1) almost any kingdom would have the needed money and would have a well pampered 4th level wizard working for them producing gems of unlimited wishes. About 1,5 millions gp and 4 years of works and the kingdom would have a gem capable to cast unlimited wishes. Even limiting it to 5 wish/day would be a good investment.
2) the FAQ say: "If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement." so it endorse making items with a CL higher than yours, but it is a great way to unbalance the game.
The DC to make an item is easy and only adding a +5 to create something above your caster level (plus the base DC of the item CL+5) allow people to make item that are grossly overpowered...
Are you arguing that this isn't RAW or that it shouldn't be? Either way, you're going to have to argue with the devs about that.
While I agree that the magic item system isn't perfect, I disagree that it shouldn't be used (which is how I read most arguments like yours). With a few sanity checks, I think it's even usable by players with little GM oversight. For everyone else, the whole section basically says "ask your GM".
I also think you are overestimating "overpowered" magic items.
|
As a quick note to those proposing to house-rule this to death. I will note that the majority of the community who have played Staff Magi, find them if anything, underpowered. Particularly, from levels 1-7, where they get the singular benefit of the feat "Quarterstaff Master", which is a sucky feat, for sacrificing all their martial weapon proficiencies ...Even at later levels, it's a pretty iffy trade-off, as Magi find tremendous benefit in critical range. Quarterstaves have a 20/X2 critical, and cannot benefit from the keen enchantment (nor the vorpal enhancement, which normal magi get), as compared to the commonly used scimitar at 18-20/X2.
IF you gut this, you need to re-write or write-off the archetype. As it is, the current archetype, IMO, needs 2 bonus feats added, (TWF & WF Quarterstaff).
But non standard staffs (i.e. those not published in the rulebooks [and the adventures are full of not standard items, so those don't count]) are house rules.
So the CL 20 staff of shield is an house rule.
|
|
1) almost any kingdom would have the needed money and would have a well pampered 4th level wizard working for them producing gems of unlimited wishes. About 1,5 millions gp and 4 years of works and the kingdom would have a gem capable to cast unlimited wishes. Even limiting it to 5 wish/day would be a good investment.
2) the FAQ say: "If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement." so it endorse making items with a CL higher than yours, but it is a great way to unbalance the game.
The DC to make an item is easy and only adding a +5 to create something above your caster level (plus the base DC of the item CL+5) allow people to make item that are grossly overpowered...Are you arguing that this isn't RAW or that it shouldn't be? Either way, you're going to have to argue with the devs about that.
While I agree that the magic item system isn't perfect, I disagree that it shouldn't be used (which is how I read most arguments like yours). With a few sanity checks, I think it's even usable by players with little GM oversight. For everyone else, the whole section basically says "ask your GM".
I also think you are overestimating "overpowered" magic items.
I am arguing that the ability to overcast, especially for a paltry +5 to the difficulty, is way overpowered. With a few sanity checks by the GM and removing the ability to overcast the crafting system work fine.
If you can overcast you will have 5th level characters making oil of greater magic weapon of +5, potions of shield of faith +5 and so on, making those spell irrelevant when cast by hand.
Why NPC with a few minions to give them the time to prepare should spend money for permanently enchanted weapons and armor? Most of the time a mundane, masterwork versions would suffice against the kind of opponents they face. When those pesky adventures come knocking they would spend a few round: oil of Magic vestment +5 on armor and shield, oil of greater magic weapons +5 on the weapon, drink a potion of shield of faith +5, potion of barkskin +5: +20 point to AC, +5 to attack and damage. Just for the fun of it add a potion of improved invisibility CL 20 from his summoner friend.
Even making all of them at CL 20 to reduce the chances of someone dispelling them the cost is 15.000 gp, the same of a +3 weapon and with the added fun that if the BEEG fail the PC get nothing.
What you need to get all the above: 5th level cleric with the brew potion feat, 3rd level druid and 9th level summoner. Note that only one of them need the brew potion feat, the others can cooperate with him to craft the potions, fulfilling the requirement that one of the crafters should have the needed spell to make a potion.
As a quick note to those proposing to house-rule this to death. I will note that the majority of the community who have played Staff Magi, find them if anything, underpowered.It's just knee-jerk responses of 'omg it's overpowered'.. at the start of 3.5 a number of people came to this conclusion for the Mystic Theurge...
