Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[pathfinder] staff creation cost

Expand Messages
  • Saxum Caribetum
    I tried creating a Staff in 5.16.4 (PF core, bestiary) Reading the rule book, the cost for a single effect staff should be 800 * spell level * max(spell caster
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 17 3:08 AM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I tried creating a Staff in 5.16.4 (PF core, bestiary)

      Reading the rule book, the cost for a single effect staff should be

      800 * spell level * max(spell caster level, 8) / num charges used

      I found 2 immediate problems

      1) PCGen appears to be using a base cost of 750 not 800 ( ie the Wand
      base cost)

      Staff Primary Power
      Cleric 5 Breath of Life
      cost reads 33750 = 750 * 5 * 9
      should be 36000 = 800 * 5 * 9

      2) PCGen is using the min Caster Level for the spell, without applying
      the "at least 8th level" rule.

      Staff Primary Power
      Cleric 4 Cure Critical Wounds
      cost reads 21000 = 750 * 4 * 7
      should be 25600 = 800 * 4 * 8

      in the second case I note that when choosing the spell effect there's a
      dropdown for the spell Caster Level which is seeded at 7, so basically
      the program is not applying the min 8th but leaving it for the user.
      (There is no good reason to create a Staff at anything higher than the
      min level the rules require)

      3) Adding a secondary power adds the fault of ignoring the rule "the
      caster level of all spells must be the same".
      If I start with the Breath of Life staff (accepting cost of 33750) and
      add Cure Critical Wounds as above, the cost jumps to 49500, an addition
      of 15750
      Staff Secondary Power
      Cleric 4 Cure Critical Wounds
      cost reads 15750 = 750 * 4 * 7 * 3/4
      should be 21600 = 800 * 8 * 9 * 3/4

      applying the caster level of the highest effect to all secondary and
      lesser effects

      3b) Adding a Lesser power is still applying (750 * spell level * min CL
      * 1/2) instead of (750 * spell level * highest CL * 1/2) -- same
      problem as Secondary Power

      --
      Neil Taylor "Creo Imaginem Mente"
      ArM Code 1.5 5++ Ca++ R++p H++ ?L Y(96) T(5)- SG+++ G++++ P++ HoH(Ma++ Q+ Hg+) Fz(E)++ C++ :-) Cd++
      Saga site at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/saxum.caribetum/
      Sub Rosa Ars Magica zine - http://www.subrosamagazine.org/
    • Saxum Caribetum
      I did some more research, diving back into the 3.5e source book - where the cast of a staff is essentially the same as a wand - indeed a 3.5e staff is
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 20 6:56 AM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I did some more research, diving back into the 3.5e source book - where
        the cast of a staff is essentially the same as a wand - indeed a 3.5e
        staff is basically a big fat wand with a higher spell limit.
        Pathfinder rewrites what staves are, how they work, and the cost of creation

        Much is the same, though the paragraphs have shuffled:
        1) material cost increases from 375 (x1, x3/4, x1/2...) to 400 (x1,
        x3/4, x1/2...)
        PFRPG p.552

        2) both 3.53 and PFRPG us "x level of caster" in the basic cost, but in
        the NEXT paragraph (beginning "If desired, a spell can be placed") they
        end the para by saying
        "The caster level of all spells in a staff must be the same, and no
        staff can have a
        caster level of less than 8th, even if all the spells in the staff
        are low-level spells"
        PFRPG p.552

        So - I claim PCGen has missed a well-hidden increase in the cost of Staves,
        and has missed the rule of (all spells at same caster level, minimum 8th).


        While a perceptive user of PCGen can spot that the Caster Level is wrong
        and use the drop-down to fix it, the base cost is harder to fix
        interactively. (And I remain, almost entirely, an interactive user of
        this marvellous program).

        If I had a chance to wish for a feature, it would be for the ability to
        re-enchant staves and add more spells, with the program noting which
        spells cost most, and demoting spells from Primary or Secondary if
        higher level spells are added.

        (Nit-pick -- the number of charges in a staff should not reduce its
        worth, in general, as it is rechargeable by any suitable spell-caster.)


        On 17/04/2011 11:08, Saxum Caribetum wrote:
        > I tried creating a Staff in 5.16.4 (PF core, bestiary)
        >
        > Reading the rule book, the cost for a single effect staff should be
        >
        > 800 * spell level * max(spell caster level, 8) / num charges used
        >
        > I found 2 immediate problems
        >
        > 1) PCGen appears to be using a base cost of 750 not 800 ( ie the Wand
        > base cost)
        >
        > Staff Primary Power
        > Cleric 5 Breath of Life
        > cost reads 33750 = 750 * 5 * 9
        > should be 36000 = 800 * 5 * 9
        >
        > 2) PCGen is using the min Caster Level for the spell, without applying
        > the "at least 8th level" rule.
        >
        > Staff Primary Power
        > Cleric 4 Cure Critical Wounds
        > cost reads 21000 = 750 * 4 * 7
        > should be 25600 = 800 * 4 * 8
        >
        > in the second case I note that when choosing the spell effect there's a
        > dropdown for the spell Caster Level which is seeded at 7, so basically
        > the program is not applying the min 8th but leaving it for the user.
        > (There is no good reason to create a Staff at anything higher than the
        > min level the rules require)
        >
        > 3) Adding a secondary power adds the fault of ignoring the rule "the
        > caster level of all spells must be the same".
        > If I start with the Breath of Life staff (accepting cost of 33750) and
        > add Cure Critical Wounds as above, the cost jumps to 49500, an addition
        > of 15750
        > Staff Secondary Power
        > Cleric 4 Cure Critical Wounds
        > cost reads 15750 = 750 * 4 * 7 * 3/4
        > should be 21600 = 800 * 8 * 9 * 3/4
        >
        > applying the caster level of the highest effect to all secondary and
        > lesser effects
        >
        > 3b) Adding a Lesser power is still applying (750 * spell level * min CL
        > * 1/2) instead of (750 * spell level * highest CL * 1/2) -- same
        > problem as Secondary Power
        >


