The new playtest for 5e DnD is out. Well mostly magical items and redesigned monsters.
The items feel very 2e. This looked very familiar to me. Not all 4e fans approve. Hehehe.
But the mechanic for wands and staffs caught my eye. Wands have a max of 7 chages, staff 10. Each morning a wand recharges 1d6+1 charges, a staff 1d6+4. If you use the last charge of a wand or staff, roll a d20. Roll a 1 the item is destroyed with the last use.
I like these mechanics. They limit abuse and you do not have to recharge or buy/craft a new item if you are careful.
Right now there is one interesting inovation that can be imported in a 3.x/PF campaign.
I'll see if I have time to test it after work.
Then again, I'll probably wait for a larger release first.
The wand/staff mechanic does seem nice. I agree Goldomark.
|
The new playtest for 5e DnD is out. Well mostly magical items and redesigned monsters.
The items feel very 2e. This looked very familiar to me. Not all 4e fans approve. Hehehe.
But the mechanic for wands and staffs caught my eye. Wands have a max of 7 chages, staff 10. Each morning a wand recharges 1d6+1 charges, a staff 1d6+4. If you use the last charge of a wand or staff, roll a d20. Roll a 1 the item is destroyed with the last use.
I like these mechanics. They limit abuse and you do not have to recharge or buy/craft a new item if you are careful.
Right now there is one interesting innovation that can be imported in a 3.x/PF campaign.
Limit Abuse? Not if every charge in a wand is a charge in a laser pistol in a setting where Laser Pistols don't exist. A self charging Wand is a perpetual use weapon for settings Like Mystara where that would be a frikin Disaster.
Sure Mystara had Wands that could be recharged - The Alphatian Navy Boltmen had them - And you needed to give them to the powerful Wizard in charge of your military assignment and he recharged them - though there would obviously be a degree of attrition if he spent his day having to recharge not quite everyone's wand because his ability to supply didn't meet demand.
This will force changes on the Mystaran Setting the way AD&D 2nd ed. did for Forgotten Realms - they had to write in a cataclysm to push through changes to the setting that were critical changes to how magic Worked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That wand/ staff mechanic is really cool. May have to steal it for my PF game.
Hmmm...that may be too powerful. Essentially, you get a perpetual device. Less resource management.
Hmmm...that may be too powerful. Essentially, you get a perpetual device. Less resource management.
I think this Wand/Staff setup would work much better in a game where the crafting of magic is returned to the realm of the DM and the players can't just make what they want when they want it.
Thus that never ending supply of wands from the PC is replaced by a wand they have to manage and is a limited resource.
So my question is: Will the players get to craft in 5e?
The staff might be a bit much since it can have more powerful spells in it, but wands are capped at third level, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like an interesting blend of having a permanent item and having a resource limit. If a player uses the item a lot, they run the risk of it not being around for long. If they rarely use it, it's a nice item to give them a little versatility.
Hmmm...that may be too powerful. Essentially, you get a perpetual device. Less resource management.
I think this Wand/Staff setup would work much better in a game where the crafting of magic is returned to the realm of the DM and the players can't just make what they want when they want it.
Thus that never ending supply of wands from the PC is replaced by a wand they have to manage and is a limited resource.
So my question is: Will the players get to craft in 5e?
Thus far, it seems that magic items will be entirely within the purview of the DM.
|
I am a bit worried by magic items. Bounded accuracy is the one thing I have hope for with 5E. It seems that magic items have the potential to throw the game completely out of whack. The popular sentiment seems to be "well you are the GM, don't give out cool items and the game stays balanced" somehow i'm not convinced.
Your right playtest 100812 is out but did they made an announcement?
Your right playtest 100812 is out but did they made an announcement?
I received one of those email blasts about it.
So my question is: Will the players get to craft in 5e?
My general sense is that magic items will be harder to make. They guidelines remove the magic shop economy and set rarity levels on items. Common items, such as potions and scrolls may be available for purchase, but more often than not, the creation of a magical item will require a quest to either find it, find someone that can make it, or as payment for having it made. To enforce this, the magic items have a price range based on rarity and not a hard number.
