Recent Posts
They never commented on that.
It can't be arbitrary because it *strongly* affects the weight of balance decisions. (i.e. is extra rage worth a feat - not if you have only 1 combat per day lasting 4 rounds)
There has to be some sort of official assumption to work off of, or all these numbers are floating around in the air with no worth connected to their values.
It can't be arbitrary because it *strongly* affects the weight of balance decisions. (i.e. is extra rage worth a feat - not if you have only 1 combat per day lasting 4 rounds)
There has to be some sort of official assumption to work off of, or all these numbers are floating around in the air with no worth connected to their values.
It's not arbitrary, but it's driven by the story. How many encounters happen in a day are determined by what the characters do. Some modules take place over the course of hours or a couple days, so ALL the encounters will happen quickly. Characters shouldn't be at their optimal level at the beginning of each encounter; otherwise there's little danger and no challenge. Just think how boring and formulaic the game would be if the players could go "Well, it's safe to go to sleep now without a guard. That was our fourth encounter!"
It's not arbitrary, but it's driven by the story. How many encounters happen in a day are determined by what the characters do. Some modules take place over the course of hours or a couple days, so ALL the encounters will happen quickly. Characters shouldn't be at their optimal level at the beginning of each encounter; otherwise there's little danger and no challenge. Just think how boring and formulaic the game would be if the players could go "Well, it's safe to go to sleep now without a guard. That was our fourth encounter!"
The DM needs to balance the sessions, within limits, around the amount of encounters for the day. Now, honestly everyone's not going to run their games as efficient and precisely as this, but it's the "goal" of the story to flow around combat -- after all, D&D is a combat-based game.
Further, it should be in the player's minds to separate themselves from the mechanics enough to not count the number of encounters in a day and even further not to 'tell' their characters that information.
All said, it's good to know what the game is balanced around so we DMs can build around it.
3.5 suggested 4 level-appropriate encounters per day. Further, they suggested that this number is just an average, but if you wish to use more encounters, make them weaker, of if you use fewer encounters, make them stronger.
So if you only have 2 encounters, you can make them both fairly tough. So tough, that if you were crazy enough to use 4 encounters of that toughness, you would almost certainly kill some or maybe even all of the PCs.
If you want 6 encounters, then go right ahead, but at least some of them should probably be fairly weak.
Following these guidelines should result in your PCs ending their adventuring day with all or nearly all of their spells used up, maybe some of them are still somewhat wounded with little or no healing left. They're done, worn out, stretched thin, and fairly well in need of a rest before going on.
Now, dice are dice, and you never know exactly how it will turn out, but these guidelines are what 3.x suggested, right in the DMG.
To my knowledge, Pathfinder did not rebalance the classes/encounters in any way that would change these guidelines, so I would stick to them.
If you're writing your own adventures, try to shoot for 4 level-appropriate encounters in an adventuring day, soften some of them if you increase that number or toughen some of them if you decrease that number.
More or less.
You don't have to do this all the time. If you do, it will become a little stale. So feel free to mix it up. Some days, have only one weak encounter. Other days, maybe only one really hard encounter.
It never hurts to fall short. If you don't have enough encounters, or hard enough encounters, then your PCs end up going to bed relatively healthy and with spells remaining uncast.
But it can hurt a lot, a whole lot, to go over. Too many encounters, or too hard, and you can kill PCs or even TPK the whole party (or you end up fudging so many die rolls that it turns into a circus).
Now, while I don't like TPKs myself, I won't save the PCs when it's their own fault, but I feel particularly bad, guilty even, when the only reason for the TPK was me breaking these guidelines and throwing too many encounters, or too hard encounters, and killing them because I don't understand the game balance or resource management issues.
Bad DMing is never a good reason for a TPK.
So be careful if you go over these guidelines.
3.5 suggested 4 level-appropriate encounters per day.
