapter 2 describes the psionic classes. There are four: psion (psionic wizard), psychic warrior (psionic paladin, but without the code of conduct), soulknife (sort of a psionic rogue, although they have an ability that is essentially a lightsaber) and wilder (psionic sorcerer). I like these classes. The soulknife has a problem with the BAB progression, which Wizards say is intentional, but that's easy fixed. Otherwise, they're solid.
Chapter 3 discusses skills and feats. The skills are few in number (a new knowledge - psionics -, a new use for Concentration, and three new skills). The only oddity is that Autohypnosis remains a skill in its own right. I think I would have preferred it to become part of Concentration.
The feats are also fine, covering all the required bases. Oddly, there are a few feats that aren't anything to do with psionics (Improved Manyshot, for instance). These feats don't use psionics, don't improve psionics, don't have psionics as prerequisites, and aren't prerequisites for psionic feats. It's just odd.
Chapter 4 provides the actual rules for psionics. Manifesting powers, learning powers, psi-like abilities, power resistance, and so on, are all covered here. There is a discussion about adding psionics to an existing campaign (which I won't ever use - I'll either run a psionic game or a non-psionic game. Still, it's good to have). The rules here aren't exciting, but they are absolutely rock-solid. This is a good, good chapter.
It should be noted that psionic combat is gone. The old attack/defence modes have become powers in their own right, doing similar things to the old versions, but they don't have their own systems now, which is good.
Chapter 5 describes the powers themselves. This chapter is some 65 pages long. Again, really dull, but again absolutely solid. Nice. Worth noting is that most of the powers now have augmentations available - you pay extra power points for more damage, or better effects, or quicker manifestation. Another of the great weaknesses of the old psionics book is thus gone.
Chapter 6 describes 9 prestige classes. Some of these are the usual tosh. We have to have the "multiclass psion" classes, like the fighter/psion, the wizard/psion, and so on. It remains a huge weakness in the d20 system in general that multiclass spellcasters suck, and the same is true of psionic characters (although you can multiclass psion, psychic warrior and wilder without too much pain, which is good). We have a psionic Mystic Theurge, called the Cerebremancer.
The remaining classes are quite good. We have the Illithid Slayer, the Pyrokineticist, and the Fist of Zuoken, all of which are quite fun. I don't like prestige classes. I didn't like this chapter. However, the rules are handled just fine.
Chapter 7 deals with Psionic Items. These are basically the same as magical items. So, no need to say more there.
Chapter 8 provides new monsters, and psionic versions of some classics. These are okay, but not perfect.
The appendix gives a new Clerical domain (Mind), a couple of new spells, and a couple of new deities. This is very short, but just enough to help adding psionics to a game.
This book is dull. It's a tough read, and not a lot of fun. However, the rules are absolutely solid. If you like psionics, then this book is the essential guide for D&D. It fixes all the problems with the 3rd edition version, and hits just the right balance. Of course, if you don't like psionics, this book is useless.
The only other thing that I think is noteworthy - much of this book is now online at the Wizards of the Coast site. The new psionics stuff is now in the SRD. So, you can always try before you buy.
Now, we get to the 3.5 revision. In general, I felt this was a big step forward, but it did increase the power level overall. Therefore psionics, although theoretically still compatible, became even more underpowered. Step in Bruce Cordell, the guy who wrote the 3rd edition psionics rules and (in my opinion) Wizards' best serving designer.
The Expanded Psionics Handbook is a 222-page full colour hardback. There are eight chapters and an appendix. Before I get to describing the chapters, though, let me say one thing in general: this book is dull. This is not a book to read for fun, or as an ideas factory. Its only utility is for adding psionics for a game, and I'm going to review it based solely on that criterion. If you have no interest in a psionics system, stay away.
Chapter 1 covers psionic races. This was something of a surprise, as I didn't expect anything like this. However, in hindsight, I think it was almost a good idea. There are several familiar races here, such as the Githyanki, the Thri-kreen, and so forth, and a couple of new races. The reason I say 'almost' a good idea is that the races we've seen before are all either taken from the Dark Sun setting (and of limited use elsewhere), or have a Level Adjustment (and so are of limited use in general), or are new. There's nothing really wrong with the new races, except that they are new. I've posted on this before - we know what an elf is, but do we really know what a dromite is?
Chapter 2 describes the psionic classes. There are four: psion (psionic wizard), psychic warrior (psionic paladin, but without the code of conduct), soulknife (sort of a psionic rogue, although they have an ability that is essentially a lightsaber) and wilder (psionic sorcerer). I like these classes. The soulknife has a problem with the BAB progression, which Wizards say is intentional, but that's easy fixed. Otherwise, they're solid.
