Healing spells and use activated items= 1d8 per round?

[kreynolds]

I am probably missing something in the DMG, but would woould a use actived magic item with a Cure Light Wounds offer 1d8+1 every round to it's owner?

It does what you want it to. For example, if you made it a free action to activate (which I don't recommmend, unless you calculate the spell four levels higher via the Quicken Spell feat), then yes, it would offer 1d8+1 points of healing every round, provided the wearer activated it every round.

However, use-activated does not automatically equate to free-action activation.

Or would it offer a permanent 9 hit points? Or could you use cure light with a max spell feat bonus to make a more expensive item that would offer 9 permanent hit points?

Either of these is a valid effect. It just depends on what you want the item to do. Once you figure that out, you just need to price it. To give you an idea of what you would be looking at, I would price such an item as a Quickened Cure Light Wounds, which would bump up the spell level to 5th, and the minimum caster level required to cast the spell would be 9th. The formula would be (5 x 9 x 2000gp), which would give you a starting price of 90,000gp.

However, you can't always just use the formulas as they exist, and here's why. Let's take Cure Light Wounds (1st level spell) and Maximize it (now a 4th level spell) and now let's Quicken it (now an 8th level spell). Because we have an 8th level spell, the minimum level you need to cast is 15th, so instead of healing 1d8+1, it's gonna heal the maximum of 1d8+5. After applying all of the metamagic feats, we end up with an 8th level spell effect that is kicked off as a free action and heals 13 points of damage every round. So, let's take the use-activated formula and apply it here: 8 x 15 x 2000gp, which gives us a total cost of 240,000gp.

So, what do we now have? Essentially, for only 240,000gp, you now have Fast Healing 13. Now, the only question you need to ask yourself is this: Would you have a problem with a player possessing this item at this price? Or would you have a problem with a player possessing this item no matter what the price is?

As I've always said, magic item creation is an art, not a science.

 

[Voneth]

it did not escape wotc playtesters.

look thru the wotc books and you will not find one such item as one of their items.

matter of facy, you will not find a single rules saying "these can be made."

Wotc playtesters did not miss it. they said no.

This is a basic tenent with a lot of fellow GMs that I don't agree with. The idea that if there is lack of something in the book, or if there is no stated yes or no, (A lack of a healing item MIGHT be an inferred no, but then again it may be oversight) then it means no. By that defianition, a lot of 1ed. games I played in would have never happened. The books never say you can create your own spell point system, that doesn't mean you can't.

On the flip side, it specificly states that the caster has to pay the XP to make an item. Yet, I find a lot of people who thinks that making the user of the item pay the XP cost make a lot more sense. "Why should a wizard be penalized for making a sword he would never use and then the fighter gets the benfit of the sword by only digging up the cash (which in some games is not that hard if you dugeon crawl in the tradtional style.)

The chart is not PERMISSION.

If a gm allows such an item into his game, he deserves what he gets.

On this I agree, which is why I asked you wise men and women what you thought, or to see what you thought of my alternatives. Perhaps I will do something a little more straight forward, such as maximise the spell, ((4*8) * 2k) so it will be $64k and cost about 2k xp for 13 perment hit points. Or perhaps I will fudge the math and make it $36k with 1.4k xp for 13 pement hp.

And this fellow on the WotC DMG forum had some nice insights.

Pyromancer
posted October 27, 2002 01:01 AM

And BTW, a use-activated item of an instantaneous spell does not cast it every round. Instead, it casts it, then uncasts it (the effects end) when it is removed. So, basically it is a bunch of temp HP, that aren't lost first, and cannot exceed your usual max.

 

[kreynolds]

Hmm....

Pyromancer
posted October 27, 2002 01:01 AM

And BTW, a use-activated item of an instantaneous spell does not cast it every round. Instead, it casts it, then uncasts it (the effects end) when it is removed. So, basically it is a bunch of temp HP, that aren't lost first, and cannot exceed your usual max.

