Generally speaking I know staffs aren't that great to craft. However, I'm playing a wizard who is about to be level 15. I'm strongly considering taking staff-like wand, which as you probably know requires craft staff as a prerequisite. I already have craft wand. Though not a prerequisite it's generally useful. I'm playing Reign of Winter if that makes any difference. No spoilers please.
Anyway, instead of having craft staff and never using it I thought I'd do a little crowd sourcing. In a similar situation what do you think is the best, most generally cost efficient, staff to craft? It can be custom and probably will be. Basically something that's not obscenely expensive, but will give a good bang for buck.
I'm a fan of staves with rare, but powerful, utility spells; things which you'll want on demand but never want to prepare, but will want to have handy more often than simply carrying a scroll as backup.
Teleport/Overland Flight/Etc, for instance.
That said, Staff-like Wand is amazing IMO. You can craft the cheapest Fireball/Magic Missile/Scorching Ray wands possible and be set for blasting, leaving all those spell slots open for utility/control.
So. Good.
I'm a fan of staves with rare, but powerful, utility spells; things which you'll want on demand but never want to prepare, but will want to have handy more often than simply carrying a scroll as backup.
Teleport/Overland Flight/Etc, for instance.That said, Staff-like Wand is amazing IMO. You can craft the cheapest Fireball/Magic Missile/Scorching Ray wands possible and be set for blasting, leaving all those spell slots open for utility/control.
So. Good.
Now that you mention it perhaps I've been looking at this wrong. Via UMD + staff I can let party members use self only spells. Hummm. Food for thought.
Also, I completely agree about staff like wand. It's awesome
Also, if it's a spell with a material component I can put it in a staff and it'll eventually pay for itself.
|
For spells up to 4th level, crafting a wand is always going to be cheaper than including the same spell in a staff... so if you've got staff-like wand and craft wand there would be very little reason to craft a staff with anything below 5th level effects. Likewise, the fact that staves have a minimum caster level of 8th is another factor against using them for low level spells.
If you have a high UMD then putting spells you cannot normally cast into a staff is a good way to have them available... though you'll also want to include at least one spell you CAN cast so that you can recharge the staff. Also, a staff with 10 spells in it will cost much less than 10 staves each with one of those spells... so most of the time you want to put all the spells you want into a single staff or perhaps a handful if you expect to be using those spells often.
One way to take advantage of staff design/pricing is to include a spell with an expensive material component and then another spell with no material component cost for recharging. If you make the expensive spell burn 5 charges then the staff's cost will include 10 times the material component cost. If it burns 10 charges then the staff cost only includes 5 times the component cost. A good example effect for this is resurrection... if you think you'll use resurrection six or more times, though not more than once per 10 days due to recharging time, then you'll come out ahead by putting it in a staff.
At the moment I'm thinking communal Stone Skin. Basically to save me the high cost, but provide stone skin to everyone basically every fight.
I think the cost is as follows:
Wiz 5 spell (Communal Stone Skin) X Caster level 8 X 400 = 16,000
Plus material component of (250 X 6) X 50 = 75000
I added the X 6 so that each charge could affect up to 6 people. Technically that may not be necessary, but I know my DM and am erring on the side of caution.
That's 91K to craft.
... ... ...
Well damn. Scratch that idea. I suppose it'd be cost effective on the 51st use, but that's a lot of gold to pony up in the creation.
*sigh* Back to the drawing board.
Also, it does get somewhat cheaper if you put more spells into it.
The materials cost is subsumed in the cost of creation: 400 gp × the level of the highest-level spell × the level of the caster, plus 75% of the value of the next most costly ability (300 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster), plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities (200 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster). Staves are always fully charged (10 charges) when created.
|
|
For a high level campaign a staff with Wish burning two charges per casting would allow you to cast Wish five times consecutively and thus create a +5 inherent bonus to a stat. You could then recharge the staff to repeat that every 10 days. After boosting five stats that way you'd have recouped the material component cost of the staff... and every stat boosted thereafter would effectively be 'free'.
For a high level campaign a staff with Wish burning two charges per casting would allow you to cast Wish five times consecutively and thus create a +5 inherent bonus to a stat. You could then recharge the staff to repeat that every 10 days. After boosting five stats that way you'd have recouped the material component cost of the staff... and every stat boosted thereafter would effectively be 'free'.
I would question that math.
Crafting a wish that uses 2 charges is easy and relatively inexpensive enough at ((9x18x400)/2) =32,400.
However the material component requirement alone would be 625,000((25,000X50)/2). Unless you're starting at level 18 then I suspect that amount will rarely be available. I sincerely doubt it will be for me.
Edit: Just checked and you do divide the the material cost by the number of charges also. That's new.
|
|
Similar to the Wish staff, but at the lowest spell level which makes sense for staves, would be a Permanency (10 charges) effect. Would cost 5 * 22,500 (highest permanency material component cost) extra in materials, but after six uses would pay for itself. Good way to give the entire party various magical abilities.
In fairness, he did say "for a high level campaign". XD
True.