Chapter 3 discusses skills and feats. The skills are few in number (a new knowledge - psionics -, a new use for Concentration, and three new skills). The only oddity is that Autohypnosis remains a skill in its own right. I think I would have preferred it to become part of Concentration.
The feats are also fine, covering all the required bases. Oddly, there are a few feats that aren't anything to do with psionics (Improved Manyshot, for instance). These feats don't use psionics, don't improve psionics, don't have psionics as prerequisites, and aren't prerequisites for psionic feats. It's just odd.
Chapter 4 provides the actual rules for psionics. Manifesting powers, learning powers, psi-like abilities, power resistance, and so on, are all covered here. There is a discussion about adding psionics to an existing campaign (which I won't ever use - I'll either run a psionic game or a non-psionic game. Still, it's good to have). The rules here aren't exciting, but they are absolutely rock-solid. This is a good, good chapter.
It should be noted that psionic combat is gone. The old attack/defence modes have become powers in their own right, doing similar things to the old versions, but they don't have their own systems now, which is good.
Chapter 5 describes the powers themselves. This chapter is some 65 pages long. Again, really dull, but again absolutely solid. Nice. Worth noting is that most of the powers now have augmentations available - you pay extra power points for more damage, or better effects, or quicker manifestation. Another of the great weaknesses of the old psionics book is thus gone.
Chapter 6 describes 9 prestige classes. Some of these are the usual tosh. We have to have the "multiclass psion" classes, like the fighter/psion, the wizard/psion, and so on. It remains a huge weakness in the d20 system in general that multiclass spellcasters suck, and the same is true of psionic characters (although you can multiclass psion, psychic warrior and wilder without too much pain, which is good). We have a psionic Mystic Theurge, called the Cerebremancer.
The remaining classes are quite good. We have the Illithid Slayer, the Pyrokineticist, and the Fist of Zuoken, all of which are quite fun. I don't like prestige classes. I didn't like this chapter. However, the rules are handled just fine.
Chapter 7 deals with Psionic Items. These are basically the same as magical items. So, no need to say more there.
Chapter 8 provides new monsters, and psionic versions of some classics. These are okay, but not perfect.
The appendix gives a new Clerical domain (Mind), a couple of new spells, and a couple of new deities. This is very short, but just enough to help adding psionics to a game.
This book is dull. It's a tough read, and not a lot of fun. However, the rules are absolutely solid. If you like psionics, then this book is the essential guide for D&D. It fixes all the problems with the 3rd edition version, and hits just the right balance. Of course, if you don't like psionics, this book is useless.
The only other thing that I think is noteworthy - much of this book is now online at the Wizards of the Coast site. The new psionics stuff is now in the SRD. So, you can always try before you buy.
Sunday, 13 June 2004
Buying On-line
I have no problem with companies making .pdfs available on the condition that they have DRM protection. I have no problem with them charging whatever they want for their products. These things don't piss me off.
However, in order to sell me a product, you have to do more than simply not actively piss me off. I have to want to buy your product. And this is one area where on-line shopping breaks down.
See, if I'm in a store, and I have a book in my hands, I may well impulse buy it. This happens a lot, especially with game books, DVDs and music. When I'm shopping on-line, however, I never impulse buy. If I'm on-line, it's because I want something.
(I think the reasoning is something like this - in a store I might not be able to find the very thing I actually want, so I'll get something else. On-line, anything is about as easy to get as anything else, so that incentive is gone. Oh, and shiny "Three for Two!" stickers don't seem to convert very well to the on-line format.)
So, how to resolve this dilemma?
Well, it just so happens I have a couple of ideas:
1) Free samples. Or, if they could get the format and protections right, timelocked samples would be even better. The idea is that you give away a fair amount of stuff free (sneak previews, supplementary adventures, or, on the DVD or music front, trailers and sample tracks). You keep the premium stuff back, and charge top dollar for it. That way, if you like the free stuff, you know that the rest of the stuff is likely to be to your taste.
The timelock formats should be obvious - you download the files for free, but after 50 hours or so the files lock, unless you pay for them. That way, you get to try whatever you want before you buy. And, of course, we're all a lot more inclined to sample something for free than we are to just go ahead and buy it.
2) Smaller files. There is more value in a 400-page book than a 32-page adventure, and the printing and binding costs are similarly favourable to big print works. I don't think the same is true of electronic documents. Clearly, there is no real difference in binding costs (since there aren't any), and storage costs would seem to favour the small. Again, I can see a case for impulse buying a small file where I would never consider dropping $34 for a campaign setting on a whim.
