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

[Darklone]

Eeeeks d00ds, start to phone

 

[Darklone]

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

Honestly Hong, it was the first question our group talked about when we read the 3rd edition rules and we instantly dismissed it as gamebreaking.

 

[kreynolds]

Eeeeks d00ds, start to phone

LOL Yeah, you've probably got a point.

 

[dcollins]

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."

I fundamentally agree with Petrosian. There are two very distinct types of item creation which are frequently, and incorrectly, collapsed:

(1) Items that directly recreate spells: use of Brew Potion, Scribe Scroll, and Craft Wands feats. These items do have parameters for construction, with concrete pricing formulas, given on the PH p. 78. Hence they are items that require meeting parameters in the PH and do not need explicit listing in the DMG.

(2) All "other magic items": as per the language of the DMG p. 178. These items do not have definition parameters or prices in the PH. They must be found on the explicit lists in the DMG or, indeed, you do not have automatic permission to create them. Instead, one is forced to resort to the "new items" rules in the DMG, which only provide rough pricing guidelines, and require special DM approval, because any such "new items" are intrinsically house-ruled.

If by default you allow any "new items" to always be constructed, then 1&2 look like the same thing, but that's not how it's presented in the core rules. Parameters for design are relevant for #1, and are fundamentally in the hands of the player (not DM), as in the specific case of a potion of ironguts (or whatever). But no parameters for freely-permitted design are given for #2 -- they are fundamentally in the hands of the DM, not players. Petrosian's original point was referring to the topic of this thread, a permanent use-activated healing item in category #2, and his point still stands.

 

[Petrosian]

[/B][/QUOTE]

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 you hopefully will see soon, the apparent contradict stems only from what you "infer". After you put words in my mouth, then there is a contradiction, not before.

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

I did not say that. Not at all. You add that in and a contradiction exists.

If it is not in the book. if it is not given permission to be made in the book. then its not a wotc official item.

wotc is responsible for their items, not yours.

wotc did not miss a use activated clw, they didn't include it. If YOU decide now that you want to add it to your campaign, AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE and anyone who took the few second to read my post would see, no one will come in and stop you.

You, and you alone, bear that responsibility.

it is that simple.

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

My reasoning is that wotc is responsible for only the items they create.

if you decide for your game to add a new item not covered by their rules and sample items, its your baby.

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.

Ahhh... finally you get it. Thats what all those "you can make it" statements were at least for some a CLUE to.

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."

Huh?

you can make for your game anything, any item.

Let me repeat that for those who choose to ignore it...

you can make any item for your game.

Ok since you seem to keep missing it ONE MORE TIME...

you can make any item for your game.

Any inference you choose to add into my statements that contradicts that is just you being intentionally difficult.

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."

Huh? Whatever?

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

They said no to making it an official item.

since you still do not get it...

no one ever said you cannot do what you want in your game.

if you choose to make a codpiece of wonder, fine. Add it to your game. As Gm anything is possible.

the responsibility falls on you to make that a reasonable thing.

this is totally seperate from did wotc decide to have the item be official.

wotc playtesters did not miss "the item you created for you home grown game"

I think we're clear now.

I doubt it, but we should be done. you can, i am certain, continue to ignore portions of my post and add in your inferences as if they were comments and prolong this fiasco much longer, but then, there aint much that can be done about that, now is there.

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

After you add in your own inferences, after you ignore the points, sure, i can see why.

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

After adding your inferences, sure.

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.

you seem to be being deliberately obtuse and selective... maybe thats civil in your games.

but if you feel better playing the poor victim, works for me.

 

[kreynolds]

Petrosian's original point was referring to the topic of this thread, a permanent use-activated healing item in category #2, and his point still stands.

I think I understand where he's coming from, but I see some holes here.

The original post asked how a use-activated cure light wounds item would work. The DMG gives rules on one creating new magic items, a chapter that essentially states "You (the DM) can make/allow new items, as per the rules. This chapter contains guidelines that will help you create/allow new items within the rules, guidelines that we also used to create the items you see listed throughout this book." An entire section of the Magic Item chapter is completely devoted to making new items.

The original poster was asking how said item would function within the rules. I even went so far as to give possibilities as to how said item might function, and I drew those possiblities from the guidelines regarding the creation of new magic items within the rules.

There is a big difference between saying "No, you can't have it" because you don't understand how you could make said item within the rules, and saying "Yes, here's how you could do it." because you understand the item creation rules, thus you know how to create said item within the rules, and you also have the foresight to create the item in a balanced manner.

It's like telling someone that they aren't allowed to bungi(sp?) jump because you don't know how much stress the cord can take, and you don't even bother making the effort to find out whether or not the cord is up to the task at hand.

It's a half-baked answer. I don't have a problem with the answer "I wouldn't allow it in my games.", and when I ask why, I get "Because it's my game and I said so." But, that's not a valid argument as to why someone thinks I shouldn't allow said item in my game, especially when I can prove that said item can indeed be created within the guidelines of the rules.