        --
        Neil Taylor "Creo Imaginem Mente"
        ArM Code 1.5 5++ Ca++ R++p H++ ?L Y(96) T(5)- SG+++ G++++ P++ HoH(Ma++ Q+ Hg+) Fz(E)++ C++ :-) Cd++
        Saga site at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/saxum.caribetum/
        Sub Rosa Ars Magica zine - http://www.subrosamagazine.org/
      • Andrew
        Hi, Thanks for the research and detailed report. I ve trackered the issue here: [PF] Staff Creation Cost I ll see if
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 20 8:18 AM
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi,

          Thanks for the research and detailed report.

          I've trackered the issue here:


          [PF] Staff Creation Cost <http://jira.pcgen.org/browse/DATA-267>


          I'll see if this is something I can tackle, it may require both Code and Data work to implement
          properly.


          On 4/20/2011 6:56 AM, Saxum Caribetum wrote:
          > I did some more research, diving back into the 3.5e source book - where
          > the cast of a staff is essentially the same as a wand - indeed a 3.5e
          > staff is basically a big fat wand with a higher spell limit.
          > Pathfinder rewrites what staves are, how they work, and the cost of creation
          >
          > Much is the same, though the paragraphs have shuffled:
          > 1) material cost increases from 375 (x1, x3/4, x1/2...) to 400 (x1,
          > x3/4, x1/2...)
          > PFRPG p.552
          >
          > 2) both 3.53 and PFRPG us "x level of caster" in the basic cost, but in
          > the NEXT paragraph (beginning "If desired, a spell can be placed") they
          > end the para by saying
          > "The caster level of all spells in a staff must be the same, and no
          > staff can have a
          > caster level of less than 8th, even if all the spells in the staff
          > are low-level spells"
          > PFRPG p.552
          >
          > So - I claim PCGen has missed a well-hidden increase in the cost of Staves,
          > and has missed the rule of (all spells at same caster level, minimum 8th).
          >
          >
          > While a perceptive user of PCGen can spot that the Caster Level is wrong
          > and use the drop-down to fix it, the base cost is harder to fix
          > interactively. (And I remain, almost entirely, an interactive user of
          > this marvellous program).
          >
          > If I had a chance to wish for a feature, it would be for the ability to
          > re-enchant staves and add more spells, with the program noting which
          > spells cost most, and demoting spells from Primary or Secondary if
          > higher level spells are added.
          >
          > (Nit-pick -- the number of charges in a staff should not reduce its
          > worth, in general, as it is rechargeable by any suitable spell-caster.)
          >
          >
          > On 17/04/2011 11:08, Saxum Caribetum wrote:
          >> I tried creating a Staff in 5.16.4 (PF core, bestiary)
          >>
          >> Reading the rule book, the cost for a single effect staff should be
          >>
          >> 800 * spell level * max(spell caster level, 8) / num charges used
          >>
          >> I found 2 immediate problems
          >>
          >> 1) PCGen appears to be using a base cost of 750 not 800 ( ie the Wand
          >> base cost)
          >>
          >> Staff Primary Power
          >> Cleric 5 Breath of Life
          >> cost reads 33750 = 750 * 5 * 9
          >> should be 36000 = 800 * 5 * 9
          >>
          >> 2) PCGen is using the min Caster Level for the spell, without applying
          >> the "at least 8th level" rule.
          >>
          >> Staff Primary Power
          >> Cleric 4 Cure Critical Wounds
          >> cost reads 21000 = 750 * 4 * 7
          >> should be 25600 = 800 * 4 * 8
          >>
          >> in the second case I note that when choosing the spell effect there's a
          >> dropdown for the spell Caster Level which is seeded at 7, so basically
          >> the program is not applying the min 8th but leaving it for the user.
          >> (There is no good reason to create a Staff at anything higher than the
          >> min level the rules require)
          >>
          >> 3) Adding a secondary power adds the fault of ignoring the rule "the
          >> caster level of all spells must be the same".
          >> If I start with the Breath of Life staff (accepting cost of 33750) and
          >> add Cure Critical Wounds as above, the cost jumps to 49500, an addition
          >> of 15750
          >> Staff Secondary Power
          >> Cleric 4 Cure Critical Wounds
          >> cost reads 15750 = 750 * 4 * 7 * 3/4
          >> should be 21600 = 800 * 8 * 9 * 3/4
          >>
          >> applying the caster level of the highest effect to all secondary and
          >> lesser effects
          >>
          >> 3b) Adding a Lesser power is still applying (750 * spell level * min CL
          >> * 1/2) instead of (750 * spell level * highest CL * 1/2) -- same
          >> problem as Secondary Power
          >>
          >

          --
          Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
          Admin Silverback - PCGen Board of Directors
          Data 2nd, Docs Tamarin, OS Lemur
          Unique Title "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"
          Unique Title "The Torturer of PCGen"


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Andrew
          Hi, Completed: At revision: 14819 Fixed file sent to the user for verification. I don t see a feasible method to enforce the Caster Level Must Match between
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 20 8:45 AM
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi,

            Completed: At revision: 14819

            Fixed file sent to the user for verification.

