Cross posted from the Eberron magic board -- Eternal Wands of Cure Light Wounds? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Cross posted from the Eberron magic board -- Eternal Wands of Cure Light Wounds? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
JulesCARV
05-29-06, 06:03 PM I wasn't able to get a solid answer (or rather, I got too many solid answers) on this in my thread in the Magic, Deities, and Cosmology of Eberron forum (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=643371), so I thought I'd ask for more opinions here.

Anyway, I was wondering about the price, or possibility, of an Eternal Wand of Cure Light Wounds.

Eternal Wands are arcane only, and the arcane caster capable of casting cure spells, the bard, doesn't get 1st level spells until 2nd class level, and her caster level is equal to her class levels.

As such, it seems that an artificer, faking being a bard, cannot create a spell level 1, caster level 1 Eternal Wand of Cure Light Wounds, since a bard's minimum caster level for cure light wounds is 2.

I see four possible responses to this:

1) Ban the eternal wand of cure light wounds. The 820 gp price for an eternal wands is for spell level 1, caster level 1. There is no price for spell level 1, caster level 2, they don't exist, and eternal wands of CLW don't exist either.

2) Allow a caster level 1 arcane spell of cure light wounds, even though there are really no classes that can cast CL 1 cure light wounds.

3) Allow a caster level 2 arcane spell of cure light wounds, for 820 gp, even though that gives an extra free point of healing.

4) Use what most believe to be the "implicit formula" of eternal wand pricing: (Caster Level x Spell Level x 720) + 100. As such, an Eternal Wand of Cure Light Wounds would cost 1540 gp.

Thoughts?
ManTimeForgot
05-29-06, 06:25 PM This is just the same thing as the "stone of cure light wounds" thing from 3.0 "way back when." 1k for infinite cure light wounds (even 1.5k as you suggest it might be) is frankly no where near what this item should cost.

Unlimited healing with any kind of reasonable healing amount (i.e. it can heal more often than once every 5 minutes or something) is VERY powerful. There is a reason why the Dragon Shaman has the limitations that it does.

The eternal wand invalidates an entire class' purpose in one swift move. An entire class should not be duplicatable for 800 or even 1.5k.

If I remember from way back when people suggested unlimited cure light wounds would be worth 50k. And I'll tell you what that might even be a bargain as far as I am concerned, especially if everybody "chips in" towards its purchase.

MTF
JulesCARV
05-29-06, 06:45 PM BTW, it's only usable twice per day.
Nom
05-30-06, 07:26 AM Very rarely is an X/day item problematic compared to a wand with the same spell. Unlimited or continuous items are a completely different issue, but not what is being discussed here.

In the case of an artificer duplicating a bard spell, the minimum caster level of a 1st level bard spell is 2, so he must duplicate it as if a CL 2, SL 1 spell effect. Of course, it might actually only take effect at CL 1 (as per ECS pg 32), but it must nonetheless be priced as if at least CL 2.
Rochlar
05-30-06, 12:15 PM just a point, but if you give up on the wand idea and just go for a generic unslotted item of infinite cure light wounds, its only 3,600gp by the rules in the back of the DMG (math follows).

command word activated item: spell level x caster level x 1800gp x 2 (unslotted items cost double)

1 x 1 x 1800 x 2 = 3600gp (made by a lvl 1 cleric with craft wondrous item)

thingy with a button in it that trips a cure light effect.

btw, it has no limit on uses per day, and requires no UMD checks like the wands do.
Thelon Fairblade
05-30-06, 01:06 PM Any spellcaster can voluntarily cast a spell with less caster level than his maximum. A 10th level cleric can cast CLW at caster level 1, if he chose. So a 2nd level bard can cast CLW at caster level 1.

Therefore, the artificer would have to emulate a "Bard 2", but could then create a "caster level 1" CLW device.

By the same token, if divine Eternal Wands were allowed, he could emulate a "Paladin 4" to create a "caster level 1" Lesser Restoration (a 1st level spell on the paladin list)...
JulesCARV
05-30-06, 02:54 PM Thelon, I don't believe that bit about casters being able to create items with a lower caster level than the minimum needed to cast the spell. CL 1 Scroll of Regenerate for 175 gp? Doubtful. With existing items, caster level is never below the minimum level needed to cast the spell. I.e., phantasmal killer is a 700 gp scroll at 7th CL, 4th SL, not a 100 gp scroll at 1st CL.

