One of my players asked me this question:
Why has a new wand always 50 charges? Why not 66 or 38 ? Whats stands behind this mysterious number .. 50?!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
History, simplicity, and game balance.
Wands needed to be different from potions and and unlimited-use or uses/day wondrous items.
It's easier to establish prices for them with some kind of standard. %0 charges per wand works as well as any other standard.
If you want custom wands with more charges, you're welcome to house-rule them into existence at your table.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The basic reasoning behind making new wands have many charges is that the per spell cost of a wand is cheaper than that of a scroll or potion. Thus it is a sort of bulk discount.
I suspect 50 is a holdover from 1e/2e actually. I recall many wands back then capped at 50 charges. I don't have my 1e books handy so I'm not 100% certain.
I do know that with 3e the 50 charge standard was set. Pre-3e there wasn't any easy way to buy or make wands either, and only certain spells could be found in them.
It was not a rule question :)
I am totally fine with 50 charges per wand. It was only a 'why 50 charges?' question. Is there some deeper math behind the 50 ? Was 50 the favorite number of Gary Gygax?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect Gygax pulled a number out of thin air, and no one's had any real reason to change it.
'Cause it's half a century and we love half ass3d things :p
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wands back in 1e days were typically found with 100-(1d20-1) charges, based on the treasure tables, although many in published adventures were found with far fewer. So the 50 charge number has absolutely nothing to do with any Gygax preference.
The 50 charge limit came with 3e D&D with the restructuring of the magic item creation system. In 1e/2e, wands were focused on either divination (enemy detection, secret door and trap location, etc) or combat (fear, fire, frost, magic missiles, etc) and were pretty rare. Not every spell could be put in a wand as far as the rules were concerned - although the magic item creation system could allow virtually anything the DM allowed and put the PCs through as far as finding appropriate materials.
The 3e magic item creation system allowed pretty much any spell to be stored in a wand, but also cut the charges down to 50, probably to make the per charge cost reasonable but not ridiculously low and try to balance with the whole new magic item pricing system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*channeling SKR... chanting* "oohhh mighty developer known as Sean Reynolds, give me your insight into why the rules are they way they are, ohmmmmmmmm"
*in an other-worldy voice*
Them's the breaks.
|
Wands back in 1e days were typically found with 100-(1d20-1) charges, based on the treasure tables, although many in published adventures were found with far fewer. So the 50 charge number has absolutely nothing to do with any Gygax preference.
If something is kinda arbitrary, people here LOVE to blame Gygax. I suppose it's because they think that d20 is too perfect of a system for anyone to have just randomly picked a number out of nowhere.
[/sneer]
Players can actually have wands that have infinite limits if you allow the eternal wands from Eberron. Use have a use-per-day limit instead of a limit based on charges.
They're more limited in the short-term, but for utility spells you only use occasionally they're a better investment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its a balance number, to fit the code of X-gold per spell cast from the wand, to get the cheapest manner of all to cast spells with limited-use items (The number for 1st level spells is 15 gold / casting, a bunch cheaper then a scroll that is 25 or a potion which is 50), it sounds like a weird way to save money but youll find it makes complete sense after you play a healer cleric for the 1st time and your teammates top their HP off with that wand rather then your precious spells/day.
For homebrew its generally a bad idea balance wise to allow players to buy wands by the number of charges they buy, and the only way to price it fairly would be to make a rather complex formula. It is also a bad idea to allow players to recharge wands at cost, that way the wand becomes a mini-magic mart, a Cure light wounds 99cent store.
50 was chosen because its a reasonable amount of charges in an item like the wand. If you're buying a wand for the spell at all it must be a spell that you want ready and rapid access to, the whole idea is to allow limited-spells-per-day casters to save their slots and still go pew-pew. So, like ammo clips in rapide-fire guns, 30-100 is a very suitable number for that purpose, and 50 happened to be in a cost sweet spot. In the current meta though and the way items and saving throws work most wands are relegated to buff spells or healing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
50 is also a number that makes figuring out the value of a used wand. Each charge expended reduces the value of the wand by 2%. Any number that is a factor of 100 works for this purpose.
One of my players asked me this question:
Why has a new wand always 50 charges? Why not 66 or 38 ? Whats stands behind this mysterious number .. 50?!
I saw a custom rule I really liked which determined the number of charges based on your craft roll.
In our games, Wands generally offer a set number of uses per day rather than using up a finite number of charges.
