Houserule for UMD

[WarKitty]

This is my proposal for a new DC set for Use Magic Device. The idea is that a low to mid level character with maxed UMD should be able to use level-appropriate items reliably, but if the party manages to acquire an item well beyond their level they don't get to use it unless they're really lucky.

{table]Task |Use Magic Device DC
Activate blindly | +5
Decipher a written spell | 10 + spell level
Use a scroll | 10 + (2 * caster level)
Use a wand | 10 + (2 * caster level)
Emulate a class feature | 20
Emulate an ability score | 5 + Score Needed
Emulate a race| 25
Emulate an alignment | 30[/table]

Any item with requirements beyond the standard activation types (spell completion, spell trigger, command word, or use activated) must have those other requirements met in addition to the use magic device check.

P.S. I'm also going to be adding in identification abilities for non-casters as a bit of a balance.

[Godskook]

Ugh.

1.Wands are supposed to be the "next step up" in canned magic, being cheaper and easier to use than scrolls, but at the same time working better and containing better options than potions. The flat DC 20 was meant to emulate that(And getting a +19 in a skill check isn't *that* hard). Since you're downgrading scroll DCs, I could see making wands a flat DC 15, but don't make them scale, they're the "user-friendly" magic devices

2."Activate blindly" is +5? +5 to what? That option has nothing to do with anything else on your table, but rather things like a belt of healing.

3.For scrolls, do you really want the DCs that low? DC 10 is considered "any commoner schmuck can do it", and DC 12 isn't much harder. Programming a VCR is probably a higher DC than 12(DC 15 would be pushing it though). Reading a scroll of magic shouldn't be that easy.

4.Deciphering a written spell using the wrong skill is now DC 10 + spell level? What's the check when using the *right* skill(spellcraft)? DC 5 + spell level? DC 19 to understand timestop? DC 19 is "Commoners can still do this without any specific training if they get lucky".



Finally, do you know what maxed UMD scores look like? Cause getting fairly reliable UMD scores(+19 or better) by level 5 isn't hard. A warlock can casually hit DC 20 checks by level 4, without any 'extra' investment than 1 skillpoint/level.

[WarKitty]

I'll have to go back and revise it. I copied the table from somewhere else on the forums and wanted some feedback since I'm really not sure where to set the DC's. Here's the idea I want:

A level 5 rogue should be able to use a wand of a 1st level spell with no failure rate.

By level 10 most characters should be able to use scrolls up to 1 level below themselves reliably (not necessarily 100%).

Characters should not under any circumstances be able to activate an item of more than 5 levels above their own.

How are you getting a +19 or so? The maximum I've seen is a +12 at level 5.

Edit: I see where I messed up. Forgot to account for the ability score bonuses in the DC's. Stupid morning posting.

[sonofzeal]

A fifth level character might have 8 ranks, +3 to +4 from ability score, +3 from Circlet of Persuasion, and +2 synergy from Spellcraft. That's... +17, without any major effort beyond being a Cha-based character.

If you really wanted to pump it, a Magic Blooded Star Elf Artificer4/Marshal1 with Skill Focus UMD and Magical Aptitude is sitting on... oh, up to a +34 or so. More, if you could find Affiliation Bonuses for it, or allow a custom magic item of +X to UMD.

[WarKitty]

Ok well I want it to scale to "character making a reasonable effort," not "character focusing everything on it."

[sonofzeal]

Ok well I want it to scale to "character making a reasonable effort," not "character focusing everything on it."

Of course.



The problem with core UMD is that it's useless at low level, and trivial at high level. DCs start too high but scale too slowly - in the case of Wands, they don't scale at all. On the other hand, I don't think UMD should be too accessible. It's already consided the most powerful skill in the game, and anything that increases that power is probably inappropriate.

And I disagree with Godskook. Potions are bottled magic for non-casters. Scrolls and Wands are cheaper simply because they're harder to access. It's like buying a product without the service or installation plans - you'll save money, but you've now got to do work yourself. That "work" is having levels in the appropriate casting class, or investing in UMD. And the primary difference between scrolls and wands is simply that with wands, you're buying in bulk and thus get the bulk rate discount. There's other trivialities around "Spell Trigger" vs "Spell Completion", but honestly it's the bulk discount thing that makes the biggest difference in my opinion.

From that, we learn two things. First, scrolls and wands should be HARD to access for a non-caster. DC's should be fairly high, and a few ranks in UMD should not really be a substitute for actual magical skill. Second, Wands and Scrolls should be just about the same difficulty to activate, and I see you've got this part already.

