Amanuensis, thank you for the response -- I'm heartened by your interest.
I'm happy to acknowledge that staves are superior to scrolls, IF... (see my post above). Should any of my IF's not hold true for a specific staff you've found, however, selling it & buying something far more useful with the oodles of cash you'll get is likely an overwhelming temptation. (Note: For the game I GM, you can be sure that shopkeeps will take recharges into account when setting the price they'll pay for an exhausted staff.)
Take heart, though: I'm not proposing eliminating staves as such -- in fact, I'm putting the feat for making a personal staff into the hands of every full caster. Mid-range full casters may sprout staves left & right over current games. They will then have the opportunity to slowly build a personal staff into something that is not just impressively powerful but also reflects their style & needs. (Although staves that modify the way spells work would have to be special cases; true finds. There's no getting around GM approval & pricing for such an upgrade to a personal staff.)
Creating a staff will of course still take money. As I figured out so laboriously, RAW pricing is fair IF the staff fits the PC. I'm only crossing out bundles of poorly-designed sticks that don't fit a PC's level or goals. If your caster does want more than one nifty staff, they can take Craft Staff or buy from someone who has it. Non-full casters, of course, will have to buy the staff they want on commission. At least it will be one they want.
Given this, what say you?
I think I would be okay with a player creating a custom staff, but I'd also expect them to stick to a certain theme (no cherry-picking). And I would use the scaling items ruleset from Pathfinder Unchained (it offers a few examples for staves). That means player and GM would have to work out the staff's details at an early stage of the campaign, but they wouldn't have to worry about it later and the player gives up a share of his wealth to make up for his item.
I wouldn't give a staff away for free. A wizard can already choose a staff as his arcane bond, and other characters should take the feat if they are interested (it's not as if spellcasters were especially feat-starved) or pay somebody else handsomely for a custom-made product.
I think I would be okay with a player creating a custom staff, but I'd also expect them to stick to a certain theme (no cherry-picking). And I would use the scaling items ruleset from Pathfinder Unchained (it offers a few examples for staves). That means player and GM would have to work out the staff's details at an early stage of the campaign, but they wouldn't have to worry about it later and the player gives up a share of his wealth to make up for his item.
I wouldn't give a staff away for free. A wizard can already choose a staff as his arcane bond, and other characters should take the feat if they are interested (it's not as if spellcasters were especially feat-starved) or pay somebody else handsomely for a custom-made product.
The reason for giving it away is that it's hard to spend a feat for exactly one item. All right, with upgrades. Still...
What spellcasters do you play that are NOT feat-starved????
I never know which feats to choose as a cleric or druid. Not that there aren't enough feats to complement a certain build, but there are only very few 'essentials' required for my character to work. I can focus on summoning/melee/channeling to get the most out of my character, but I could still build an interesting, functional, and competitive character without having any feats. And wizards get enough feats to pick their choice of item creation and metamagic feats. Full casters can absolutely afford to 'waste' a few feats on their pet projects without ruining the character.
By the way, from a pure optimization standpoint, it's probably better to create a single-spell staff. A staff of enervation for 12,800 gp (8 x 4 x 400 gp) is ridiculously cheap and low-maintenance, and while adding additional spells is less expensive, you gain diminishing returns for each additional spell, because they all consume the same source of charges. To be clear, as a GM, I wouldn't allow a player to create a single-spell staff (the pricing formula seems to be balanced around the concept of a multi-spell staff).
So, if you want to develop a system where the player can improve his staff, I think you would also need to come up with a different pricing system or at least introduce some requirements for the number/level of spells that the staff holds. Which is why I recommended the scaling item rules.
I never know which feats to choose as a cleric or druid. Not that there aren't enough feats to complement a certain build, but there are only very few 'essentials' required for my character to work. I can focus on summoning/melee/channeling to get the most out of my character, but I could still build an interesting, functional, and competitive character without having any feats. And wizards get enough feats to pick their choice of item creation and metamagic feats. Full casters can absolutely afford to 'waste' a few feats on their pet projects without ruining the character.
By the way, from a pure optimization standpoint, it's probably better to create a single-spell staff. A staff of enervation for 12,800 gp (8 x 4 x 400 gp) is ridiculously cheap and low-maintenance, and while adding additional spells is less expensive, you gain diminishing returns for each additional spell, because they all consume the same source of charges. To be clear, as a GM, I wouldn't allow a player to create a single-spell staff (the pricing formula seems to be balanced around the concept of a multi-spell staff).