Actually when I find an imperfect rule, I always blame Obama.
In case anyone here doesn't get the joke, even Obama supporters use "thanks, Obama!" as an ironic way of mocking people who actually do blame Obama for everything. The more ridiculous the context, the funnier the joke.
I'm simply stating this because not understanding it got me burned so many, many times in various places.
In first edition, the only fully charged wands I handed out were Wands of Wonder... *grin*
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In first edition, the only fully charged wands I handed out were Wands of Wonder... *grin*
With my players they didn't stay fully charged for long. The added table from Dragon were wonderful.
Summoning a wholly blinking mammoth while boarding an enemy ship wasn't very useful, but it was hilarious.
We need a Pathfinder conversion of those wands...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back in my day, you could buy a wand for less than a gold piece, AND it came with 80 charges. Spells flew further, too.
But you try and tell that to adventurers today and they won't believe you.
My guess (and this is just a guess) is that it was arbitrary, but arbitrary within the range of what number would allow a person to use the wand through the course of an entire adventure / several sessions of play, without it being a permanent or at-will bonus.
And as such, sounds like it would have its origin, if not with Gygax himself, at least with Gygax-style play.
|
|
If I remember correctly (which I dont) wands could have a max of 100 charges, staves could have 75, and charged rods could have 50. Wands and Staves could be recharged but Rods could not. Also it was nearly impossible to find out how many charges yor staf or wand had. Identify only gave generalised info, example more then 70 but less 78. Not sure what Legend Lore could give you.
Edit: so if you look at a 1e/2e staff and PF staff its kinda slap in the face in comparison.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The designers of 3E had to come up with a number for pricing purposes. They could have made it unlimited, but I think (speculation mode engaged) that they wanted to:
1. Limit the number of charges available in a wand to less than the typical number of charges in a staff.
2. Make the number of charges available in a full wand useful for several adventures or a whole campaign so that item crafters wouldn't have to go back an make them repeatedly.
3. Be more cost effective in the long run than scrolls, but more expensive to create in the short term.
Remember, a wand is designed to provide a spell that you want to use frequently but don't necessarily want to put on your daily spell list, or that you may only put on your prepared spells once but may wind up needing several times. For spontaneous casters, they're a way to expand their available spell repetoire. They're also useful for item crafters making larger items that require multiple daily castings of a spell.
I wonder about the "chargeless" cantrip wands out there.
How do those fit into the arangement?
50 is also a number that makes figuring out the value of a used wand. Each charge expended reduces the value of the wand by 2%. Any number that is a factor of 100 works for this purpose.
That's not a good rule. Consider Remove Blindness/Deafness. It's very useful when you need it, a true godsend. But you don't often need it and you probably won't want it more than half a dozen times in a whole AP, so you won't want to clog up a spell slot with it. Good scroll material, perhaps, at 3x5x25=375 gp a pop. On a wand with 50 charges it's 11250gp, or (your way) 3x5x15=225 gp for a 1-charge wand. Why take scrolls if you can buy 1-charge wands (or any similarly low number) when they're cheaper and easier to use than scrolls?
The reason why wands can be priced cheaply (SL x CL x 750) is that you're unlikely to use all the charges, and if you do the thing is likely to be obsolete by the time you've finished it. About the only exception is the wand of CLW.
I price use wands by the square root of the number of charges. So if there are n charges in a wand, it's nominally worth SL x CL x sqrt(n/50) x 750 gp. Which makes a 25-charge wand 1.4 times as expensive, a 2-charge wand 5 times as expensive and a 1-charge wand 7 times as expensive.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I remember correctly (which I dont) wands could have a max of 100 charges, staves could have 75, and charged rods could have 50. Wands and Staves could be recharged but Rods could not. Also it was nearly impossible to find out how many charges yor staf or wand had. Identify only gave generalised info, example more then 70 but less 78. Not sure what Legend Lore could give you.
Edit: so if you look at a 1e/2e staff and PF staff its kinda slap in the face in comparison.
Only a couple of staff (the staff of the magi and maybe the staff of power) could be recharged if you were following the DMG rules.
The rules for recharging the wands and the other staves were in a Dragon article and were a optional rule.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Misread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I remember correctly (which I dont) wands could have a max of 100 charges, staves could have 75, and charged rods could have 50. Wands and Staves could be recharged but Rods could not. Also it was nearly impossible to find out how many charges yor staf or wand had. Identify only gave generalised info, example more then 70 but less 78. Not sure what Legend Lore could give you.
