Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RavingDork 03-06-07, 01:53 PM	Q: Dear Sage, Can you use a metamagic feat when creating items? --Ken A: Yes; calculate the magic item’s price using the new spell level (as adjusted by the metamagic feat). A wand of maximized cure light wounds, for example, would cost 3,000 gp (spell level 4 times caster level 1 times 750 gp). You couldn’t make a wand of maximized cure moderate wounds, because that’s a 5th-level spell, which is beyond the spell level limit of a wand. If you’re not using the spell’s level to calculate the price, remember to estimate the price using the improved potency of the effect for comparison (rather than using the non-metamagic version of the spell). Shouldn't the price calculation be 4 x 7 x 750 = 21,000gp? How on earth does a 1st-level caster cast a maximized cure light wounds spell in the first place? This is wrong on so many levels. The CL can't be lower than the minimum to cast the spell components. You have to be at least 7th-level to be able to cast the equivalent of a 4th-level spell. Perhaps the Sage should go back to Elementary to learn basic math and how to follow simple rules properly.
Puca 03-06-07, 02:02 PM	I think it might be a typo.
Witch 03-06-07, 02:07 PM	I doubt it, as they've also got the price at 3k.
Puca 03-06-07, 02:10 PM	Yeah, I just read over it again and saw that. My mistake in trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Fencerboy 03-06-07, 02:11 PM	So its either a series of horrible typos (doubtful), someone from sales decided to cover the column for this round (even more doubtful) or they just screwed up a bit. Relax, everyone makes a mistake once in a while... And it certainly doesn't make them "dumber than dirt". They have dispensed tons of decent advice and wisdom over the life of the column, let one mistake go already. Geez...
Archangel_James 03-06-07, 02:38 PM	Maybe the Sage just made a mistake. You've done that once or twice yourself, right?
RavingDork 03-06-07, 02:47 PM	Maybe the Sage just made a mistake. You've done that once or twice yourself, right? Nope. When it comes to all things D&D, I'm perfect. :P My title is a little strong, true. But I am seeing more and more of these small mistakes from their so called "informative rules articles." Doesn't it worry you too?
Fencerboy 03-06-07, 02:49 PM	No, I never need to ask a question... Or if I do, I ask it here. So I can know the answeres wrong. :P
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-06-07, 02:54 PM	Shouldn't the price calculation be 4 x 7 x 750 = 21,000gp? How on earth does a 1st-level caster cast a maximized cure light wounds spell in the first place? This is wrong on so many levels. The CL can't be lower than the minimum to cast the spell components. You have to be at least 7th-level to be able to cast the equivalent of a 4th-level spell. Perhaps the Sage should go back to Elementary to learn basic math and how to follow simple rules properly. The caster level for calculating the cost is based on the normal caster level required to cast the spell, which in this case is still 1st, not the caster level required to use the metamagic feat.
Puca 03-06-07, 03:03 PM	So, the erroneous assumtion that the sage was adressing, or one of them, was that even though it is maximized and uses a fourth-level slot, it still "operates at its original spell level" so it could be crafted at caster-level one. As dumb as that is, Ive seen people who think it works that way.
Nathreet 03-06-07, 03:28 PM	Shouldn't the price calculation be 4 x 7 x 750 = 21,000gp? How on earth does a 1st-level caster cast a maximized cure light wounds spell in the first place? This is wrong on so many levels. The CL can't be lower than the minimum to cast the spell components. You have to be at least 7th-level to be able to cast the equivalent of a 4th-level spell. Perhaps the Sage should go back to Elementary to learn basic math and how to follow simple rules properly. You don't cast spell components. You cast spells. I suggest you go back to elementary school to relearn English grammar. :rolleyes: Or realize that everyone makes dumb mistakes every once in a while. It doesn't mean anything. And pointing them out doesn't make you right about any claim you want to make. Ever.
Loki5654 03-06-07, 03:29 PM	The caster level for calculating the cost is based on the normal caster level required to cast the spell, which in this case is still 1st, not the caster level required to use the metamagic feat. How does a 1st level caster have a 4th level spell slot to cast it from, then? Being able to cast the spell is still one of the prereq's for creating the item. No spell slot, no spell. I agree with those that say the "Sage" is wrong. It should be CL7 x SL4 x 750 = 21,000gp.