Edit: Also, some magic items have to be attune to the user to get the full benefit (the holy avenger is an example of this) and a player can only have three items attuned at one time.
I like most of the things I seen in new playtest (table for rolling the item origins, nice). Staff/wand mechanic looks interesting, except they are too similar to each other - I would like to see more difference between them. With slower recharge perhaps, and less random.
One thing that caught my eye in magic items that I don't like from start is potion of healing... Back to 2d4+2? Seriously?
The items feel very 2e. This looked very familiar to me. Not all 4e fans approve. Hehehe.
Probably because most 4E fans enjoy balance and these magical items throw balance out the window. With the whole intent of Bounded Accuracy, magical items "making PCs just plain better" probably isn't the best thing. Personally, I wish they would just throw out the "+" altogether, but it's too much of a D&D trope to toss aside.
But the mechanic for wands and staffs caught my eye. Wands have a max of 7 chages, staff 10. Each morning a wand recharges 1d6+1 charges, a staff 1d6+4. If you use the last charge of a wand or staff, roll a d20. Roll a 1 the item is destroyed with the last use.
I like these mechanics. They limit abuse and you do not have to recharge or buy/craft a new item if you are careful.
limit abuse how? Lets see, keep 1 charge in the item and I can use it for infinity. Spend that last charge and suffer the 5% chance of the magic device dying. Yea, how about make it 50% and we'll call that an attempt for a limit of abuse. But even if that was the case, I don't think a PC would ever use that one charge left....like ever.
The thing that makes me mad the most is the assumed part about not being able to sell/buy magical items. And when/if you do or have a buyer, your NOT getting full price. Well gee, there goes practically any reason to adventure in the Forgotten Realms or Eberron where magical items is practically in every town in some form or another. :rollseyes:.
As for the monsters, most of the changes are OK so far. I like the Zombie resistance, gives them a more cinematic feel, though I don't remember if they increased their XP a tad to adjust for their ability to raise again and again.
Am I? :o
What is my dogma? Who is violating it? >(
The thing that makes me mad the most is the assumed part about not being able to sell/buy magical items. And when/if you do or have a buyer, your NOT getting full price. Well gee, there goes practically any reason to adventure in the Forgotten Realms or Eberron where magical items is practically in every town in some form or another. :rollseyes:.
Given that I have played since 1st edition, I would disagree with you. You could not sell magic items in either 1e or 2e. In both sets you typically gave unwanted items as gifts to npcs or kept them for situational uses.
Regardless, the play test rules clearly state that they removed the assumption of gear from the power level equation. As it currently stands, magic items are not needed. This sounds like they intend to scale back the commonality of magic items to 1e/2e levels. This would mean more potions, scrolls, and one use items as magical treasure. The downside to this is that they need to give more options for what to spend non-magical treasure on.
The thing that makes me mad the most is the assumed part about not being able to sell/buy magical items. And when/if you do or have a buyer, your NOT getting full price. Well gee, there goes practically any reason to adventure in the Forgotten Realms or Eberron where magical items is practically in every town in some form or another. :rollseyes:.Given that I have played since 1st edition, I would disagree with you. You could not sell magic items in either 1e or 2e. In both sets you typically gave unwanted items as gifts to npcs or kept them for situational uses.
Regardless, the play test rules clearly state that they removed the assumption of gear from the power level equation. As it currently stands, magic items are not needed. This sounds like they intend to scale back the commonality of magic items to 1e/2e levels. This would mean more potions, scrolls, and one use items as magical treasure. The downside to this is that they need to give more options for what to spend non-magical treasure on.
Its inaccurate to presume that there is a return to 1st or 2nd edition levels. If you actually take an adventure from back in the day, such as Keep on the Borderlands or Dragon's of Desolation (or pretty much any of them really) and convert it to 3rd or 4th edition one of the things you will have to do as a DM is make some serious cuts to both monetary and magic item treasure in order to stay within the modern editions wealth by level guidelines. Those old editions had truly massive quantities of treasure. What they did not have was an easy way of converting treasure into power - once you found a +3 dagger to replace your +1 dagger your +1 dagger was pretty much useless. In 3rd in particular this is a problem with conversions because the players can take all this excess loot and sell it for better magic items...Hence its imperative for the DM that does a conversion to go on a cutting spree to rationalize the treasure handouts.