Permanency is a good idea. Though it's perfectly legal there's a chance my DM won't allow it. He's weirdly finicky about certain things. He flat out and harshly denied Permanency + Shrink Item when i casually brought it up. At that moment I wasn't event considering using it. I just thought it was interesting. One of many things I feel he's wrong about, but it's not worth arguing over. I digress.
However, for sake of this exercise lets do the math anyway.
{5th level spell X 8th level caster X400} / 10 charges = 1600
Plus material component of (25,000 X50) / 10 charges = 125,000
Total cost 126,600. However, given that you could thereafter basically make anything permanent every 10 days i'd be a very worthwhile investment for a long campaign. I'd definitely make something like it for kingmaker.
Related question:
These are all costs for crafting, correct? I assume everything mentioned would be twice the price to purchase. Permanency staff would go for 253,200 on the open market, for example.
I'm getting the impression from this thread that the best use would be a high level spell that isn't needed often or lasts a very very long time, but reduce the cost by using multiple charges.
Trap the soul comes to mind. It's not something you'd need every day and it really expensive.
[((8x15x400) / 10))+((20,000 X50)/10)] = 148,000
Expensive, but it would use 10 charges, but could trap anything with less than 20 HD every ten days.
Mechanically this works, but as the material component is consumed in the creation of the staff there's no physical gem. ... I suppose it would make sense if the staff conjured this highly expensive gem as the spell was cast.
... Upon further review this could theoretically make an evil caster a shit ton of money over time if he participated in the soul trade. Basically you kill people and get free money.
As above I could see a clone staff being useful if you wanted a lot of clones.
Cost being 9800 total for a staff of clone that uses ten charges per clone. Since they take 2d4 months to grow anyway the time shouldn't be a problem. After you make 50 clones (of yourself or others) it'd pay for itself.
of course if you can just cast clone and want less than 50 of them it's cheaper and easier just to cast the spell.
Then there's the problem of preserving them.
Right, those are crafting costs and purchase would be double.
Staff of the long campaign
Resurrection (10 charges)
Permanency (10 charges)
Greater Restoration (5 charges)
Contingency (5 charges)
Wish/Miracle (2 charges)
I get the rest, but why contingency?
Anyone who used the staff would need to keep the focus on them (separate cost per person) as well as have the companion spell handy.
Ohhh
Binding could be useful to have in a staff.
Using 10 charges and being able to bind anything with 20 HD or less the staff would only cost 5800.
Seems a worthwhile investment.
|
|
I get the rest, but why contingency?
Anyone who used the staff would need to keep the focus on them (separate cost per person) as well as have the companion spell handy.
The focus cost is added to the staff and then the focus isn't needed thereafter. Utility is just having the spell available when needed... not having to memorize it in case you use the existing one.
Just, uh, don't forget the cardinal rule of pricing magic items - start by comparing them to existing items. A scroll is one thing, but a reusable high-level spell is probably going to trip somewhere along the way.
True, but it's generally established that staves are mostly pointless to craft due to absurd expense.
I suppose I could increase the number of charges, but i don't think that's necessary.
In practicality we're talking about an 8th level spell at the cost of an 8th level spell slot for ten days. That by itself if probably fine.
The 10K material component per casting would be the issue I think.
*pause*
... Yea. This is broken.
In the case of staves it either seems to be totally broken (like this) or just not worth it to make in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I have it.
Staff of limited wish.
Universally useful, absorbs cost over time, not inherently broken or offensive.
It it required 5 charges it'll cost $22,800.
For comparison if it required one charge it'd be $114,000.
I'd actually prefer the latter, but a "free" limited wish every 5 days isn't shabby.
Yyyyup. XD The only staff I've ever had or used regularly is a very special campaign-specific one - it's a solo game, and the staff is a scaling item that gets stronger over time and unlocks new spells.
Frankly, I think staves tend to be better as loot than something you craft.
Agreed. I'm only even entertaining this because Craft Staff is a feat tax for Staff-like Wand.
The focus cost is added to the staff and then the focus isn't needed thereafter. Utility is just having the spell available when needed... not having to memorize it in case you use the existing one.I get the rest, but why contingency?
Anyone who used the staff would need to keep the focus on them (separate cost per person) as well as have the companion spell handy.
Ahhh. I just re-read the rules. Good to know. I may use that one.
Note to self: I need some scrolls of planeshift.
Similar to the Wish staff, but at the lowest spell level which makes sense for staves, would be a Permanency (10 charges) effect. Would cost 5 * 22,500 (highest permanency material component cost) extra in materials, but after six uses would pay for itself. Good way to give the entire party various magical abilities.
Permanency is problematic because the component cost of the spell varies for each spell you use it on.
Similar to the Wish staff, but at the lowest spell level which makes sense for staves, would be a Permanency (10 charges) effect. Would cost 5 * 22,500 (highest permanency material component cost) extra in materials, but after six uses would pay for itself. Good way to give the entire party various magical abilities.Permanency is problematic because the component cost of the spell varies for each spell you use it on.
Hence the calculation that uses the most expensive material component.