            I don't see a feasible method to enforce the Caster Level Must Match between the Primary, Secondary,
            etc on the same staff. This delves into Assignable Vars that aren't global territory I think. Though
            I'm open to others giving their thoughts.


            On 4/20/2011 8:18 AM, Andrew wrote:
            > Hi,
            >
            > Thanks for the research and detailed report.
            >
            > I've trackered the issue here:
            >
            >
            > [PF] Staff Creation Cost<http://jira.pcgen.org/browse/DATA-267>
            >
            >
            > I'll see if this is something I can tackle, it may require both Code and Data work to implement
            > properly.
            >
            >
            > On 4/20/2011 6:56 AM, Saxum Caribetum wrote:
            >> I did some more research, diving back into the 3.5e source book - where
            >> the cast of a staff is essentially the same as a wand - indeed a 3.5e
            >> staff is basically a big fat wand with a higher spell limit.
            >> Pathfinder rewrites what staves are, how they work, and the cost of creation
            >>
            >> Much is the same, though the paragraphs have shuffled:
            >> 1) material cost increases from 375 (x1, x3/4, x1/2...) to 400 (x1,
            >> x3/4, x1/2...)
            >> PFRPG p.552
            >>
            >> 2) both 3.53 and PFRPG us "x level of caster" in the basic cost, but in
            >> the NEXT paragraph (beginning "If desired, a spell can be placed") they
            >> end the para by saying
            >> "The caster level of all spells in a staff must be the same, and no
            >> staff can have a
            >> caster level of less than 8th, even if all the spells in the staff
            >> are low-level spells"
            >> PFRPG p.552
            >>
            >> So - I claim PCGen has missed a well-hidden increase in the cost of Staves,
            >> and has missed the rule of (all spells at same caster level, minimum 8th).
            >>
            >>
            >> While a perceptive user of PCGen can spot that the Caster Level is wrong
            >> and use the drop-down to fix it, the base cost is harder to fix
            >> interactively. (And I remain, almost entirely, an interactive user of
            >> this marvellous program).
            >>
            >> If I had a chance to wish for a feature, it would be for the ability to
            >> re-enchant staves and add more spells, with the program noting which
            >> spells cost most, and demoting spells from Primary or Secondary if
            >> higher level spells are added.
            >>
            >> (Nit-pick -- the number of charges in a staff should not reduce its
            >> worth, in general, as it is rechargeable by any suitable spell-caster.)
            >>
            >>
            >> On 17/04/2011 11:08, Saxum Caribetum wrote:
            >>> I tried creating a Staff in 5.16.4 (PF core, bestiary)
            >>>
            >>> Reading the rule book, the cost for a single effect staff should be
            >>>
            >>> 800 * spell level * max(spell caster level, 8) / num charges used
            >>>
            >>> I found 2 immediate problems
            >>>
            >>> 1) PCGen appears to be using a base cost of 750 not 800 ( ie the Wand
            >>> base cost)
            >>>
            >>> Staff Primary Power
            >>> Cleric 5 Breath of Life
            >>> cost reads 33750 = 750 * 5 * 9
            >>> should be 36000 = 800 * 5 * 9
            >>>
            >>> 2) PCGen is using the min Caster Level for the spell, without applying
            >>> the "at least 8th level" rule.
            >>>
            >>> Staff Primary Power
            >>> Cleric 4 Cure Critical Wounds
            >>> cost reads 21000 = 750 * 4 * 7
            >>> should be 25600 = 800 * 4 * 8
            >>>
            >>> in the second case I note that when choosing the spell effect there's a
            >>> dropdown for the spell Caster Level which is seeded at 7, so basically
            >>> the program is not applying the min 8th but leaving it for the user.
            >>> (There is no good reason to create a Staff at anything higher than the
            >>> min level the rules require)
            >>>
            >>> 3) Adding a secondary power adds the fault of ignoring the rule "the
            >>> caster level of all spells must be the same".
            >>> If I start with the Breath of Life staff (accepting cost of 33750) and
            >>> add Cure Critical Wounds as above, the cost jumps to 49500, an addition
            >>> of 15750
            >>> Staff Secondary Power
            >>> Cleric 4 Cure Critical Wounds
            >>> cost reads 15750 = 750 * 4 * 7 * 3/4
            >>> should be 21600 = 800 * 8 * 9 * 3/4
            >>>
            >>> applying the caster level of the highest effect to all secondary and
            >>> lesser effects
            >>>
            >>> 3b) Adding a Lesser power is still applying (750 * spell level * min CL
            >>> * 1/2) instead of (750 * spell level * highest CL * 1/2) -- same
            >>> problem as Secondary Power
            >>>

            --
            Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
            Admin Silverback - PCGen Board of Directors
            Data 2nd, Docs Tamarin, OS Lemur
            Unique Title "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"
            Unique Title "The Torturer of PCGen"


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Saxum Caribetum
            ... I had a thought: The whole Staff creation mechanism relies on the human user getting some things right: * that they assign the most expensive effect as
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 22 1:34 AM
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              On 20/04/2011 16:45, Andrew wrote:
              > Hi,
              >
              > Completed: At revision: 14819
              >
              > Fixed file sent to the user for verification.
              >
              > I don't see a feasible method to enforce the Caster Level Must Match between the Primary, Secondary,
              > etc on the same staff. This delves into Assignable Vars that aren't global territory I think. Though
              > I'm open to others giving their thoughts.