As a 4e DM I love adding broken to the game. We level 2 at a time and I give out the big 3 for the tier toward the beginning of the tier. We just did 6 encounters in 3.5 hours at 24th level -- 9 encounters between long rests. Happy with 4e; happy with Paizo; looking forward to 5e.
And I've played in games of 3.x where there was no crafting and no magic shops. This has always been a DM issue - the main shift in 2000 was changing it from a 'yes' from the DM to a 'no' on whether they existed.
Its inaccurate to presume that there is a return to 1st or 2nd edition levels. If you actually take an adventure from back in the day, such as Keep on the Borderlands or Dragon's of Desolation (or pretty much any of them really) and convert it to 3rd or 4th edition one of the things you will have to do as a DM is make some serious cuts to both monetary and magic item treasure in order to stay within the modern editions wealth by level guidelines.
Fair enough. Some modules were far worse than others when it came to magical treasure and it has been quite a few years since I looked over my 1e/2e modules. I do remember monetary treasure being huge, hence my comment about needing more options for spending non-magical treasure.
I may have to pull out my old modules this weekend and see what the percentages are for disposable magical items compared to permanent magic items.
The thing that makes me mad the most is the assumed part about not being able to sell/buy magical items. And when/if you do or have a buyer, your NOT getting full price. Well gee, there goes practically any reason to adventure in the Forgotten Realms or Eberron where magical items is practically in every town in some form or another. :rollseyes:.Given that I have played since 1st edition, I would disagree with you. You could not sell magic items in either 1e or 2e. In both sets you typically gave unwanted items as gifts to npcs or kept them for situational uses.
The real problem with linking this to an edition is that in our game back in the 1980 AD&D game we played, we sold items. It just was not institutionalized like it was in 3.5 or 4th ed. Your GM might not have had it, but to say it did not happen in those rules is not true for all of us old folks.
I do agree with Diffan. They need to allow it to be a GM setting call not a core rule forced thing. The setting should dictate the ability to buy and/or sell. If I, as GM, want there to be magimarts in every city, it should eb my call. Core rules shoudl remain core rules not setting rules.
What would be good is to have a section where they discuss the pros/cons of various magic item availability levels so a GM could select the one that best fits their game needs.
Ah, 50% of Easy encounters will have a magic item amongst the loot. That really isn't scaling back in any noticeable way.
Also, while I agree it wasn't routine to sell magic items in AD&D/BD&D, it also wasn't unheard of. Magic shops existed in several settings, to my certain knowledge.
I cannot speak for Greyhawk, but I know the Forgotten Realms had no real magic shops beyond potion and scroll level. There may have been exceptions , such as the one mentioned to exist on the moon, but those were rare (and that one was really tied to Spelljammer).
Planescape did have shops, but that helped balance that setting a bit. Even then, there were no hard prices for items. The GM largely decided what was available and for how much.
As to 50% of easy encounters having magical items, are most of them common items (largely potions & scrolls)? I don't have my PDFs at works to look for myself. I also ask this, because I don't mind single use items being common magical treasure. However, if there is a chance for a rare item in an easy encounter, then something is wrong.
The real problem with linking this to an edition is that in our game back in the 1980 AD&D game we played, we sold items. It just was not institutionalized like it was in 3.5 or 4th ed. Your GM might not have had it, but to say it did not happen in those rules is not true for all of us old folks.
I do agree with Diffan. They need to allow it to be a GM setting call not a core rule forced thing. The setting should dictate the ability to buy and/or sell. If I, as GM, want there to be magimarts in every city, it should eb my call. Core rules shoudl remain core rules not setting rules.
What would be good is to have a section where they discuss the pros/cons of various magic item availability levels so a GM could select the one that best fits their game needs.
I should have been clearer on a few points. I was really responding to the "there goes practically any reason to adventure" comment (and apparently did a poor job of it). In 1e/2e the rules did not support the selling of magic items. I personally allowed for it on occasion as a GM, but typically my players gifted the unwanted items to their church or to an NPC ally. Sometimes, they were used to barter for favors.