Puca 03-06-07, 03:36 PM	Or realize that everyone makes dumb mistakes every once in a while. It doesn't mean anything. And pointing them out doesn't make you right about any claim you want to make. Ever. There is a big difference between the mistakes Raving Dork makes and those in Ask Wizards. No one is ever going to cite him as official. (No offence, they arent going to cite me either.) When you put something out there on your official site for the purpose of clarifying and explaining rules, you need to have your **** together on a whole different level than those of us sitting around BSing about it do.
Squirrelloid 03-06-07, 03:56 PM	This is hardly the first error i've seen from AskWizards, CustServe, or even the Sage. They never bother to check and cross-reference the rules properly. What they should do is post the text of all relevant rules, highlighting the relevant bits, and then post their conclusions. That would demonstrate (1) exactly where the ruling came from, (2) they could explain how their conclusion is derived from the rules that are *actually published*, and not from whatever interpretation of the rules that exist in their head. Second, there are two possibilities. (1) You're using Maximize Spell, at which point the cost is 21k gp for the reasons discussed above. (2) You have the Sudden Maximize feat, and since you only need to cast the spell 1/day while crafting a magic item, you can make it for the usual 750gp price. Remember that a spell you use Sudden Maximize on behaves in all ways as if you'd used Maximize Spell, except its spell slot doesn't change. One of these is clearly better than the other. Neither of which arrives at the conclusion AskWizards did. Edit: Yes, Sudden metamagic feats totally break crafting. What, did no one notice this before?
Puca 03-06-07, 04:00 PM	(2) You have the Sudden Maximize feat, and since you only need to cast the spell 1/day while crafting a magic item, you can make it for the usual 750gp price. Remember that a spell you use Sudden Maximize on behaves in all ways as if you'd used Maximize Spell, except its spell slot doesn't change.Not true. So not true. I do agree with you about posting the rules. It makes things more clear and would ensure theyve read them recently. (Thats not to be snide. We all "remember" things that we havent actually read over for ages, and when we do, wonder how we could have gotten it so wrong.)
gorckat 03-06-07, 04:02 PM	To create a magic wand, a character needs a small supply of materials, the most obvious being a baton or the pieces of the wand to be assembled. The cost for the materials is subsumed in the cost for creating the wand—375 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster. The spell level is 1, so RAW it looks like they are correct. With my elementary economics sense, it seems that over time Metamagic enhanced wands (or w/e) would start out fetching a premium price (since they are so much better and consistent than others) and then they would become the norm for crafters to get those feats (to stay competitive) and prices would fall back to RAW. Non-enhanced wands and stuff, being inferior, would no longer be as profitable so crafters without the right feats go away. So pick your point in that transition and scale prices accordingly, I guess.
Puca 03-06-07, 04:19 PM	This is crazy.
Squirrelloid 03-06-07, 04:21 PM	Not true. So not true. I do agree with you about posting the rules. It makes things more clear and would ensure theyve read them recently. (Thats not to be snide. We all "remember" things that we havent actually read over for ages, and when we do, wonder how we could have gotten it so wrong.) From the DMG Creating Magical Items table: 50 charges, spell trigger Spell level1 × caster level × 750 gp From the DMG on Creating Wands: The creator must have prepared the spell to be stored (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focuses the spell requires. ... The act of working on the wand triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting during each day devoted to the wand’s creation. (That is, that spell slot is expended from her currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.) And: Sudden Maximize ... Benefit: Once per day, you can apply the effect of the Maximize Spell feat to any spell you cast without increasing the level of the spell or specially preparing it ahead of time. (emphasis added) (+ general implication of AskWizards answer to the above question, even if they can't do math). QED.
Squirrelloid 03-06-07, 04:23 PM	The spell level is 1, so RAW it looks like they are correct. With my elementary economics sense, it seems that over time Metamagic enhanced wands (or w/e) would start out fetching a premium price (since they are so much better and consistent than others) and then they would become the norm for crafters to get those feats (to stay competitive) and prices would fall back to RAW. Non-enhanced wands and stuff, being inferior, would no longer be as profitable so crafters without the right feats go away. So pick your point in that transition and scale prices accordingly, I guess. Except they incremented the level of the spell. What they didnt increment was the *caster level*. (they gave 4x1, where 4 is the level of the spell slot, but 1 is *not* the caster level of a caster able to cast that spell).