The problem is that the preliminary math on the sorcerer shows that with that few encounters before spells are regained, their numerical advantage (which really starts to kick in around level 12) never matters because they can never take advantage of it.
If a class feature is designed around something the core assumptions of the game insure never comes up - does that make for a balanced class?
The problem with fixing it is that there are some serious advantages at high levels.
Bah. If My players quit walking because they have had their requisite encounters per day and want a lie down, then they have a lot of bad news coming.
I despise the 15 minute workday ethos that seemed to pervade 3.5, and I've never subscribed to it.
I understand my part in the affair, and I keep the threat levels lower to accommodate a full working day, But if a player wants to lie down and rest for a night between every single encounter becuase he cannot ration his spells per day, and took too many foolish risks with his HP or any number of other resource management sloppiness then he has some nasty and plot relevant suprises awaiting him.
I ran a game no too long ago with the beta rules. The barbarian had expended all of his rage and the cleric was out of cures. so they made camp, despite being not more than 2 hours from town and it being not yet noon. It was infuriating, from a logistic standpoint (what..there's no rush to save the villagers) and from a story point of view (oops..took a hit point. time to rest now. how heroic)
Look. The heroes are supposed to win. I advocate scaling down encounters and increasing their frequency. If they want to sleep at ridiculous hours hit them with wandering monsters. Give them adventures with a time clock silently ticking away or any reason for them to simply move on.
Batts
3.5 suggested 4 level-appropriate encounters per day.The problem is that the preliminary math on the sorcerer shows that with that few encounters before spells are regained, their numerical advantage (which really starts to kick in around level 12) never matters because they can never take advantage of it.
If a class feature is designed around something the core assumptions of the game insure never comes up - does that make for a balanced class?
The problem with fixing it is that there are some serious advantages at high levels.
The sorcerer's innate numerical advantage lies in many forms. YOu can't just count how many rounds he can cast a spell. You have to evaluate how effective those spells are likely to be.
1. He can cast more of his highest spell levels than a wizard. Even if you assume 4 4-round encounters for a total of 16 rounds, a 10th level wizard with a 20 INT would cast 3 5th level, 4 4th level, 4 3rd level, and 5 2nd level spells if he casts a spell in every round. A 10th level sorcerer would cast 4 5th level, 6 4th level, and 6 3nd level spells - he wouldn't even need his 1st or 2nd level spells that day. That's a huge advantage.
2. The sorcer will certainly have at least one or two good combat spells of each level. That means he will pretty much always have something to cast every round. The wizard, on the other hand, must consider preparing spells like Teleport, Water Breathing, Tongues, Fly, Identify, divinations, etc. So in my previous example, that wizard might (e.g.) only cast 2 5th level, 3 4th level, 2 3rd level, 4 2nd level, 3 1st level, and fire his crossbow for two rounds, because the rest of his prepared slots have utility spells in them. This takes the sorcerer's huge advantage from my first point and turns it into a colossal advantage.
3. It can be even worse, if the wizard expected certain things and prepared his spells accordingly, but turned out to be wrong, and too many of his spells prove to be useless that day. Doesn't always happen, but it can. Sorcerers never have this problem. Sure, their known spells are very restricted, but even so, they know enough spells to almost always have something useful for any situation.
So when it comes to numerical spells/day advantage, the sorcerer completely owns the wizard in every way.
Of course, the wizard makes up for it by knowing huge numbers of spells (as long as he has a Blessed Book or takes the logical-but-liberal interpretation of the RAW and uses more than one spellbook) and is far more likely to have the right tool for every job than a sorcerer is.
It's hard to say if that's balanced or not, but I think it's safe to say the the core assumptions of the sorcerer's mathematical advantage come up every day - far far from "never comes up".
Bah. If My players quit walking because they have had their requisite encounters per day and want a lie down, then they have a lot of bad news coming.
I certainly wasn't advocating that the players set the schedule. Clearly, that's up to the DM.