The 1e DMG gave a gp value for magic items for the purpose of awarding treasure XP. In 2e, no prices existed for magic items as treasure was no longer given out. As a result any selling of magic items fell largely to the GM to determine. 5e seems to be going back to this. The playtest gives a price range for items based on rarity, but no hard price for any specific item.
I should have been clearer on a few points. I was really responding to the "there goes practically any reason to adventure" comment (and apparently did a poor job of it). In 1e/2e the rules did not support the selling of magic items. I personally allowed for it on occasion as a GM, but typically my players gifted the unwanted items to their church or to an NPC ally. Sometimes, they were used to barter for favors.
Ah then I agree with this. I used to arm our hirelings with the extra +1 Longswords (seemed they came up a lot on the treasure table back then) rather then try to "sell" them.
But I still believe this should be a setting based choice not a core rules forced change. But that is just my opinion. :-)
The thing that makes me mad the most is the assumed part about not being able to sell/buy magical items. And when/if you do or have a buyer, your NOT getting full price. Well gee, there goes practically any reason to adventure in the Forgotten Realms or Eberron where magical items is practically in every town in some form or another. :rollseyes:.Given that I have played since 1st edition, I would disagree with you. You could not sell magic items in either 1e or 2e. In both sets you typically gave unwanted items as gifts to npcs or kept them for situational uses.
I didn't say anything about 1st or 2nd edition. I mentioned the Forgotten Realms and Eberron settings, both of which have thriving magical item economies. For example the Cormyrian Goblinthrasher (+1 goblinoid bane longswords), War Wizards were commissioned to create many of these weapons for distribution among Purple Dragon knights and general sale, in order to create revenue for the country and improve morale. Scimitar of the Fool, (+1 scimitar) carried with it a -3 penalty to Will saves, favored by tyrants to give to their guard so they can be easily controlled. The way D&D:next has it, I'll be lucky to find a magical sword and probably required to carry it with me for all time because I can't find a "buyer". That isn't a sound philosophy for creating any sort of magical economy.
Regardless, the play test rules clearly state that they removed the assumption of gear from the power level equation. As it currently stands, magic items are not needed. This sounds like they intend to scale back the commonality of magic items to 1e/2e levels. This would mean more potions, scrolls, and one use items as magical treasure. The downside to this is that they need to give more options for what to spend non-magical treasure on.
I'm fine with the idea that magical items aren't included with Bounded Accuracy, but when you then throw them into the game it creates a huge 'un-balance' that it single handedly defeats the purpose of Bounded Accuracy. So a DM has to carefully weight each and every magical item to see how much this will break the game, because some most definitly will. The alternative is "don't use magical items", which makes for a really really lame Fantasy RPG. Instead, why not make the magical items a bit more balanced so that I don't have to worry overmuch about how broken they'll make my game?
And I agree that we're going to need more Common and Uncommon magical items to throw into our games (lets hope they're not broken though, eh?) plus some ways or things to do with our GP outside of Magical Gear. Paying taxes, tithes, and giving to charities are not ideal uses for hard-earned GP and make it too much like what I already do in Real Life.
Given that I have played since 1st edition, I would disagree with you. You could not sell magic items in either 1e or 2e. In both sets you typically gave unwanted items as gifts to npcs or kept them for situational uses.
Regardless, the play test rules clearly state that they removed the assumption of gear from the power level equation. As it currently stands, magic items are not needed. This sounds like they intend to scale back the commonality of magic items to 1e/2e levels. This would mean more potions, scrolls, and one use items as magical treasure. The downside to this is that they need to give more options for what to spend non-magical treasure on.
Ah, 50% of Easy encounters will have a magic item amongst the loot. That really isn't scaling back in any noticeable way.
Also, while I agree it wasn't routine to sell magic items in AD&D/BD&D, it also wasn't unheard of. Magic shops existed in several settings, to my certain knowledge.
Possibly but the 1st edition DMG strongly admonishes against the idea. 2nd Edition just does not give prices so its a tricky element for the DM to work in.