Anyway, Rochlar, IMHO the DMG item creation guidelines shouldn't be taken too literally, I think. They're basically for when you can't find an existing item that serves your purposes. I can, though: an eternal wand, so I think it would be an abuse of the spirit of the rules to make a better version. If I were the DM (which I'm not), I wouldn't approve it.

Nom, what do you refer to on ECS pg 32? Also, how to price a CL 2, SL 1 Eternal Wand of CLW: 820 gp? 1540 gp?
Rochlar
05-30-06, 04:37 PM while i generally agree that the item creation rules cannot be trusted as a rule, in this case, i think they work out nicely. if we use your higher price, my item from the dmg is almost 2000gp more than that. and the only benifit is that you dont need spellcasting/UMD to use it. again, i agree about those guidlines as a rule, but i think in this case they work rather well.
starfire311
05-30-06, 05:08 PM while i generally agree that the item creation rules cannot be trusted as a rule, in this case, i think they work out nicely. if we use your higher price, my item from the dmg is almost 2000gp more than that. and the only benifit is that you dont need spellcasting/UMD to use it. again, i agree about those guidlines as a rule, but i think in this case they work rather well.
You think it works well in this case... you honestly think that an item that supplies endless healing(graneted it only heals 1D8+1 HP per 6 seconds) is only worth 3.6k gp. I think you need to rethink this... IMo an item like this would be worth far more than that... I would price it in the 50k+ catagory maybe even much higher than 50k.
aelryinth
05-30-06, 05:28 PM Rochlar is forgetting the primary rule of Item creation guidelines...namely that the Math guidelines are SECONDARY.

The first thing you go do is look for a similar item, and price accordingly.

The closest thing you have to an infinite cure light wounds item is a RIng of Regeneration.

There's your baseline. Cough up 90k to start with

I believe it's been mentioned elsewhere that fast healing/1 is worth 50k. CLW is about equal to fast healing/6, except you can spread it around...so you are looking at around 300k minimum.

==Aelryinth
__DnD4Life__
05-30-06, 05:51 PM Any spellcaster can voluntarily cast a spell with less caster level than his maximum. A 10th level cleric can cast CLW at caster level 1, if he chose. So a 2nd level bard can cast CLW at caster level 1.

Therefore, the artificer would have to emulate a "Bard 2", but could then create a "caster level 1" CLW device.

I dont believe this is correct. I would allow a caster to lower his CL to craft an item, but if he lowered it too much, he would lose access to that spell's level, and thus would be unable to cast it. Otherwise you would have wands of True Res for only (SL 9 * CL 1 * 750) 6750GP compared to (SL 9 * CL 17 * 750) 114750. A difference of 108000GP. This is Really too low.

And, back to the discussion at hand, an infinite wand is, as the OP said, only useable 2/day, so it's price would be (SL 1 * CL 2 * 750 * 2/5) 600GP, for 1d8+2 healing 2x per day. Not overpowered in the least.
Karak_Nechot
05-30-06, 06:16 PM You cannot drop a caster level below a point that makes it impossible for that class to cast the spell.

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.

This is stated in the DMG on page 282 as well.

I would go with the choice 4 for a price of 1540 gp. I think that makes the most sense by the retroactive formula that works perfectly for all other eternal wands. However, it should be noted that, technically, the eternal wand of cure light wounds heals 1d8+2 (because of the CL) with each use.

I don't see a reason to ban eternal wand of cure light wounds effectively because it's effectively dependent on a bard's spell list; I think artificers would be just as likely to make them as any other wand, as would any item creating bard. But I also feel that it should be at least a little more costly because it's using eternal wands in a way that was not initially concieved. 1540 gp makes it a solid buy, but not one that would be overpowered in the game.
Neratos
05-30-06, 06:31 PM You know, that an artificer can craft an item 2 lvls earlier than possible. There is an example that an artificer can craft a wand of fireball, with a CL of only 3.
Vaalingrade Ashland
05-30-06, 06:36 PM Rochlar is forgetting the primary rule of Item creation guidelines...namely that the Math guidelines are SECONDARY.

The first thing you go do is look for a similar item, and price accordingly.
Unfortunately, most 3.5 base items are insanely over priced. Look at wings of flying and slippers of spiderclimb, for example.
Karak_Nechot
05-30-06, 06:44 PM That doesn't make a difference, though. No artificer can make an eternal wand until 6th level, anyways. By then, the lowest CL that can be attained is CL 2.
Nom
05-30-06, 07:51 PM Nom, what do you refer to on ECS pg 32?ECS pg 32 states that an artificer can treat his caster level as +2 greater than normal for the purpose of meeting item pre-reqs. The example given is that a CL 3 artificer can create a CL 5 wand of fireball. The rules further state that although the price and pre-reqs are based on the effective CL, and CL-based effects use the original CL. Thus, a CL 5 wand of fireball created by a 3rd level artificer only functions as if CL 3 (and does 3d6 damage, for example).