Of course, there are times when they're down to 5 HP and no spells left, out of potions and wand charges, and they will decide to retreat rather than go on. So I guess the players do decide, sometimes.
Not that the DM can't suff another encounter or two down their throats after they retreat...
I despise the 15 minute workday ethos that seemed to pervade 3.5, and I've never subscribed to it.
It's not really a matter of subscribing to it or not. It's inherent in the system.
So despise it all you want, you can't get away from it.
It's worth noting that "15 minute adventuring day" is simply a generic term to indicate that adventuring is only a small part of the day, it's not meant to say that the adventuring day is exactly 15 minutes.
No matter how you try, there will be times when 1 tough encounter, or a half-dozen weak encounters, or anything en between, will wear your party down so much that they cannot (or should not) deliberately seek out more encounters.
Now, that might happen in a forest, and every encounter might occur after hours of walking. The last encounter might happen after they camp and go to sleep. That certainly spreads over a longer time than 15 minutes, but ultimately, if you measure the time involved in swinging swords and sligning spells, it was less than 15 minutes of the whole day.
Or it might happen in a dungeon full of goblins, with goblins in every room. After 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 rooms full of goblins, the party might be so depleted that they cannot continue. Each of those rooms might have only taken a minute or two, and their whole trip into the dungeon might have taken only 15 minutes. Or around 15 minutes. Now the PCs are worn out and beat up and retreat to camp for 23 hours so they can come back tomorrow.
Or it might be somewhere in between.
But no matter how you space it out, most adventuring days have around 15 minutes of combat, maybe a litte more time actively exploring and dealing with the environment, and the remaining 23 hours of the day are spent walking, camping, resting, and engaged in non-adventuring stuff.
Most of the time, anyway.
Because it's inherent in the system.
I understand my part in the affair, and I keep the threat levels lower to accommodate a full working day, But if a player wants to lie down and rest for a night between every single encounter becuase he cannot ration his spells per day, and took too many foolish risks with his HP or any number of other resource management sloppiness then he has some nasty and plot relevant suprises awaiting him.
As it should be.
The DM's job is to create a challenging adventure, and the player's job is to deal with the challenges presented in a creative and successful fashion, and without screwing up.
If the player's fail at their job, there should be consequences.
I ran a game no too long ago with the beta rules. The barbarian had expended all of his rage and the cleric was out of cures. so they made camp, despite being not more than 2 hours from town and it being not yet noon. It was infuriating, from a logistic standpoint (what..there's no rush to save the villagers) and from a story point of view (oops..took a hit point. time to rest now. how heroic)
The real question is, if they faced another encounter that day, and it was as hard as the ones they faced before noon, would that encounter kill them?
If the answer is "yes", then it would be suicide to continue. If the answer is "probably", then it would probably be suicide to continue. If the answer is "no", then it would be cowardly and unnecessary to rest. If the answer is "probably not", then it would be heroic to continue, but not necessarily a bad idea to rest.
Now, if they were that beat up because you challenged them, then they were wise to consider resting. If they were that beat up because they squandered resources foolishly, then it was their own fault and the DM should provide some consequences for their foolishness.
Look. The heroes are supposed to win. I advocate scaling down encounters and increasing their frequency. If they want to sleep at ridiculous hours hit them with wandering monsters. Give them adventures with a time clock silently ticking away or any reason for them to simply move on.
All good ideas.
In relation to balance and encounters per day may I present Trailblazer. This book pretty easily incorporates into Pathfinder as is and helps with the issues presented in this thread.
The sorcerer's innate numerical advantage lies in many forms. YOu can't just count how many rounds he can cast a spell. You have to evaluate how effective those spells are likely to be.
I'm sorry, I don't think you've looked at it closely.