I didn't say anything about 1st or 2nd edition. I mentioned the Forgotten Realms and Eberron settings, both of which have thriving magical item economies. For example the Cormyrian Goblinthrasher (+1 goblinoid bane longswords), War Wizards were commissioned to create many of these weapons for distribution among Purple Dragon knights and general sale, in order to create revenue for the country and improve morale. Scimitar of the Fool, (+1 scimitar) carried with it a -3 penalty to Will saves, favored by tyrants to give to their guard so they can be easily controlled. The way D&D:next has it, I'll be lucky to find a magical sword and probably required to carry it with me for all time because I can't find a "buyer". That isn't a sound philosophy for creating any sort of magical economy.
The high number of magical items were not as common in the 1e/2e version of the realms. 3e changed that a lot. Ebberon, with the magical tech, does raise problems with the current 5e approach.
As for the bounded accuracy, with the cap at +3 and no direct bonuses to attributes, this may not be so bad. It was never really an issue in 1e/2e, but then you did not have multiple added bonuses. It will be interesting to see how 5e deals with it.
Sounds like an interesting blend of having a permanent item and having a resource limit. If a player uses the item a lot, they run the risk of it not being around for long. If they rarely use it, it's a nice item to give them a little versatility.
This is my opinion too.
Granted I haven't played 4th... so I'm not sure how they do it now...
But in pathfinder here, a new wand gets 50 charges... and you can burn through them at will... We had a 'day' in Serpent skull recently with ELEVEN encounters...
Having the wand 'stop' after only SEVEN charges a day... seems VERY underpowered to me. The fact that they come back tomorrow is nice, but doesn't seem deal breaking.
Any magic wand or staff that will break your game with 7 uses and recharging.... would have inevitably broken the game with 50 charges of unlimited use too.
Given that I have played since 1st edition, I would disagree with you. You could not sell magic items in either 1e or 2e. In both sets you typically gave unwanted items as gifts to npcs or kept them for situational uses.
THAT... sounds odd.
How would you not be able to 'sell' something? Even if there were no 'magic shops' in town... how could you NOT go into a tavern and auction of that shiny new sword to the OTHER adventures?
Not BUYING things I can understand... but not SELLING things? That never seemed to be an issue in our 2E games.
Any magic wand or staff that will break your game with 7 uses and recharging.... would have inevitably broken the game with 50 charges of unlimited use too.
The problem I have with unlimited wand/staffs (because leaving 1 charge left keeps the item going forever) is that the more you collect, the less you rely on your classes limited magic. This was one of the major issues I had with wands of Cure Light wounds in 3X. That, as a cleric (or someone who took 1 level of cleric or paladin), I could almost NEVER worry about healing magic outside of combat becaus I had 50 charges of CLW at my disposal. And they were SO cheap that I could have two or three of them at probably never run out in any given campaign.
But now, I don't need multiple wands (although I can, and there apparently is no problem with that) as I can use up X-charges/day and as long as I leave one left, I'm automatically granted 1+1d6+1 at the beginning of each day. And if I spend that last charge, I have a 5% chance of the item failing......which to me doens't signify all that much of a balance element or create any sort of questioning of using this wand to it's max potential.
|
The 1e DMG gave a gp value for magic items for the purpose of awarding treasure XP.
You could not sell magic items in either 1e or 2e. In both sets you typically gave unwanted items as gifts to npcs or kept them for situational uses.
This is not correct...
The rules of 2nd edition did indeed discourage the buying and selling of magical items, the magic item tables in the 1st edition DMG list BOTH x.p. value AND gold piece SALE value:
Gold piece sales values are the usual sum which characters will be paid for magic items, and if sold, the x.p. award should be based on the selling price of the item not the x.p. value. Also remember that a character is assumed to retain an item, thus getting the low x.p. value for it, if he or she sells it to another player character.
So yeah it was just assumed (in 1st edition) that a player would just keep magical items found, but the rules however, not only allowed, but facilitated their sale...
|
|
I assumed the wand charges to 1d6+1 spells available in the morning, and you don't know how many. So you can spend one charge safely, but every time beyond that you might be using the last charge on the wand, and risking it being destroyed.
Oh goodness please let me be miss understanding this. As a GM I do not want to track this for my players.