Edit: so if you look at a 1e/2e staff and PF staff its kinda slap in the face in comparison.
Only a couple of staff (the staff of the magi and maybe the staff of power) could be recharged if you were following the DMG rules.
The rules for recharging the wands and the other staves were in a Dragon article and were a optional rule.
Looking through my old 1e and 2e DMGs, both books talk about how to recharge rod, staves and wands in the discriptions.
Also I was wrong about charges, wands had 100, rods had 50 and staves ahd 25.
That's not a good rule... Why take scrolls if you can buy 1-charge wands (or any similarly low number) when they're cheaper and easier to use than scrolls?50 is also a number that makes figuring out the value of a used wand. Each charge expended reduces the value of the wand by 2%. Any number that is a factor of 100 works for this purpose.
Although that's the standard value of a used wand (useful if selling one), it is presumed that you can't normally find a used wand with whatever number of charges you want.
That's not a good rule... Why take scrolls if you can buy 1-charge wands (or any similarly low number) when they're cheaper and easier to use than scrolls?Although that's the standard value of a used wand (useful if selling one), it is presumed that you can't normally find a used wand with whatever number of charges you want.
Generally, I would assume that anyone trying to buy a wand with just one charge for a price based on 2% of the wand's cost is making a bald-faced attempt to cheat the system by hoodwinking the GM. As such, it's a no-go for me and I'm not going to allow it when I GM.
That said, I do allow PCs to buy used wands with reduced charges at a price calculated proportionally. I just roll for the number of charges. I've used 2d20 before and could easily see using 1d20+10 or +20, depending on what the PC is looking for. The odds of the specific thing they want is quite a bit lower than the blanket 75% in the rules, though.
|
|
If I remember correctly (which I dont) wands could have a max of 100 charges, staves could have 75, and charged rods could have 50. Wands and Staves could be recharged but Rods could not. Also it was nearly impossible to find out how many charges yor staf or wand had. Identify only gave generalised info, example more then 70 but less 78. Not sure what Legend Lore could give you.
Edit: so if you look at a 1e/2e staff and PF staff its kinda slap in the face in comparison.
Only a couple of staff (the staff of the magi and maybe the staff of power) could be recharged if you were following the DMG rules.
The rules for recharging the wands and the other staves were in a Dragon article and were a optional rule.Looking through my old 1e and 2e DMGs, both books talk about how to recharge rod, staves and wands in the discriptions.
Also I was wrong about charges, wands had 100, rods had 50 and staves ahd 25.
2nd ed DMG (1st edition is in a crate in the basement) "A rod can sometime be recharged according to the given for constructing magical items", "Some staves can be recharged according to the given for constructing magical items" and "Most wands can be recharged according to the given for constructing magical items".
P. 84, rules to create magical items: Wizards can create potions and scrolls at level 9, other magical items at level 11, clerics can create scroll at level 7, healing potions at level 9. a few other magical items at level 11. Then there is a discussion about using the "practical method" (you will need the heartwood of a oak struck by lighting for a wand of lighting) and the fantastic method (you need the breath of a fish for a potion of water breathing) but 0 actual rules.
In the end it is all DM decision. No idea on what it would cost of what it will require, how much time, money, spells.
So it boil down to "You can recharge the wands following some rule that don't exist".
The staff of the magi instead has a clear but dangerous method to recharge it: you would use it to absorb incoming spells targeted at you. The risk was that of overloading it. An overloaded staff would explode with you a ground 0, not a pleasant thing.
|
|
The reason why the Staff of the Magi had its spell obsorption ability explained was because it was unique and dangers.
Yes 1e and 2e dont exactly spell out recharging the recharging rules(thats why there was an article about in the dragon magazine) probably because they didnt exactly spell out magic item making rules, they left for each GM to personalise them after they had the general rules in place.
Of course thats just my opinion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I doubt the number 50 was arbitrary.
More likely whoever came up with that number wanted a per-use price that was less than a scroll, sort of a "volume discount". In conjunction, he wanted a number large enough to actually be a "volume" without being effectively infinite (after all, a wand of 1,000 charges is something nobody would ever use up). Still, that "volume" number needed to be small enough that the finished, fully-charged wand would be affordable.
Alternatives:
Wand of CLW, 50 charges, priced like a scroll: 1,250gp. Affordable, but no "volume discount".