-James
it's not so much 'omg overpowered', but 'omg, this cheese stinks !'
I rather have something in place that flows more natural with the staff magus rather than forcing a staff devoid of flavor and inherent usefulness.
Consider players being ambushed by npcs wielding staves, they invest 800 gold to use a 20th lvl open/close cantrip, well within the allowed wealth of 2nd lvl magi. The players probably feel screwed, that is a sign of a bad 'rule'.
The magic item creation 'rules' are used as guidelines, but should not be abused by players or GMs to make cheesy items designed to game the system, the players have the same responsibility in this regard as the GM has, there is so much complaining about GMs 'cheating' their players on these boards but at the same time players are encouraged to do the same thing across the board, my opinion ofcourse.
As a quick note to those proposing to house-rule this to death. I will note that the majority of the community who have played Staff Magi, find them if anything, underpowered. Particularly, from levels 1-7, where they get the singular benefit of the feat "Quarterstaff Master", which is a sucky feat, for sacrificing all their martial weapon proficiencies ...Even at later levels, it's a pretty iffy trade-off, as Magi find tremendous benefit in critical range. Quarterstaves have a 20/X2 critical, and cannot benefit from the keen enchantment (nor the vorpal enhancement, which normal magi get), as compared to the commonly used scimitar at 18-20/X2.
IF you gut this, you need to re-write or write-off the archetype. As it is, the current archetype, IMO, needs 2 bonus feats added, (TWF & WF Quarterstaff).But non standard staffs (i.e. those not published in the rulebooks [and the adventures are full of not standard items, so those don't count]) are house rules.
So the CL 20 staff of shield is an house rule.
Why is it a houserule?
So far i thougt you only argued, that its houserule, that its easy to find crafter making this for 16000 GP.
Is it houserule to use the rules for magic creation, when PCs create themselve?
'houserule' is a bad word in this case, the magic item creation rules are infact not rules at all, just a tool to help GMs and players estimate approximate value of items they create. The order should (imo) be :
1 think up a flavorful/cool item.
2 estimate marketprice by the guidelines given.
1) almost any kingdom would have the needed money and would have a well pampered 4th level wizard working for them producing gems of unlimited wishes. About 1,5 millions gp and 4 years of works and the kingdom would have a gem capable to cast unlimited wishes. Even limiting it to 5 wish/day would be a good investment.
2) the FAQ say: "If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement." so it endorse making items with a CL higher than yours, but it is a great way to unbalance the game.
The DC to make an item is easy and only adding a +5 to create something above your caster level (plus the base DC of the item CL+5) allow people to make item that are grossly overpowered...Are you arguing that this isn't RAW or that it shouldn't be? Either way, you're going to have to argue with the devs about that.
While I agree that the magic item system isn't perfect, I disagree that it shouldn't be used (which is how I read most arguments like yours). With a few sanity checks, I think it's even usable by players with little GM oversight. For everyone else, the whole section basically says "ask your GM".
I also think you are overestimating "overpowered" magic items.
I am arguing that the ability to overcast, especially for a paltry +5 to the difficulty, is way overpowered. With a few sanity checks by the GM and removing the ability to overcast the crafting system work fine.
If you can overcast you will have 5th level characters making oil of greater magic weapon of +5, potions of shield of faith +5 and so on, making those spell irrelevant when cast by hand.
Why NPC with a few minions to give them the time to prepare should spend money for permanently enchanted...
Except that potions, scrolls and wands have extra rules about what is required to create them. (Also, many people would consider making a one-use wondrous item that clearly should be a potion to be circumventing the spirit of the rules.)
Try again.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re: Overcasting
A possible house rule/solution would be to 'overcast' for ever step.
So for the pearl of power in the faq. 3rd level caster.
2nd level spell = normal
3rd level spell = +5
4th level spell = +10
5th level spell = +15 etc etc.
Would cut down on abuse, I think.
Now for things like Necklace of fireballs, etc. I'm not sure how you'd apply the overcast modifier. +5 for every d6 above max?
As an aside, doesn't the GM make the roll? So the player doesn't know if they've made a cursed item or not?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Would cut down on abuse, I think.
Why not simply keep the PCs within wealth guidelines?
This reaction to item crafting ignores that the crafter needs the cash for the item. That's the real limiting factor here,
James
"They're more guidelines than hard and fast rules" - Hector Barbosa.
