"Rod costs are difficult to determine." - CRB 552.
If there is an underlying adherence to formula in either cost or caster level for rods, I can't spot it. I'm betting that half or more of the existing rods would be disqualified almost immediately from Superstar if submitted:
- Rod of Ruin: Requires a 6th level spell to create but has a caster level of 7 and a mere 8,000 gp cost.
- Rod of Rulership: F'cryin' out loud, the price isn't even 2x the cost! What kind of rookie mistake...?
Maybe these are grandfathered in from early edition D&D. Even newer rods seem pretty inconsistent with this stuff, though.
How much are people actually going to scrutinize these aspects? It really seems like just a matter of weighing against roughly similar items and guessing...?
Neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you Kreniigh, but still commenting on it.
"Rod costs are difficult to determine." - CRB 552.
- Rod of Ruin: Requires a 6th level spell to create but has a caster level of 7 and a mere 8,000 gp cost.
A rod of disintegrate, that was usable 3x per day with a command-word would use the Spell Effect: Command Word rules from the Estimating Magic Item Gold Pieces Values table (so Spell Level x Caster Level x 1,800 gp), or 6th level x 11th level (as a wizard) x 1,800 gp ==> 118,800 gp base price. This base price would be divided by the Charges per Day Special listing from that same Estimating table (Divide by (5/charges per day), or 1.666666, so 118,800/1.666666 ==> ~71,280 gp, base price (build cost = 35,640 gp).
THAT rod however would deal like 22d6 disintegration damage to anything it touched 3 times per day with a command word, regardless of if it were magical or not, and could effect up to 10 cubic feet of matter. The rod of ruin is much more limited, being able to affect only "nonmagical, inanimate object"s that are "no larger than a door or must take up no more than a 5-foot-by-5-foot area". It doesn't deal any actual damage directly, it just gives such a thing the broken condition (which doesn't even really destroy it).
The hard "judgement call" is how much weaker is this effect than straight disintegrate? It looks like the designers would say about 1/4.5th (like 22.5%?) the cost. I'd almost go further I think, but the cost, for what you get, "feels" ok. A little high in my mind.
- Rod of Rulership: F'cryin' out loud, the price isn't even 2x the cost! What kind of rookie mistake...?
I was going to say that the price may not be a straight half because many of the rods that act as weapons (typically +X light maces) and they may be trying to include the cost of constructing a magical mace into their design, but this rod can't be used specifically that way so ???
Better wacked out ones are like the rod of flailing, if labeled as a rod in RPGSS, would people say "no, actually that's a specific magic weapon!" or fiery nimbus rod which doesn't even use Craft Rod as its required feat, but instead Craft Wondrous Item?!?
Don't forget one of the number one tips when it comes to pricing...
Try to be in the ballpark. It really only matters if you are wildly off.
There are a lot of magic items that don't have a perfect price equals half cost, and all (that I know of) of them have a costly material component. A perfect example is a scroll of raise dead: 6,125 gp to buy, or 5,562.5 gp to craft.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget one of the number one tips when it comes to pricing...
Try to be in the ballpark. It really only matters if you are wildly off.
It matters if you are wildly off or if you are less-wildly off in a particularly bad way. Here's an example. Suppose you had a magic weapon that was a +1 keen scimitar that also let you create water 1/day and you had it cost less than 8,315 gp. Since the cost of the +1 keen scimitar part is actually a strict formula cost of 8,315 gp, that's guaranteed to be a bad pricing, even before pricing the second ability came in. We want to know that you can follow the formula in the places where it's strict and that you can figure out a close-enough price for anything else.
Good point Mark!
That's the best part about this community...all the veterans and even legit writers are so willing to teach!!
Modules Overlord
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Certainly I would't disqualify an item for bad pricing. It may impact my opinion of it... but again only in a few specific cases (such as wildly inaccuracy and Mark's "obvious error" category). In general a magic item that is interesting, well-written, clear, and uses solid rules is going to have my attention even if I find myself thinking "I'm going to have to adjust that price..."
It seems to me fans voting tend to be more critical of the pricing then the judges. I feel the judges want us to show that we can calculate a price of the item so that it reflects its level of power compared to similar items. If we are way off on our pricing it shows we are not mature enough as designers to recognize the balance that needs to exist in the game. If we are close it shows were capable of making a smart decision even if they need to train us on that skill a little bit. I think they are willing to do that for new amateur designers as long as they have a good basic understanding, and more importantly show creative design chops that can't be taught.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the rod of rulership it looks like they added half the base price of the apparent worth of the rod(see first sentence of the description) to the cost.
If you find rods inconsistent you should try This
someone had to do it.
Dare Not Impugn the Lordly Might!