1. He can cast more of his highest spell levels than a wizard. Even if you assume 4 4-round encounters for a total of 16 rounds, a 10th level wizard with a 20 INT would cast 3 5th level, 4 4th level, 4 3rd level, and 5 2nd level spells if he casts a spell in every round. A 10th level sorcerer would cast 4 5th level, 6 4th level, and 6 3nd level spells - he wouldn't even need his 1st or 2nd level spells that day. That's a huge advantage.
this is incorrect. A sorcerer has at 10th level 4 + 1 (CHA) fifth level spells, 6 + 1 (CHA) fourth level spells, 6 + 1 (CHA) Third level spells etc.
A wizard has 2 + 1 (INT) + 1 (SPEC.) + 1 (ARCANE BOND) fifth level spells, 4 + 1 (INT) + 1 (SPEC.) fourth level spells
So five fith level spells versus the sorcerers five fifth level spells? Big advantage. Did you also take into account the wizard had fifth level spells (four of them) last level at 9 while the sorcerer had, wait for it, no fifth level spells?
2. The sorcer will certainly have at least one or two good combat spells of each level. That means he will pretty much always have something to cast every round. The wizard, on the other hand, must consider preparing spells like Teleport, Water Breathing, Tongues, Fly, Identify, divinations, etc. So in my previous example, that wizard might (e.g.) only cast 2 5th level, 3 4th level, 2 3rd level, 4 2nd level, 3 1st level, and fire his crossbow for two rounds, because the rest of his prepared slots have utility spells in them. This takes the sorcerer's huge advantage from my first point and turns it into a colossal advantage.
Except this is not true. The wizard has paid a trivial amount of gold (Per his total in RAW) to scribe those spells, and then with his greater number of bonus feats has made wands of those spells. (Or even without that for a minuscule amount of his wealth (per RAW) he can make multiple copies of scrolls of any spell he needs) He has as many spells per day as the sorcerer and due to items has access to all of his utility spells.
3. It can be even worse, if the wizard expected certain things and prepared his spells accordingly, but turned out to be wrong, and too many of his spells prove to be useless that day. Doesn't always happen, but it can. Sorcerers never have this problem. Sure, their known spells are very restricted, but even so, they know enough spells to almost always have something useful for any situation.
So when it comes to numerical spells/day advantage, the sorcerer completely owns the wizard in every way.
Of course, the wizard makes up for it by knowing huge numbers of spells (as long as he has a Blessed Book or takes the logical-but-liberal interpretation of the RAW and uses more than one spellbook) and is far more likely to have the right tool for every job than a sorcerer is.
It's hard to say if that's balanced or not, but I think it's safe to say the the core assumptions of the sorcerer's mathematical advantage come up every day - far far from "never comes up".
Only because you haven't looked at it very closely. The point is, that a friend and I are doing some math (actually he's doing a lot of the math, I'm basically just giving him a hard time), using only the core spells (to discount items which basically make the point moot) and what I'm discovering is that the sorcerers only advantage in the list does not come into play by the suggested number of encounters per RaW.
I understand that you're playing a mage without access to the amount of money he should have DM_Blake?
*if* the sorcerer on a regular basis were expected to expend all his spells and more, except for half a dozen swingy levels where the wizard does more damage (twice as much at third), the classes would be more balanced.
As it stands, by the time it swings in the sorcerers favor, what's it matter?
The sorcerer's innate numerical advantage lies in many forms. YOu can't just count how many rounds he can cast a spell. You have to evaluate how effective those spells are likely to be.
I'm sorry, I don't think you've looked at it closely.
1. He can cast more of his highest spell levels than a wizard. Even if you assume 4 4-round encounters for a total of 16 rounds, a 10th level wizard with a 20 INT would cast 3 5th level, 4 4th level, 4 3rd level, and 5 2nd level spells if he casts a spell in every round. A 10th level sorcerer would cast 4 5th level, 6 4th level, and 6 3nd level spells - he wouldn't even need his 1st or 2nd level spells that day. That's a huge advantage.
this is incorrect. A sorcerer has at 10th level 4 + 1 (CHA) fifth level spells, 6 + 1 (CHA) fourth level spells, 6 + 1 (CHA) Third level spells etc.