There are other problems associated with DRM, which I want to deal with here as well. The big issue for publishers is one of piracy. And, like it or not, it is a valid concern. Global music chains may be able to afford a little piracy, but it's unlikely that game publishers can. The problem they seem to have forgotten is that their customers won't accept DRM techniques that get in their way. At best, they're an annoyance. At worst, a computer failure wipes out your entire collection, worth several hundred dollars. It is also true that if you buy a file (mp3, pdf, whatever) you absolutely should have the right and the ability to easily take it to any other medium you care. It should be your copy, to do with as you will. If you want to move it to another computer, there should be no problem. It shouldn't even be an issue. If you want to lend it to a friend, the same should also be true.
I have no idea how to solve that problem, however. I just wish that I believed that someone was actually looking. As it is, we have the big companies trying to force DRM on us, the bulk of ordinary customers being shafted, or at least refusing to buy, and a handful of stalwarts/zealots/pirates screaming about how every protection move is big brother or big business stomping on their God-given right to do whatever they want.
However, in order to sell me a product, you have to do more than simply not actively piss me off. I have to want to buy your product. And this is one area where on-line shopping breaks down.
See, if I'm in a store, and I have a book in my hands, I may well impulse buy it. This happens a lot, especially with game books, DVDs and music. When I'm shopping on-line, however, I never impulse buy. If I'm on-line, it's because I want something.
(I think the reasoning is something like this - in a store I might not be able to find the very thing I actually want, so I'll get something else. On-line, anything is about as easy to get as anything else, so that incentive is gone. Oh, and shiny "Three for Two!" stickers don't seem to convert very well to the on-line format.)
So, how to resolve this dilemma?
Well, it just so happens I have a couple of ideas:
1) Free samples. Or, if they could get the format and protections right, timelocked samples would be even better. The idea is that you give away a fair amount of stuff free (sneak previews, supplementary adventures, or, on the DVD or music front, trailers and sample tracks). You keep the premium stuff back, and charge top dollar for it. That way, if you like the free stuff, you know that the rest of the stuff is likely to be to your taste.
The timelock formats should be obvious - you download the files for free, but after 50 hours or so the files lock, unless you pay for them. That way, you get to try whatever you want before you buy. And, of course, we're all a lot more inclined to sample something for free than we are to just go ahead and buy it.
2) Smaller files. There is more value in a 400-page book than a 32-page adventure, and the printing and binding costs are similarly favourable to big print works. I don't think the same is true of electronic documents. Clearly, there is no real difference in binding costs (since there aren't any), and storage costs would seem to favour the small. Again, I can see a case for impulse buying a small file where I would never consider dropping $34 for a campaign setting on a whim.
There are other problems associated with DRM, which I want to deal with here as well. The big issue for publishers is one of piracy. And, like it or not, it is a valid concern. Global music chains may be able to afford a little piracy, but it's unlikely that game publishers can. The problem they seem to have forgotten is that their customers won't accept DRM techniques that get in their way. At best, they're an annoyance. At worst, a computer failure wipes out your entire collection, worth several hundred dollars. It is also true that if you buy a file (mp3, pdf, whatever) you absolutely should have the right and the ability to easily take it to any other medium you care. It should be your copy, to do with as you will. If you want to move it to another computer, there should be no problem. It shouldn't even be an issue. If you want to lend it to a friend, the same should also be true.
I have no idea how to solve that problem, however. I just wish that I believed that someone was actually looking. As it is, we have the big companies trying to force DRM on us, the bulk of ordinary customers being shafted, or at least refusing to buy, and a handful of stalwarts/zealots/pirates screaming about how every protection move is big brother or big business stomping on their God-given right to do whatever they want.
Thursday, 10 June 2004
Unearthed Arcana revisited
I've been thinking about my rather scathing review of Unearthed Arcana recently, especially in light of writing up the "Dragons of the Cerulean Ocean" setting (my latest, fad-of-the-moment, campaign setting). I'm writing up a fairly large number of house rules for the campaign, and I've concluded that I was rather unfair to Unearthed Arcana during the review.
Basically, in the new setting, I'm using large swathes of Unearthed Arcana, either whole-cloth or in a modified form. For instance, Action Points are there, as is Reputation, Magic Rating and Defense Bonus. Paragon classes are in place for two of the races (although these weren't new in UA, and have been modified here), Weapon Groups, and so on, and so on.
So, I guess it's rather more useful that I first stated.
Basically, in the new setting, I'm using large swathes of Unearthed Arcana, either whole-cloth or in a modified form. For instance, Action Points are there, as is Reputation, Magic Rating and Defense Bonus. Paragon classes are in place for two of the races (although these weren't new in UA, and have been modified here), Weapon Groups, and so on, and so on.