Wand of CLW, 100 charges, priced at 15gp/charge: 1,500. Less affordable, but at least there's a discount.
Wand of CLW, 50 charges, priced at 15gp/charge: 750gp. More affordable and has a discount.
I also suspect the designer wanted to make low-level wands affordable to low-level characters. So, too many charges, even with a discount, puts the price out of reach. Too few charges, and the wand just feels like less of a "volume discount" kind of item. Ultimately, the goal was lots of charges to feel like a wand with plenty of uses, but not too many charges or it's too expensive, and including that "volume discount".
Finally, people like round numbers. They just make us happy. So having a fully-charged value of 66 or 38 (per the OP) would be weird and uncomfortable, and even having a number that is still round, but not as neat as 50 (e.g. 40 or 70) is still less appealing than 50.
Finally, 50 does make it very easy to calculate the cost of a partially-charged wand. Many people can easily do that math in their head. Although, still, I prefer to just multiply the charge count by 15 (e.g. a wand with 38 charges would cost 570gp, which I just did in my head, to prove my point to myself).
Ergo, 50. Feels good, prices good, and it's affordable. Everybody wins.
Sure, they could have picked a different number than 50 that might have even matched those considerations, but that's the one they picked, and I bet that those considerations were, at least, uh, considered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^Agreed with DM Blake. However, I want to add one more reason why there's not less than 50 charges in addition to the "volume discount" reason. I think they wanted wands to feel less consumable than scrolls and potions, to feel much more powerful. While a wand of CLW is gone through in a few adventures and thus feels a lot like a consumable, if the party finds a wand of stinking cloud or a wand of protection from elements or whatever, that feels like an actual powerful item (compared to a scroll or potion of similar spells).
EDIT: BTW, just wanted to mention our house rule on wand charges. Instead of having 50 charges initially, they start at "d20". When you use the wand you roll the dice. If you roll a 1, it's downgraded one step to a d12, and you repeat this until it's a d4 and you roll 1, then the final charge is wrenched at +2 caster level.
On average it ends up being used 60 times before going out, but with the loss of certainity it ends up being a quite even tradeoff, and having it noted in dice instead of charges means you don't have to update your character sheet all the time when you use a charge. Also, most players in our group likes to roll dice. :3
|
I think 1 level wands should have 50 charges at max caster level.
2nd level wands should have 25 charges at max caster level
2rd and 4th level wands should be able to have any amount of charges max 25 at full caster level.
I also think that wands should be able to be metamagiced for each increased spell slot of the meta magiced feat it consumes one extra charge
for instance a wand of cure serious maximized would only be able to hold 6 charges but would heal 24+12 or 36 points per charge.
Wands back in 1e days were typically found with 100-(1d20-1) charges, based on the treasure tables, although many in published adventures were found with far fewer. So the 50 charge number has absolutely nothing to do with any Gygax preference.If something is kinda arbitrary, people here LOVE to blame Gygax.
I think the number 50 is a callback to his Buddhist faith.
They use 50 in magic item pricing in several formulas. It is just a good number for pricing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually when I find an imperfect rule, I always blame Obama.Wands back in 1e days were typically found with 100-(1d20-1) charges, based on the treasure tables, although many in published adventures were found with far fewer. So the 50 charge number has absolutely nothing to do with any Gygax preference.If something is kinda arbitrary, people here LOVE to blame Gygax. I suppose it's because they think that d20 is too perfect of a system for anyone to have just randomly picked a number out of nowhere.
[/sneer]
You have to in this economy.
You can't, everyone knows that back when 3.0 was designed, Obama was still in a Kenyan Masque, studying Atheist Islam with his peers Hitler and Baby Goblin. It was there that they (Hitler, Obama, and the Baby Goblin) devised their plan to trick everyone on the internet into blaming them for everything. By blaming Obama, you are helping Hitler!Actually when I find an imperfect rule, I always blame Obama.Wands back in 1e days were typically found with 100-(1d20-1) charges, based on the treasure tables, although many in published adventures were found with far fewer. So the 50 charge number has absolutely nothing to do with any Gygax preference.If something is kinda arbitrary, people here LOVE to blame Gygax. I suppose it's because they think that d20 is too perfect of a system for anyone to have just randomly picked a number out of nowhere.
[/sneer]
I Know! Thanks to Him I have to pay 2.00 for a gallon of gas. DAMN U OBAMA!!!