A wizard has 2 + 1 (INT) + 1 (SPEC.) + 1 (ARCANE BOND) fifth level spells, 4 + 1 (INT) + 1 (SPEC.) fourth level spells
I must be looking at a different book than you. I see socerers having 3 + 1 (CHA) fifth level, 5 + 1 (CHA) 4th level, and 6 + 1 (CHA) 3rd level (but my original example I stopped at casting 6 of them because I ran out of my 16 rounds - casting all 7 would require 17 rounds in the day).
I don't think it's fair to include Arcane Bond for the wizard, as many wizards prefer to have a familiar, and many wizards with Arcane Bond reserve it for utility purposes, though those wizards could choose otherwise if they wish. Still, not every wizard has a bonded item available to them.
Likewise, I don't think it's fair to include spcialization, as many wizards are quite happy being Universalists and therefore don't get the bonus spell.
Still, your point is somewhat valid in that wizards can narrow the gap, and some do, by making specific choices to narrow that gap.
So five fith level spells versus the sorcerers five fifth level spells? Big advantage. Did you also take into account the wizard had fifth level spells (four of them) last level at 9 while the sorcerer had, wait for it, no fifth level spells?
Well, the post I responded to did talk about the sorcerer's spells/day numerical superiority. I deliberately glossed over the other advantages of being a wizard, such as getting new spell levels earlier, as that was not relevant to the numerical superiority - it's a different kind of balancing factor that helps keep wizards from being overpowered by sorcerers.
Except this is not true. The wizard has paid a trivial amount of gold (Per his total in RAW) to scribe those spells, and then with his greater number of bonus feats has made wands of those spells. (Or even without that for a minuscule amount of his wealth (per RAW) he can make multiple copies of scrolls of any spell he needs) He has as many spells per day as the sorcerer and due to items has access to all of his utility spells.2. The sorcer will certainly have at least one or two good combat spells of each level. That means he will pretty much always have something to cast every round. The wizard, on the other hand, must consider preparing spells like Teleport, Water Breathing, Tongues, Fly, Identify, divinations, etc. So in my previous example, that wizard might (e.g.) only cast 2 5th level, 3 4th level, 2 3rd level, 4 2nd level, 3 1st level, and fire his crossbow for two rounds, because the rest of his prepared slots have utility spells in them. This takes the sorcerer's huge advantage from my first point and turns it into a colossal advantage.
There you go again, dragging in outside balancing factors.
The ability to make wands may very well be a benefit that balances wizards against sorcerers, and nothing you said is untrue, but it is an entirely separate issue from that which I was addressing: the sorcerer's spells/day numerical superiority.
Only because you haven't looked at it very closely. The point is, that a friend and I are doing some math (actually he's doing a lot of the math, I'm basically just giving him a hard time), using only the core spells (to discount items which basically make the point moot) and what I'm discovering is that the sorcerers only advantage in the list does not come into play by the suggested number of encounters per RaW.
Thanks for discussing the other balancing factors that make wizards viable compared to sorcerers, but I think my assessment of their spells/day mathematics still stands, amended by your valid points that some wizards make choices to narrow the difference.
I understand that you're playing a mage without access to the amount of money he should have DM_Blake?
Irrelevent.
I was simply comparing class abilities and not even taking gold into account. What items they have, or what spells they're able to buy, or what items they make with feats, or what gold they can spend on supplemental magic, etc., are all above and beyond the core spells/day mechanics.
*if* the sorcerer on a regular basis were expected to expend all his spells and more, except for half a dozen swingy levels where the wizard does more damage (twice as much at third), the classes would be more balanced.
As it stands, by the time it swings in the sorcerers favor, what's it matter?
I'm quite certain that, even with your math for specialists, the sorcerer has more of his highest levels of spells available, except for his very highest level, which is even with the wizard. The specialist wizard can even come out ahead if he has a bonded item and if he uses that item for a combat spell.