More seriously, like the 'custom made shieldstaff' above, the WBL guidelines can be abused/broken. A 3rd level pearl of power costs 9K GP to buy. a 4th level pearl of power costs 8k GP to make.
Now IIRC, the WBL takes into account the caster crafting his own stuff. So the wizard who takes Craft Wondrus Item, is 'paying' for the 'boost' by burning a feat. (Dave the Druid had to shell out 9k GP for his pearl, Wally Wizard shells out 9k GP and gets a 4th level pearl and a first level pearl) It doesn't take into account making pearls for his cleric buddy.
"It's funny" the magic items dealer said, "There doesn't seem to be an effective difference between our 20th CL shield Wands and staves, but the staves out sell the Wands 10-1!"
While it seems to be the RAW, and essentially RAI, it does seem a little silly to have a high level caster making a crappy staff. For whatever reason there are just a ton of these low charge staves around made by wizards who could be making high powered items or battling Balors... Nah, they would rather make low powered magic items for the budget concious adventurer.
Cost for staff:
20 (caster level) * 400 * 1 (spell level) /3 (for costing 3 charges)= 2667.This seems to be RAW.
It may seem that way, but it isn't. Treating the magic item pricing formula as Rules-As-Written is itself a violation of Rules-As-Written, which explicitly names the formula as a mere guideline.
That is, you can say, "The formula as written says X", but you can't declare that result to be RAW without violating RAW.
|
|
Except that potions, scrolls and wands have extra rules about what is required to create them. (Also, many people would consider making a one-use wondrous item that clearly should be a potion to be circumventing the spirit of the rules.)
Try again.
Potions special rules:
1) the spell should be a targeted spell and shouldn't have a range of personal.
2) one of the creators should have the spell memorized but there is no rules requiring him to be the guy with the crafting feat.
3) Maximum of 3rd level spells.
No other rule that I am aware of, none of the above is relevant to the problem at hand.
so, Instead of giving a dismissive reply, find a good argument or a rule that prove me wrong, if you can.
And if the cryptic remark in the brackets is about the oil, as far as rules go, oils are potions: "Magic oils are similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather than imbibed."
@carn, I agree with your point, but you've misquoted. Remco Sommerling said that, not me. (Ninjad: this applies to your previous post.)
@LazarX, I'm well aware of that. My point is that I feel that the existing guidelines are fine in 95% of cases, and there are some additional guidelines that can be added that fix another 95% of cases. I also feel that those last few cases do not break the game nearly as badly as most people fear.
@Diego Rossi, so who's the 20th level caster here? And the "cryptic" remark was about making a pearl of cure light wounds or something similar just to get around the potion rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Potions special rules:
1) the spell should be a targeted spell and shouldn't have a range of personal.
2) one of the creators should have the spell memorized but there is no rules requiring him to be the guy with the crafting feat.
3) Maximum of 3rd level spells.
No other rule that I am aware of, none of the above is relevant to the problem at hand.
so, Instead of giving a dismissive reply, find a good argument or a rule that prove me wrong, if you can.And if the cryptic remark in the brackets is about the oil, as far as rules go, oils are potions: "Magic oils are similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather than imbibed."
Per the D20SRD
Caster Level (CL): The next item in a notational entry gives the caster level of the item, indicating its relative power. The caster level determines the item's saving throw bonus, as well as range or other level-dependent aspects of the powers of the item (if variable). It also determines the level that must be contended with should the item come under the effect of a dispel magic spell or similar situation.
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell but not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the item itself.
Potions, scrolls, and wands are specifically excluded from overcasting. Anyone trying to make a "Wonderous Item" that is really just a scroll or wand is rules-lawyering.
I think the "Overcasting" per the FAQ was intended just for lower level characters trying to create higher level items, like a level 15 trying to make a Luckblade (CL 17 to make), not a level 15 trying to make a level 20 scroll. But I could be wrong.
Carn,
you realized that it probably wouldn't take long for your enemies to know what your staff was, right? (Detect Magic in the Inn, from previous fights, from tales, etc...)
And that your staff is a single 15 points of damage from being destroyed? (5 hardness, 10 hit points)
If your GM is comfortable with the idea of the staff, go for it.
If your GM isn't comfortable with it (or if the other players aren't), I would suggest not trying to game the system as hard as you appear to be. GMs have an infinite way of expressing their ire.
