Craft Wand - money cheat code?

[Baboo85]

Hi. During today's session I saw a nice thing with my 16th level sorceress.

I have Craft Wand feat. If I create a Wand of Glitter Dust with 12 rounds of duration (12th caster level) I have to pay:
2*12*375= 9.000gp

But I have Extended Spell metamagic feat. Creating the same Wand with that feat included and maintaining the same duration, I need the 6th caster level. So I have to pay:
3*6*375= 6.750gp

Am I wrong? Same duration, less cost.

And: the base DC is 5 + caster level. In the first example I have DC 17, in the second one I have DC 11.

Is that a cheat?

EDIT: the rules states that if the spell cast duration is more than 1 round, so the Wand activation will be.
And the question is also for wizards.

[_Ozy_]

DC is based on spell level, not caster level.

An extended spell has the same casting time as the non-extended spell, but if you're asking in general, yes. The activation time of a wand is a standard action or the casting time of the spell, whichever is longer.

Crafting wands with higher than required caster level is generally not that money efficient, so the fact that you can shave a bit off if you have the extended spell feat isn't much of a big deal.

[Jeraa]

_Ozy_ wrote:

DC is based on spell level, not caster level.

An extended spell has the same casting time as the non-extended spell, but if you're asking in general, yes. The activation time of a wand is a standard action or the casting time of the spell, whichever is longer.

Crafting wands with higher than required caster level is generally not that money efficient, so the fact that you can shave a bit off if you have the extended spell feat isn't much of a big deal.

I believe he is talking about the DC of the check to make the item in the first place, which is based on caster level of the item. Not the DC to resist the spell.

Crafting the wand at CL 12 does have an advantage over the CL 6 one with Extend Spell added in. If you had to make a caster level check for some reason the CL 12 wand would give you a +12 bonus on the check as opposed to just +6. In this case, that wouldn't help against spell resistance (as glitterdust bypasses spell resistance), but it does help if someone tries to dispel the effect on a creature.

The CL 12 one has higher saving throws than the CL 6 Extended one (+8 compared to +5). So the wand itself is better able to withstand damage. The range at which you can cast the spell is also greater with the CL 12 wand (220 feet compared to 160 feet).

So the two wands are not actually identical in their effects. The CL 12 one does have added benefits over the CL 6 Extended one. The CL 6 one is cheaper and easier to make, but the CL 12 one has a longer range, is harder to damage (as far as effects with a saving throws are concerned), is harder to dispel, and is better able to overcome spell resistance (though again, this part doesn't matter in this case).

[_Ozy_]

Ah, yes that would be correct then. But if you're crafting a wand at 12th level, that means you're 12th level, either spellcraft check should be pretty trivial.

[My Self]

So your thing would be 1/2 CL, +1 SL to calculate price. For CL-independent effects higher than 1st level, (So not Divine Favor or similar things), this is a steal, since 1 SL is always less than 1/2 CL. Even with a base spell SL of 2 (CL 3), you add 1 to the SL and subtract 1 from the CL (SL 2, CL 3), but end up adding 1 increment of duration by extending it.

[James Risner]

Can't craft with meta magic to reduce costs only to increase.

[_Ozy_]

Did you read the first post?

The wand pricing formula is fixed. SL2 * CL12 will always be more expensive than SL3 * CL6 when put into a wand, regardless if that spell was SL2 + extend, intensify, or anything else that boosted it to SL3.

The fact that you can get an equivalent duration for slightly cheaper is balanced by the fact that you need access to the metamagic to put the spell into the wand in the first place, and has been pointed out already, has other mechanical advantages, such as resistance to dispelling.

How else would you price the wand? It's straight by-the-book.

[James Risner]

Read the first post. One of the GM jobs is to not allow the system to be broken.

[Kileanna]

I don't see anything broken here.
Both wands are actually more expensive than a regular wand of Glitterdust at basic level, which is still pretty useful (as the part of revealing invisible creatures doesn't allow a saving throw). Having a cheaper option that is slightly worse (lower DCs, less range, etc.) than the more expensive option seems balanced.

[Hendelbolaf]

This is neither a cheat nor is anything broken here.

