Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 rironin Nov 16, 2007 1:24:28	Few adventuring groups should set off into a nearby dungeon without an essential piece of equipment: the humble wand. Experienced players are quick to realize the economic advantage wands provide. The fifty charges that come in a fully-charged wand are comparatively cheap; if one were to buy scrolls instead of a wand, one would only be able to buy 30 scrolls instead of the wand’s 50 charges. In addition, wands have a few mechanical advantages over scrolls: using them does not provoke attacks of opportunity when threatened, and requires no verbal components. Wands are also less obtrusive and less bulky than an equivalent number of scrolls. So why would someone buy thirty scrolls of a certain spell and caster level when they could buy a wand? There is one thing the scrolls have going for them, which balances out the wands thrifty advantage: versatility. Thirty scrolls could enable a cleric to cast thirty different spells. A clever caster could have thirty different answers to thirty different dangerous situations, and be prepared for almost any eventuality. The same caster with a wand can solve the same problem fifty times, but if something comes up that the wand’s single spell can’t cope with, he’s out of luck. It is this principle of economy versus versatility that makes wands a balanced, useful addition to a spellcaster’s arsenal, and keeps them from being an unbalanced, strictly better alternative to scrolls. When a cleric buys a wand of lesser vigor for 750 gp, he is committing to casting that spell 50 times, and foregoing the versatility his gold may have bought him. This is a no-brainer when it comes to spells like lesser vigor, which are now the low-cost item of choice for out-of-combat healing in most games. Many groups can drain fully-charged healing wands dry in just a few encounters. For most other wands, however, it is far less likely that a caster will find himself draining a fully-charged wand in a single adventure, or even several play sessions. Committing to a fully-charged wand that contains an infrequently used spell is a more difficult choice, and an often times impossible one for low-level PCs. Now I’m getting to my point at last (for those of you who’ve kept reading up to this point, well done): there is a way for low-level PCs to afford wands, and for PCs who want a wand with a less frequently used spell but don’t want to commit to 50 charges to get what they desire. Partially-used wands are the obvious choice, and the rules encourage their availability. Used wands have their cost reduced proportionally to the number of charges remaining; a wand with half of its charges expended costs half the price. Many such wands are listed as treasure in the Magic Item Compendium, which also recommends stocking NPCs with partially used magic items as gear. The idea here is to avoid spending large amounts of the creature’s wealth on a fully-charged wand that might be used three times by the creature in combat, if at all. The problem with partially used wands is that they destroy the balancing factor of economy versus versatility. Unless a player believes that he’ll need to use the same wand 26 times or more in a single adventure away from his home base, it is clearly a better plan to buy two different wands with 25 charges each. The cost will be the same as buying the one wand, but now he has two different spells to choose from. Any unused charges in a given adventure are essentially wasted gold pieces. With a limited amount of wealth to spend, a character will have more wealth to spend on other things if he can buy partially used wands for cheap. So long as he doesn’t run out of charges while he’s in the dungeon, he can come back and buy more partially used wands for the next adventure, and he’ll end up getting all the benefits without making a large investment at any given time. At the extreme end of the scale, things get truly exaggerated. What about a 10 charge wand? Five charges? Three? A three charge wand hardly sacrifices any versatility, and yet is still 40% cheaper than an equivalent number of scrolls. The ultimate example, and the most extreme case, is the wand with only one charge. This is, in fact, strictly better than a scroll in every way. A one-charge wand costs less, casts the same spell, and uses the spell-trigger rather than spell-completion method of activation, making it far safer and easier to use (It should be noted at this point that wizards who scribe scrolls can make them cheaper than they can buy wands, but since this exception deals with a bonus feat granted by a specific class, we’ll leave it aside for this discussion and focus on buying and selling items only). In a world where any partially-used wand is available, a PC should practically always reach for a one-charge wand instead of a scroll. “Hogwash!” many DMs will cry. “You can’t just walk into a store and buy a wand with however many charges you want!” This is a reasonable reaction at first, but one should be careful where this exclamation takes them. Most DMs, myself especially, don’t want to have to deal with deciding whether a particular item is or isn’t available in a given town or city. Arbitrarily