Puca 03-06-07, 04:24 PM	Can sudden metamagic feats (from Complete Arcane) be used to scribe scrolls or craft wands that include the metamagic effect? If so, how would you calculate the cost (since sudden metamagic feats don’t alter the level of the spell)? You can use a sudden metamagic feat in item creation; the cost to create the item would be just as if you were using the regular metamagic feat. For instance, using your Sudden Widen feat to create a scroll of widened fireball would cost as much as a scroll of a 6th-level spell (which is what a widened fireball is). The act of creating the scroll or wand would expend your daily use of Sudden Widen (since the act of creation triggers the spell, making it unavailable for casting). YED (Your error demonstrated)
gorckat 03-06-07, 04:32 PM	Except they incremented the level of the spell. What they didnt increment was the *caster level*. (they gave 4x1, where 4 is the level of the spell slot, but 1 is *not* the caster level of a caster able to cast that spell). Ah. I skipped that part and forgot the typical Cure Light Wand costs only 750. In that case, yeah- I'd bump the caster level, too.
Squirrelloid 03-06-07, 04:38 PM	YED (Your error demonstrated) (1) the FAQ is not rules. It is supposed to be clarification of the rules. That should be in the errata (which its not). When you have both FAQ and errata, you should actually use the errata for what its meant for, and same goes for the FAQ. (No, i don't read the FAQ - its not rules, its answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the rules. I am capable of reading the rules, so I don't have questions. Errata is changes to the rules. *That* is a change to the rules). (2) That makes no sense whatsoever, because a level 1 character could cast a Maximized CLW, so the CL should certainly be 1, even if the spell level is otherwise. (3) Regardless, the trick works for Divine Metamagic, Cooperative Metamagic (needs a caster and a buddy to apply metamagic), and Metamagic Spelltrigger (if you're supplying your spell from a spell-trigger item), and I'm willing to bet they haven't been FAQed.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-06-07, 04:45 PM	How does a 1st level caster have a 4th level spell slot to cast it from, then? He doesn't. It very well could be an error, I was just trying to posit a line of reasoning that fit the available evidence going on the assumption that it wasn't.
Loki5654 03-06-07, 05:01 PM	(2) That makes no sense whatsoever, because a level 1 character could cast a Maximized CLW, so the CL should certainly be 1, even if the spell level is otherwise. How does a 1st level caster have a fourth level spell slot to prepare the Maximized CLW in?
Squirrelloid 03-06-07, 05:19 PM	How does a 1st level caster have a fourth level spell slot to prepare the Maximized CLW in? Sudden Maximize. If you actually read all the relevant posts in a series of replies, you'd notice we were talking about Sudden Maximize, not Maximize Spell.
Loki5654 03-06-07, 05:26 PM	Sudden Maximize. If you actually read all the relevant posts in a series of replies, you'd notice we were talking about Sudden Maximize, not Maximize Spell. And if you'd read all the posts I think you'd find that it has already been pointed out that using Sudden Maximize would not lower the cost of the item. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11685286&postcount=20) Besides, you didn't say "use Sudden Maximize to cast CLW". You said "cast a Maximized CLW". If you want to be understood, use the proper nomenclature. Face it, the "Sage" (I use quotes here to denote sarcasm) screwed up. He made a mistake. I predict that, like the Dwarven movement rate mistake, the error will be corrected soon.
Dracomortis 03-06-07, 05:47 PM	Better yet, how did a 1st-level character come to have the Craft Wand feat, which requires a caster level of 5? I imagine even the CharOp boards would be hard-pressed to pull that one off.