So, if you want to develop a system where the player can improve his staff, I think you would also need to come up with a different pricing system or at least introduce some requirements for the number/level of spells that the staff holds. Which is why I recommended the scaling item rules.
I'm sorry -- I asked a question, and then I didn't go and look at the answer for a week.
I notice that "Sorcerer" is conspicuously missing from your list of full-casters. Most of them are definitely feat-starved. Yes, they get only one less feat than wizards do, but they have severe, in some cases crippling, constraints on what they can pick for their bonus feats. Although I suspect I'd find an oracle just as feat-starved; I haven't played one long enough to be sure.
Thanks for explaining your thinking on the Scaling Item rules. It makes sense!
*Rubs chin* I'm not sure one-spell staves are even legal? They're specifically described as an item that holds multiple spells.
I'm quite sure they're supposed to have at least three. But if an unwary GM didn't specify...
A staff with one spell is completely legal. There is absolutely nothing in the rules for staves that puts a limit or a minimum on number of spells. The language used assumes multiple spells, but nothing ever states that multiple spells are required.
Just because there are no officially made one-spell staves does not mean that it is not possible to make them.
I dimly saw something {EtA: in a blog or thread, from an actual Paizo rules deity} about three spells, but you are right, Jeraa, the rules don't say any magic number. Still, two (rather than three, as I'd thought) seems to be a reasonable minimum to set, given that it's the lowest we find examples for. One is a wand, by some other name.
I think I would be okay with a player creating a custom staff, but I'd also expect them to stick to a certain theme (no cherry-picking). And I would use the scaling items ruleset from Pathfinder Unchained (it offers a few examples for staves). That means player and GM would have to work out the staff's details at an early stage of the campaign, but they wouldn't have to worry about it later and the player gives up a share of his wealth to make up for his item.
I wouldn't give a staff away for free. A wizard can already choose a staff as his arcane bond, and other characters should take the feat if they are interested (it's not as if spellcasters were especially feat-starved) or pay somebody else handsomely for a custom-made product.
You know, in terms of paying money, I was talking about making the caster pay the crafting price. Yes, I've been distracted, but I haven't entirely forgotten about staves. I've been looking at the rules in Unchained with some distress. Please feel free to explain them to me over here. Please.
I'll just post here, if you don't mind, instead of high-jacking yet another thread. Also, Rainzax is cool and doesn't seem to mind ;)
I notice that "Sorcerer" is conspicuously missing from your list of full-casters. Most of them are definitely feat-starved. Yes, they get only one less feat than wizards do, but they have severe, in some cases crippling, constraints on what they can pick for their bonus feats. Although I suspect I'd find an oracle just as feat-starved; I haven't played one long enough to be sure.
I didn't mention sorcerers in this context because they aren't the best-suited to craft magic items in the first place, but I don't see how they are feat-starved. I agree that in many cases the bloodline bonus feats are pretty useless. (I did away with them entirely with my own take on an alternate sorcerer class, the maniac, and tried to implement metamagic feats in a way that feels more organic).
You know, in terms of paying money, I was talking about making the caster pay the crafting price. Yes, I've been distracted, but I haven't entirely forgotten about staves. I've been looking at the rules in Unchained with some distress.
15-30% of total character wealth comes down to what a martial character has to spend on weapons and armor. I don't see why a full caster shouldn't spend that amount of cash on a cool staff if they really want it (or 1/2 of that, assuming they do the crafting themselves, or 1/4 if it's an arcane bond).
Sadly, the rules for scaling items don't extend to the crafting part; they require the crafter to create the item in its final version, which isn't what you are looking for. (From the publisher's perspective, it's certainly understandable why they did it that way.) I'd be inclined to allow a character with the necessary crafting feats to work on the 'next' version of his item. In the case of a staff, it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out the construction requirements for each iteration. The character would have to spend the time and make the necessary checks, but they would only have to pay the item's construction cost, modifying the WBL reduction accordingly. That is how I would handle it.
Posting here is fine. Where does it say that you craft it for 1/4 cost if it's an arcane bond?
In any case, I'd want to use many of the arcane bond rules for who could use a personal staff and so forth. (Which is to say: no one but the person who crafted it!)
These rules are rough, but I hope they adequately convey my thinking.