Personally, I'd make the DC 20 + (2 * spell level). If someone merely invests a rank per level in UMD, it'll be tough but possible to access a 1st level spell item at first level. As they level up, high level spells will still be hard to access, but lower level ones should get easier. Also, higher level characters are more likely to gradually acquire other bonuses. I'd also rule that trying and failing to activate it doesn't waste the charge.

[Godskook]

And I disagree with Godskook. Potions are bottled magic for non-casters. Scrolls and Wands are cheaper simply because they're harder to access. It's like buying a product without the service or installation plans - you'll save money, but you've now got to do work yourself. That "work" is having levels in the appropriate casting class, or investing in UMD. And the primary difference between scrolls and wands is simply that with wands, you're buying in bulk and thus get the bulk rate discount. There's other trivialities around "Spell Trigger" vs "Spell Completion", but honestly it's the bulk discount thing that makes the biggest difference in my opinion.

Y'see, you're totally disregarding something that has a real-world analog. Spells are very similar logically, imho, to programs. A scroll is like uncompiled code. Anyone trained in reading+learning spells can read it and copy it, without any personal effort(no xp cost for learning spells from scrolls). Casting more complicated scrolls take more skill because you, the scroll-user, are in a sense, compiling the spell into 'usable' form. Wands are more like compiled programs. It still takes some tech-savy to install them, but not that much, and once you can do it once, you can do it again and again. And, true enough, it doesn't even matter what spell/program you're working with, since there's negligible difference between installing AGV antivirus and C&C Red Alert 2.

(Extending this analogy to potions, they're like the old Tiger Electronics games.)

A level 5 rogue should be able to use a wand of a 1st level spell with no failure rate.

How much investment are you requiring of this rogue for that? Cause he *can* get that.

Let's see:

+3 Ability Focus
+2 Magical Aptitude
+4 Synergy(scroll only)
+2 Estimated Cha bonus
+3 Circlet of Persuasion(4500gp)(Ok, expensive by a 5th level's standards)
+2 Mwk tool(50gp)
+8 Ranks
+2 Reactivation bonus

That's +19 to UMD for wands, +23 on scrolls, at level 5, costing 14 Cha, 50gp, and 2 feats. If you allow a custom skill item using the DMG's pricing, a +5 UMD item costs 2500gp, which is ~1/4 the rogue's WBL at 5th, so is far more reasonable in cost than the circlet for the single-skill use, and negates all the feat cost in the above estimation.

So, quantifying how much you want a rogue to be required to invest in order to reach that goal would be helpful in establishing what can be done to help with your houserule.

By level 10 most characters should be able to use scrolls up to 1 level below themselves reliably (not necessarily 100%)

See, what does "1 level below themselves" mean?

Also, what do you mean by "most characters". I need specifics. Gosh-darn-it, I'm doctor not a mindreader Jim.

Characters should not under any circumstances be able to activate an item of more than 5 levels above their own.

And here, are you using a different meaning for level, or the same?

[sonofzeal]

Y'see, you're totally disregarding something that has a real-world analog. Spells are very similar logically, imho, to programs. A scroll is like uncompiled code. Anyone trained in reading+learning spells can read it and copy it, without any personal effort(no xp cost for learning spells from scrolls). Casting more complicated scrolls take more skill because you, the scroll-user, are in a sense, compiling the spell into 'usable' form. Wands are more like compiled programs. It still takes some tech-savy to install them, but not that much, and once you can do it once, you can do it again and again. And, true enough, it doesn't even matter what spell/program you're working with, since there's negligible difference between installing AGV antivirus and C&C Red Alert 2.

(Extending this analogy to potions, they're like the old Tiger Electronics games.)

Oh, I understand how "Spell Trigger" and "Spell Completion" can help make sense of that from a gameworld logic point of view. My concern, though, is not about gameworld logic. It's about mechanical balance.

Scrolls and Wands are both generally restricted to casters. UMD is not the "proper" way of activating them, being a caster is. Potions are the open-for-anyone option. This is where your analogy falls apart.

Beyond that, then, we need to make sure the items are roughly balanced against eachother. Currently, the way they're priced makes it seem like Wands are simply the bulk versions, and in my experience this makes the most sense in how they're actually used in the game. If you wanted Wands to be substantially easier to activate, I'd make them correspondingly more expensive. After all, the difference between potions and scrolls cuts the price in half. If wands are some sort of in-between state, then they should have a price that reflects that. But the way the rules are set up, wands are actually cheaper per-spell than scrolls are.