Any magic wand or staff that will break your game with 7 uses and recharging.... would have inevitably broken the game with 50 charges of unlimited use too.
The problem I have with unlimited wand/staffs (because leaving 1 charge left keeps the item going forever) is that the more you collect, the less you rely on your classes limited magic. This was one of the major issues I had with wands of Cure Light wounds in 3X. That, as a cleric (or someone who took 1 level of cleric or paladin), I could almost NEVER worry about healing magic outside of combat becaus I had 50 charges of CLW at my disposal. And they were SO cheap that I could have two or three of them at probably never run out in any given campaign.
But now, I don't need multiple wands (although I can, and there apparently is no problem with that) as I can use up X-charges/day and as long as I leave one left, I'm automatically granted 1+1d6+1 at the beginning of each day. And if I spend that last charge, I have a 5% chance of the item failing......which to me doens't signify all that much of a balance element or create any sort of questioning of using this wand to it's max potential.
It's been a while since we've had a full time healer in the party... and never (so far) in Pathfinder. Sooooo those wands have LITERALLY kept the party alive ;)
But this is another point in favor of 'unlimited recharge.' We had a group of two halflings and a gnome running a dungeon for... 2 game days... and burned through about 45 charges on a wand of CLW. After every battle we needed to heal up (we were only 1 or 2nd level and one solid hit from an enemy was a SERIOUS problem...)
The NEW way limits it to only SEVEN hits with that wand per day... we would have NEVER survived without having OTHER resources at hand.
It looks like this way you will need to rely MORE on the class abilities and less on the cheap 50 charge wand spamming.
I'm not sure how it would work in an actual game... but it sounds intriguing enough to playtest a bit :)
One thing I DO think should change... is the dusting perchentage. That should at LEAST be 25%... probably closer to 50% when that last charge is gone. Make the player REALLY consider the importance of that risk....
Oh goodness please let me be miss understanding this. As a GM I do not want to track this for my players.
I assumed the wand charges to 1d6+1 spells available in the morning, and you don't know how many. So you can spend one charge safely, but every time beyond that you might be using the last charge on the wand, and risking it being destroyed.
If you want the number of charges to remain a secret from the players who else is there to track it?
On the other hand, if you don't care if they know the exact number then no, the player can track it.
|
If you want the number of charges to remain a secret from the players who else is there to track it?Oh goodness please let me be miss understanding this. As a GM I do not want to track this for my players.
I assumed the wand charges to 1d6+1 spells available in the morning, and you don't know how many. So you can spend one charge safely, but every time beyond that you might be using the last charge on the wand, and risking it being destroyed.
You don't need to track anything except the number of charges expended that day (which the player can track). When the player uses the 2nd charge, there's a 1-in-6 chance this is the last charge in the wand. Otherwise, the next time there is a 1-in-5 chance, and so on (until on the 7th use of the wand it's a 1-in-1 chance, or a certainty).
If the chance comes up, then roll that d20 to see if the wand is destroyed, or is just useless for the rest of the day.
If you want the number of charges to remain a secret from the players who else is there to track it?Oh goodness please let me be miss understanding this. As a GM I do not want to track this for my players.
I assumed the wand charges to 1d6+1 spells available in the morning, and you don't know how many. So you can spend one charge safely, but every time beyond that you might be using the last charge on the wand, and risking it being destroyed.
You don't need to track anything except the number of charges expended that day (which the player can track). When the player uses the 2nd charge, there's a 1-in-6 chance this is the last charge in the wand. Otherwise, the next time there is a 1-in-5 chance, and so on (until on the 7th use of the wand it's a 1-in-1 chance, or a certainty).
If the chance comes up, then roll that d20 to see if the wand is destroyed, or is just useless for the rest of the day.
While I can see the appeal of the player not knowing how many charges, it seems like a bit too much overkill. Having limited charges with combats and encounters that could easily require more than what the wand has in a given day would be a limiter enough. It wouldn't matter it if was effectively an infinite item if managed correctly if the character is dead because they were overly reliant on it's limited daily usage and they had a bad day. It will interesting to see how this works out in actual play; hopefully, someone posts the results of this facet here, as it is unlikely I will get to try it out myself.