Puca 03-06-07, 05:58 PM	(1) the FAQ is not rules. It is supposed to be clarification of the rules. That should be in the errata (which its not). When you have both FAQ and errata, you should actually use the errata for what its meant for, and same goes for the FAQ. (No, i don't read the FAQ - its not rules, its answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the rules. I am capable of reading the rules, so I don't have questions. Errata is changes to the rules. *That* is a change to the rules).So, since they placed this somewhere you dont approve of, it is meaningless? No, the FAQ is not rules. It is an explanation of them. You can decide it isnt worth paying attention to and end up with absurdly underpriced items, but youre problems will be your own. (2) That makes no sense whatsoever, because a level 1 character could cast a Maximized CLW, so the CL should certainly be 1, even if the spell level is otherwise.First-level characters wielding and using items that powerful is reason enough to interpret the rules this way. (3) Regardless, the trick works for Divine Metamagic, Cooperative Metamagic (needs a caster and a buddy to apply metamagic), and Metamagic Spelltrigger (if you're supplying your spell from a spell-trigger item), and I'm willing to bet they haven't been FAQed.How much? Divine Metamagic is already there in the FAQ. The example they use is an Empowered Flamestrike and they specifically say it is priced as a sixth-level spell. (Cooperative Spell merely increases the DC and helps get past SR, so I doubt they will have any FAQ related to its interaction with metamagic and item creation. [No, it doesnt let you and a buddy cast metamagic you normally couldnt.] Metamagic Spell Trigger is about using items, not making them. So, I dont get your point there either.) Look, do you want items that powerful at low costs in your game? If so, dont bother asking or looking to see what the actual rulings are. Have a good time, but stop telling other people that your ruling is correct.
General_Ridley 03-06-07, 06:03 PM	sudden maximize works perfectly with this. dracomortis: cooperative item creation works. You can supply the spells and stuff, and someone else can have the feat. I'd have to read up on the specifics, though.
Squirrelloid 03-06-07, 08:10 PM	So, since they placed this somewhere you dont approve of, it is meaningless? No, the FAQ is not rules. It is an explanation of them. You can decide it isnt worth paying attention to and end up with absurdly underpriced items, but youre problems will be your own. First, that *actively changes the rules*, because a different conclusion is derived without it. Therefore, it is an errata, and should be there. My complaint is I had no reason to know about it because its not located *anywhere in the rules*. I'll accept it as moderately legitimate, but its in the wrong place. Basically, why would I ever think to go looking in the FAQ for a rules change? I read all the errata - because I want to know how the rules are changing. I don't read the FAQ because I don't need help interpreting the rules as they are written. This is why the FAQ should not contain rules changes. First-level characters wielding and using items that powerful is reason enough to interpret the rules this way. Balance is not a reason to make interpretations that are not supported by the rules. It *is* a reason to *change* the rules. (ie, errata). Its not like there aren't large enough holes in the rules to drive trucks through... How much? Divine Metamagic is already there in the FAQ. The example they use is an Empowered Flamestrike and they specifically say it is priced as a sixth-level spell. As in, specifically as DMM relates to crafting? Again, I wouldn't know - that's a *change in the rules* that should have been in the errata, because using the rules as published (+errata) you reach a totally different conclusion. (Cooperative Spell merely increases the DC and helps get past SR, so I doubt they will have any FAQ related to its interaction with metamagic and item creation. [No, it doesnt let you and a buddy cast metamagic you normally couldnt.] Metamagic Spell Trigger is about using items, not making them. So, I dont get your point there either.) Cooperative MM is not Cooperative Spell. Its available to Incantatrix and lets you add metamagic to your buddy's spell as he casts it. I direct you to PGtF. So, to craft an item you need to cast the spell each day you are crafting it. You could (theoretically) do so using a wand or staff to provide the spell. At which point metamagic spelltrigger allows you to add one or more metamagic effects to the spell as you cast it. Look, do you want items that powerful at low costs in your game? If so, dont bother asking or looking to see what the actual rulings are. Have a good time, but stop telling other people that your ruling is correct. Its not a question of want, its a question of *what the rules say*. (And apparently an issue of WotC making *rules changes* in the FAQ, where no reasonable person would look for them.) And if you'd read all the posts I think you'd find that it has already been pointed out that using Sudden Maximize would not lower the cost of the item. It seems to me I was responding directly to that post. Therefore, we were discussing Sudden Maximizes effect on item costs. Besides, you didn't say "use Sudden Maximize to cast CLW". You said "cast a Maximized CLW". If you want to be understood, use the proper nomenclature. Sudden Maximize results in you casting a Maximized CLW (or whatever). Therefore there is nothing wrong with my terminology. Especially as it was the third (or more) post in a series of posts *referring to each other* where Sudden Maximize was the topic of discussion. Face it, the "Sage" (I use quotes here to denote sarcasm) screwed up. He made a mistake. Regardless, I agree with you here.