              I had a thought:

              The whole Staff creation mechanism relies on the human user getting some
              things right:

              * that they assign the most expensive effect as Primary,
              with no more than one Primary
              * that they assign the second most expensive effect as Secondary
              with no more than one Secondary, and only define a Secondary if
              Primary is defined
              * that they assign all the remainder as Lesser
              with any number of Lesser powers, but only define them if there is
              already exactly one Primary and one Secondary


              now, I'm not suggesting PCGen add code to enforce those rules ... but a
              little thought shows that the MAX(all caster levels) is the same as MAX(
              greatest caster level, (rest of caster levels) )

              The cost rule defining what makes the Primary effect, together with the
              rest of the game rules on caster level, mean the Primary is always the
              spell with the highest Spell level (assuming the staff is not mixed
              across casting classes), and so highest caster level (pre-adjustments).

              So a reasonable approximation to "all have the same caster level" is

              * Primary: use MAX(spell min. caster level, 8)
              * Secondary and Lesser: use (Primary caster level) if it exists,
              else a program fallback of MAX(spell caster level, 8) if no
              Primary defined


              Is that any simpler?

              --
              Neil Taylor "Creo Imaginem Mente"
              ArM Code 1.5 5++ Ca++ R++p H++ ?L Y(96) T(5)- SG+++ G++++ P++ HoH(Ma++ Q+ Hg+) Fz(E)++ C++ :-) Cd++
              Saga site at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/saxum.caribetum/
              Sub Rosa Ars Magica zine - http://www.subrosamagazine.org/



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Andrew
              Hi, It s a nice idea, but here s the issue: One - You have to assume the user is going to assign the highest level effect on the Primary; Two - We have to have
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 22 10:57 AM
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi,

                It's a nice idea, but here's the issue:

                One - You have to assume the user is going to assign the highest level effect on the Primary;
                Two - We have to have a method for the Secondary to even know what the Primary Was;
                Three - We might be able to kludge something, but it'd force the user to only own ONE staff,
                otherwise, well all the Staffs create would be at the highest.

                Again, this is where having non-global object specific Variables would come in handy, but that would
                require a Code Feature Request.

                For the Code It'd have to say "EQMOD may Assign a Variable only to the Assigned Object", Other
                EQMODS being assigned to the object would have to be able to access it.

                That is the ONLY method I can figure out as being accurate.

                I think a Object Oriented Variable Feature Request exists. However, don't expect a quick turn around
                time on it, as the UI is the #1 Project being done as we speak.

                And this unique Variable would be handy, like Companion/Master Interactions, Intelligent Items (We
                have a decent workaround, but it'd be nice *IF* you could have more than one).

                Cheers,


                On 4/22/2011 1:34 AM, Saxum Caribetum wrote:
                > On 20/04/2011 16:45, Andrew wrote:
                >> Hi,
                >>
                >> Completed: At revision: 14819
                >>
                >> Fixed file sent to the user for verification.
                >>
                >> I don't see a feasible method to enforce the Caster Level Must Match between the Primary, Secondary,
                >> etc on the same staff. This delves into Assignable Vars that aren't global territory I think. Though
                >> I'm open to others giving their thoughts.
                > I had a thought:
                >
                > The whole Staff creation mechanism relies on the human user getting some
                > things right:
                >
                > * that they assign the most expensive effect as Primary,
                > with no more than one Primary
                > * that they assign the second most expensive effect as Secondary
                > with no more than one Secondary, and only define a Secondary if
                > Primary is defined
                > * that they assign all the remainder as Lesser
                > with any number of Lesser powers, but only define them if there is
                > already exactly one Primary and one Secondary
                >
                >
                > now, I'm not suggesting PCGen add code to enforce those rules ... but a
                > little thought shows that the MAX(all caster levels) is the same as MAX(
                > greatest caster level, (rest of caster levels) )
                >
                > The cost rule defining what makes the Primary effect, together with the
                > rest of the game rules on caster level, mean the Primary is always the
                > spell with the highest Spell level (assuming the staff is not mixed
                > across casting classes), and so highest caster level (pre-adjustments).
                >
                > So a reasonable approximation to "all have the same caster level" is
                >
                > * Primary: use MAX(spell min. caster level, 8)
                > * Secondary and Lesser: use (Primary caster level) if it exists,
                > else a program fallback of MAX(spell caster level, 8) if no
                > Primary defined
                >
                >
                > Is that any simpler?
                >

                --
                Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
                Admin Silverback - PCGen Board of Directors
                Data 2nd, Docs Tamarin, OS Lemur
                Unique Title "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"
                Unique Title "The Torturer of PCGen"


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Saxum Caribetum
                ... the pragmatic answer is that if the user did all the arithmetic and assignment using pencil and paper, with no computer assistant, and did not assign the
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 22 1:23 PM
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 22/04/2011 18:57, Andrew wrote:
                  > Hi,
                  >
                  > It's a nice idea, but here's the issue:
                  >
                  > One - You have to assume the user is going to assign the highest level effect on the Primary;

                  the pragmatic answer is that if the user did all the arithmetic and
                  assignment using pencil and paper, with no computer assistant, and did
                  not assign the most-expensive effect as Primary, then they would be
                  wrong by the rule-book;

                  once they agree to play by the rules, then since all spells have the
                  same caster level (per the rules), then the remaining factor in (800 *
                  spell level * caster level) cost is spell level (charges and
                  secondary/lesser discount not yet counted)...

                  so if the staff build does not assign the highest level effect to the
                  Primary then they are wrong by the book.