Standard Wand of Glitterdust:

Spell Level: 2, Caster Level: 4 (sorcerer), Craft DC: 9, Craft Cost: 3,000gp, Craft Time: 6 days (unless add a +5 to Craft DC to complete in 3 days)
Range of 140 feet and will last for 4 rounds and require DC: 13 Will save to negate blinding effect and is 4th level for dispel checks, caster level checks, and such.

Extended Wand of Glitterdust:

Spell Level: 3, Caster Level: 6 (sorcerer), Craft DC: 11, Craft Cost: 6,750gp, Craft Time: 14 days (unless add a +5 to Craft DC to complete in 7 days)
Range of 160 feet and will last for 6 rounds and require DC: 13 Will save to negate blinding effect and is 6th level for dispel checks, caster level checks, and such.

If you do not have Extend Spell, you can forgo the requirement and craft it at DC 16 instead.

Caster Level 12 Wand of Glitterdust:

Spell Level: 2, Caster Level: 12 (sorcerer), Craft DC: 17, Craft Cost: 9,000gp, Craft Time: 18 days (unless add a +5 to Craft DC to complete in 9 days)
Range of 220 feet and will last for 12 rounds and require DC: 13 Will save to negate blinding effect and is 12th level for dispel checks, caster level checks, and such.

You can actually craft the wand at ANY caster level above the minimum required caster level and it will affect the craft DC, the craft cost, the craft time, the range, the duration, and all dispel and caster level checks. Caster level is not a listed requirement so increasing it to 20 or 30 is possible for even a 5th level caster provided they can make the appropriate spellcraft or craft DC check.

Remember that you need the spell to be present and cast everyday of crafting which may be tricky for a sorcerer unless they have the spell as one of their chosen spells known. If that is the case, why craft a wand of Glitterdust with such a low save DC other than to just use it for the anti-invisibility aspect of it?

Also, if you are worried about 2,250gp in crafting at 16th level then you are running in a cheap game.

[_Ozy_]

James Risner wrote:

Read the first post. One of the GM jobs is to not allow the system to be broken.

What is broken about following the rules?

How does a 6k wand of glitterdust break the system? Knee-jerk negative reactions are not helpful.

Quote:

If you do not have Extend Spell, you can forgo the requirement and craft it at DC 16 instead.

I doubt this is true. Since the wand is casting an extended spell, you need an extended spell to craft the wand. You can't bypass this prerequisite for a spell trigger (or completion) item.

[Kileanna]

Even if you could, in this case both spells will only be equivalent in how much they last. The extended spell will be weaker in the other variables of the spell. So I think this is not an exploit.

[Hendelbolaf]

_Ozy_ wrote:

Quote:

If you do not have Extend Spell, you can forgo the requirement and craft it at DC 16 instead.

I doubt this is true. Since the wand is casting an extended spell, you need an extended spell to craft the wand. You can't bypass this prerequisite for a spell trigger (or completion) item.

i guess it comes down to what you consider to be the spell, Glitterdust or Extended Glitterdust. I rule the spell is Glitterdust and you cannot get around this requirement on spell trigger and spell completion items to be crafted. Extend Spell is an additional requirement and I would rule you could overcome it by increasing the DC by 5 per the crafting rules.

There could be debate on this, but this is how I would rule on it.

[Jeraa]

_Ozy_ wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Read the first post. One of the GM jobs is to not allow the system to be broken.

What is broken about following the rules?

How does a 6k wand of glitterdust break the system? Knee-jerk negative reactions are not helpful.

Quote:

If you do not have Extend Spell, you can forgo the requirement and craft it at DC 16 instead.

I doubt this is true. Since the wand is casting an extended spell, you need an extended spell to craft the wand. You can't bypass this prerequisite for a spell trigger (or completion) item.

Unfortunately, the rules aren't clear.

A Staff of Power doesn't list Heighten Spell as a requirement, but 3 of the spells required are listed as heightened. So you wouldn't be able to bypass having Heighten Spell in this case.

However, the Crown of Blasting (major) does list Heighten Spell separately from the spell requirement, so you could bypass it.

Personally, in this case, I would go with how the staff lists it, as staves and wands are very similar.