Fencerboy 03-06-07, 09:38 PM	Anyone ever heard the saying "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"? Applicable.
johnkretzer 03-06-07, 10:56 PM	They fixed it.
RavingDork 03-06-07, 11:02 PM	They fixed it. YAY!
Seeker95 03-07-07, 08:42 AM	I'll bet they would have fixed it just as willingly if the mistake had been pointed out without the condescension and insult.
Puca 03-07-07, 08:45 AM	First, that *actively changes the rules*, because a different conclusion is derived without it. Therefore, it is an errata, and should be there.I tend to agree. We probably have the same standard about what should be errata and what should be FAQ, but neither of us work at WotC, and they follow a different one. Balance is not a reason to make interpretations that are not supported by the rules. It *is* a reason to *change* the rules. (ie, errata). Its not like there aren't large enough holes in the rules to drive trucks through...Its a reason to look. I mean, when a player comes to you and has a scroll for a Maximized, Empowered, Twinned, Admixtured, Burning Hands costing 25 gp, I think its nuts and try to find something that supports the conclusion. As in, specifically as DMM relates to crafting? Again, I wouldn't know - that's a *change in the rules* that should have been in the errata, because using the rules as published (+errata) you reach a totally different conclusion.Well, now you know. You can complain that WotC has a way of distributing information that you dont approve of, but for crissake now you know. And, I never reached that conclusion. The pricing guidelines are supposed to reflect value, and a maximized spell is more valuable than regular one. By how much is pretty clear. Cooperative MM is not Cooperative Spell. Its available to Incantatrix and lets you add metamagic to your buddy's spell as he casts it. I direct you to PGtF.Now I know. So, to craft an item you need to cast the spell each day you are crafting it. You could (theoretically) do so using a wand or staff to provide the spell. At which point metamagic spelltrigger allows you to add one or more metamagic effects to the spell as you cast it.And the principle that a metamagiced item is more valuable than a non-metamagiced item still stands. If it is more valuable it needs to cost more, whether the PCs are crafting it or buying it. This is not a crafting game where players try to reduce costs and increase profits. It is an adventure game where wealth (based on real value) is inherently connected to balance. Its not a question of want, its a question of *what the rules say*. (And apparently an issue of WotC making *rules changes* in the FAQ, where no reasonable person would look for them.)No reasonable person looks? Now that you know that they do things this way, does it seem more reasonable? It seems to me I was responding directly to that post. Therefore, we were discussing Sudden Maximizes effect on item costs.It seems to me that you were putting something forward that was obviously a loophole and a trick that would result in a balance issue. It seems to me that arguing that the information closing that loophole was in a place you didnt think to look doesnt make that less erroneous.
RavingDork 03-07-07, 10:49 AM	I'll bet they would have fixed it just as willingly if the mistake had been pointed out without the condescension and insult. One can hope that the added condescension and insult will give them reason to better keep track of their later projects more accurately. You've never heard of negative reinforcement? You know, like spanking a child who tries to stick a fork in an outlet so that he never does it again? It is there responsibility to do their jobs properly just as it is my responsibility as a consumer (an active one at that*) to complain when they screw up their products and services. Oh well, normally I'm not a WotC basher. I really love the things they've done to my hobby. It's just that I see this kind of serious rules mistake by the game designers several times a week now. :( It's beginning to worry me. I guess that just means I have no life. :weep: * unlike some of those ripped pdf/free srd mongrels who hurt the RPG business, but still call themselves roleplayers. :mad:
Seeker95 03-07-07, 11:55 AM	just as it is my responsibility as a consumer to complain when they screw up their products and services.com·plain –verb (used without object) to express dissatisfaction, pain, uneasiness, censure, resentment, or grief; find fault: He complained constantly about the noise in the corridor. in·sult –verb (used with object) 1. to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront. I don't see the connection between complaining (a consumer right and perhaps even responsibility) and insulting (a character flaw) Your posts on other topics indicate you are not normally prone to insulting people.