This is an explicit exception to the normal rules (see Karak's post above) which prevent CL being lower than the minimum class level required to cast the spell.
Also, how to price a CL 2, SL 1 Eternal Wand of CLW: 820 gp? 1540 gp?Not having access to eternal wand rules, I'd price it as per any unlimited use spell trigger item: 1500 * CL * SL * uses/5. The 1500 is derived from reversing the normal rule which halves the price of an "unlimited" item with 50 charges.
tiercel
05-30-06, 10:33 PM One could, presumably, sidestep the controversy altogether by instead making/buying/using normal wands of lesser vigor (Complete Divine, Spell Compendium). 11 points of healing per charge. Best used out of combat, sure, but then items of CLW generally are.

Now let's do a comparison, assuming the 1540gp price for the eternal wand:

1) Two wands of lesser vigor. 1500gp market price. 1100 total healing.

2) Eternal wand of CLW. 1540gp market price. Two uses of d8+2 per day gives an average of 13 healing per combat day -- that it can be used every day doesn't matter if you don't take damage on a given day. After 85 combat days, you have achieved 1105 healing for almost the same price and are finally approaching the efficiency of the LV wands.
This simple cost analysis would indicate, at least from a purchasing perspective, that it would be rational to buy the eternal wand only if you could reasonably expect at least 85 combat-days in your party's future.

To get some idea of what this means, let's assume the Core guidelines of 13 encounters per level, 4 encounters per day are actually used. This means 3-4 combat days per level. (Note that if you use 6-8 higher-EL encounters per level at 2 encounters per day, you get the same result.)

If this analysis is not completely crazy, it means you need to be using the eternal wand for over 20 levels to get the same "healing per unit gold" efficiency as those normal LV wands.

Even if you are in a markedly-different-than-Core campaign where it takes much longer to level (say, 7 combat days per level), you need to be using the eternal wand for 12 levels for it to pay off.

In summary, in *most* campaigns where lesser vigor is allowed, it is not cost-effective to buy an eternal wand of CLW compared to two normal wands of lesser vigor. (Plus, you get to avoid the potential rules headache of how or if such an eternal wand should work.)

Whether this is more of a commentary upon eternal wands or upon lesser vigor is left as an exercise for the reader.

Ceterum censeo katanam esse disputandum.
Rochlar
05-31-06, 12:23 AM first off, i hadnt seen the post about 2/day, and i believe that 1500-3600gp is way too much for that kind of effect.

... you honestly think that an item that supplies endless healing(graneted it only heals 1D8+1 HP per 6 seconds) is only worth 3.6k gp.

my point was that it was more expensive to make the item with the formula from the DMG, and that didnt require bending any rules (like trying to guess the price for a wand that only exists for 1st level spells when you have a second level spell). that was all.

as another note, i dont think this wand is all that usefull to the kind of group that can afford it, 8th level or higher (i say that high of a level because nobody will get the wand instead of an extra +1 on a weapon or armor). sure, it supplies out-of-combat recuperation, but so does a wand of vigor, and for less money in the long run (most of the time).
Thelon Fairblade
06-02-06, 11:18 AM From Karak's quote:
Originally Posted by SRD
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.

It does not say anything about minimum CLASS level to cast the needed spell. CLW is a Level 1 spell, and requires a CL of 1. IF a sorcerer 6 made a wand of Fireballs, it could indeed be CL 5, the minimum necessary to cast an SL 3 spell...
tarkin
06-02-06, 11:51 AM That is incorrect, Thelon.

It is in fact minimum level of a class that you can cast.

This is easily determinable by looking at the base pricing for ranger and paladin wands. The minimum caster level for a Ranger or a Bard casting a first level spell is 2. When a Ranger or a Bard makes a wand of a first level spell, he starts uses that a caster level of 2, for a base price of 1,500.

This price is the same whether he is making a spell that is ranger/bard only or a spell such as CLW, that a Cleric can cast using a caster level of 1.