                  In the ideal world, the program would let the user assign *any* 1..N
                  effects *in any order* to a staff and the program would tot up the
                  individual costs, then assign them to Primary, Secondary and Lesser for you.
                  The world is not ideal, and alas nor is PCGen, so it leaves the
                  assignment of Primary, Secondary and Lesser to the user ... if the user
                  mis-assigns them then the cost will be wrong.

                  That was my logic for daring to make the suggestion: "garbage in,
                  garbage out..."

                  > Two - We have to have a method for the Secondary to even know what the Primary Was;

                  I feared you'd say that!

                  > Three - We might be able to kludge something, but it'd force the user to only own ONE staff,
                  > otherwise, well all the Staffs create would be at the highest.

                  Ugh!!

                  > Again, this is where having non-global object specific Variables would come in handy, but that would
                  > require a Code Feature Request.
                  >
                  > For the Code It'd have to say "EQMOD may Assign a Variable only to the Assigned Object", Other
                  > EQMODS being assigned to the object would have to be able to access it.
                  >
                  > That is the ONLY method I can figure out as being accurate.
                  >
                  > I think a Object Oriented Variable Feature Request exists. However, don't expect a quick turn around
                  > time on it, as the UI is the #1 Project being done as we speak.
                  >
                  > And this unique Variable would be handy, like Companion/Master Interactions, Intelligent Items (We
                  > have a decent workaround, but it'd be nice *IF* you could have more than one).

                  ah, so inspiration for Yet Another Huge Code Project, (as if you needed
                  another to use up your Copious Free Time...)

                  8-) 9-) 8-)

                  > Cheers,
                  >
                  >
                  > On 4/22/2011 1:34 AM, Saxum Caribetum wrote:
                  >> On 20/04/2011 16:45, Andrew wrote:
                  >>> Hi,
                  >>>
                  >>> Completed: At revision: 14819
                  >>>
                  >>> Fixed file sent to the user for verification.
                  >>>
                  >>> I don't see a feasible method to enforce the Caster Level Must Match between the Primary, Secondary,
                  >>> etc on the same staff. This delves into Assignable Vars that aren't global territory I think. Though
                  >>> I'm open to others giving their thoughts.
                  >> I had a thought:
                  >>
                  >> The whole Staff creation mechanism relies on the human user getting some
                  >> things right:
                  >>
                  >> * that they assign the most expensive effect as Primary,
                  >> with no more than one Primary
                  >> * that they assign the second most expensive effect as Secondary
                  >> with no more than one Secondary, and only define a Secondary if
                  >> Primary is defined
                  >> * that they assign all the remainder as Lesser
                  >> with any number of Lesser powers, but only define them if there is
                  >> already exactly one Primary and one Secondary
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> now, I'm not suggesting PCGen add code to enforce those rules ... but a
                  >> little thought shows that the MAX(all caster levels) is the same as MAX(
                  >> greatest caster level, (rest of caster levels) )
                  >>
                  >> The cost rule defining what makes the Primary effect, together with the
                  >> rest of the game rules on caster level, mean the Primary is always the
                  >> spell with the highest Spell level (assuming the staff is not mixed
                  >> across casting classes), and so highest caster level (pre-adjustments).
                  >>
                  >> So a reasonable approximation to "all have the same caster level" is
                  >>
                  >> * Primary: use MAX(spell min. caster level, 8)
                  >> * Secondary and Lesser: use (Primary caster level) if it exists,
                  >> else a program fallback of MAX(spell caster level, 8) if no
                  >> Primary defined
                  >>
                  >>
                  >> Is that any simpler?
                  >>


                  --
                  Neil Taylor "Creo Imaginem Mente"
                  ArM Code 1.5 5++ Ca++ R++p H++ ?L Y(96) T(5)- SG+++ G++++ P++ HoH(Ma++ Q+ Hg+) Fz(E)++ C++ :-) Cd++
                  Saga site at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/saxum.caribetum/
                  Sub Rosa Ars Magica zine - http://www.subrosamagazine.org/
                • Andrew
                  Hi, Yeah, I can only say what can be today, not what can be in the future. ... -- Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing) Admin Silverback - PCGen Board of Directors Data
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 22 2:14 PM
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi,

                    Yeah, I can only say what can be today, not what can be in the future.