Loki5654 03-07-07, 12:03 PM	I'm glad they fixed it. But would have been so hard for them to have an admission of a mistake? A little footnote saying "The Sage had a minor mess up. Thanks to XXXXX from YYYYY for correcting us!"?
cwslyclgh 03-07-07, 12:12 PM	But would have been so hard for them to have an admission of a mistake?IMO the fact that they fixed it was admission of the mistake... A little footnote saying "The Sage had a minor mess up. Thanks to XXXXX from YYYYY for correcting us!"?and why should they thank people who are insulting them and being rude... it might be one thing if somebody made a nice post to the boards, or sent them an email saying "I think you made a mistake here and this is why" but it is altogether another think when somebody starts a post ASK WIZARDS dumber then dirt, and the posts get more insulting from there.
RavingDork 03-07-07, 12:26 PM	...I don't see the connection between complaining (a consumer right and perhaps even responsibility) and insulting (a character flaw)... You are absolutley right. My apologizies to all for my prior conduct. :embarrass
ravenshrike 03-07-07, 12:35 PM	It's not like it's particularly broken. The average amount of healing from a wand of CMW is 12. 3(cl) + 4(die 1) + 5(die 2). The amount of healing from a maximized clw would be 9. This means that the cmw wand is actually the better value as you're getting an extra third in value while the price is only going up a quarter. 12/9 vs 3750/3000. Or 1.3334 vs 1.25. As for casting with a lower caster level than the spell requires, think of it as changing the clock speed of a computer. The default is the normal needed to cast the spell, whereas if you take the time to learn, you can overclock it, or if you want to reduce wear you can underclock it.
Edymnion 03-07-07, 12:50 PM	Maybe the Sage just made a mistake. You've done that once or twice yourself, right?Except that, as the official spokesman for the company, who's ruling is considered official, he's not allowed to make a mistake. But he does. Constantly. As far as I can tell, nobody double checks his rulings, he doesn't appear to double check his rulings, and I have not seen evidence of so much as a human spellchecker that reads over his stuff before it gets slapped up as official material. As such, official stamp or no, The Sage is an unreliable source. He is no better than anybody on these boards when it comes to making a rules call. He answers with every bit as much of personal opinion and bias as anybody else on the boards, and screws up just about the same amount. Honestly, until we get a "Sage Council" where there are several people having to agree on an answer before it gets put out, all Sage responces should include a disclaimer at the bottom of every article. "The preceeding statement is for entertainment purposes only. It should not be take as rules clarification or correction. Do not operate heavy machinery while reading Sage responces until you know how it will affect you."
Loki5654 03-07-07, 01:07 PM	and why should they thank people who are insulting them and being rude... it might be one thing if somebody made a nice post to the boards, or sent them an email saying "I think you made a mistake here and this is why" but it is altogether another think when somebody starts a post ASK WIZARDS dumber then dirt, and the posts get more insulting from there. I, for one, did send them a nicely worded e-mail asking if it was a mistake or not. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'm not saying people hould seek recognition for pointing out the Sage's mistakes, but Wizards should have a little respect for the community in a "We appreciate your help" sort of way.
ArcTan 03-07-07, 02:05 PM	* unlike some of those ripped pdf/free srd mongrels who hurt the RPG business, but still call themselves roleplayers. :mad: You have a point about .PDFs, but "free SRD mongrels"? C'mon. WotC puts out a free SRD for a good reason. It means that you can drag other people along into playing D&D with you without having to convince them to drop $30 on a PHB, sight unseen, for a game they may not even like, and once they get hooked they start to want to buy splatbooks and expansions and stuff.
ArcTan 03-07-07, 02:07 PM	By the way... One can hope that the added condescension and insult will give them reason to better keep track of their later projects more accurately. You've never heard of negative reinforcement? You know, like spanking a child who tries to stick a fork in an outlet so that he never does it again? You realize that when someone *isn't* your kid and *isn't* forced to live in your house with you, this kind of "negative reinforcement" usually amounts to negatively reinforcing interacting with you at all, not the thing you were trying to negatively reinforce, right?
Seeker95 03-07-07, 02:18 PM	but Wizards should have a little respect for the community in a "We appreciate your help" sort of way.They showed respect: they corrected the mistake. My apologies to all for my prior conduct.:tiphat: and :bow:
Loki5654 03-07-07, 02:29 PM	They showed respect: they corrected the mistake. I don't really see that as showing respect. I see that as showing accountability. Showing respect would involve apologizing for the mistake and giving credit where credit is due to those who politely pointed out the mistake.