deciding whether any wands are available and what is available is a lot of work, and a DM may quickly find himself wondering how to decide whether something is available or not. Players will quickly become frustrated if the DM appears to be barring and allowing various items seemingly on a whim. Barring players from purchasing used wands of any kind is one option, but not only is it a bit extreme, it’s practically impossible to justify. Used wands simply must exist in the game world. Every day in the exciting world of D&D, spellcasters of every size and shape, good and evil, villainous and heroic, die clutching their staves and wands, and more often than not there’s another hero or villain standing over the body with plans to loot it for everything it’s worth. The victor then returns to town, and naturally sells the loot – the PCs surely do this all the time when they find a wand nobody wants. Somebody's selling, somebody's buying. There’s really no way to create a good argument against buying and selling used wands. If you’re like me, and you want to allow players and NPCs alike to carry, buy, and sell used wands, you’re faced with the dilemma outlined above. A player doesn’t have to be a munchkin to want to buy a used wand – it makes economic sense. What doesn’t make economic sense is the current pricing scheme for wands. Why would a merchant sell a one-charge wand for less than a single scroll, when the wand clearly has more value? He wouldn’t! He’d sell it for more, because anyone who wanted it would be willing to pay more than the cost of a scroll for something that’s better than a scroll. Likewise, the economic advantage of a fully-charged wand, which essentially represents buying in bulk, should not be maintained if you only bought 10 charges. A six-pack of soda costs less overall, but more per can, than a 36-pack does. To address this issue, I’ve devised a formula for wand prices that varies the cost per charge depending on the number of charges the wand has. Using this formula, a fully-charged wand costs exactly the same amount as a wand priced using the normal D&D rules. As the number of charges decrease, however, the price does not decrease proportionally, but follows a curve. At the extreme low end, a partially charged wand actually becomes more expensive than an equal number of scrolls of the same spell. This reflects the fact that a wand with just a few charges is barely less versatile than scrolls, and is easier and safer to use in combat. The formula is as follows:
#2 wrecan Nov 20, 2007 11:15:12	Wouldn't it just be easier to say that any wand with less than 10 charges sells at the same price as fifteen scrolls of that spell. The benefits of a wand over a scroll aren't so great that you need to fine tune it. That way used wand prices are as follows: If more than 14 charges: SL x CL x 7.5 x charges (the usual pricing) If less than 15 charges: SL x CL x (22.5 - charges) x charges Now, you only need a pretty simple formula for wands with less than a third of its maximum charges.
#3 rironin Nov 22, 2007 0:40:12	Wouldn't it just be easier to say that any wand with less than 10 charges sells at the same price as fifteen scrolls of that spell. The benefits of a wand over a scroll aren't so great that you need to fine tune it. That way used wand prices are as follows: If more than 14 charges: SL x CL x 7.5 x charges (the usual pricing) If less than 15 charges: SL x CL x (22.5 - charges) x charges Now, you only need a pretty simple formula for wands with less than a third of its maximum charges. Your two formulas work fine. They are a bit more drastic than mine - a first level, first caster level wand with 14 charges, assuming the PCs are buying, costs 84 gp more than an equivalent number of scrolls, but the same wand with 15 charges costs 150 gp less than an equivalent number of scrolls. While your formulas accomplish the task of making low-charge wands a less attractive choice over scrolls, the big dip at the 15 charge mark is kind of odd and lacks a good explanation. While the constants I ended up with in my formula are annoying to type into one's calculator, I've just got a calculator in an excel spreadsheet to do it for me. Given the number of partially used wands that are bought and sold in my games, the formula doesn't need to be applied that much anyways.
#4 eilistraeeeee Nov 23, 2007 7:50:17	Well, the price adjustments seem fine and all, but there is this bit of knowledge floating around in my brain that says you cannot see how many charges a certain wand has left, if for instance you find it clutched in the hands of Evil villain. How then are shops able to give you a number of charges that is left in a wand. I always found this the most mysterious about wands and liked the fact that I didn't knew the number of remaining charges. Shops will certainly have used wands, but they'll probably sell 'm for half the price if they look good or less when they're cracked or something. This might be a house rule that I forgot was a house rule, but think about it.
#5 avoraciopoctules Nov 23, 2007 11:16:37	If some wants a used wand, then couldn't you just roll 5d10 for each wand's charges? There may be ways of finding out the charges left, but this way there are no formulas at all.