                    On 4/22/2011 1:23 PM, Saxum Caribetum wrote:
                    > On 22/04/2011 18:57, Andrew wrote:
                    >> Hi,
                    >>
                    >> It's a nice idea, but here's the issue:
                    >>
                    >> One - You have to assume the user is going to assign the highest level effect on the Primary;
                    > the pragmatic answer is that if the user did all the arithmetic and
                    > assignment using pencil and paper, with no computer assistant, and did
                    > not assign the most-expensive effect as Primary, then they would be
                    > wrong by the rule-book;
                    >
                    > once they agree to play by the rules, then since all spells have the
                    > same caster level (per the rules), then the remaining factor in (800 *
                    > spell level * caster level) cost is spell level (charges and
                    > secondary/lesser discount not yet counted)...
                    >
                    > so if the staff build does not assign the highest level effect to the
                    > Primary then they are wrong by the book.
                    >
                    > In the ideal world, the program would let the user assign *any* 1..N
                    > effects *in any order* to a staff and the program would tot up the
                    > individual costs, then assign them to Primary, Secondary and Lesser for you.
                    > The world is not ideal, and alas nor is PCGen, so it leaves the
                    > assignment of Primary, Secondary and Lesser to the user ... if the user
                    > mis-assigns them then the cost will be wrong.
                    >
                    > That was my logic for daring to make the suggestion: "garbage in,
                    > garbage out..."
                    >
                    >> Two - We have to have a method for the Secondary to even know what the Primary Was;
                    > I feared you'd say that!
                    >
                    >> Three - We might be able to kludge something, but it'd force the user to only own ONE staff,
                    >> otherwise, well all the Staffs create would be at the highest.
                    > Ugh!!
                    >
                    >> Again, this is where having non-global object specific Variables would come in handy, but that would
                    >> require a Code Feature Request.
                    >>
                    >> For the Code It'd have to say "EQMOD may Assign a Variable only to the Assigned Object", Other
                    >> EQMODS being assigned to the object would have to be able to access it.
                    >>
                    >> That is the ONLY method I can figure out as being accurate.
                    >>
                    >> I think a Object Oriented Variable Feature Request exists. However, don't expect a quick turn around
                    >> time on it, as the UI is the #1 Project being done as we speak.
                    >>
                    >> And this unique Variable would be handy, like Companion/Master Interactions, Intelligent Items (We
                    >> have a decent workaround, but it'd be nice *IF* you could have more than one).
                    > ah, so inspiration for Yet Another Huge Code Project, (as if you needed
                    > another to use up your Copious Free Time...)
                    >
                    > 8-) 9-) 8-)
                    >
                    >> Cheers,
                    >>
                    >>
                    >> On 4/22/2011 1:34 AM, Saxum Caribetum wrote:
                    >>> On 20/04/2011 16:45, Andrew wrote:
                    >>>> Hi,
                    >>>>
                    >>>> Completed: At revision: 14819
                    >>>>
                    >>>> Fixed file sent to the user for verification.
                    >>>>
                    >>>> I don't see a feasible method to enforce the Caster Level Must Match between the Primary, Secondary,
                    >>>> etc on the same staff. This delves into Assignable Vars that aren't global territory I think. Though
                    >>>> I'm open to others giving their thoughts.
                    >>> I had a thought:
                    >>>
                    >>> The whole Staff creation mechanism relies on the human user getting some
                    >>> things right:
                    >>>
                    >>> * that they assign the most expensive effect as Primary,
                    >>> with no more than one Primary
                    >>> * that they assign the second most expensive effect as Secondary
                    >>> with no more than one Secondary, and only define a Secondary if
                    >>> Primary is defined
                    >>> * that they assign all the remainder as Lesser
                    >>> with any number of Lesser powers, but only define them if there is
                    >>> already exactly one Primary and one Secondary
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>> now, I'm not suggesting PCGen add code to enforce those rules ... but a
                    >>> little thought shows that the MAX(all caster levels) is the same as MAX(
                    >>> greatest caster level, (rest of caster levels) )
                    >>>
                    >>> The cost rule defining what makes the Primary effect, together with the
                    >>> rest of the game rules on caster level, mean the Primary is always the
                    >>> spell with the highest Spell level (assuming the staff is not mixed
                    >>> across casting classes), and so highest caster level (pre-adjustments).
                    >>>
                    >>> So a reasonable approximation to "all have the same caster level" is
                    >>>
                    >>> * Primary: use MAX(spell min. caster level, 8)
                    >>> * Secondary and Lesser: use (Primary caster level) if it exists,
                    >>> else a program fallback of MAX(spell caster level, 8) if no
                    >>> Primary defined
                    >>>
                    >>>
                    >>> Is that any simpler?
                    >>>
                    >

                    --
                    Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
                    Admin Silverback - PCGen Board of Directors
                    Data 2nd, Docs Tamarin, OS Lemur
                    Unique Title "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"
                    Unique Title "The Torturer of PCGen"


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Susan Dittmar
                    ... No! If you take higher charges cost on the highest level spell, and only lower charges cost on the second highest spell, the second highest spell might
                    Message 9 of 14 , Apr 26 5:40 AM
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Quoting Saxum Caribetum (saxum.caribetum@...):
                      > The cost rule defining what makes the Primary effect, together with the
                      > rest of the game rules on caster level, mean the Primary is always the
                      > spell with the highest Spell level (assuming the staff is not mixed
                      > across casting classes), and so highest caster level (pre-adjustments).

                      No! If you take higher charges cost on the highest level spell, and only
                      lower charges cost on the second highest spell, the second highest spell
                      might become the most expensive and thus primary effect to the staff!

                      Example:

                      Level 2 spell, 3 charges costs 800*2*8/3 = 4267 (were it primary)
                      whereas level 1 spell with 1 charge costs 800*1*8 = 6400 (as primary)

                      (no guarantee for the numbers, I don't own Pathfinder stuff)

                      Susan
                    • Saxum Caribetum
                      ... sorry Susan - re-read para. 3, p. 552 PFRPG - Divide the cost of the spell by the number of charges... Note that this does not change the order in which
                      Message 10 of 14 , Apr 26 10:21 AM
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 26/04/2011 13:40, Susan Dittmar wrote:
                        > Quoting Saxum Caribetum (saxum.caribetum@...):
                        >> The cost rule defining what makes the Primary effect, together with the
                        >> rest of the game rules on caster level, mean the Primary is always the
                        >> spell with the highest Spell level (assuming the staff is not mixed
                        >> across casting classes), and so highest caster level (pre-adjustments).
                        > No! If you take higher charges cost on the highest level spell, and only
                        > lower charges cost on the second highest spell, the second highest spell
                        > might become the most expensive and thus primary effect to the staff!
                        >
                        > Example:
                        >
                        > Level 2 spell, 3 charges costs 800*2*8/3 = 4267 (were it primary)
                        > whereas level 1 spell with 1 charge costs 800*1*8 = 6400 (as primary)
                        >
                        > (no guarantee for the numbers, I don't own Pathfinder stuff)
                        >
                        > Susan

                        sorry Susan - re-read para. 3, p. 552 PFRPG - "Divide the cost of the
                        spell by the number of charges... Note that this does not change the
                        order in which the spells are priced (the highest level spell is still
                        priced first, even if it requires more than one charge to activate)."

