Test of Spite [3.5.3]

[Doc Roc]

I'm glad to see you back!

[T.G. Oskar]

Well, this is kinda weird.

I was doing some homebrewing, and got into the idea of actually figuring out the Eternal Wand total cost. As you know, that cost is a tad weird, specifically since it doesn't correlate to normal wands.

Then I figured it out:

Spell level x caster level x 1,800 (thus, it is considered as if using a command word as per DMG rules) x 2/5* +100.

*The rules are based on the charges per day. Basically, to determine items with between 1 to 5 charges that replenish per day, you have to divide the cost by 5 divided by the number of charges (in this case, two). Mathematically, it means this:

X/5/2 = X * (2/5), with X being the cost of the item.

The trouble was that 100 added to the end of the calculation cost. Apparently, the idea was that Eternal Wands were never going to be made with higher caster levels, so they threw this little spanner in the works.

I made a quick check on the calculator, and the costs are consistent (including 0 level spells, which are counted as 1/2 for purposes of spell level). Might wanna check that out, see if all four are consistent and then check the results with higher caster levels?

I presume this won't de-ban Eternal Wands, but it's a good try as it goes. At least it clarifies a mystery, no?

[lvl 1 sharnian]

Also another question:

Can you use Versatile Spellcaster to cast a higher spell level runestaff than you currently have access to?

E.g. Currently lvl 14, can cast up to level 7 spells, but can I sack 2 7th level spell slots to activate my 8th Spell Level runestaff?

[T.G. Oskar]

Can you use Versatile Spellcaster to cast a higher spell level runestaff than you currently have access to?

E.g. Currently lvl 14, can cast up to level 7 spells, but can I sack 2 7th level spell slots to activate my 8th Spell Level runestaff?

I doubt it, but that depends on what the DMs say and what RAW says. RAW, you expend two spell slots of X level to cast a spell of X+1 level that you know. Runestaffs allow you to expend one slot of a spell level equal or higher than the spell you intend to cast. You aren't considered to know those spells, hence you can't use your Versatile Spellcaster-granted "spell slot" to cast a spell from a runestaff.

But, that's just me.

[Adumbration]

Ad: Tier 2-1.5 or so? I think I've got one.

Since you're not online right now, but Phoenix is, I think I'll fight him first. We can have a fight later, though, if you like.

I've got a caster/Manifester that qualifies as about tier 1.

Excellent. Buffs 3+all day, map river?

Thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...49#post8369649

[Cieyrin]

Well, this is kinda weird.

I was doing some homebrewing, and got into the idea of actually figuring out the Eternal Wand total cost. As you know, that cost is a tad weird, specifically since it doesn't correlate to normal wands.

Then I figured it out:

Spell level x caster level x 1,800 (thus, it is considered as if using a command word as per DMG rules) x 2/5* +100.

*The rules are based on the charges per day. Basically, to determine items with between 1 to 5 charges that replenish per day, you have to divide the cost by 5 divided by the number of charges (in this case, two). Mathematically, it means this:

X/5/2 = X * (2/5), with X being the cost of the item.

The trouble was that 100 added to the end of the calculation cost. Apparently, the idea was that Eternal Wands were never going to be made with higher caster levels, so they threw this little spanner in the works.

I made a quick check on the calculator, and the costs are consistent (including 0 level spells, which are counted as 1/2 for purposes of spell level). Might wanna check that out, see if all four are consistent and then check the results with higher caster levels?

I presume this won't de-ban Eternal Wands, but it's a good try as it goes. At least it clarifies a mystery, no?

Yeah, I came to that weird conundrum of why they have that 100 gp thrown in when I tried my hand at finding a formula for Eternal Wands, since I wanted a higher level Eternal Wand than what's provided by the MIC. It's simply bizarre, indeedly. Way to go, Keith Baker, on having weird math in your item creation formulas.

[TheMadLinguist]

I presume this won't de-ban Eternal Wands, but it's a good try as it goes. At least it clarifies a mystery, no?

Wait, eternal wands are banned?

[The Shadowmind]

When making a construct are you stuck with the pre-chosen feats, or can you replace the HD granted ones? Same with skills.

[Doc Roc]

Wait, eternal wands are banned?

Nope, but custom ones are technically not allowed because the formula's not explicit. Not that explicit formulas make things less broken, mind you.

[T.G. Oskar]

Nope, but custom ones are technically not allowed because the formula's not explicit. Not that explicit formulas make things less broken, mind you.

Explain that lack of explicitness on the formula. It's pretty explicit: spell level (limited to 3rd), caster level, two uses per day so the magic item is considered charged, it's spell trigger so it's basically command activated (and hence, the spell level times the caster level is further multiplied by 1,800 gp). The 100 gp may be because the Eternal Wand uses an Eberron dragonshard with that cost (all Eternal Wands require the use of a Eberron dragonshard, which is added to the cost as far as it seems). That's what makes it different from a regular wand, so to speak.

[imperialspectre]

I doubt it, but that depends on what the DMs say and what RAW says. RAW, you expend two spell slots of X level to cast a spell of X+1 level that you know. Runestaffs allow you to expend one slot of a spell level equal or higher than the spell you intend to cast. You aren't considered to know those spells, hence you can't use your Versatile Spellcaster-granted "spell slot" to cast a spell from a runestaff.

But, that's just me.

Which means that you can do so by RAW, but only if you're a beguiler, warmage, or dread necromancer, or a wizard with the ability to somehow use Versatile Spellcaster to memorize spells in a higher spell slot. In any of those cases, you "know" the spell that you're sacrificing in that higher-level spell slot, and therefore it works.