[Azothath]

Hendelbolaf wrote:

This is neither a cheat nor is anything broken here. (basic crafting rules for these items) ...

agree with all but the last line as that is a lot of gold.

link

PRD: Magic Item Creation, CRB wrote:

Note that all items have prerequisites in their descriptions. These prerequisites must be met for the item to be created. Most of the time, they take the form of spells that must be known by the item’s creator (although access through another magic item or spellcaster is allowed). The DC to create a magic item increases by 5 for each prerequisite the caster does not meet. The only exception to this is the requisite item creation feat, which is mandatory. In addition, you cannot create potions, spell-trigger, or spell-completion magic items without meeting its prerequisites.

While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.

if Heighten Metamagic is clearly allowed AND the text says "feats" it allows any metamagic unless the GM says no. The crafting DC would be at the higher level (metamagic affects things in a way that is disadvantageous for the caster/crafter).

The +5 for not meeting prerequisites doesn't apply to wands. See the last line in the first paragraph. So the crafter needs to have access to the Extend metamagic feat.

[_Ozy_]

Jeraa wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Read the first post. One of the GM jobs is to not allow the system to be broken.

What is broken about following the rules?

How does a 6k wand of glitterdust break the system? Knee-jerk negative reactions are not helpful.

Quote:

If you do not have Extend Spell, you can forgo the requirement and craft it at DC 16 instead.

I doubt this is true. Since the wand is casting an extended spell, you need an extended spell to craft the wand. You can't bypass this prerequisite for a spell trigger (or completion) item.

Unfortunately, the rules aren't clear.

A Staff of Power doesn't list Heighten Spell as a requirement, but 3 of the spells required are listed as heightened. So you wouldn't be able to bypass having Heighten Spell in this case.

However, the Crown of Blasting (major) does list Heighten Spell separately from the spell requirement, so you could bypass it.

Personally, in this case, I would go with how the staff lists it, as staves and wands are very similar.

That actually says a lot. A staff is a spell trigger item, a Crown of Blasting is not. So, the staff is actually casting the 'heightened spell', the crown of blasting is merely creating the effect of the heightened spell. This reinforces the idea that for spell trigger/completion items, the metamagic spell is what you need for crafting, rather than the base spell plus a bypassable feat requirement.

I think this makes sense, since otherwise Wizards could scribe any metamagic spell they like, without any of the feats.

[_Ozy_]

Azothath wrote:

The +5 for not meeting prerequisites doesn't apply to wands. See the last line in the first paragraph. So the crafter needs to have access to the Extend metamagic feat.

Rather, he needs access to an extended glitterdust spell, which means he has to have that particular spell memorized for each day of crafting, or access to an item or spellcaster that can cast it.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Baboo85 wrote:

Is that a cheat?

Even if it is a cheat, that's why you have a GM. If an action, legal or illegal, is creating a problem, the GM can just fix it with their words.

[James Risner]

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

Baboo85 wrote:

Is that a cheat?

Even if it is a cheat, that's why you have a GM. If an action, legal or illegal, is creating a problem, the GM can just fix it with their words.

+1

[_Ozy_]

Sure, but the question is whether it's a proper use of the rules, it is. It's not a 'cheat'.

The GM can do anything he likes. If he decides a level 1 wand of magic missile should cost 10k, then that's what it costs.

Such general statements aren't very useful in the rules forum, and might give some people the wrong impression.

[Quantum Steve]

James Risner wrote:

Can't craft with meta magic to reduce costs only to increase.

That's not an actual rule. Improving the effectiveness of a spell is exactly what metamagic is for. Making spells last longer at a lower CL is exactly what extend is for.

[_Ozy_]

Maybe it's another unwritten, unknown rule. ;)

[Kileanna]

Quantum Steve wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Can't craft with meta magic to reduce costs only to increase.

That's not an actual rule. Improving the effectiveness of a spell is exactly what metamagic is for. Making spells last longer at a lower CL is exactly what extend is for.

You are actually increasing the price.

An extended wand of glitterdust is more expensive than a basic one. The fact that a higher CL wand is even more expensive is irrelevant.

[ryric]

Yeah, look at the two proposed items:

wand of extended glitterdust, CL6: wand of a 3rd level spell at CL6, save DC 13, 6750 gp

wand of glitterdust, CL12: wand of a 2nd level spell at CL12, save DC 13, 9000 gp

The huge caster level is what is making the second wand more expensive. Metamagic isn't making the first wand cheaper. Compare to a normal 2nd level wand at CL6, which is 4500 gp to craft.