                        You determine the cost WITHOUT considering charges, and this determines
                        Primary, Secondary, Lesser (strictly determines First, Second, The Rest).
                        Finally you divide the costs from the first round of calculations by
                        charges per effect, to determine the actual cost.

                        Was the same in DND 3.x


                        --
                        Neil Taylor "Creo Imaginem Mente"
                        ArM Code 1.5 5++ Ca++ R++p H++ ?L Y(96) T(5)- SG+++ G++++ P++ HoH(Ma++ Q+ Hg+) Fz(E)++ C++ :-) Cd++
                        Saga site at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/saxum.caribetum/
                        Sub Rosa Ars Magica zine - http://www.subrosamagazine.org/
                      • Susan Dittmar
                        ... OK, so for Pathfinder that has been explicitely added. As I already had written, I do not own the Pathfinder stuff. Up to some minutes ago I would have
                        Message 11 of 14 , Apr 27 3:35 AM
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Quoting Saxum Caribetum (saxum.caribetum@...):
                          > On 26/04/2011 13:40, Susan Dittmar wrote:
                          > > Quoting Saxum Caribetum (saxum.caribetum@...):
                          > >> The cost rule defining what makes the Primary effect, together with the
                          > >> rest of the game rules on caster level, mean the Primary is always the
                          > >> spell with the highest Spell level (assuming the staff is not mixed
                          > >> across casting classes), and so highest caster level (pre-adjustments).
                          > > No! If you take higher charges cost on the highest level spell, and only
                          > > lower charges cost on the second highest spell, the second highest spell
                          > > might become the most expensive and thus primary effect to the staff!
                          > >
                          > > Example:
                          > >
                          > > Level 2 spell, 3 charges costs 800*2*8/3 = 4267 (were it primary)
                          > > whereas level 1 spell with 1 charge costs 800*1*8 = 6400 (as primary)
                          > >
                          > > (no guarantee for the numbers, I don't own Pathfinder stuff)
                          > >
                          > > Susan
                          >
                          > sorry Susan - re-read para. 3, p. 552 PFRPG - "Divide the cost of the
                          > spell by the number of charges... Note that this does not change the
                          > order in which the spells are priced (the highest level spell is still
                          > priced first, even if it requires more than one charge to activate)."
                          >
                          > You determine the cost WITHOUT considering charges, and this determines
                          > Primary, Secondary, Lesser (strictly determines First, Second, The Rest).
                          > Finally you divide the costs from the first round of calculations by
                          > charges per effect, to determine the actual cost.
                          >
                          > Was the same in DND 3.x

                          OK, so for Pathfinder that has been explicitely added. As I already had
                          written, I do not own the Pathfinder stuff.

                          Up to some minutes ago I would have disagreed for the case of D&D 3.5 or at
                          least for the (R)SRD. The wording there is *not* as clear as I might wish
                          it were. And, after some research, I think the authors even did not publish
                          the whole of it! (For those too impatient to read the whole mail, I summed
                          up what I think is the true rule down as point E).)

                          As others might have the same problems as I, here's what my research turned
                          up:

                          SRD quote (Magic Items I, chapter "CREATING STAFFS"):

                          "The cost for the materials is subsumed in the cost for creating the
                          staff---375 gp x the level of the highest-level spell x the level of
                          the caster, plus 75% of the value of the next most costly ability
                          (281.25 gp x the level of the spell x the level of the caster), plus
                          one-half of the value of any other abilities (187.5 gp x the level of
                          the spell x the level of the caster). Staffs are always fully charged
                          (50 charges) when created.

                          If desired, a spell can be placed into the staff at only half the
                          normal cost, but then activating that particular spell costs 2 charges
                          from the staff. The caster level of all spells in a staff must be the
                          same, and no staff can have a caster level of less than 8th, even if
                          all the spells in the staff are low-level spells."

                          Mind, this is creation cost, which is half buying cost.

                          For the primary effect, they choose the highest-level spell. This they
                          write explicitely. But as the secondary they choose the next *costly*
                          ability, not the next highest spell! So their criteria for primary and
                          secondary effect seem to differ in this very text.

                          Up to now, I always ruled this to be solved as I indicated in the previous
                          mail, with the following reasoning:

                          1) They introduce the cost reduction using charges in the second paragraph
                          a bit like an afterthought. As long as you do not use that to reduce
                          cost, the most costly and the highest-level effect are the same. So I
                          thought choosing the highest level spell might have been the less
                          precisely formulated point.
                          2) This is more in line with how all other multiple-effect magic items are
                          priced, where it's "multiply higher item cost by 2" (Magic Items I,
                          Table "Estimating Magic Item Gold Pice Values).
                          3) The secondary ability is chosen as "the next most costy", which
                          implicitely assumes the primary ability is the most costy one.

                          Unfortunately, none of the rules I can construct, even from mixing the two
                          ways of reading it, accounts for the actually listed staff costs!

                          What I tried to reproduce the published figures:

                          A) highest level spell * 1.0, second highest spell * 0.75, all others * 0.5
                          B) highest level spell * 1.0, highest remaining cost * 0.75, all others * 0.5
                          C) highest level spell * 1.0, second highest cost * 0.75, all others * 0.5
                          (which would not work in case second highest cost is the one of the
                          highest level spell, but nonetheless...)
                          D) highest cost * 1.0, second highest cost * 0.75, all others * 0.5

                          To my dismay, none of those arrives at the costs for the finished staffs as
                          published!