#6 wheldrake Nov 25, 2007 12:31:26	Few adventuring groups should set off into a nearby dungeon without an essential piece of equipment: the humble wand. (...)“Hogwash!” many DMs will cry. “You can’t just walk into a store and buy a wand with however many charges you want!” This is a reasonable reaction at first, but one should be careful where this exclamation takes them. Most DMs, myself especially, don’t want to have to deal with deciding whether a particular item is or isn’t available in a given town or city. I tend to agree that wands are too cheap. I would argue in fact that all magic items for sale are too cheap. I would give them a 400% markup at the very minimum, with the possible exception of healing potions. The bit I've quoted above deals with another gripe of mine: magic item availability in shops. There really shouldn't be many items available for sale, IMHO, and the list of possible magic items in the books shouldn't be treated as a shopping list. Fortunately, there is a very simple way to generate magic shop inventories. It is the online magic item generator tool! http://www.bin.sh/gaming/tools/magic.cgi It takes scant moments to configure this tool to generate a range of magic items for sale, and feels much more appropriate for your average magic shop than the mega-supermarket some players think they should be. Try it, it's a great tool - and there are many other similar random tools out there as well. Not to neglect the thread topic - I'd definitely raise costs on wands. Cheers, --- Wheldrake
#7 rironin Nov 25, 2007 23:45:46	Well, the price adjustments seem fine and all, but there is this bit of knowledge floating around in my brain that says you cannot see how many charges a certain wand has left, if for instance you find it clutched in the hands of Evil villain. How then are shops able to give you a number of charges that is left in a wand. I always found this the most mysterious about wands and liked the fact that I didn't knew the number of remaining charges. Shops will certainly have used wands, but they'll probably sell 'm for half the price if they look good or less when they're cracked or something. This might be a house rule that I forgot was a house rule, but think about it. The spells identify and analyze dweomer both let you know exactly how many charges remain in a charged item, in addition to telling you what it does. These spells will often be used to find out what spell a wand even contains and how to activate it. Thus, most of the time if PCs know what the wand is, they will also know how many charges remain. Although it's not mentioned in any books that I'm aware of, I speculate that magical item dealers must have efficient ways of acquiring this information themselves, to verify that an item is what it appears to be and avoid getting hoodwinked - probably some sort of analysis item that casts spells like identify or analyze dweomer a certain number of times per day. A less expensive but also less informative item could be a wand-meter of sorts: plug in a wand and gauge the number of charges remaining. I think it's safe to say that no matter what method is used, magic item shops must have ways of identifying the goods they buy and sell, lest they be constantly hoodwinked by people selling them useless sticks. Given the fact that many magic items are not what they appear to be, a merchant who priced wands based on how nice they looked would probably quickly go out of business. If some wants a used wand, then couldn't you just roll 5d10 for each wand's charges? There may be ways of finding out the charges left, but this way there are no formulas at all. I don't really see how this would solve anything, or why one would actually do it. Even if the number of charges were randomized, players would still find out how many charges there are (see above) and they might want to sell the used wand. This leads to the question of how much such a wand would/should sell for, which is the subject of my original post. Rolling 5d10 doesn't really address this question in any way. I tend to agree that wands are too cheap. I would argue in fact that all magic items for sale are too cheap. I would give them a 400% markup at the very minimum, with the possible exception of healing potions. The bit I've quoted above deals with another gripe of mine: magic item availability in shops. There really shouldn't be many items available for sale, IMHO, and the list of possible magic items in the books shouldn't be treated as a shopping list. While I appreciate the sentiment, believing that wands are too cheap doesn't mean we're in agreement - I don't actually believe that a fully-charged wand is too cheap or too expensive. I think its price is just right. I only take issue with the pricing scheme used for partially charged wands. Your games must be incredibly challenging if you mark up all magic item prices by at least 400% - unless you also give your PCs 400% more treasure than the DMG recommends, I don't see how your PCs could possibly be prepared for encounters appropriate for their level. While many people have problems with prices for a few magic items here and there, I think most people would agree that such a mark up - which effectively gives PCs one-fifth of the items a normal party is expected to have at their disposal - creates a huge play imbalance. I believe we are also of completely opposite schools when it comes to stocking magical item shops. While I think everyone finds the idea of a magical item Wal-Mart distasteful, allowing characters to spend their treasure on the items they want usually wins out. The only restriction I use is the gold piece limit imposed by the size of the city or town in which the characters are shopping. Wide item availability doesn't mean that all the items in the world are located in the aforementioned magical Wal-Mart - rather, it means that somewhere in the town or city is a dusty shop or approachable wizard who can provide the item. Although it adds flavor, I don't see how else specifically stocked magic item shops help the game. It seems like they'd be a hindrance, forcing characters to go from shop to shop hoping they could find something of value to them. When your PCs arrive in a bustling metropolis, do you really create inventory lists for every shop and magic item creator in the city, and force your PCs to go from shop to shop looking at what's available? Do they enjoy this? I feel like abstracting the shopping experience and going with the DMG works much better for me. Still, I hear where you're coming from on the problems with PCs pre-selecting optimal gear from an enormous catalog of equipment. I've had the Magic Item Compendium for quite some time now, and I'm excited to put its treasures into my games, but every time my players come over, I hide it! I feel like as soon as they crack the cover, pore over the new items, and become familiar with all the new powers and abilities they offer, all the magic and curiosity that comes with finding truly new and wonderful items will be lost. It's a tough situation, and one I haven't found an adequate answer for yet.