Also, you have to be 11th level to be able to do this yourself, as the Craft Staff feat has a pre-requiste of being 11th level.
One thing I think seems to be getting ignored is. One of the key rules for figuring out cost is compare the item you want to make to existing items. What mattress is how valuable the item is to the person making it.
|
|
@carn, I agree with your point, but you've misquoted. Remco Sommerling said that, not me. (Ninjad: this applies to your previous post.)
@LazarX, I'm well aware of that. My point is that I feel that the existing guidelines are fine in 95% of cases, and there are some additional guidelines that can be added that fix another 95% of cases. I also feel that those last few cases do not break the game nearly as badly as most people fear.
@Diego Rossi, so who's the 20th level caster here? And the "cryptic" remark was about making a pearl of cure light wounds or something similar just to get around the potion rules.
Naedre pointed out the piece I had forgot for potions, not that it resolve the overcast problem as a low level caster can still make a whetstone of magic weapon usable unlimited times every day and he can set it at whatever caster level he like, from 5 to 20.
Note that the rule Naedre cited is in the Brew potions feat description, not in the rules about making magic items. Something the fragmentation of the rules is a problem.
Your comment is still not useful without the cited rule and still speaking of arguments I haven't used. I have made no example with single use items created as wondrous magic item to avoid the potions limits. Even if that, by RAW, is possible and a few items doing exactly that exist.
Fine, so guidelines suggest material cost is 2667 GP. What should then such a staff cost?Cost for staff:
20 (caster level) * 400 * 1 (spell level) /3 (for costing 3 charges)= 2667.This seems to be RAW.
It may seem that way, but it isn't. Treating the magic item pricing formula as Rules-As-Written is itself a violation of Rules-As-Written, which explicitly names the formula as a mere guideline.
That is, you can say, "The formula as written says X", but you can't declare that result to be RAW without violating RAW.
My judgment as a GM is that a character can expect to pay 50,000 gp for it or 25,000 gp to make it, since its only actual purpose is to be a +5 staff for staff magi. Beyond my judgment as a GM, it doesn't have a price or cost, because there are no rules for the price, only guidelines for the GM to adjudicate.
You are confusing the table of suggested prices which pertains to the *DM* making up a new magic item, with the formula for pricing staves which is part of the *PC* crafting a staff.
Even if you think that's RAI, the RAW in that chapter does not support the GM-player pricing distinction you are trying to make. Which brings us back there being no RAW price.
@Mojorat, How can you have an internally consistent world where the price for components for an item changes depending on how much the maker wants that item? That's like saying the price for earring wires goes up if your ears are pierced. It just makes no sense to me regardless of how it effects game balance.
@Diego, I mentioned the wondrous items preemptively because it's not uncommon for one-use wondrous items to come up in such a discussion, not because you had mentioned them.
Your whetstone, on the other hand, would cost 30,000 gp and would grant one weapon a +5 for 20 hours at a time. (There are many details the table doesn't cover. I can see allowing this to effect more than one weapon at once. I can also see the opposite case.) A wizard could spend nearly all of his wealth and make one of these at level 6, but it's unlikely anyone will have one until level 8 or 9. The targeted weapon is not actually enchanted though and could easily be dispelled.
|
|
@Diego, I mentioned the wondrous items preemptively because it's not uncommon for one-use wondrous items to come up in such a discussion, not because you had mentioned them.Your whetstone, on the other hand, would cost 30,000 gp and would grant one weapon a +5 for 20 hours at a time. (There are many details the table doesn't cover. I can see allowing this to effect more than one weapon at once. I can also see the opposite case.) A wizard could spend nearly all of his wealth and make one of these at level 6, but it's unlikely anyone will have one until level 8 or 9. The targeted weapon is not actually enchanted though and could easily be dispelled.
I forgot to put "greater" in the text. It was 3.00 am.
Its price would be 120.000. You place it in the courtyard of a castle and order every soldier to use it on their weapons for 1 round when they wake up. You will have a your full garrison armed with +5 weapons for 20 hours every day.It cost as much as giving 400 soldiers masterwork items, something that you see in several major cities.
|
|
Nadre, your citation rise a interesting questions:
Why staffs don't have the same limitation of the wands? it is RAi to have wand capped at your actual caster level while staffs have an unlimited caster level?
for staff pricing, another interesting titbit:
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staves follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.