{EtA: This is for a personal staff granted to each full-casting class at 8th level.}
Designing the appearance of your personal staff in order to uniquely reflect its theme or your mindset is also a good idea.
In order to create your personal staff to begin with, you have to purchase a masterwork staff, and spend further gp on a special magic polish to rub into it by hand. You also may choose to purchase specific gems, precious metals, and other materials with which to decorate your staff. All of this is subsumed in the crafting price, which is half of the market value of the finished staff (assuming that you could sell it). However, you do not need the Craft Staff feat to create a personal staff, although you do need to meet any other feat prerequisites for any spells you charge the staff with. You must pay for the entire material cost before you start crafting.
Crafting your own staff this way takes time, but not as much as crafting an item for potential use by others. However, you must meditate and utterly concentrate on your staff in two-hour blocks. You do not need a laboratory or shrine, just a calm environment. You cannot be distracted -- certainly you cannot work in the conditions ordinary to crafting while adventuring. (Whether the GM will grant that you in fact have a two-hour period in a calm environment while adventuring depends on specific circumstances.) You may spend up to four such two-hour blocks during one day. You may not get another person to craft your personal staff for you -- you must be the one who concentrates on it and polishes it.
At the end of each two-hour period, have each of the spells you are putting into your staff cast into it. This uses up those slots, obviously; however, you do not have to be the one casting the spells, in contradistinction to the normal Staff Creation rules. You may ask another to cast the spells for you, or you may use scrolls. This gains you up to 1,000 gp of market value towards completion of your staff. If you wish, you may take a +5 penalty to the DC on the Spellcraft check at the end of the crafting period. In this case, you gain up to 2,000 gp worth of progress for every two-hour period.
Once you have spent sufficient time meditating on your staff and polishing it to equal the market value (if you could sell it), make the standard Spellcraft check. If it succeeds, you now have created your personal staff.
~~~
You may upgrade your personal staff at any moment when you have the materials and crafting time at hand. First you must get your GM's approval for the spells you wish to place in the staff.
You may not subtract spells that you previously put into your personal staff, although you may adjust the charges up or down. Calculate the market value that the staff will have once you have finished adding spells, and subtract the previous market value. This tells you how many two-hour blocks you will have to spend polishing and meditating on your staff in order to upgrade it. Once you have started on an upgrade, you may not redesign it in order to finish crafting sooner. However, it will continue to function as it had been until you complete the upgrade crafting.
You may not have more than one personal staff at any time. If you wish to destroy the one you have, you may take a full-round action to break it. This will do 1d6 per CL force damage to you, although you will automatically make a save for half damage. Everyone else within a 5-foot radius of you will take this damage as well, unless they make a Reflex save with a DC equal to that of the highest-level spell in the staff, in which case they take half damage. You lose all of the materials you put into that staff. However, you are now free to craft a new one.
Perhaps a better theme for your example staff would have been the Staff of Relocation.
Let me suggest a different example: The Staff of Defense, which would encompass any spell that allows for a defensive advantage, such as Blur, Blink, Fog Cloud, Invisibility, Mage Armor, Protection from <any>, and Resist Energy -- but not Blindness, D-Door, or Resilient Sphere.
There should not be a damage component to breaking a personal staff. Such an effect is, however you choose to call it, a retributive strike, and that effect has been reserved for a very specific list of items. The caster is still paying a price, in that they lose whatever resources they put into crafting that staff. If an additional price is deemed necessary or desirable, perhaps it could be a set time period before the caster can begin crafting a new personal staff -- similar to when one dismisses a familiar.
Sorry, I seem to have misremembered the part about arcane bond.
I still think the biggest problem of a staff that can be improved over time is that it doesn't make a lot of sense for most characters to create a multi-spell staff. To determine cost, do I have to use my actual CL or can I use the minimum CL required to cast the spell?
It is not entirely clear if you can use spells that are not on your class list for your personal staff (it may be unintentional, but the part about having someone else cast the spells for you indicates that it seems to be possible).
Also, I'd try to avoid all the innuendo that comes with the wizard taking personal time to 'rub his staff'.
I agree with what Debnor said.
Hello community,
I am considering having magic potions cost a like amount of Silver pieces than Gold pieces.This means a 1st-level potion will cost 5gp, a 2nd-level potion will cost 30-40gp, and a 3rd-level potion will cost 75-105gp. (Compared to 50gp/300-400gp/750-1050gp normally)
My reasoning would be to give my PCs a cheaper alternative to wands with the (maintained) drawback of increased encumbrance and action economy (move action to retrieve, standard action to drink).