[Godskook]

Scrolls and Wands are both generally restricted to casters. UMD is not the "proper" way of activating them, being a caster is. Potions are the open-for-anyone option. This is where your analogy falls apart.

See, I never said "open-for-anyone" in regards to wands. I compared wands to installing user-end software. If you think that means "open-for-anyone", you suffer from a sampling bias, my friend.

Beyond that, then, we need to make sure the items are roughly balanced against eachother. Currently, the way they're priced makes it seem like Wands are simply the bulk versions, and in my experience this makes the most sense in how they're actually used in the game. If you wanted Wands to be substantially easier to activate, I'd make them correspondingly more expensive. After all, the difference between potions and scrolls cuts the price in half. If wands are some sort of in-between state, then they should have a price that reflects that. But the way the rules are set up, wands are actually cheaper per-spell than scrolls are.

I was insinuating that wands were an overall upgrade(minus the 50 Charge rule) to both scrolls and potions to the mid-game world, since they're easier to use than scrolls and have more powerful effects than potions.

[WarKitty]

See, I never said "open-for-anyone" in regards to wands. I compared wands to installing user-end software. If you think that means "open-for-anyone", you suffer from a sampling bias, my friend.



I was insinuating that wands were an overall upgrade(minus the 50 Charge rule) to both scrolls and potions to the mid-game world, since they're easier to use than scrolls and have more powerful effects than potions.

Given the way D&D already works, wands ought to be open for anyone even if they're not strictly built that way.

[sonofzeal]

I was insinuating that wands were an overall upgrade(minus the 50 Charge rule) to both scrolls and potions to the mid-game world, since they're easier to use than scrolls and have more powerful effects than potions.

I disagree. I don't think they were ever intended to be an upgrade like that. Few things in the game are. We all know the game isn't balanced, but usually it at least tries. What makes your comment all the more suspicious to me is the listed pricing. If they were objectively superior to both, they should have a higher price... but they don't, per-use they're actually the cheapest of the three. This goes directly counter to what one would expect were they intended to fill the role you claim.

Far more likely is that each of the three was intended to fill different niches. Potions are for ease-of-use, Scrolls are for emergency backup, and Wands are for bulk economy. Fighters use Potions because they lack anything better, Rangers pack healing wands because they know they'll need a lot of it, and Wizards pack scrolls of Water Breathing in case of emergency.

[Fiery Diamond]

I disagree. I don't think they were ever intended to be an upgrade like that. Few things in the game are. We all know the game isn't balanced, but usually it at least tries. What makes your comment all the more suspicious to me is the listed pricing. If they were objectively superior to both, they should have a higher price... but they don't, per-use they're actually the cheapest of the three. This goes directly counter to what one would expect were they intended to fill the role you claim.

Far more likely is that each of the three was intended to fill different niches. Potions are for ease-of-use, Scrolls are for emergency backup, and Wands are for bulk economy. Fighters use Potions because they lack anything better, Rangers pack healing wands because they know they'll need a lot of it, and Wizards pack scrolls of Water Breathing in case of emergency.

I would just like to pop in to say that I agree with what this poster has been saying.

[Godskook]

I disagree. I don't think they were ever intended to be an upgrade like that. Few things in the game are. We all know the game isn't balanced, but usually it at least tries. What makes your comment all the more suspicious to me is the listed pricing. If they were objectively superior to both, they should have a higher price... but they don't, per-use they're actually the cheapest of the three. This goes directly counter to what one would expect were they intended to fill the role you claim.

1.Except, that's a fallacious argument, given the context. For the generic spell-container role that all 3 serve, there's only two ways to achieve "superior", and that's "ease of use" and "cost". For instance, A potion of magic weapon, a scroll of magic weapon and a 1-charge wand of magic weapon all have the same result. Wands, the last to come available, has to have something to make them 'better' than their competitors.

2.The role I claim doesn't require that potions and scrolls be completely obsoleted by wands.

3.Wands, unlike scrolls/potions are not "common" in the first few levels of play. Artificers and other crafters aside, an indoividual PC can't even afford to buy one till 3rd or 4th level(following the typical DM rule of 1/4 of WBL). Whereas scrolls and potions are both available earlier, and by the time you can afford *A* wand, you can have an entire arsenal of versatility in potions/scrolls, many of the scrolls the wizard/archivist were buying anyway to expand their spellbooks.