                          In fact, I just tried another rule:
                          E) highest level spell * 1.0
                          + second highest level spell * 0.75
                          + third highest level spell * 0.5
                          + next highest level spell * 0.375 (= 0.75 / 2)
                          + next highest level spell * 0.25 (= 0.5 / 2)
                          + next highest level spell * 0.1875 (= 0.75 / 4)
                          + next highest level spell * 0.125 (= 0.5 / 4)
                          + ...

                          Or, formulated recursively:
                          - 750gp * caster level * highest level spell's level / charges
                          - plus the cost of a staff with only the remaining spells, multiplied by
                          square root of 2.

                          This would account for the prices of the published staves, at least those I
                          checked!

                          So I guess you were closer to what the authers meant than my reading.

                          Hope that helps someone...

                          Susan

                          PS: This "square root of 2" is what I think is at the core of a lot of
                          progressions in the SRD rules. It just looks more difficult than it is
                          to those not used to it, so the authors rather used the approximation
                          "0.75" in print.

                          PPS: I am quite curious if the Pathfinder authors did the same with their
                          published staves, or if they adhered to their rules as published ;-)
                        • Andrew Wilson
                          ... It s not really square root of 2, that would give you 1, 0.707, 0.5, 0.354, 0.25, or 1, root 2 over 2, 1/2, root 2 over 4, 1/4, etc. The real scheme seems
                          Message 12 of 14 , Apr 27 9:29 AM
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 27 April 2011 11:35, Susan Dittmar <Susan.Dittmar@...> wrote:
                            > To my dismay, none of those arrives at the costs for the finished staffs as
                            > published!
                            >
                            > In fact, I just tried another rule:
                            > E) highest level spell * 1.0
                            > + second highest level spell * 0.75
                            > + third highest level spell * 0.5
                            > + next highest level spell * 0.375 (= 0.75 / 2)
                            > + next highest level spell * 0.25 (= 0.5 / 2)
                            > + next highest level spell * 0.1875 (= 0.75 / 4)
                            > + next highest level spell * 0.125 (= 0.5 / 4)
                            > + ...
                            >
                            > Or, formulated recursively:
                            > - 750gp * caster level * highest level spell's level / charges
                            > - plus the cost of a staff with only the remaining spells, multiplied by
                            > square root of 2.
                            >
                            > This would account for the prices of the published staves, at least those I
                            > checked!
                            >
                            > So I guess you were closer to what the authers meant than my reading.
                            >
                            > Hope that helps someone...
                            >
                            > Susan
                            >
                            > PS: This "square root of 2" is what I think is at the core of a lot of
                            > progressions in the SRD rules. It just looks more difficult than it is
                            > to those not used to it, so the authors rather used the approximation
                            > "0.75" in print.

                            It's not really square root of 2, that would give you

                            1, 0.707, 0.5, 0.354, 0.25,

                            or

                            1, root 2 over 2, 1/2, root 2 over 4, 1/4, etc.


                            The real scheme seems to be a series of fractions that have a numerator of
                            4 followed by a numerator of 3, repeat. The denominator starts with 4 and
                            doubles every time the numerator becomes 4

                            4/4, 3/4, 4/8, 3/8, 4/16, 3/16, 4/32, 3/32, 4/64, etc.

                            or, with simplified fractions

                            1, 3/4, 1/2, 3/8, 1/4, 3/16, 1/8, 3/32, 1/16, etc.

                            Both of these lines represent the same set of fractions and I can't think of a
                            nice simple way to explain either of them. It's not surprising that they
                            didn't add that to the rules, even though they did apparently use it
                            themselves.

                            andrew
                          • Rick Pikul
                            ... I think she means that it looks like they started with wanting curves based on sqrt(2)^n, then simplified the math by shifting the results for odd n to
                            Message 13 of 14 , Apr 27 7:57 PM
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Wednesday 27 April 2011 12:29, Andrew Wilson wrote:
                              > On 27 April 2011 11:35, Susan Dittmar <Susan.Dittmar@...> wrote:
                              > > PS: This "square root of 2" is what I think is at the core of a lot of
                              > > progressions in the SRD rules. It just looks more difficult than
                              > > it is to those not used to it, so the authors rather used the
                              > > approximation "0.75" in print.
                              >
                              > It's not really square root of 2, that would give you
                              >
                              > 1, 0.707, 0.5, 0.354, 0.25,
                              >
                              > or
                              >
                              > 1, root 2 over 2, 1/2, root 2 over 4, 1/4, etc.

                              I think she means that it looks like they started with wanting curves based on
                              sqrt(2)^n, then simplified the math by shifting the results for odd n to
                              0.75sqrt(2)^(n-1).

                              --
                              Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
                            • Susan Dittmar
                              Dear Andrew, dear Rick, you are both right. To again phrase it with other words: I think they started with the square-root-of-2 progression, then simplified
                              Message 14 of 14 , Apr 28 1:09 AM
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Andrew, dear Rick,

                                you are both right. To again phrase it with other words:
                                I think they started with the square-root-of-2 progression, then simplified
                                the figures by first multiplying all those resulting square roots (two of
                                them give a multiplier of 2), and if there's a remaining root, replacing
                                that by 0.75. To the mathematically inclined, that's not really a
                                simplification, but to those hating maths, 0.75 looks much cleaner. It
                                isn't truely easier, but it looks and feels easier.

                                Susan
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.