It say closely, while for scroll and wands it say exactly.
Pretty important distinction.
Thanks to ARG, Samsaran clerics and druids can have a +5 holy weapon with a magic circle against evil for 1 round/level for a fourth level spell. That's at 7th level.
Yes, it is super cheesy but it does put the staff magus in to a context where this feature doesn't look so good.
And really, staff magi need this. They don't get the feature until 10th level and it really is the only thing the archetype has going for it - it is otherwise just a nerfed magus.
Fine, so guidelines suggest material cost is 2667 GP. What should then such a staff cost?My judgment as a GM is that a character can expect to pay 50,000 gp for it or 25,000 gp to make it, since its only actual purpose is to be a +5 staff for staff magi. Beyond my judgment as a GM, it doesn't have a price or cost, because there are no rules for the price, only guidelines for the GM to adjudicate.
So a +3 natural armor + mules cord neckband costs for a str 5 dervish dance feat halfling 18000 (+3 natural armor) + 96000 gold (as he is using the mules cord to have a str 13 or +8 for the only purpose where str matters to him, namely carrying)?
Part of the judgment call on the shield staff is there is no other coherent use for it. Nobody other than a staff magus would ever have any reason to want one as described, when cheaper alternatives are easy to acquire. On the other hand, there are plenty of characters who would benefit from a hybrid amulet/muleback cords.
Second, there are plenty of foreseeable circumstances where, in fact, encumbrance is not the only benefit the character would get from generalized strength, making the muleback cord limitation meaningful. (Hey! The enemy isn't in melee range and you can't close! Hey, the scimitar was sundered! Hey, you need to make a Climb check, or a Swim check! Hey, the shadow just hit you for 6 points of Strength damage!)
But most importantly, you're missing the basic point. There's a reason why pricing isn't done by rule, but rather just guidelines for GM judgment. Any simple, consistent rule for magic item pricing will give ridiculous results. That attempting to extract a extract a reasonably simple, consistent rule from a particular a judgment call will give ridiculous results isn't evidence the judgment call was wrong — it merely proves you've made the mistake of trying to extract and then apply a simple, consistent rule to magic item pricing.
And really, staff magi need this. They don't get the feature until 10th level and it really is the only thing the archetype has going for it - it is otherwise just a nerfed magus.
Which, incidentally, is another judgment call that can't be neatly encapsulated in a simple rule. Which is why there are no rules for magic item pricing, just guidelines to assist in judgment.
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staves follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.It say closely, while for scroll and wands it say exactly.
Pretty important distinction.The wording is unclear, either for some items the formulas are exact or the prices are just a starting point. First saying the price of (any) magic item may be modified on its actual worth and table is just a starting point and then saying for these items its exact, is contradictory.
Furthermore "closely" would suggest, that the CL 20 shield staff should cost 10 k GP or less, as its table price is 5334 GP and "closely" suggest that anything beyond doubling is not RAI.
Potions, scrolls and the like are straightforward items, they cast spells at a set casterlvl a set number of times. Other items are harder to evaluate since they cant easily be evaluated by spell level and/or have multiple powers. So it is not as contradictory as you might think.
Your suggested staff differentiates from other staves significantly, I believe the cl of the item should in a way reflect it's actual power so I'd not allow it to be made at a lvl over 8 by that basis alone, a lvl 1 spell draining 3 charges is weird, as is only having a single spell, having multiple uses is a trademark of staves. None of it is raw but it just doesn't compare to other items of it's kind, just on that basis alone I would not allow it.
I'd not consider a staff without at least a lvl 7 spell and 20 spell levels worth of spells to have cl 20 for instance.
|
|
Potions, scrolls and the like are straightforward items, they cast spells at a set casterlvl a set number of times. Other items are harder to evaluate since they cant easily be evaluated by spell level and/or have multiple powers. So it is not as contradictory as you might think.
Your suggested staff differentiates from other staves significantly, I believe the cl of the item should in a way reflect it's actual power so I'd not allow it to be made at a lvl over 8 by that basis alone, a lvl 1 spell draining 3 charges is weird, as is only having a single spell, having multiple uses is a trademark of staves. None of it is raw but it just doesn't compare to other items of it's kind, just on that basis alone I would not allow it.
I'd not consider a staff without at least a lvl 7 spell and 20 spell levels worth of spells to have cl 20 for instance.