In my experience the only wands that ever run out of charges are the ones which either started with very few (less than 10 when found) or wands of Cure light wounds. Everything else has a limit, but is used rarely enough that they never get used up. So for practical purposes wands are already perminant magic items already in my games. Perhaps it is just a result of my DM style or my player's style but that is how it seems to work out. This change would just make it official.
|
Granted I haven't played 4th... so I'm not sure how they do it now...
Wands are very different in 4e, in their most basic form they just provide a bonus to checks to use your spells (like a +N weapon gives a bonus to a fighter's attack roll) and a bonus damage die on a critical hit.
Beyond the basic wands can have daily powers and I would imagine encounter powers too (though I only have the PDF of the original PHB with me so cannot confirm).
This is not correct...
The rules of 2nd edition did indeed discourage the buying and selling of magical items, the magic item tables in the 1st edition DMG list BOTH x.p. value AND gold piece SALE value:
Gold piece sales values are the usual sum which characters will be paid for magic items, and if sold, the x.p. award should be based on the selling price of the item not the x.p. value. Also remember that a character is assumed to retain an item, thus getting the low x.p. value for it, if he or she sells it to another player character.So yeah it was just assumed (in 1st edition) that a player would just keep magical items found, but the rules however, not only allowed, but facilitated their sale...
I stand corrected. It has been a while since i looked at my 1e DMG. Still, I know selling magic items was discouraged and 2e didn't put a gp cost to items to enforce that belief. Regardless, I did clarify what I was trying to say in a later post, so take that as you will.
I assumed the wand charges to 1d6+1 spells available in the morning, and you don't know how many. So you can spend one charge safely, but every time beyond that you might be using the last charge on the wand, and risking it being destroyed.
Actually, the wands in the playtest document can have multiple spells (think of them as mini-staves) with different charge requirements for the different spells. From what I remember, most of the wands require at least 2 charges to cast a single spell, so burning to zero is more likely after a recharge. A few, like the magic missile wand lets you burn 1-3 charges for 1-3 missiles.
With the random recharge number, it is also possible in some cases to end up with a wand that cannot be used, but still has 1 charge in it.
Edit: Clarified myself.
...Maybe we can talk about something /different/ than the wands for a while. I'm interested to head what else you all seem to think they have done in the playtest that's interesting (it could be good/bad, I'm interested in a descriptive, not normative view).
I'm not a huge fan of the Bounty Hunter class, for example. I think it's an interesting idea, but I also think it rationalizes killing and can sway parties to ungood (not evil, but just not.. good-aligned) behaviors.
Today they mentioned the next playtest package will go to 10th level and will rework, to some degree, backgrounds and specialties. this may relieve some of your concerns with the Bounty Hunter background.
For myself, I am fine with the background as it stands. The Bounty Board is under the GM's control. You can always limit it to dangerous monsters or use it as a starting point for adventures (such as a bounty placed by a minor noble wanting to clear a ruined ancestral keep that was abandoned due to a family curse).
Backgrounds now allow for 4 Skills (if your building your own) and Specialties will be more......heh "special".
They also announced that the Cleric is getting back Turn Undead as a class feature :facepalm: and losing Channel Divinity :double-facepalm:. I don't know what they think they're doing with this because Channel Divinity was the ONLY way to grant healing outside of a limited resource mechanic (ie. spells).
So the cleric is fully back to default-healbot where he BETTER not use his spells for anything else least it be extreamly bad for the rest of the party.
Also, Magic-User is going to be a catch all for Arcane classes in which they'll be more modular. Hopefully this ties into how the spellcasting system works. Like for making Spellpoint Wizards and Vancian Warlocks. They did mention that Spellcasting will be System based instead of Class-based. That's good at least, I didn't like being shoehored into a very narrow playstyle JUST because I'm playing a specific class. The opportunity to use a myrid of spellcasting system is really a great start for the whole modularity thing.
@ Thraxus: Wands recharge 1d6+1, so the minimum you can have is two. And thats if you don't count the one you saved the from the rest before. If that were the case, you could have the 1 you started with then roll 1d6+1 for a minimum of 3 per day.