That depends on the item. This viewpoint completely breaks down when other spells are considered, such as Fireball and Magic Missile. As a blanket statement, it's incorrect.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Compare to a Ring of Regeneration. I think the Ring is a tad overpriced, but an item that gives Fast Healing 4.5 is going to have to cost a lot more.

There's a psionic power called accelerated metabolism that gives fast healing 1 - for 10 rounds. If you make it Persistent that's a 7th-level power right there. You could use that formula, but be sure to multiply the cost by something to make up for the "things that should never be allowed in a campaign" factor.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

This is a basic tenent with a lot of fellow GMs that I don't agree with.

You misunderstand my statement.

The idea that if there is lack of something in the book, or if there is no stated yes or no, (A lack of a healing item MIGHT be an inferred no, but then again it may be oversight) then it means no. By that defianition, a lot of 1ed. games I played in would have never happened. The books never say you can create your own spell point system, that doesn't mean you can't.

No where did i say that they said 'no you cannot make it for your games." That was not even implied.

A GM can add for his game ANY magic item he wishes. he can add a +10 dagger of vorpl dragon slaying for 10 gp cost if he wants. There is nothing illegal about it. he can add 12 spells per level free for wizards whose name starts with G. nothing illegal about it. he can allow a necklace of wishes fre action as a rogue class benefit at third level. nothing illegal about it.

WOTC has never said you cannot do anything for your game.

period, ever.

nor did i.

nor did the playtesters.

the only thing wotc has ever had any say in, the only thing the playtesters ever had anys say in, the only thing a yes or a no FROM THEM applies to, ever at all, in any context, is to what is an officical DND rule or item or game component.

Look in the DMg, the PHB, or any other product by wotc and you will not see a Nipple ring of cure light per round.

they said no.

This does not mean you cannot as GM add one to your game.

I think i mentioned not once but more than once the whole thing starts with "the GM deciding he wants to add it to his game (which clearly you just plain missed in your zeal.)

On the flip side, it specificly states that the caster has to pay the XP to make an item. Yet, I find a lot of people who thinks that making the user of the item pay the XP cost make a lot more sense. "Why should a wizard be penalized for making a sword he would never use and then the fighter gets the benfit of the sword by only digging up the cash (which in some games is not that hard if you dugeon crawl in the tradtional style.)

Ok, this seems a bit off topic but thats fine.

Why not make the person who gets hit by the magic sword pay the XP?

On this I agree, which is why I asked you wise men and women what you thought, or to see what you thought of my alternatives. Perhaps I will do something a little more straight forward, such as maximise the spell, ((4*8) * 2k) so it will be $64k and cost about 2k xp for 13 perment hit points. Or perhaps I will fudge the math and make it $36k with 1.4k xp for 13 pement hp.

And this fellow on the WotC DMG forum had some nice insights.

Some use items work that way, some keep the effect going.

An unlimited CLW effect would be a simple pass around thing after each fight, enabling everyone to cure up quickly.

if you need that power in your game, then by all means add it. Set the price at whaever your party needs to lose.

After all, adding something like this is a plot device, not a balance issue, right?

BTW, just because wotc says yes does not mean you have to include it.

 

[kreynolds]

WOTC has never said you cannot do anything for your game.

period, ever.

nor did i.

nor did the playtesters.

the only thing wotc has ever had any say in, the only thing the playtesters ever had anys say in, the only thing a yes or a no FROM THEM applies to, ever at all, in any context, is to what is an officical DND rule or item or game component.

Look in the DMg, the PHB, or any other product by wotc and you will not see a Nipple ring of cure light per round.

they said no.

Hmm. This is confusing. Nobody said "no", yet you infer they said "no", even though they said no such thing. Following your rationale, given that there isn't a potion of Ironguts, they are saying "No, you can't create one", even though the Ironguts spell is a prime example for the type of spell you can make into a potion, as stated in the Brew Potion feat description.

Either they said "no" or they didn't.

Also, I think you need to calm down a little bit. Voneth seemed polite and non-confrontational, yet you were a bit harsh with him, and I don't think he deserved it.

