Codex Advocare - overpriced?

[skunk3]

So there's the Codex Advocare item from the Ravenloft book that essentially gives warlocks access to a least invocation. The book is priced at 20k GP.

Does anyone feel that it is overpriced, or just me? The effects of most of the least invocations can be replicated with items / item enchantments that cost less than 20k. Only a few of the least invocations can't be replicated with items / enchantments.

I like the thought of being able to pick up some more least invocations but at 20k a pop it seems extremely prohibitive.

[Jowgen]

I once (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?519455-Codex-Advocare-UMD-Profit/) explored the idea of using UMD for someone who doesn't have the Invocations class feature to be able to use the invocation which the codex grants knowledge off.

Didn't pan out, after a rather detailed discussion getting down to the bitty gritty of the propositional logic involved, but if you don't look at it with a microscope and decide/successfully argue it works, the price becomes much more reasonable.

[Thurbane]

Well, it's a fairly close equivalent to the Extra Invocation feat. IIRC, A&EG places feat granting items at 10,000gp. Double that for being "slotless", and 20,000gp seems about right.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I once (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?519455-Codex-Advocare-UMD-Profit/) explored the idea of using UMD for someone who doesn't have the Invocations class feature to be able to use the invocation which the codex grants knowledge off.

Didn't pan out, after a rather detailed discussion getting down to the bitty gritty of the propositional logic involved, but if you don't look at it with a microscope and decide/successfully argue it works, the price becomes much more reasonable.
This same thread also suggests that a knowstone of [whatever spell you want] is a cheap way to gain some at-will powers, using the example in the UMD skill description as guideline. Weird, but useful in those games that allow it.

[Zancloufer]

Well, it's a fairly close equivalent to the Extra Invocation feat. IIRC, A&EG places feat granting items at 10,000gp. Double that for being "slotless", and 20,000gp seems about right.

Though aren't Knowstones essentially the same thing (but for arcane spells) and they only costs 1k*spell level squared? I doubt any least invocation is as good as a level 3 arcane spell and aren't knowstones alot easier to use?

[Jowgen]

Though aren't Knowstones essentially the same thing (but for arcane spells) and they only costs 1k*spell level squared? I doubt any least invocation is as good as a level 3 arcane spell and aren't knowstones alot easier to use?

The pricing difference probably stems from how Invocations are at will, SLAs and don't correspond to spell level 1 to 1 (especially based on level gained). Imagine if Knowstones came with inbuild unlimited casting of the slot dedicated the spell, plus no need for components.

That aside, I do maintain my position from that thread that with Knowstones it's cut and dry that you can't use the spell you gain knowledge off (rather than the fine line of print for the Codex). Though there probably is some use somewhere for having spells known, inspite of being unable to cast them.

[Thurbane]

Though aren't Knowstones essentially the same thing (but for arcane spells) and they only costs 1k*spell level squared? I doubt any least invocation is as good as a level 3 arcane spell and aren't knowstones alot easier to use?

Not necessarily saying I agree with the pricing, but it does follow some kind of WotC consistency.

Jowgen makes some relevant points about Knowstones, as well.

[skunk3]

Another question -

How would you guys price more advanced codexes... say something that gives you access to a higher level invocation? (lesser, greater, dark)

[skunk3]

I can only imagine that the price would be basically absurdly high for greater and dark ones.

[RFLS]

WotC consistency.

Heh. Good joke.

[Cosi]

That aside, I do maintain my position from that thread that with Knowstones it's cut and dry that you can't use the spell you gain knowledge off (rather than the fine line of print for the Codex). Though there probably is some use somewhere for having spells known, inspite of being unable to cast them.

Knowstones are weird.

If you're playing by absolute, strict RAW, they don't do the thing they're supposed to do (let spontaneous casters get new spells). The Rules Compendium is pretty clear on the issue of when spontaneous casters get new spells:


Spontaneous casters gain spells by attaining levels in their class. They never gain spells any other way.

I think that's pretty much unambiguous, and it means that spontaneous casters can't get spells from knowstones (I'm pretty sure it also means that Sandshapers don't work, but that is debatable).

That said, I don't think there's a reasonable reading of the rules for Knowstones themselves that stops people from using them for at-will powers. The rules for Knowstones state:


A knowstone provides its bearer with knowledge of the inscribed spell, which he can then use his spell slots to cast normally (as if the inscribed spell were among his known spells).

"Use your spell slots to cast the inscribed spell" is very clearly a property of the knowstone. You have (as a spontaneous caster) the property of being able to cast all the spells you know, so this text is unnecessary (and therefore likely a mistake, but that doesn't change the meaning of what's on the page). So the thing the text is describing is the activation of the Knowstone, which is "expend a spell slot, cast the spell inside the knowstone". The PHB is similarly clear about the possibility of using UMD to emulate expending class features in the "Emulate a Class Feature". The given example is Lidda using UMD to activate a turning-activated item without expending turn attempts. When you put that together, it's clear that with a DC 20 + <level to get the appropriate spell slot> UMD check, you can cast the spell in a Knowstone for free.

Now, I won't say that isn't cheesy, or that you should try to do it in your games. But by RAW it's clearly allowed. It's actually more allowed than using Knowstones the "right" way.

[Troacctid]

Knowstones are weird.

If you're playing by absolute, strict RAW, they don't do the thing they're supposed to do (let spontaneous casters get new spells). The Rules Compendium is pretty clear on the issue of when spontaneous casters get new spells:



I think that's pretty much unambiguous, and it means that spontaneous casters can't get spells from knowstones (I'm pretty sure it also means that Sandshapers don't work, but that is debatable).
Rules Compendium is also pretty clear that exceptions trump general rules.

https://i.imgur.com/QL61aQU.png

[Thurbane]

I think that's pretty much unambiguous, and it means that spontaneous casters can't get spells from knowstones (I'm pretty sure it also means that Sandshapers don't work, but that is debatable).

It would also mean the Extra Spell feat is utterly useless for spontaneous casters, despite the fact that the feat text states that it works for Sorcerers.

[Cosi]

Rules Compendium is also pretty clear that exceptions trump general rules.

Then the rule does literally nothing.

That's less stupid than Knowstones doing nothing, but it still means that some sat down and wrote a rule that said "you can't do thing unless the rules let you do that thing", which has always and everywhere been the case.

How the hell did people think the Rules Compendium was a good idea?