Of course, my other point is still valid about the wizard having almost certainly prepared at least a few of those slots with utility spells, in which case, he cannot touch the sorcerer's ability to use his highest levels of spells.
Except this is not true. The wizard has paid a trivial amount of gold (Per his total in RAW) to scribe those spells, and then with his greater number of bonus feats has made wands of those spells. (Or even without that for a minuscule amount of his wealth (per RAW) he can make multiple copies of scrolls of any spell he needs) He has as many spells per day as the sorcerer and due to items has access to all of his utility spells.
There you go again, dragging in outside balancing factors.
The ability to make wands may very well be a benefit that balances wizards against sorcerers, and nothing you said is untrue, but it is an entirely separate issue from that which I was addressing: the sorcerer's spells/day numerical superiority.
Not to mention that it's a bogus argument in the first place. The Sorcerer is just as capable of making and/or using wands as the wizard. If you're going to argue 'class A has advantage over class B' you can only bring in arguments that are germain to the classes themselves, not 'B can buy/make equipment N so he's better', unless B is the only class that can make and/or use N.
The fact the wizard get's more bonus feats is germain, as it's a leveling factor. The fact he can make/use wands is not, as the sorcerer has the same ability, which means it cancels out.
Not to mention that it's a bogus argument in the first place. The Sorcerer is just as capable of making and/or using wands as the wizard.
Not entirely true, leaving aside the bonus feats, the sorcerer just has less of a reason to do so, as they are incapable of making a wand or scroll of a spell that isn't already on their list and freely available to use every day anyways. A wizard on the other hand has a strong motivation, as they can then use the daily slots that might have been devoted to that utility spell on something else.
Both are capable of using the same item creation feats, the wizard just gains more of a benefit for less of a cost (especially with the free bonus feats).
Not to mention that it's a bogus argument in the first place. The Sorcerer is just as capable of making and/or using wands as the wizard. If you're going to argue 'class A has advantage over class B' you can only bring in arguments that are germain to the classes themselves, not 'B can buy/make equipment N so he's better', unless B is the only class that can make and/or use N.
The fact the wizard get's more bonus feats is germain, as it's a leveling factor. The fact he can make/use wands is not, as the sorcerer has the same ability, which means it cancels out.
Well, it's a valid argument, because the claim is 'sorcerers can cast more than wizards'. Wizards have the option of removing that advantage using wands *and* they can add any spell to their spells known.
Sure the sorcerer can use wands, but it is more expensive for him to try and match the number of spells the wizard has available just from his core spellbook.
Of course the sorcerer can use cleric, druid, paladin and bard wands. . .
Mistwalker
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, GameMastery Maps Subscriber)
Not to mention that it's a bogus argument in the first place. The Sorcerer is just as capable of making and/or using wands as the wizard.Not entirely true, leaving aside the bonus feats, the sorcerer just has less of a reason to do so, as they are incapable of making a wand or scroll of a spell that isn't already on their list and freely available to use every day anyways. A wizard on the other hand has a strong motivation, as they can then use the daily slots that might have been devoted to that utility spell on something else.
Both are capable of using the same item creation feats, the wizard just gains more of a benefit for less of a cost (especially with the free bonus feats).
I can see a chain of "not entirely true" happening here.
:)Not entirely true, a sorcerer can create a wand with any spell on it, even those not one his spell list, by taking the penalty to the DC of creating the wand.
Not to mention that it's a bogus argument in the first place. The Sorcerer is just as capable of making and/or using wands as the wizard.Not entirely true, leaving aside the bonus feats, the sorcerer just has less of a reason to do so, as they are incapable of making a wand or scroll of a spell that isn't already on their list and freely available to use every day anyways. A wizard on the other hand has a strong motivation, as they can then use the daily slots that might have been devoted to that utility spell on something else.