Fencerboy 03-07-07, 02:31 PM	Hey, guess what?! They answered another question, and, you know what?! It was correct!!! OMG!!! And they've been posting correct info for the life of the collumn!! Pretty much everything correct for a long time!! WOW, congratulations, WotC!!
Fencerboy 03-07-07, 02:33 PM	I don't really see that as showing respect. I see that as showing accountability. Showing respect would involve apologizing for the mistake and giving credit where credit is due to those who politely pointed out the mistake. Well, Loki, who would need the info? We all know that you told them, and the "countless others" who "probably" also alerted them to their minor error are probably at home now, sitting on :cloud9: with the thought that they helped WotC, and not feeling the need for recognition.
Loki5654 03-07-07, 02:54 PM	Well, Loki, who would need the info? We all know that you told them, and the "countless others" who "probably" also alerted them to their minor error are probably at home now, sitting on :cloud9: with the thought that they helped WotC, and not feeling the need for recognition. How nice of you to try and turn this into a personal attack. I'm not looking for personal recognition, I'm looking for Wizards to admit their mistake (instead of just making it disappear like it never happened) and for them to recognize that it was our community as a whole that caught the mistake and led to its correction. Please try not to make assumptions about my personal motivations. If you'd like to know why I am doing something, feel free to PM me and ask. Otherwise, your assumption looks like a personal attack.
Fencerboy 03-07-07, 03:02 PM	I meant no offense, and certainly wasn't trying to attack you personally, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way to you. However, what would you like them to do to notify the community that they were wrong and someone corrected them? And what would that do for the image of The Sage, let alone the company?
Loki5654 03-07-07, 03:13 PM	I meant no offense, and certainly wasn't trying to attack you personally, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way to you. Apology accepted. Thank you. However, what would you like them to do to notify the community that they were wrong and someone corrected them? "As you can see, even the Sage makes a mistake from time to time. Thanks to all the members of the Wizards.Community who pointed out the small error." Admission of culpability and a nod of gratitude to the fans. And what would that do for the image of The Sage, let alone the company? It would show that they actually listen to consumer feedback and are in touch with their fanbase.
Seeker95 03-07-07, 04:52 PM	It would show that they actually listen to consumer feedback and are in touch with their fanbase.Fixing the mistake is evidence that they listen to their fanbase. If you need more proof or evidence, that's your problem, not theirs.
Loki5654 03-07-07, 05:18 PM	Fixing the mistake is evidence that they listen to their fanbase. If you need more proof or evidence, that's your problem, not theirs. No. Not really. All it is is evidence that someone corrected the mistake. I just think they should 'fess up to it. As it stands now, no evidence exists that the answer was wrong in the first place.
Solik 03-07-07, 06:07 PM	Why should they give into ego trips amidst insults? Honestly. Respect is a two-way street.
Seeker95 03-07-07, 08:41 PM	As it stands now, no evidence exists that the answer was wrong in the first place.The miracle of the Internet. And the reason there is no need for an apology.
Mark_Constantino 03-07-07, 09:53 PM	The answer to all the questions here is this: The actual creator of the wand is high enough level to use 4th level spells, could be 20th level whatever, or even the minimum 7th level. The minimum price to create the wand is based on a minimum caster level of 1 and a minimum spell level of 4, and thus the Sage is correct in pricing it at 750 X 1 X 4, or 3000 gp. In other words, you could make a wand of Cure Moderate wounds which heals 2d8 + 3 damage as compared to 1d8 maximized + 1, without the metamagic feat for 4500 gold that is comparable in price and in effect to what is being described with a maximized CLW wand. 21000 gp for a wand that heals 9 per charge is ridiculously overpriced when a wand that heals 5 minimum and 12 average per charge is only 4500 gp. All of you here ranting and raving about a supposed mistake by WoTC look ridiculous and your knee-jerk reactions make you look bad.
WizO_Cat 03-07-07, 11:09 PM	Ok, since it looks like the thread might start to get personal, I think it's time to close it. Besides, the mistake that was there (there's proof from a WizO - yeah, I saw the mistake earlier and now I've seen that it is now fixed) has been fixed. Problem identified and solved. Time to move along ...