Similarly, the base price for a 2nd level wand created by a Sorceror is 6,000 gp, not the 4,500 for a Cleric/Druid/Wizard.
Vaalingrade Ashland
06-02-06, 12:31 PM Seems like a scam to keep rangers from making magic items to me. It makes no sense economically that you'd have to pay more for a ranger's item than the same item made by a druid.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JulesCARV 05-29-06, 06:03 PM	I wasn't able to get a solid answer (or rather, I got too many solid answers) on this in my thread in the Magic, Deities, and Cosmology of Eberron forum (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=643371), so I thought I'd ask for more opinions here. Anyway, I was wondering about the price, or possibility, of an Eternal Wand of Cure Light Wounds. Eternal Wands are arcane only, and the arcane caster capable of casting cure spells, the bard, doesn't get 1st level spells until 2nd class level, and her caster level is equal to her class levels. As such, it seems that an artificer, faking being a bard, cannot create a spell level 1, caster level 1 Eternal Wand of Cure Light Wounds, since a bard's minimum caster level for cure light wounds is 2. I see four possible responses to this: 1) Ban the eternal wand of cure light wounds. The 820 gp price for an eternal wands is for spell level 1, caster level 1. There is no price for spell level 1, caster level 2, they don't exist, and eternal wands of CLW don't exist either. 2) Allow a caster level 1 arcane spell of cure light wounds, even though there are really no classes that can cast CL 1 cure light wounds. 3) Allow a caster level 2 arcane spell of cure light wounds, for 820 gp, even though that gives an extra free point of healing. 4) Use what most believe to be the "implicit formula" of eternal wand pricing: (Caster Level x Spell Level x 720) + 100. As such, an Eternal Wand of Cure Light Wounds would cost 1540 gp. Thoughts?
ManTimeForgot 05-29-06, 06:25 PM	This is just the same thing as the "stone of cure light wounds" thing from 3.0 "way back when." 1k for infinite cure light wounds (even 1.5k as you suggest it might be) is frankly no where near what this item should cost. Unlimited healing with any kind of reasonable healing amount (i.e. it can heal more often than once every 5 minutes or something) is VERY powerful. There is a reason why the Dragon Shaman has the limitations that it does. The eternal wand invalidates an entire class' purpose in one swift move. An entire class should not be duplicatable for 800 or even 1.5k. If I remember from way back when people suggested unlimited cure light wounds would be worth 50k. And I'll tell you what that might even be a bargain as far as I am concerned, especially if everybody "chips in" towards its purchase. MTF
JulesCARV 05-29-06, 06:45 PM	BTW, it's only usable twice per day.
Nom 05-30-06, 07:26 AM	Very rarely is an X/day item problematic compared to a wand with the same spell. Unlimited or continuous items are a completely different issue, but not what is being discussed here. In the case of an artificer duplicating a bard spell, the minimum caster level of a 1st level bard spell is 2, so he must duplicate it as if a CL 2, SL 1 spell effect. Of course, it might actually only take effect at CL 1 (as per ECS pg 32), but it must nonetheless be priced as if at least CL 2.
Rochlar 05-30-06, 12:15 PM	just a point, but if you give up on the wand idea and just go for a generic unslotted item of infinite cure light wounds, its only 3,600gp by the rules in the back of the DMG (math follows). command word activated item: spell level x caster level x 1800gp x 2 (unslotted items cost double) 1 x 1 x 1800 x 2 = 3600gp (made by a lvl 1 cleric with craft wondrous item) thingy with a button in it that trips a cure light effect. btw, it has no limit on uses per day, and requires no UMD checks like the wands do.
Thelon Fairblade 05-30-06, 01:06 PM	Any spellcaster can voluntarily cast a spell with less caster level than his maximum. A 10th level cleric can cast CLW at caster level 1, if he chose. So a 2nd level bard can cast CLW at caster level 1. Therefore, the artificer would have to emulate a "Bard 2", but could then create a "caster level 1" CLW device. By the same token, if divine Eternal Wands were allowed, he could emulate a "Paladin 4" to create a "caster level 1" Lesser Restoration (a 1st level spell on the paladin list)...
JulesCARV 05-30-06, 02:54 PM	Thelon, I don't believe that bit about casters being able to create items with a lower caster level than the minimum needed to cast the spell. CL 1 Scroll of Regenerate for 175 gp? Doubtful. With existing items, caster level is never below the minimum level needed to cast the spell. I.e., phantasmal killer is a 700 gp scroll at 7th CL, 4th SL, not a 100 gp scroll at 1st CL. Anyway, Rochlar, IMHO the DMG item creation guidelines shouldn't be taken too literally, I think. They're basically for when you can't find an existing item that serves your purposes. I can, though: an eternal wand, so I think it would be an abuse of the spirit of the rules to make a better version. If I were the DM (which I'm not), I wouldn't approve it. Nom, what do you refer to on ECS pg 32? Also, how to price a CL 2, SL 1 Eternal Wand of CLW: 820 gp? 1540 gp?