Other than that, Oskar is correct.

[TheMadLinguist]

Nope, but custom ones are technically not allowed because the formula's not explicit. Not that explicit formulas make things less broken, mind you.

By custom eternal wands do you mean "eternal wands with a different caster level than printed for a particular level spell" or what?

[T.G. Oskar]

By custom eternal wands do you mean "eternal wands with a different caster level than printed for a particular level spell" or what?

Exactly that. Basically, you can make a Eternal Wand of Enlarge Person with CL 1st and pay the 820 gp that it costs. "Custom" in this case means having one wand with higher CL, since the costs for the wands are the same.

Though, in any case you find a spell with a costly material component, you can't use that either. Not sure about that last one.

[Aharon]

@Doc Roc and/or Claudius Maximus
Do you have any idea how long it will approximately take you to check my character? I know about the constant lack of sheet checkers, but a rough estimate would be nice to have. I also asked in the match-thread, but you probably didn't see that.

[PhoenixRivers]

@Doc Roc and/or Claudius Maximus
Do you have any idea how long it will approximately take you to check my character? I know about the constant lack of sheet checkers, but a rough estimate would be nice to have. I also asked in the match-thread, but you probably didn't see that.

The general answer is "when we can". It's something we do in our spare time, around jobs, family obligations, and the like. It's hard to give time estimates on our spare time.

[Aharon]

Okay, thanks. I guess I should have added a smiley or something, on rereading, I noticed that I might have come across far more demanding than I wanted too.

[PhoenixRivers]

Okay, thanks. I guess I should have added a smiley or something, on rereading, I noticed that I might have come across far more demanding than I wanted too.

Oh, it's no problem or issue. There are several sheet checkers, and little coordination, as it's all done in our spare time. That makes estimates devilishly difficult to be accurate.

[Doc Roc]

After may 12th, I'll be actively checking sheets again.

[term1nally s1ck]

I'm checking sheets, but sloooowly, as I'm also revising for my exams, designing two different floors for the NED, running a lot of chars through the NED, and trying to still not be a total social recluse.

[Claudius Maximus]

Aharon:

Spoiler

Show

I put a hold on checking your character for now since I'm waiting for Doc Roc to get back with rulings on a bunch of your tactics. So far all he's said is that Defending weapons do stack for now since we never made his former ruling against them official.

[theterran]

Anyone had a chance to look at the guy i submitted?

[term1nally s1ck]

I'm doing that one...got a bit more to check (items and skills)

[Cieyrin]

The 100 gp may be because the Eternal Wand uses an Eberron dragonshard with that cost (all Eternal Wands require the use of a Eberron dragonshard, which is added to the cost as far as it seems).

That...actually makes a lot of sense, put that way...that 100 gp is a component cost for an appropriate dragonshard. So basically, I'm failing to see why we couldn't be allowed to custom up an Eternal Wand like a regular wand, other than the fact that it's not explicitly available via the MIC to change CLs or use spells with expensive components. Unless there's some hack to be opened up via making custom CL Eternal Wands, I don't see what's really out and out wrong with that, really.

Hey, I think several people here will be interested in this:

Fistbeard Beardfist and the Fountain of Unlikely Chance

That was pretty hilarious, actually, especially with the cameo of a Gia monk early on. =P

I'm just kinda confused by how Iago has an Eternal Wand of Lesser Restoration, as I can't think of an arcane list that has that spell on it. Unless it was made by a dragon or something, I don't see how that's legit. I'm also semi-wondering what Kotor actually is besides a Dragonwrought Kobold Rogue, possibly with some UMD or Sorcerer levels.

[Amphetryon]

Any DM:

Spoiler

Show

Are Favored/Primary Contact valid early entry methods in the current ToS environment? They are not called out as banned in the OP, but stuff changes.

[Doc Roc]

It has come to my attention that, technically speaking, at least one call of cthulhu book is ToS legal.

Ooops.

[Glimbur]

Ooops.

Oops? Or do you mean Ia! Ia!

[Doc Roc]

I give vile feats. Oops is definitely what I meant.

Certainly not HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HA.

I will literally ship a bottle of wine to the first person to win a duel by relying on material from the WotC Call of Cthulhu line, contingent on proof of legal age.

[sofawall]

I will literally ship a bottle of wine to the first person to win a duel by relying on material from the WotC Call of Cthulhu line, contingent on proof of legal age.

That's me out, then.

Amphetryon:

Spoiler

Show

While that feat gives you an additional rank above and beyond the normal maximum, it does not actually raise the maximum. RAW, it may give you early entry if you happen to take it the level before you are entering, for example a requirement of 10 ranks can be met by taking it as your level 6 feat. The problem is, at level 7, your cap is still 10.

[Doc Roc]

That's me out, then.

Amphetryon:

Spoiler

Show

While that feat gives you an additional rank above and beyond the normal maximum, it does not actually raise the maximum. RAW, it may give you early entry if you happen to take it the level before you are entering, for example a requirement of 10 ranks can be met by taking it as your level 6 feat. The problem is, at level 7, your cap is still 10.

It gets less clear if you use psychic reformation, or dip chameleon, but both of those are corner cases, to my eyes.

[sofawall]

It gets less clear if you use psychic reformation, or dip chameleon, but both of those are corner cases, to my eyes.

The use that Char Op has been touting since that book was released doesn't actually work. All I'm saying.