Wands of Cure Light? Bah!

[Jack Simth]

I was browsing through the Magic Item Compendium, and ran across a weapon property: Vampric, +2 Equivalent, page 45. Unlike the spell it's based off, the Vampiric weapon property does actual healing, not just grant temporary hit points. Now, it's only 1d6, and you have to do more damage to your target than you're healed (you inflict an extra 1d6, but you still have to hit with the weapon), this normally wouldn't grant you limitless slow healing.

However, when combined with the Elemental Summoning Reserve feat (Complete Arcane), something interesting happens: you've got a limitless supply of critters to damage, that you can technically order not to fight back (and to stand still, close their eyes... not that elementals have eyes.... and so on for basically hitting a very low AC).

If you've got time to kill, target practice gets the entire party up to full HP. Hand dagger off to injured person, Wizard (or Cleric, or Druid, or anything else that has a 4th+ Conjouration(Summoning) spell available) Summons elemental and orders it to hold perfectly still and not fight back (technically a valid order if you can talk to it) and injured person repeatedly stabs elemental until healed. If/when the elemental dies, the Wizard (or Cleric, or Druid, etc) replaces it.

A +1 Vampiric Dagger markets at 18,302 gp. So for that, a feat (your ninth level feat, as you need to have 4th level spells to qualify, and you don't get a feat usable for Elemental Summoning until then... unless you're a Wizard that found a way to put off 5th level for a few levels) and a 4th level spell held in reserve, and you have limitless healing out of serious combat.

Mind you, you're spending as much on the Vampiric Dagger as you would on a little over 24 wands of Cure Light Wounds, so it's probably not worth it unless you're in a rather long campaign ... and you'll probably take an alignment hit, torturing all those poor elementals... but hey! Unlimited out of combat healing!

 

[roguerouge]

Actually, when a druid in a game I played in used summoned elementals in a similar manner for setting off traps, that lost her summoning privileges from the elder elemental of those elements. It's a DM adjudication thing, I guess.

 

[Jack Simth]

Actually, when a druid in a game I played in used summoned elementals in a similar manner for setting off traps, that lost her summoning privileges from the elder elemental of those elements. It's a DM adjudication thing, I guess.

That's a rather extreme case of house-rules. Especially when Summons aren't actually harmed by whatever happens to them while they're Summoned elsewhere (seriously - it's specified in the rules that an Summoned critter that's killed reforms 24 hours later, none the worse for wear, on their home plane).

Besides, if you don't have a rogue in the party, how else are you going to deal with traps?

Still, though, would you have any objections replacing Summon Elemental in the above with Minor Shapeshift? As long as the people you're healing don't hit you for more than your character level in damage in a round, you can keep generating enough temporary HP so that it doesn't matter.

 

[Artoomis]

That's a rather extreme case of house-rules. Especially when Summons aren't actually harmed by whatever happens to them while they're Summoned elsewhere (seriously - it's specified in the rules that an Summoned critter that's killed reforms 24 hours later, none the worse for wear, on their home plane).

Besides, if you don't have a rogue in the party, how else are you going to deal with traps?

Still, though, would you have any objections replacing Summon Elemental in the above with Minor Shapeshift? As long as the people you're healing don't hit you for more than your character level in damage in a round, you can keep generating enough temporary HP so that it doesn't matter.

I would approach it as a combination of abusive rules-lawyering and summoning abuse as well.

I'd either disallow it entirely or follow the clever precedent above to have some sort of diety intervention to disallow summoning - either temporarily or permanently.

By RAW it would be allowed, but the DM's job is to adjudicate such things. Such things make great intellectual excercises, but need to be tempered in actual play by some DM common sense, especially when combining rules from supplemental books.

 

[Jack Simth]

I would approach it as a combination of abusive rules-lawyering and summoning abuse as well.

I'd either disallow it entirely or follow the clever precedent above to have some sort of diety intervention to disallow summoning - either temporarily or permanently.

By RAW it would be allowed, but the DM's job is to adjudicate such things. Such things make great intellectual excercises, but need to be tempered in actual play by some DM common sense, especially when combining rules from supplemental books.

Do note:
It's not actually a balance issue (unless you're using Tome of Battle classes, or some other method that gets the non-casters up to the level of the full casters).

For the same cost of that +1 Vampiric Dagger, you could pick up 24 wands of Cure Light Wounds, instead (and have a little left over). You seriously need to go through over 6,600 hp this way (24 wands * 50 charges per wand * average (1d8+1) hit points per charge) before the Vampiric Dagger and Summon Abuse (or Minor Shapechange for temp HP) abuse actually becomes cost-effective. If you use wands of Lesser Vigor, instead, you need to go through over 13,200 hp (24 wands * 50 charges per wand * 11 hit points per charge) before the +1 Vampiric Dagger + Minor Shapechange/Summon Elemental becomes cost effective. Really, between when you can start doing this (9th) and 20th level, you're *maybe* going to break-even on it.

Sure, it's limitless out-of-combat healing - but that's not actually as bad as you might think. See, limitless non-combat healing strengthens the classes that are based primarily on at-will or per-encounter abilities (Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, Monk, and so on), but does little for the classes based primarily on per-day abilities (Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, and so on). Generally, though, it's the classes that are based on at-will or per-encounter abilities that are considered the weaker classes at around the point where this technique becomes technically viable, and the classes that are based around per-day abilities are considered the stronger classes. It's a technique that, when used for everybody, helps the traditionally weaker classes more than the traditionally stronger classes. If anything, it makes the game more balanced, not less. Now, if you're using Tome of Battle classes, where a non-caster can keep up with a caster, then it'll cause some issues - otherwise? Not so much.

Now, don't get me wrong - thematically, it's bizarre and not something that would seem like a good idea. Mechanically, it just removes the DM's ability to use lots & lots of little encounters to wear the party down, and makes the weaker (at high level) classes a bit stronger without doing much for the stronger (at high level) classes.

 

[Zelc]

Fantastic out of combat healing really isn't that amazing, since Wands of CLW and Wands of Lesser Vigor are already cheap and effective. Unless your entire party is based around Tome of Battle classes and Warlocks, they still need to rest when the spells are used up.

Actually, when a druid in a game I played in used summoned elementals in a similar manner for setting off traps, that lost her summoning privileges from the elder elemental of those elements.

 

[Jhulae]

Actually, when a druid in a game I played in used summoned elementals in a similar manner for setting off traps, that lost her summoning privileges from the elder elemental of those elements. It's a DM adjudication thing, I guess.

Um wow.

Would a wizard or sorcerer lose their 'summoning' priveleges by casting Summon Monster 1 to do exactly the same thing? What about a cleric?

What if the Druid was using a wand, and not her own spells?

Sorry, but adjudications like that are just stupid.

 

[Artoomis]

...Sorry, but adjudications like that are just stupid.

There's nothing wrong with DM judgement calls that put a kabosh on DM-percieved rule abuses. That's the job of the DM.

Were it me, and I thought the rules were being abused (regardless of "balance" questions), I would also put the kabosh on it one way or another.

 

[Jhulae]

Mind you, you're spending as much on the Vampiric Dagger as you would on a little over 24 wands of Cure Light Wounds, so it's probably not worth it unless you're in a rather long campaign ... and you'll probably take an alignment hit, torturing all those poor elementals... but hey! Unlimited out of combat healing!

I'd like to think that *actively* attacking your summons would cause an alignment shift, and also break them of just standing there ready to take the hit (I'd assume at that point, you're no longer their 'friend' but now an 'enemy').

I can also see *actively* attacking your summons as probably causing a loss of summoning ability, unlike just summoning them to run down a hallway or assist in combat (both of which are likely to damage the summon, but neither *you* or your party are the ones attacking them).

 

[moritheil]

Um wow.

Would a wizard or sorcerer lose their 'summoning' priveleges by casting Summon Monster 1 to do exactly the same thing? What about a cleric?

What if the Druid was using a wand, and not her own spells?

Sorry, but adjudications like that are just stupid.

It depends on how the DM interprets the limits of divine spellcasters. In the case of druids, you're dealing with people who can't wear metal due to reverence of nature, which is arguably at least equally stupid, as metal is naturally present in the earth. Common sense is not really a valid measuring stick to use.