Both are capable of using the same item creation feats, the wizard just gains more of a benefit for less of a cost (especially with the free bonus feats).
I can see a chain of "not entirely true" happening here.
:)Not entirely true, a sorcerer can create a wand with any spell on it, even those not one his spell list, by taking the penalty to the DC of creating the wand.
LOL,
I can hear it too. In addition, they should be able to buy a scroll of a spell they don't have (but can cast) and use it to create the wand. :)
I can see a chain of "not entirely true" happening here.
:)Not entirely true, a sorcerer can create a wand with any spell on it, even those not one his spell list, by taking the penalty to the DC of creating the wand.
LOL,
I can hear it too. In addition, they should be able to buy a scroll of a spell they don't have (but can cast) and use it to create the wand. :)
Not entirely true...
;)
Must... keep... this... chain... alive...
Craftnig even a level 1 wand would require the sorcerer to buy 8 scrolls (or a scroll on which the spell were scribed 8 times, if such things are allowed - which would amount to the same thing anyway).
Not entirely true...;)
Must... keep... this... chain... alive...
Craftnig even a level 1 wand would require the sorcerer to buy 8 scrolls (or a scroll on which the spell were scribed 8 times, if such things are allowed - which would amount to the same thing anyway).
You post suggests that it isn't possible to scribe a scroll with more than one spell on it:
Which is Not entirely true...
From page 490
"A scroll holding more than one spell has the same width (about 8-1/2 inches) but is an extra foot or so long for each additional spell. Scrolls that hold three or more spells are usually fitted with reinforcing rods at each end rather than simple straps of leather."
Not entirely true, a sorcerer can create a wand with any spell on it, even those not one his spell list, by taking the penalty to the DC of creating the wand.
My apologies, but you are wrong sir.
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
That final line means Scrolls, Staves, and Wands are offlimits unless you are capable of memorizing/casting the appropriate spells each day of creation.
Not entirely true, a sorcerer can create a wand with any spell on it, even those not one his spell list, by taking the penalty to the DC of creating the wand.My apologies, but you are wrong sir.
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.That final line means Scrolls, Staves, and Wands are offlimits unless you are capable of memorizing/casting the appropriate spells each day of creation.
Exactly,
Which means if you are a sorcerer and don't know the spell, you must have access to a scroll of the appropriate type each day (As DM_Blake stated above). I never said it was cheap, but it's doable (the only thing I really see it worth it for is either rechargeable items, like staves, or else uses per day wands). It would be quite expensive to create a Wand of Fireballs as a sorcerer if you didn't know Fireball. However, you could do it if you had a scroll for each day of enchantment.
I can see a chain of "not entirely true" happening here.
:)Not entirely true, a sorcerer can create a wand with any spell on it, even those not one his spell list, by taking the penalty to the DC of creating the wand.
LOL,
I can hear it too. In addition, they should be able to buy a scroll of a spell they don't have (but can cast) and use it to create the wand. :)Not entirely true...
;)
Must... keep... this... chain... alive...
Craftnig even a level 1 wand would require the sorcerer to buy 8 scrolls (or a scroll on which the spell were scribed 8 times, if such things are allowed - which would amount to the same thing anyway).
I'd have tried to keep the chain alive, but... someone broke it before I posted. :)
And yes, I agree, you would need the 8 scrolls (or 8 spells on one scroll) to do it, but it's possible, just more expensive. Never said it wasn't more expensive, just that they could do it. :)
Mistwalker
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, GameMastery Maps Subscriber)
My apologies, but you are wrong sir.
Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item's creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by +5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.That final line means Scrolls, Staves, and Wands are offlimits unless you are capable of memorizing/casting the appropriate spells each day of creation.
Not entirely true
:)(Not true, but I really wanted to "say" it)
The sorcerer can still make wands of spells not on his list, as long as they have access to the spell (either the expensive scroll or having a "friend" cast it each day for them).
Mistwalker
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, GameMastery Maps Subscriber)