Why not make the person who gets hit by the magic sword pay the XP?

If the sword inflicts energy drain, I don't have a problem with that.

 

[hong]

And I would hate to think that something this obvious would have escaped WotC playtesters.

If it really was that obvious, wouldn't you have thought of it earlier than two years into 3E's life?

 

[Firzair]

Hi everybody,
here's what I ruled for my campaign:
- No instantanous spell can be made use-activated or permanent
- the cost for spells to be made use-activated (and thus permanent) depends on the duration of the spell i.e. a spell with a standard duration of 1 hour/level would cost 2000 gp times spell level squared, but a spell with a duration of only 1 round/level costs 7500 gp times level squared
- if the effect of a spell is stated seperatly in the table (e.g. attribute bonus for Bull Strength) that column is used, so no permanent Bull Strength and no permanent shield for +7 bonus (we use armor bonus for that)

Greetings
Firzair

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm. This is confusing. Nobody said "no", yet you infer they said "no", even though they said no such thing. Following your rationale, given that there isn't a potion of Ironguts, they are saying "No, you can't create one", even though the Ironguts spell is a prime example for the type of spell you can make into a potion, as stated in the Brew Potion feat description.

since you quoted my post, you really should have read it.

as i pointed out, they did not say anything about what you can or cannot create as custom items in your game.

i made that clear.

All they said no to was "is this an official wotc item.

In the case of some items, they gave permission to make them by listing them in the DMG. in the case of others they give explicit rules "spells of 3rd level or lower that have..." for potions is a good example.

If ironguys fits the permissions they gave in the PHB, it is an official item. If it matches the list of potions in the DMG, it is an official item. Everything else is not an official wotc item.

thats all they can say yes or no to, whether its an official item. not whether or not you can create one in your games.

go back and read my post.

you missed that and that was the whole point.

Either they said "no" or they didn't.

NO to "it is an official item" not no to "you can create one". read the post next time.

 

[kreynolds]

since you quoted my post, you really should have read it.

Actually, I did read your posts, and I couldn't figure out two things.
1) The contradiction in your statements.
2) Why you're being so frickin' rude. Read on to see more of this unprovoked behavior.

as i pointed out, they did not say anything about what you can or cannot create as custom items in your game.

That's right, but you also infer that if the item you want doesn't already exist, then you can't make it.

i made that clear.

Yes, you made your stance clear. I'm not challenging what you said. I'm questioning your reasoning. Big difference.

All they said no to was "is this an official wotc item.

In the case of some items, they gave permission to make them by listing them in the DMG. in the case of others they give explicit rules "spells of 3rd level or lower that have..." for potions is a good example.

So, if the item hasn't already been made by WotC, then it's not an official item, but they're not saying that you can't make one. That's much better stated. Thank you for clearing that up.

If ironguys fits the permissions they gave in the PHB, it is an official item. If it matches the list of potions in the DMG, it is an official item. Everything else is not an official wotc item.

See, it's this kind of thing that destroyed any validity to your argument for me. You said if the item isn't listed, then you don't have permission to make it, which is evident by your first post, and wasn't cleared up by your second post either. Yet now, you're adding in a little caveat, which is "If it falls within the rules of magic item creation, you can make it."

What does this translate to? Very simple; "If you have the Brew Potion feat, and the spell you have prepared targets a creature, you can brew the potion. You will probably need to seek DM approval before you make a potion that is not listed in the DMG."

That's a far cry from "They said no."

thats all they can say yes or no to, whether its an official item. not whether or not you can create one in your games.

I think we're clear now.

go back and read my post.

No need. I'm not having any difficulty in reading your posts. I'm having difficulty making sense of your argument.

you missed that and that was the whole point.

I didn't miss anything. I just didn't think your argument was very valid and I found it contradictory.

NO to "it is an official item" not no to "you can create one". read the post next time.

See previous answers, and please, calm down. I certainly don't deserve this kinda of crappy behavior from you. I'm being civil. I would hope it's not too much to ask for you to do the same.