I intend no insult, but I'm still convinced that the line that divides the DMs that allow custom items with approval and the DMs that don't allow custom items at all is largely based upon a lack of understanding of the item creation rules. One of the intial responses to the first post was complete shock as to why on earth anyone would allow such an item. Read that post again, and you'll probably note that an obvious assumption was made in regards to how the item would work without any actual thought given to the item creation rules themselves. It's also obvious that an assumption was made because one of the possible options of said item was "9 permanent hit points", which certainly wouldn't destroy the balance of a game at all, not if appropriately priced, yet that option was completely ignored.

Had the time been taken to actually think about it, no doubt that assumption and rash conclusion would not have been made, and instead, a post that stated how you could do it and how you could balance it would have taken its place instead.

If said poster simply didn't like the idea of such an item, no matter how balanced it could be made, then it would have been easier to just state "I don't like the idea, so I wouldn't allow it, even though I know it could be created to be balanced well within the rules and would not whack out the game."

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, and I apologize if I'm coming across that way. I'm just expressing my opinion.

 

[kreynolds]

you seem to be being deliberately obtuse and selective...

Not at all. I'm just trying to hold a discussion with you. You seem to be hell bent on being rude and insulting.

but if you feel better playing the poor victim, works for me.

I can promise you that I feel far from victimized. If you are incapable of holding a civil discussion, perhaps it would be better if you just dropped out of it.

 

[dcollins]

The original poster was asking how said item would function within the rules. I even went so far as to give possibilities as to how said item might function, and I drew those possiblities from the guidelines regarding the creation of new magic items within the rules.

Actually, I disagree. The original poster did not ask, "how do I make an item that cures 9hp per round?" He did in fact ask "would a use actived magic item with a Cure Light Wounds offer 1d8+1 every round to it's owner?" He's clearly looking at the "new items" pricing table, thinking he can use those guidelines as construction rules, and asking what the end effect is for a particular pricing category.

That's interpreting the table backwards and he needs to be educated about that. It would be correct to tell him that "No, you can't have that automatically at that price." -- or at the very least, "No, that's not the way 'new items' table works."

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, and I apologize if I'm coming across that way. I'm just expressing my opinion.

Not at all. You're going out of your way to be cordial, and it's noticed and appreciated.

 

[kreynolds]

The original poster did not ask, "how do I make an item that cures 9hp per round?"

I never said he did.

He did in fact ask "would a use actived magic item with a Cure Light Wounds offer 1d8+1 every round to it's owner?"

Exactly, which is semantically the same as "How would a use-activated cure light wounds magic item work." He was seeking verfication, or clarification, of his theory as to how the item would work, thus he was asking how it would work.

If someone had simply replied, "No, it wouldn't work that way." and had left it at that, he would have asked more directly how it worked anyway.

Not at all. You're going out of your way to be cordial, and it's noticed and appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[rassav]

We use an itemlike this in one of our games.

Headband of Moradin's Mercy

The simple gold headband, adorned with the symbol of Moradin on the brow, allows any character wearing it to Cure Light Wounds once per round, exactly as if he had cast the spell of the same name.

(description edited from earlier post)

Caster Level: 1st Prerequisites: Craft Wondrous Item, Cure Light Wounds. Market Price: 2000gp Weight: -

(This item was created using the item creation rules from Tome and Blood.)

We priced the item as a use-activated item. Activating the item is a standard action.

Use Activated Item=(Spell Level)*(Caster Level)*(2000gp)

We were initially very concerned that this item would be unbalanced and take some fun out of gameplay. We decided to playtest it out and see how it worked. After playtesting, we decided that the item was balanced, for us, for several reasons.

1) Custom magic items must be made by the characters and are not readily availavble for sale in our game. accordingly, this item requires a character to sacrifice experience in creating it.

2) The price is equal to approximately 266 charges worth of Cure Light Wounds wands. The difference between 266 charges and unlimited charges has not been apparent. We have yet to use it more than 266 times.

3) At caster level 1, the item is easy to dispel.

4) The item is less and less useful in encounters as the characters advance in levels. The characters are 10th level now, and the item is rarely used in encounters. Most things you fight at that level deal enough damage that you need more than that 1d8+1 to keep you going.

5) The item is primarily used between counters to heal. Before the item was created the characters would simply rest and heal up, using their spells to restore their hitpoints. They were almost always at close to full strength for the next encounter. The item has simply reduced the bookkeeping and made game play more streamlined. This is well worth it for us and our current style of play, which focuses on the big encounters. If your style includes worrying about every small thing, you probably won't like this item. We also assume that the charcters have enough food and water without them having to inventory it, unless that is a key story element.

6) We like to err in favor of the players keeping their characters alive. Yes, characters do die in our games, but this helps to insure that they don't die from being nickeled and dimed in some minor encounter.


Another interesting use for this item is to hold the charge on the Cure Light Wounds and make touch attacks against undead. Those crazy players think of the strangest things!


Summary: Though the item seemed unbalancing at first, playtested has shown it to be a balanced item for our game.