Rochlar 05-30-06, 04:37 PM	while i generally agree that the item creation rules cannot be trusted as a rule, in this case, i think they work out nicely. if we use your higher price, my item from the dmg is almost 2000gp more than that. and the only benifit is that you dont need spellcasting/UMD to use it. again, i agree about those guidlines as a rule, but i think in this case they work rather well.
starfire311 05-30-06, 05:08 PM	while i generally agree that the item creation rules cannot be trusted as a rule, in this case, i think they work out nicely. if we use your higher price, my item from the dmg is almost 2000gp more than that. and the only benifit is that you dont need spellcasting/UMD to use it. again, i agree about those guidlines as a rule, but i think in this case they work rather well. You think it works well in this case... you honestly think that an item that supplies endless healing(graneted it only heals 1D8+1 HP per 6 seconds) is only worth 3.6k gp. I think you need to rethink this... IMo an item like this would be worth far more than that... I would price it in the 50k+ catagory maybe even much higher than 50k.
aelryinth 05-30-06, 05:28 PM	Rochlar is forgetting the primary rule of Item creation guidelines...namely that the Math guidelines are SECONDARY. The first thing you go do is look for a similar item, and price accordingly. The closest thing you have to an infinite cure light wounds item is a RIng of Regeneration. There's your baseline. Cough up 90k to start with I believe it's been mentioned elsewhere that fast healing/1 is worth 50k. CLW is about equal to fast healing/6, except you can spread it around...so you are looking at around 300k minimum. ==Aelryinth
__DnD4Life__ 05-30-06, 05:51 PM	Any spellcaster can voluntarily cast a spell with less caster level than his maximum. A 10th level cleric can cast CLW at caster level 1, if he chose. So a 2nd level bard can cast CLW at caster level 1. Therefore, the artificer would have to emulate a "Bard 2", but could then create a "caster level 1" CLW device. I dont believe this is correct. I would allow a caster to lower his CL to craft an item, but if he lowered it too much, he would lose access to that spell's level, and thus would be unable to cast it. Otherwise you would have wands of True Res for only (SL 9 * CL 1 * 750) 6750GP compared to (SL 9 * CL 17 * 750) 114750. A difference of 108000GP. This is Really too low. And, back to the discussion at hand, an infinite wand is, as the OP said, only useable 2/day, so it's price would be (SL 1 * CL 2 * 750 * 2/5) 600GP, for 1d8+2 healing 2x per day. Not overpowered in the least.
Karak_Nechot 05-30-06, 06:16 PM	You cannot drop a caster level below a point that makes it impossible for that class to cast the spell. 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. This is stated in the DMG on page 282 as well. I would go with the choice 4 for a price of 1540 gp. I think that makes the most sense by the retroactive formula that works perfectly for all other eternal wands. However, it should be noted that, technically, the eternal wand of cure light wounds heals 1d8+2 (because of the CL) with each use. I don't see a reason to ban eternal wand of cure light wounds effectively because it's effectively dependent on a bard's spell list; I think artificers would be just as likely to make them as any other wand, as would any item creating bard. But I also feel that it should be at least a little more costly because it's using eternal wands in a way that was not initially concieved. 1540 gp makes it a solid buy, but not one that would be overpowered in the game.
Neratos 05-30-06, 06:31 PM	You know, that an artificer can craft an item 2 lvls earlier than possible. There is an example that an artificer can craft a wand of fireball, with a CL of only 3.
Vaalingrade Ashland 05-30-06, 06:36 PM	Rochlar is forgetting the primary rule of Item creation guidelines...namely that the Math guidelines are SECONDARY. The first thing you go do is look for a similar item, and price accordingly. Unfortunately, most 3.5 base items are insanely over priced. Look at wings of flying and slippers of spiderclimb, for example.
Karak_Nechot 05-30-06, 06:44 PM	That doesn't make a difference, though. No artificer can make an eternal wand until 6th level, anyways. By then, the lowest CL that can be attained is CL 2.