A staff with one spell is a kind of repurposed wand. You get less charges but you can recharge it. AFAIK there is no staff in all the rulebook with only 1 spell in it.
|
|
nd there are plenty of foreseeable circumstances, where the staff sucks:
-disarm, giant accidentally steps on it
-ambush with area attack especially asleep(prior ambush normally the staff is not wielded, tehrefore no bonus, asleep not even on body)
-dropping staff due to unconsciousness, giant steps on it
I don't see any difference with any other +5 weapon.
- disarmed: you aren't wielding your +5 falchion- ambush, your +5 falchion is in his scabbard
- dropping your +5 falchion due to being unconscious, you aren't wielding it.
-other people cannot use the staff as magic weapon (this can be crucial if other good magic weapons are unavailable)
Your enemies can't pick up your +5 staff and use it against you while they can pick up the +5 falchion and use it. I am not sure it is a drawback.
Staffs are pretty straightforward either, they cast spells at PCs caster level or CL of staff, whichever is higher, and use charges and are rechargeable. What is not straightforward about that?
Well staves grow with the character level and ability (ability mod/feats), they have a recharge function making them permanent and charged items at the same time, they allow multiple abilities with possibly different cost and power levels. All that makes them considerably less straightforward.
Great, then give it also unerred strike, its then a 10666 GP buy price and 5333 GP create price.
And a level 1 spell draining 3 charges is not weird, if the person expects drawn out encounters every few days, the shield lasting 20 mins will be very useful and can be recharged. A level 20 shield scroll costs 1000 GP for one use. A staff of shield would be much preferably in that case.
And with unerred strike lev 20 one can get a decent increase in crit chance, again rechargeable. Actually this ability will probably be used often by a staff magi as +7 crit confirmation is very useful.
I'd not allow any power at all for multiple charges if there isnt a power costing 1 charge, I'd expect a power to be more powerful to cost more charges. Too cheesy for my tastes.
Unerring strike is nice though arguably a staff is a terrible weapon for crit related spells.
So any item that has no comparable item should have price tag increase?
(I am still looking for the criterias that should be applied if price from table is not used. So far the criteria seems to be " If GM thinks it should be more expensive, then it should have increased price.")
Items that are not comparable to other items doing something for which there is no precedent should be very carefully considered at least, what I was saying is that I would not allow this staff not that I'd increase the pricetag.
I do think the GM is supposed to judge custom made items yes, denying it, offering suggested changes or accepting it as is.
Why lvl 7 and not lvl 6 or 8? Or 15 spell levels or 25?
A rough guideline, considering a staff with relatively few spells. In effect I'd base the maximum allowed CL on the cost of the staff, though I know we do not agree since the sole purpose is to make a staff that gets you a cheaper weapon rather than a staff.
I feel like it is supposed to combine the staff function with the weapon function, allowing for a powerful staff to double as an effective weapon, your suggestion loses the staff function almost entirely, it makes a powerful staff undesirable to wield because you can cheese it better.
let the poor Staff Magus have this ability/item, that archetype is pretty useless without it, and even barely worth with it
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the +5 falchion is dropped and receives damage (e.g. giant stepping on it), it still is a +5 falchion having a hardness 10 points higher and 50 extra HP.
The not wielded staff on the other hand has hardness 5 and hit points 10, so giants trample will crush it and the ambushed fireball will burn it.
Where are you getting that Magus' ability adds in an extra 10 hardness and 50 extra hit points?
"At 10th level, a staff magus treats any magical staff he is wielding as a magical quarterstaff with an enhancement bonus to attack and damage equal to the staff’s caster level divided by 4 (minimum +1). The staff must have at least 1 charge for the magus to use this ability."
Are you contending that when Staff Magus picks up a staff there is flare of magic hardening the staff? When I read the above, I took it to mean that the Magus could use the magic of the staff to enhance their attacks and damage, not that the mere touch of a Magus would suddenly enhance the structure of the staff.
I have always understood that the extra hardness and hit points comes from the permanent enhancement of the weapon. That temporary enhancements do not provide anything more than what is explicitly stated.
The closest spell for this is Greater Magic Weapon. From what I am getting from your interpretation, this spell would also add in hardness and hit points? If not, why not, it seems to be the same case?
Out of curiosity, do you believe that the above ability also allows the staff to bypass damage reduction?