There is nothing broken or exploitative here.

[Orfamay Quest]

ryric wrote:

Yeah, look at the two proposed items:

wand of extended glitterdust, CL6: wand of a 3rd level spell at CL6, save DC 13, 6750 gp

wand of glitterdust, CL12: wand of a 2nd level spell at CL12, save DC 13, 9000 gp

The huge caster level is what is making the second wand more expensive. Metamagic isn't making the first wand cheaper. Compare to a normal 2nd level wand at CL6, which is 4500 gp to craft.

There is nothing broken or exploitative here.

Just to further the point.... the idea of buying a wand (or other item) at a higher caster level is nothing new or controversial. I think a lot of folks actually recommend buying things like heightened continual flame items as an anti-darkness measure.

With that said, you need to ask yourself what you're buying with the higher caster level. Typically, you're buying resistance to dispel magic, possibly longer range, possibly higher damage, and possibly longer duration. Not all spells give you the same bang for your buck.

I could see buying a CL 10 wand of fireballs; it costs twice as much, but does twice as much damage, which means it's a more efficient way of doing damage-per-round. I can't see a CL 15 wand of fireballs as being worth the price because the damage caps at CL 10, so you are spending three times as much money for twice the damage -- and getting three times the range, but range has never been a problem with fireball.

Similarly, duration is a non-issue with fireball.

The Extend Spell feat is often (usually) a cheaper way to buy longer durations, but it doesn't give you the other features of an increased CL. But if all you really want to buy is duration, why not go for the cheap option?

[_Ozy_]

The basline answer is that the wand pricing formula works just fine, metamagic or no, higher CL or no.

[Murdock Mudeater]

_Ozy_ wrote:

Sure, but the question is whether it's a proper use of the rules, it is. It's not a 'cheat'.

The GM can do anything he likes. If he decides a level 1 wand of magic missile should cost 10k, then that's what it costs.

Such general statements aren't very useful in the rules forum, and might give some people the wrong impression.

I think it's on point with the concept of "cheating" in pathfinder. The only, real, solution in pathfinder to actual cheating is the GM.

As for making money with items, the best method of making money in pathfinder is being hired for your spellcasting services. So much more profitable than adventuring or any other option.

Regarding the wand idea, there are a few archetypes that allow the caster to use their actual level to determine the CL of their wand, regardless of the CL paid for in the wand's construction. If looking to abuse wands to make money, I'd look into that.

[Orfamay Quest]

Murdock Mudeater wrote:

As for making money with items, the best method of making money in pathfinder is being hired for your spellcasting services. So much more profitable than adventuring or any other option.

Although "making money with items" isn't really an issue with this particular trick. The character is still spending money, just spending less of it to get the desired ability. In a sense it's like a character discovering a Buy-One-Get-One-Half-Off sale. Yeah, sure, if I'm going to be buying 200 widgets, I'd much rather buy them for the price of 150 than for the price of 200. But I'm not actually making money. And I can't resell them for the price of 200 -- I'm still losing money if I sell my widgets at half price like the rules suggest.

So, basically, it's just like a cheat for making money,.... except, first, for the "making money" part, and secondly, for the "cheat" part.

[Red Metal]

Well, I suppose you could try making money off of the CL6 Extended wand by crafting it and trying to sell it as a CL12 normal wand. Just don't be surprised if whoever you sell it to comes for you when they found out how you ripped them off :P

[Orfamay Quest]

Red Metal wrote:

Well, I suppose you could try making money off of the CL6 Extended wand by crafting it and trying to sell it as a CL12 normal wand. Just don't be surprised if whoever you sell it to comes for you when they found out how you ripped them off :P

Yeah, I don't think the problem there is with the Pathfinder rules or a subtle loophole. I think that's just called "fraud.' I can handle that even more cheaply by painting Lucky Charms on a stick and making sure that the person I sell the wand (make that the "wand") to is relying on UMD skill. ("Really? It failed to work again? You must be rolling a lot of ones, sir.")

And then when it turns out I actually sold it to a high-level wizard, then I should be prepared to spend a lot of time on a lily pad, eating flies and waiting for a kiss from a princess.

Ooops. <ribbit>

[Azothath]

ahhh, I see we are "stirring the pot"...