Nom 05-30-06, 07:51 PM	Nom, what do you refer to on ECS pg 32?ECS pg 32 states that an artificer can treat his caster level as +2 greater than normal for the purpose of meeting item pre-reqs. The example given is that a CL 3 artificer can create a CL 5 wand of fireball. The rules further state that although the price and pre-reqs are based on the effective CL, and CL-based effects use the original CL. Thus, a CL 5 wand of fireball created by a 3rd level artificer only functions as if CL 3 (and does 3d6 damage, for example). This is an explicit exception to the normal rules (see Karak's post above) which prevent CL being lower than the minimum class level required to cast the spell. Also, how to price a CL 2, SL 1 Eternal Wand of CLW: 820 gp? 1540 gp?Not having access to eternal wand rules, I'd price it as per any unlimited use spell trigger item: 1500 * CL * SL * uses/5. The 1500 is derived from reversing the normal rule which halves the price of an "unlimited" item with 50 charges.
tiercel 05-30-06, 10:33 PM	One could, presumably, sidestep the controversy altogether by instead making/buying/using normal wands of lesser vigor (Complete Divine, Spell Compendium). 11 points of healing per charge. Best used out of combat, sure, but then items of CLW generally are. Now let's do a comparison, assuming the 1540gp price for the eternal wand: 1) Two wands of lesser vigor. 1500gp market price. 1100 total healing. 2) Eternal wand of CLW. 1540gp market price. Two uses of d8+2 per day gives an average of 13 healing per combat day -- that it can be used every day doesn't matter if you don't take damage on a given day. After 85 combat days, you have achieved 1105 healing for almost the same price and are finally approaching the efficiency of the LV wands. This simple cost analysis would indicate, at least from a purchasing perspective, that it would be rational to buy the eternal wand only if you could reasonably expect at least 85 combat-days in your party's future. To get some idea of what this means, let's assume the Core guidelines of 13 encounters per level, 4 encounters per day are actually used. This means 3-4 combat days per level. (Note that if you use 6-8 higher-EL encounters per level at 2 encounters per day, you get the same result.) If this analysis is not completely crazy, it means you need to be using the eternal wand for over 20 levels to get the same "healing per unit gold" efficiency as those normal LV wands. Even if you are in a markedly-different-than-Core campaign where it takes much longer to level (say, 7 combat days per level), you need to be using the eternal wand for 12 levels for it to pay off. In summary, in most campaigns where lesser vigor is allowed, it is not cost-effective to buy an eternal wand of CLW compared to two normal wands of lesser vigor. (Plus, you get to avoid the potential rules headache of how or if such an eternal wand should work.) Whether this is more of a commentary upon eternal wands or upon lesser vigor is left as an exercise for the reader. Ceterum censeo katanam esse disputandum.
Rochlar 05-31-06, 12:23 AM	first off, i hadnt seen the post about 2/day, and i believe that 1500-3600gp is way too much for that kind of effect. ... you honestly think that an item that supplies endless healing(graneted it only heals 1D8+1 HP per 6 seconds) is only worth 3.6k gp. my point was that it was more expensive to make the item with the formula from the DMG, and that didnt require bending any rules (like trying to guess the price for a wand that only exists for 1st level spells when you have a second level spell). that was all. as another note, i dont think this wand is all that usefull to the kind of group that can afford it, 8th level or higher (i say that high of a level because nobody will get the wand instead of an extra +1 on a weapon or armor). sure, it supplies out-of-combat recuperation, but so does a wand of vigor, and for less money in the long run (most of the time).
Thelon Fairblade 06-02-06, 11:18 AM	From Karak's quote: Originally Posted by SRD 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. It does not say anything about minimum CLASS level to cast the needed spell. CLW is a Level 1 spell, and requires a CL of 1. IF a sorcerer 6 made a wand of Fireballs, it could indeed be CL 5, the minimum necessary to cast an SL 3 spell...
tarkin 06-02-06, 11:51 AM	That is incorrect, Thelon. It is in fact minimum level of a class that you can cast. This is easily determinable by looking at the base pricing for ranger and paladin wands. The minimum caster level for a Ranger or a Bard casting a first level spell is 2. When a Ranger or a Bard makes a wand of a first level spell, he starts uses that a caster level of 2, for a base price of 1,500. This price is the same whether he is making a spell that is ranger/bard only or a spell such as CLW, that a Cleric can cast using a caster level of 1. Similarly, the base price for a 2nd level wand created by a Sorceror is 6,000 gp, not the 4,500 for a Cleric/Druid/Wizard.
Vaalingrade Ashland 06-02-06, 12:31 PM	Seems like a scam to keep rangers from making magic items to me. It makes no sense economically that you'd have to pay more for a ranger's item than the same item made by a druid.