#8 wrecan Nov 26, 2007 8:06:10	Your two formulas work fine. They are a bit more drastic than mine - a first level, first caster level wand with 14 charges, assuming the PCs are buying, costs 84 gp more than an equivalent number of scrolls, but the same wand with 15 charges costs 150 gp less than an equivalent number of scrolls. I don't think you're applying the formulas correctly. The price of a 14-charge 1st level wand under my pricing is 8.5/charge The price of a 15-charge 1st level wand under my pricing (and the DMG) is 7.5/charge. The cost of 1st level scrolls is 12.5/scroll. Your chart had the wand and scroll pricing switch places at around 10-11 charges. At 10 charges, under my formula, both wands and scrolls cost 12.5/charge or scroll. Below that, scrolls are cheaper than wands, just like in your chart. It's a pretty good approximation of your chart without the necessity of complicated math. the big dip at the 15 charge mark is kind of odd and lacks a good explanation. I really don't know where you think there's a "big dip". The difference between 14 and 15 charges is a 1 gp/charge difference (2 gp/charge at the retail level). While the constants I ended up with in my formula are annoying to type into one's calculator, I've just got a calculator in an excel spreadsheet to do it for me. Given the number of partially used wands that are bought and sold in my games, the formula doesn't need to be applied that much anyways. That's great for you, but by putting this on Redgar's it seemed to me that you were looking for a formula that could be used by everyone, and not merely those who sit at the table with a calculator. My formula is pretty close in results to yours and requires math you can do in your head.
#9 meles_meles Nov 26, 2007 14:37:51	I really like this idea, and will implement it in my game with the following modification: Player A tells me they want to buy a Wand of Blindness with 20 charges. In a big city: I roll 1d2. On a 1, the shop has a wand with exactly that number of charges. Otherwise, I roll 2d4. The shop has a wand with 20+2d4 charges, and a wand with 20-2d4 charges. In a small town: Same thing, but I roll a 1d4 to determine if the shop has the exact wand.
#10 nadaka Nov 26, 2007 16:36:40	Scrolls have a few distinct and unmistakable advantages over wands. 1: a wizard can not scribe a scroll from a wand. 2: different spells can be scribed onto a single scroll, allowing multiple effects to be drawn with a single move action. 3: scrolls have no spell level cap. 4: it only takes a Spellcraft check to read a scroll, wands require an identify spell to verify and learn how to activate. 4 in particular is of important note. A used wand has a minimum cost of 100 gp + charge cost due to the material components of the identify spell where identify is the only commonly available spell to relatively low level item shop owners.
#11 holy_beholder Nov 27, 2007 17:33:52	The point is not that all magic items are too cheap, or even that wands are too cheap, it's that the possibilities for used wands are too cheap because then you can buy more and make up for the wands' main weakness, lack of versatility.