So, I guess it's rather more useful that I first stated.
Saturday, 5 June 2004
Disposable Magic
The flip side of the name magic argument is the availability of disposable magical items. I like the notion that a wizard might dash off a few spells onto scrolls, so that he doesn't need to memorize lots of utility spells before heading into the dungeon, or the party might invest in a couple of wands of cure serious wounds. These are low-powered, disposable items that should be available, and which can be crafted by the weaker spell-casters in the setting.
At present, the cost of creating a potion is spell level x caster level x 50. So, a potion of cure light wounds (1d8+1) costs 1 x 1 x 50, while a potion of cure light wounds (1d8+5) costs 1 x 5 x 50, and a potion of cure serious wounds (3d8+5) costs 3 x 5 x 50. (3rd level spell, so minimum caster level is 5). Only spells of 3rd level or lower can be placed in potions.
The cost of creating a scroll is spell level x caster level x 25. So, a scroll costs half as much as the same potion. There is no limit to the spell level allowed in scrolls, but bear in mind, of course, that they are harder to use (anyone can use a potion, after all).
The cost of creating a wand is caster level x spell level x no. of charges x 15. Most wands, fully charged, have 50 charges. So, it's 1 x 1 x 50 x 15 for a 1d8+1 wand of cure light wounds, 1 x 5 x 50 x 15 for a 1d8+5 wand of cure light wounds, and 3 x 5 x 50 x 15 for a wand of cure serious wounds. Only spells of up to 4th level can be placed into wands.
Note that none of the above consider the impact of expensive material components. In the first two cases, these just add to the final cost; with a wand you need to add the cost of the component once per charge.
My proposal is to remove the spell level muliplier from the cost of the items. This will significantly reduce the cost of higher-level potions, wands and scrolls, and make the 1d8+5 wand of cure light wounds obselete. However, it means that a wand of fireballs (5d6) will now cost 3,750 gp, instead of the current 11,250 gp. Since the latter value places such a wand beyond the buying power of a 5th level character, and barely within that of a 6th level character (and shortly after that, the wand becomes useless - better simply to cast fireball, to get 7, 7 or 10d6 damage), I think this is a good thing.
This also has a knock-on effect that the Craft Wand, Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion feats become more useful, since the XP costs for creating these items is also reduced. This is also a good thing.
Note that I think I like this notion, but only in concert with an increase in the difficulty of acquiring more powerful items. As I've said before, permanent items should have a legend associated with them, with more powerful items requiring a more powerful legend.
At present, the cost of creating a potion is spell level x caster level x 50. So, a potion of cure light wounds (1d8+1) costs 1 x 1 x 50, while a potion of cure light wounds (1d8+5) costs 1 x 5 x 50, and a potion of cure serious wounds (3d8+5) costs 3 x 5 x 50. (3rd level spell, so minimum caster level is 5). Only spells of 3rd level or lower can be placed in potions.
The cost of creating a scroll is spell level x caster level x 25. So, a scroll costs half as much as the same potion. There is no limit to the spell level allowed in scrolls, but bear in mind, of course, that they are harder to use (anyone can use a potion, after all).
The cost of creating a wand is caster level x spell level x no. of charges x 15. Most wands, fully charged, have 50 charges. So, it's 1 x 1 x 50 x 15 for a 1d8+1 wand of cure light wounds, 1 x 5 x 50 x 15 for a 1d8+5 wand of cure light wounds, and 3 x 5 x 50 x 15 for a wand of cure serious wounds. Only spells of up to 4th level can be placed into wands.
Note that none of the above consider the impact of expensive material components. In the first two cases, these just add to the final cost; with a wand you need to add the cost of the component once per charge.
My proposal is to remove the spell level muliplier from the cost of the items. This will significantly reduce the cost of higher-level potions, wands and scrolls, and make the 1d8+5 wand of cure light wounds obselete. However, it means that a wand of fireballs (5d6) will now cost 3,750 gp, instead of the current 11,250 gp. Since the latter value places such a wand beyond the buying power of a 5th level character, and barely within that of a 6th level character (and shortly after that, the wand becomes useless - better simply to cast fireball, to get 7, 7 or 10d6 damage), I think this is a good thing.
This also has a knock-on effect that the Craft Wand, Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion feats become more useful, since the XP costs for creating these items is also reduced. This is also a good thing.
Note that I think I like this notion, but only in concert with an increase in the difficulty of acquiring more powerful items. As I've said before, permanent items should have a legend associated with them, with more powerful items requiring a more powerful legend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)