Aside from making potions something my PCs will actually buy and carry, are there any unintended consequences that ought to cause me to shelve this proposal?
Best.
Haven't read all the posts, but here's my opinion. I'm all for a reduction to healing potions. The way I see it is, A) we usually have a ton of them ANYWAY... and B) they never get drunk in combat so there isn't much of a balance issue. It's my preference to get PCs back up to fighting strength after combat... whether wands, potions, 'short rest' or something similar. I want damage to be scary IN combat... I don't want it to drag out for multiple days or anything.
So cheap healing is fine with me.
Everything ELSE??? All those buffing spells?? That would concern me. There are so many combinations and cheese that I would never predict... I'd be concerned that I threw the balance off and set them on easy mode.
At the very least, I would recommend REALLY looking over what is potionable before you make it TOO easy to do.
Right now potions are double the same scroll price.
Your change would make them a fifth of the scroll price.
I still think the biggest problem of a staff that can be improved over time is that it doesn't make a lot of sense for most characters to create a multi-spell staff. To determine cost, do I have to use my actual CL or can I use the minimum CL required to cast the spell?
When making a staff, you usually use the minimum caster level necessary for the spell, or a minimum of 8th level (staves have a minimum caster level of 8th).
Precisely, that is why it becomes problematic in the context of our discussion. When you introduce a houserule that allows characters to improve their staff as they gain levels (which isn't possible under the normal rules), you'd obviously want to encourage the player to include more powerful spells (to which they have gained access) in their staff. That means that the staff's CL (and therefore also the cost) is going to increase, not only for the new to be added spell, but also for all existing spells. That seems like a mechanic that would discourage most players from adding more powerful spells, no? One would have to do the math for a few examples to figure out how big the impact is, but it certainly runs counter to the intent.
Sorry, I seem to have misremembered the part about arcane bond.
I still think the biggest problem of a staff that can be improved over time is that it doesn't make a lot of sense for most characters to create a multi-spell staff. To determine cost, do I have to use my actual CL or can I use the minimum CL required to cast the spell?
It is not entirely clear if you can use spells that are not on your class list for your personal staff (it may be unintentional, but the part about having someone else cast the spells for you indicates that it seems to be possible).
Also, I'd try to avoid all the innuendo that comes with the wizard taking personal time to 'rub his staff'.
I agree with what Debnor said.
You raise a number of great points.
>> Now that I understand (from a post down-thread) your objection about costs for upgrades being based on a higher CL, I can see that you raise a very salient point here. Very salient. What if I specified that EACH spell is placed in the staff at 8th level, unless it requires a higher CL, in which case it is placed at the minimum CL required?
>> I'll have to clarify wording; it is my intent that the spells have to be on your class-list and of a level you can cast, regardless of who casts the spell for putting it into the staff. This is largely a benefit for spontaneous casters, of course, who would want to extend their spells known with their staves.
>> ROTFL! I'll DEFINITELY have to adjust my wording! You've saved me from a big blush, posting this in a thread of its own. Thank you thank you thank you! (All I wanted was to stress that this process doesn't take a lot of laboratory equipment, but does take personal investment... Honest!)
>> I can eliminate the damage for breaking your staff. It still seems wrong that you can put your own essence into something and break it and not get hurt...
Precisely, that is why it becomes problematic in the context of our discussion. When you introduce a houserule that allows characters to improve their staff as they gain levels (which isn't possible under the normal rules),
Why exactly would it not be possible? You would simply have to allow for custom staff creation and pay the price difference between the staff in it's present form and the improved version.
Hello community,
I am considering having magic potions cost a like amount of Silver pieces than Gold pieces.This means a 1st-level potion will cost 5gp, a 2nd-level potion will cost 30-40gp, and a 3rd-level potion will cost 75-105gp. (Compared to 50gp/300-400gp/750-1050gp normally)
My reasoning would be to give my PCs a cheaper alternative to wands with the (maintained) drawback of increased encumbrance and action economy (move action to retrieve, standard action to drink).
Aside from making potions something my PCs will actually buy and carry, are there any unintended consequences that ought to cause me to shelve this proposal?
Best.
I am under the impression that a potion is so expensive because anyone can use it. Wands require a UMD check to use, but anyone can use a potion.