#12 grax Nov 28, 2007 15:21:56	I like your system. I personally don't think that the constants are a big deal seeing as how it probably won't come up that often and if you put it into a graphing calculator/program you can just leave it and change the variables as needed. One thing I am not sure about is your assessment of the relative price of scrolls to wands. More specifically when it comes to arcane scrolls and wizards. The fact that wizards can learn new spells through scrolls is a huge deal, at least in campaigns I have played in. I also think that DMs limiting the "shopping list" is reasonable and good. It makes it more fun for players when they find out what treasure monsters have instead of just always selling the loot to buy the items you have decided fits your character best. That magic item generator is awesome by the way. I personally would generate a list appropriate to the size of the town and then use that equation to re-price the used wands. I also think that anyone without Identify shouldn't know how many charges are on a wand. So, the shop keeper either needs to be able to cast the spell or really trust the seller to know how many charges are left. Otherwise it should be kind of a grab bag item as to the number of charges. Maybe the equation should have an additional +110gp cost of material components for spell = 100gp cost of spell casting service for 1st lvl spell at 1st caster level = 10gp or that can just be the only modifier to the price of a used wand and throw out the formula. That way a wand with one 1st lvl spell would cost 135gp versus a 25gp scroll. in other words, wands with only a few charges are not worth it for adventurers to buy. Shop keepers might just mark down their price as to recoup some of the cost of casting identify and so perhaps it would scale. that of course would depend on the demand of low charge wands. We don't really have a free wand market to study, so I can't say how much players are willing to pay for easier casting with no AoO. The other option is to say that in order for someone to sell a used wand (or any wand at all since the shop keeper probably won't take your word that it has never been used) the seller has to pay for the service of having it identified (110gp) before he can sell it. After the spell is cast the the wizard then pays half the market value of the wand (in this case using your formula). This means that a 1st level wand would have to have 8 charges on it for a seller to recoup his losses, but beyond that it would only need one charge to recoup and profit. So, although you always run the risk of identifying a 1st level wand with just a few charges, it will generally be worth it to find out how many charges a wand has. So maybe the seller can have the option of having a wand identified or just receive a flat rate for wands. On the same token, all items should have to be identified by the shop keeper in order to sell it. I guess it just gets risky when the possible sell value is less than 110 gp.
#13 billthemaniac Nov 28, 2007 15:35:27	Why not just make it linear, and thus much simpler? Spell level * caster level * ([700/49]*(number of charges -1)+50)
#14 mtbogre Nov 29, 2007 13:57:09	Now I’m getting to my point at last (for those of you who’ve kept reading up to this point, well done): there is a way for low-level PCs to afford wands, and for PCs who want a wand with a less frequently used spell but don’t want to commit to 50 charges to get what they desire. Partially-used wands are the obvious choice, and the rules encourage their availability. Used wands have their cost reduced proportionally to the number of charges remaining; a wand with half of its charges expended costs half the price. Many such wands are listed as treasure in the Magic Item Compendium, which also recommends stocking NPCs with partially used magic items as gear. The idea here is to avoid spending large amounts of the creature’s wealth on a fully-charged wand that might be used three times by the creature in combat, if at all. Wow, this idea has been bouncing around in my head for the last few days as well. I was thinking of cooking up a formula but it wouldn't have been this complex. Here's my swing at it. S= Price of Scroll W= Wand Price (New) C= Charges 10*S + (W-10*S)/50 *C So a one charge wand costs 10 times a one charge scroll, the break even point is 10 charges which is a bit lower than your break even. However, I also agree with Eilistraeeeee with regards to knowing the number of charges in a wand. However, maybe a Spellcraft check combined with detect magic would probably give you an approximate idea of how many charges are left in a wand (A shop selling used magic items would likely not spend the 100GP on identify on a used wand). Also, I'm not a big fan of the PC being able to go out and shop to find the exact magic item they want. So armed with my above formula and my own personal theory... the wand price guide:
#15 pitiless_interfector Dec 01, 2007 21:48:13	What of staves? I know, many players have switched over to runestaves, but some still like the ability to fire off one or two spells a ridiculous number of times in a short period. Personally, I myself have always thought wands to be rather poor investments; it's like trying to make money off purchasing a car. You can't use it yourself, and you can only hope that all knowledge of their creation is destroyed in a freak accident (or you are an elf wizard 7/dragon prophet 10/ruathar 3 who can afford to out wait the competition). And this leaves another important balance issue: Sorcerers with Master Staff and/or Wand who pick up spell trigger items with only 1 charge left like candy, effectively gaining Spell Knowledge a number of times limited only by their bank account. With wand bracers, casting gloves, wand bracelets, a heroism spell to grant Quick Draw, etc., will frequently be better than a wizard, since a sorcerer need merely whip out the appropriate wand to have access to it. (True, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but the wizard has already sacrificed the sorcerer's sheer spell power for the versatility that the feat provides to anyone who takes it). Then again, epic levels are broken anyway, so it really isn't too big of an issue. However, I am disturbed by just how sub-par most wands truly prove to be in play. Their set caster level and save DC make them useless in combat at high levels (note, however, that this pertains more to wands of fireball than to wands of orb of force), and the handful of options for wand wielders (such as the feats Cull Wand Essence, Wandstrike, Dual Wand Wielder, and Wand Mastery, as well as the Cannith Wand Adept PrC, rods of many wands and similar items, siphon and wand modulation spells, and undoubtedly one or more Forgotten Realms options I don't currently have access to or knowledge of) all essentially suck (with the exceptions of the RoMW and possibly Cull Wand Essence). [If you've lost me, reread the preceding sentence again, but this time skip the parentheticals.] Yet wands are a critical component of fantasy. Does anybody know to which enlightened soul we owe the D&D game's ludicrously consumerist approach to magic items? It all just seems so ridiculous to me (though I do enjoy it somewhat more within the context of a world such as Eberron, where ubiquitous magic is par for the course rather than a don't-ask-don't-tell-ugly-little-secret pervading an otherwise realistic, low-magic, traditional-to-the-point-of-cliche medieval homebrew setting).
#16 wheldrake Dec 02, 2007 10:38:08	I believe we are also of completely opposite schools when it comes to stocking magical item shops. While I think everyone finds the idea of a magical item Wal-Mart distasteful, allowing characters to spend their treasure on the items they want usually wins out. The only restriction I use is the gold piece limit imposed by the size of the city or town in which the characters are shopping. Wide item availability doesn't mean that all the items in the world are located in the aforementioned magical Wal-Mart - rather, it means that somewhere in the town or city is a dusty shop or approachable wizard who can provide the item. If you suppose that in your city there are hundreds of high-level magic users making magic items for a profit, then I suppose total magic item availability, restricted only by the gold piece limit of the city, makes sense. But IMHO it removes much of the mystery and uniqueness of magic items to have them in effect wall-marted to that extent. I tend to think that most magic items should be obtained on adventure, either as treasure or by defeating nasty bad people and taking their stuff. Magic shops are mostly for selling off unwanted stuff and acquiring low-powered things like scrolls and potions and the occasional really cool item that happens to be available. I guess that makes me very old-school indeed. The online magic item generator really seems to me a very useful tool for stocking magic items in shops. And characters who really want a special order can place it with the shop, and wait the requisite time for the shop owner to find a supplier capable and willing to create it. It really seems to me, though, that NPC magic users sell their lost experience point all too cheaply. Making one wand might not cost much, but if you make a few dozen to sell for gold, the experience points cost really starts to add up. I don't see how magic item makers can break even on the xp drain. Cheers, --- Wheldrake
#17 rironin Dec 02, 2007 18:36:13	I don't think you're applying the formulas correctly. The price of a 14-charge 1st level wand under my pricing is 8.5/charge The price of a 15-charge 1st level wand under my pricing (and the DMG) is 7.5/charge. The cost of 1st level scrolls is 12.5/scroll. Your chart had the wand and scroll pricing switch places at around 10-11 charges. At 10 charges, under my formula, both wands and scrolls cost 12.5/charge or scroll. Below that, scrolls are cheaper than wands, just like in your chart. It's a pretty good approximation of your chart without the necessity of complicated math. I really don't know where you think there's a "big dip". The difference between 14 and 15 charges is a 1 gp/charge difference (2 gp/charge at the retail level). Ah, I see what I did wrong. At first I was confused, since your formulas are for the cost to craft, rather than to buy. I quickly multiplied both of your formulas by 2 because I wanted to see the price to buy wands/scrolls, but it seems I did it a bit too quickly! I made a silly mistake when I multiplied your second formula - I simply changed the 22.5 to a 45 - bad algebra! So I ended up using:If less than 15 charges: SL x CL x ([b]45 [/b]- charges) x charges when it should've been: