Re-usable CLW items?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

According to the 3.5 SRD, the cost for a Command-Word
Activated item is SL x CL x 1800 gp.

For Cure Light Wounds, Spell Level is 1 and Caster Level is
1, so the base cost is 1800 gp.

Then for items with charges-per-Day, we divide by (5 divided
by number of charges).

So an item that can cast CLW once a Day costs 360 gp, yes?

Or 1800 gp for an item that can cast CLW five times a Day?

A Wand than can cast CLW 50 times is 750 gp.

An item that can cast CLW 20 times a day is 7200 gp.

My question is, at what point do re-usable CLW items become
feasible? Obviously, during combat you're gonna need some
faster healing (1d8+1 hp per Round won't cut it), but CLW
spells will always be good for "healing up" between fights.

So are we talking 12th level? 16th? 20th? Epic? Never?

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
> According to the 3.5 SRD, the cost for a Command-Word Activated item is
> SL x CL x 1800 gp.
>
> For Cure Light Wounds, Spell Level is 1 and Caster Level is 1, so the
> base cost is 1800 gp.

Error: type GIGO. Please see manual for instructions, or contact
tech-support. Unlimited healing of that type is verbotten, proper
pricing is set via comparison with items of supernatural fast healing,
only better as it can be shared, and works post-facto.
Base cost is then ludicrously high, as it should be.

> My question is, at what point do re-usable CLW items become feasible?
> Obviously, during combat you're gonna need some faster healing (1d8+1 hp
> per Round won't cut it), but CLW spells will always be good for "healing
> up" between fights.

If you were to use that scheme, I'd reckon they'd be worthwhile as
soon as the party could afford them, and tactics would change to suit.
Sell everything bar one magic weapon to be safe, and trade up for the goods.

> So are we talking 12th level? 16th? 20th? Epic? Never?

Hmm, there was an old feat (at the top of a useless chain) that let
you swap a 9th level slot for a spell-like ability to cast any one first
level spell at will. At that rate it's like a super-powerful feat, plus
a 9th level slot, for about 100kgp.
Of course, it was arcane only, so no healing allowed. The principle
seems sound though, (near-)Epic stuff should be able to produce
1st-level heals once per round for a rediculous cost. Apart from that,
just use something that casts /Heal/ or /Mass Heal/ at three per day.

--
tussock

Aspie at work. Huzzah; usenet's back on in NZ.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:21:49 +1300, tussock wrote:

> verbotten

Forbidden in german is 'verboten', with one 't'...

HTH, HAND

LL
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock wrote:
> Hmm, there was an old feat (at the top of a useless chain) that
let
> you swap a 9th level slot for a spell-like ability to cast any one
first
> level spell at will. At that rate it's like a super-powerful feat,
plus
> a 9th level slot, for about 100kgp.
> Of course, it was arcane only, so no healing allowed. The
principle
> seems sound though, (near-)Epic stuff should be able to produce
> 1st-level heals once per round for a rediculous cost. Apart from
that,
> just use something that casts /Heal/ or /Mass Heal/ at three per day.
>
> --
> tussock
>
> Aspie at work. Huzzah; usenet's back on in NZ.

It's Innate Spell, requiring Silent Spell, Still Spell, and Quicken
Spell as pre-requisites. Originally from Forgotten Realms, I believe
it is in Complete Arcane. It was not and is not arcane only. In fact,
the feat description specifically mentions divine casters by saying
that if a divine caster loses the ability to cast spells because they
went against their deity, they would not be able to cast the Innate
Spell.

Gerald Katz
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Lorenz Lang hastily scrawled:
>On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:21:49 +1300, tussock wrote:
>
>> verbotten
>
>Forbidden in german is 'verboten', with one 't'...

I don't know what you're on about. It's obvious that tussock dropped
a space and switched an 'n' in for his intended 'r'. The above quote
should therefore read "verb otter", which makes perfect sense to any
semi-competent English reader. Please do not ask me to explain it to
you, as I have already been flagged by the NSA for a thorough noun
monkey and I don't want to push my luck.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 10:35:21 -0500, Ed Chauvin IV wrote:

> Mere moments before death, Lorenz Lang hastily scrawled:
>>On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:21:49 +1300, tussock wrote:
>>
>>> verbotten
>>
>>Forbidden in german is 'verboten', with one 't'...
>
> I don't know what you're on about. It's obvious that tussock dropped
> a space and switched an 'n' in for his intended 'r'. The above quote
> should therefore read "verb otter", which makes perfect sense to any
> semi-competent English reader. Please do not ask me to explain it to
> you, as I have already been flagged by the NSA for a thorough noun
> monkey and I don't want to push my luck.
>

Oh, how embarrassing. Once again I failed my reading comprehension check,
little old weisenheimer me.

I hereby vow to improve.

LL
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> typed:

>Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>
>> According to the 3.5 SRD, the cost for a Command-Word Activated item is
>> SL x CL x 1800 gp.
>>
>> For Cure Light Wounds, Spell Level is 1 and Caster Level is 1, so the
>> base cost is 1800 gp.
>
> Error: type GIGO. Please see manual for instructions, or contact
>tech-support. Unlimited healing of that type is verbotten, proper
>pricing is set via comparison with items of supernatural fast healing,
>only better as it can be shared, and works post-facto.
> Base cost is then ludicrously high, as it should be.

Eh? I assume you're complaining about the unlimited uses version which
we all know is b0rken. I believe Peter is on about an item with
limited uses per day. Though I have to confess that I'm not all that
clear on what he's asking.

I believe that Peter wants to know when such an item (say 5xCLW1 per
day) will have paid for itself relative to a wand. It costs 1800 gp; a
wand costs 750.

1800/750 = 2.4. So we need to get 2.4 x 50 = 120 CLWs out of it.

First we have to consider whether there's a cleric, ranger, paladin,
druid or bard in the party to use the wand. 90%+ of the time, this is
a Yes, so we'll use that case.

It's reasonable to assume that any party from 1st level up can make
good use of 5 CLWs a day. At 1st level, this is probably the 4 Fair
Fights, and at higher level, the 4 Fair Fights use less than 5 CLWs.
So at any level, 13.333 /.4 days = 16.67 CLWs goes up a level.

120/16.67 = 7.2. So you have to go up 7.2 levels before you get your
moey back. In other words, you're in the middle of 8th level.

There are some caveats here:
1) it's less flexible than the wand. 5 per day is your limit.
2) anyone can use it, not just the [cleric]. So it's very useful when
he goes down.
3) Sometimes you won't need all 5 CLWs in a day, though that's a bit
unusual
4) There are situations where you'd use this but not the wand, eg at
11:55 pm.

Either way, it's not IMHO underpriced. I think 1 or 2 uses per day is
probably better value, but still balanced.


--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jim Davies <jim@aaargh.NoBleedinSpam.org> wrote:
>I believe that Peter wants to know when such an item (say 5xCLW1 per
>day) will have paid for itself relative to a wand. It costs 1800 gp; a
>wand costs 750.

Also, for those who say that 1800 is way too cheap for a "CLW 5
times a day" item, consider that five Pearls of Power (1st) would
cost 5000 gp total, and would be MUCH, MUCH more flexible (as well
as usually providing better healing, though requiring a CLW caster
and two standard actions per spell).


Donald
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Jim Davies wrote:
> Eh? I assume you're complaining about the unlimited uses version which
> we all know is b0rken. I believe Peter is on about an item with
> limited uses per day. Though I have to confess that I'm not all that

Yes.

An unlimited CLW item is *clearly* broken.

> clear on what he's asking.
>
> I believe that Peter wants to know when such an item (say 5xCLW1 per
> day) will have paid for itself relative to a wand. It costs 1800 gp; a
> wand costs 750.

Not really. I'm more intersted in what level a party ought
to be before it's normal to have such an item.

> 1800/750 = 2.4. So we need to get 2.4 x 50 = 120 CLWs out of it.
>
> First we have to consider whether there's a cleric, ranger, paladin,
> druid or bard in the party to use the wand. 90%+ of the time, this is
> a Yes, so we'll use that case.
>
> It's reasonable to assume that any party from 1st level up can make
> good use of 5 CLWs a day. At 1st level, this is probably the 4 Fair
> Fights, and at higher level, the 4 Fair Fights use less than 5 CLWs.
> So at any level, 13.333 /.4 days = 16.67 CLWs goes up a level.
>
> 120/16.67 = 7.2. So you have to go up 7.2 levels before you get your
> moey back. In other words, you're in the middle of 8th level.

So are you saying that the party should purchase a 5-CLW
item as soon as it can afford it?

I disagree.

> There are some caveats here:
> 1) it's less flexible than the wand. 5 per day is your limit.

Exactly. Early on, the party is much better off using only
Wands.

> 2) anyone can use it, not just the [cleric]. So it's very useful when
> he goes down.

I actually didn't know that.

Can the item be made cheaper if only a healer can use it?
Like 10% or 20% cheaper?

> 3) Sometimes you won't need all 5 CLWs in a day, though that's a bit
> unusual
> 4) There are situations where you'd use this but not the wand, eg at
> 11:55 pm.

Actually, as soon as you have such an item, the way it works
is that you'll use up the daily charges in your re-usable
item before you start using the wand.

> Either way, it's not IMHO underpriced. I think 1 or 2 uses per day is
> probably better value, but still balanced.

The cost is a flat 360 gp per daily use.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Donald Tsang wrote:
> Also, for those who say that 1800 is way too cheap for a "CLW 5
> times a day" item, consider that five Pearls of Power (1st) would
> cost 5000 gp total, and would be MUCH, MUCH more flexible (as well

Yes. It seems that items with daily 1st level spell charges
are like Pearls of Power with a -64% cost reduction. 360 gp
vs 1000 gp.

> as usually providing better healing, though requiring a CLW caster

What do you mean, better healing?

> and two standard actions per spell).

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
> Donald Tsang wrote:
> > Also, for those who say that 1800 is way too cheap for a "CLW 5
> > times a day" item, consider that five Pearls of Power (1st) would
> > cost 5000 gp total, and would be MUCH, MUCH more flexible (as well
> > as usually providing better healing, though requiring a CLW caster
>
> What do you mean, better healing?

Higher caster level.

-Bluto
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>>Also, for those who say that 1800 is way too cheap for a "CLW 5
>>>times a day" item, consider that five Pearls of Power (1st) would
>>>cost 5000 gp total, and would be MUCH, MUCH more flexible (as well
>>>as usually providing better healing, though requiring a CLW caster
>>
>>What do you mean, better healing?
>
> Higher caster level.

But that's only better if the Cure Wounds spells are used to
cause damage to Undead. And that's rather wasteful. Still,
thanks for explaining...



--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Knutsen wrote:
>
> Senator Blutarsky wrote:
> > Peter Knutsen wrote:
> >>Donald Tsang wrote:
> >>>Also, for those who say that 1800 is way too cheap for a "CLW 5
> >>>times a day" item, consider that five Pearls of Power (1st) would
> >>>cost 5000 gp total, and would be MUCH, MUCH more flexible (as well
> >>>as usually providing better healing, though requiring a CLW caster
> >>
> >>What do you mean, better healing?
> >
> > Higher caster level.
>
> But that's only better if the Cure Wounds spells are used to
> cause damage to Undead. And that's rather wasteful. Still,
> thanks for explaining...

I don't think you understood the explanation. A level
5 caster who uses Pearls of Power to fuel his CLW
spells will cure 1d8+5 hit points per casting. A magic
item that casts CLW at caster level 1 will cure only
1d8+1 hit points per casting. Thus, the Pearls of
Power will (usually) provide "better healing."

-Bluto
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Knutsen <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:
>Donald Tsang wrote:
>> Also, for those who say that 1800 is way too cheap for a "CLW 5
>> times a day" item, consider that five Pearls of Power (1st) would
>> cost 5000 gp total, and would be MUCH, MUCH more flexible (as well
>> as usually providing better healing, [...]
>
>What do you mean, better healing?

The price for the 5x/day CLW was based on a Caster Level of 1 (heals
1d8+1 point of damage); the Pearls allow a caster to actually recast
the same spell at his/her own Caster Level (1d8 +CL; max +5), as
well as applying the effect of feats like Augment Healing (CD),
class features like Healing Hands (MH - Healer) or Faith Healing
(DMG - Hierophant), or perhaps even item effects such as that provided
by Incense of Meditation.

Clear enough?

Donald
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Knutsen <peter@sagatafl.invalid> typed:

>
>Senator Blutarsky wrote:
>> Peter Knutsen wrote:
>>>Donald Tsang wrote:
>>>>Also, for those who say that 1800 is way too cheap for a "CLW 5
>>>>times a day" item, consider that five Pearls of Power (1st) would
>>>>cost 5000 gp total, and would be MUCH, MUCH more flexible (as well
>>>>as usually providing better healing, though requiring a CLW caster
>>>
>>>What do you mean, better healing?
>>
>> Higher caster level.
>
>But that's only better if the Cure Wounds spells are used to
>cause damage to Undead. And that's rather wasteful. Still,
>thanks for explaining...

A wand CLW-1 does 1d8+1. A 5th level caster with a PP does 1d8+5. It's
not worth having a higher CL for a CxW-specific item except a staff,
as the CL doesn't add much compared to its cost. But a PP always uses
the user's CL.


--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Peter Knutsen <peter@sagatafl.invalid> typed:

snips
>Jim Davies wrote:

>> I believe that Peter wants to know when such an item (say 5xCLW1 per
>> day) will have paid for itself relative to a wand. It costs 1800 gp; a
>> wand costs 750.
>
>Not really. I'm more intersted in what level a party ought
>to be before it's normal to have such an item.

If we assume that it is a fair price, I'd guess that it should occupy
something up to about 1/15 of the party's wealth. For the 5/day 1800gp
item, we need a party worth at least 27,000gp. Four PCs of 5th level,
or four NPCs of 7-8th level will cover this.

>> 120/16.67 = 7.2. So you have to go up 7.2 levels before you get your
>> moey back. In other words, you're in the middle of 8th level.
>
>So are you saying that the party should purchase a 5-CLW
>item as soon as it can afford it?
>
>I disagree.

No, I'm not. I'm just evaluating how long it is before the amortised
cost is better than buying wands. I'd suggest buying it if you needed
one, as it's not a *bad* deal, but in the short term a wand is
probably better..

>> 2) anyone can use it, not just the [cleric]. So it's very useful when
>> he goes down.
>
>I actually didn't know that.

Straighforward command-word activation.

>Can the item be made cheaper if only a healer can use it?
>Like 10% or 20% cheaper?

I guess so...

>> 3) Sometimes you won't need all 5 CLWs in a day, though that's a bit
>> unusual
>> 4) There are situations where you'd use this but not the wand, eg at
>> 11:55 pm.
>
>Actually, as soon as you have such an item, the way it works
>is that you'll use up the daily charges in your re-usable
>item before you start using the wand.

All but the one or two you might want to get the cleric back on his
feet when required.

>> Either way, it's not IMHO underpriced. I think 1 or 2 uses per day is
>> probably better value, but still balanced.
>
>The cost is a flat 360 gp per daily use.

Yes, but you're more likely to use that one every day. You might often
not need the whole 5. To take the extreme case: is 360,000 gp for a
1000xCLW/day item good value? I suggest not.


--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Peter Knutsen" <peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:38spmiF5rnreoU1@individual.net...
>
> Jim Davies wrote:
> > I believe that Peter wants to know when such an item (say 5xCLW1 per
> > day) will have paid for itself relative to a wand. It costs 1800 gp; a
> > wand costs 750.
>
> Not really. I'm more intersted in what level a party ought
> to be before it's normal to have such an item.
>

3
Or as soon as a party member takes CWI. Once you add in the cost reduction
for making it yourself, its going to be the first item crafted. If only to
give the FTR or WIZ a quick band-aid when the CLR is out of range.

> >
> > 120/16.67 = 7.2. So you have to go up 7.2 levels before you get your
> > moey back. In other words, you're in the middle of 8th level.
>
> So are you saying that the party should purchase a 5-CLW
> item as soon as it can afford it?
>

Absolutely. In fact, I'd assume that every CLR eventually has this function
built into his Holy Symbol. If not having "Faith Healing" 3.0MaoF? Built
into it.

> I disagree.
>
> > There are some caveats here:
> > 1) it's less flexible than the wand. 5 per day is your limit.
>
> Exactly. Early on, the party is much better off using only
> Wands.
>

Not for long....

> > 2) anyone can use it, not just the [cleric]. So it's very useful when
> > he goes down.
>
> I actually didn't know that.
>
> Can the item be made cheaper if only a healer can use it?
> Like 10% or 20% cheaper?
>

If you make it spell-trigger activated then only classes with CLW on their
list can use it. Thats at least a 20% discount, I'd give it the full %30,
tho.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 05:11:00 +0100, Peter Knutsen
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>> as usually providing better healing, though requiring a CLW caster
>
>What do you mean, better healing?

Item: Caster level 1, does 1d8+1

Caster: Most casters are above level 1. Casters heal 1d8 + level
(max 5)
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 05:09:41 +0100, Peter Knutsen
<peter@sagatafl.invalid> wrote:

>> 2) anyone can use it, not just the [cleric]. So it's very useful when
>> he goes down.
>
>I actually didn't know that.
>
>Can the item be made cheaper if only a healer can use it?
>Like 10% or 20% cheaper?

16.67% cheaper.

The command word item is 1800x, the spell completion is 750x x2
(uncharged) = 1500x.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com wrote:

> >> 2) anyone can use it, not just the [cleric]. So it's very useful when
> >> he goes down.
> >
> >I actually didn't know that.
> >
> >Can the item be made cheaper if only a healer can use it?
> >Like 10% or 20% cheaper?
>
> 16.67% cheaper.
>
> The command word item is 1800x, the spell completion is 750x x2
> (uncharged) = 1500x.

Would you allow such and item?

An unlimited amount of charges at the price of 100 seems awful cheap to
me.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:11:21 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr>
wrote:

>lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> >> 2) anyone can use it, not just the [cleric]. So it's very useful when
>> >> he goes down.
>> >
>> >I actually didn't know that.
>> >
>> >Can the item be made cheaper if only a healer can use it?
>> >Like 10% or 20% cheaper?
>>
>> 16.67% cheaper.
>>
>> The command word item is 1800x, the spell completion is 750x x2
>> (uncharged) = 1500x.
>
>Would you allow such and item?
>
>An unlimited amount of charges at the price of 100 seems awful cheap to
>me.

Look at the discussions of the economics in this thread. It seems
reasonable.

The thing you must not allow in uncharged & unlimited use unless it's
something that by it's very nature isn't going to get used that much.
Look through the books--you'll find various level 0 spells in
uncharged/unlimited form and off the top of my head I can only recall
one level 1 uncharged/unlimited and that's got some practicality
issues that keep it from being abused.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, Jasin Zujovic hastily scrawled:
>lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> >> 2) anyone can use it, not just the [cleric]. So it's very useful when
>> >> he goes down.
>> >
>> >I actually didn't know that.
>> >
>> >Can the item be made cheaper if only a healer can use it?
>> >Like 10% or 20% cheaper?
>>
>> 16.67% cheaper.
>>
>> The command word item is 1800x, the spell completion is 750x x2
>> (uncharged) = 1500x.
>
>Would you allow such and item?
>
>An unlimited amount of charges at the price of 100 seems awful cheap to
>me.

In practice, 100 charges is close enough to unlimited as to be
considered so practically.



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Mere moments before death, Jasin Zujovic hastily scrawled:
>
>>lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>2) anyone can use it, not just the [cleric]. So it's very useful when
>>>>>he goes down.
>>>>
>>>>I actually didn't know that.
>>>>
>>>>Can the item be made cheaper if only a healer can use it?
>>>>Like 10% or 20% cheaper?
>>>
>>>16.67% cheaper.
>>>
>>>The command word item is 1800x, the spell completion is 750x x2
>>>(uncharged) = 1500x.
>>
>>Would you allow such and item?
>>
>>An unlimited amount of charges at the price of 100 seems awful cheap to
>>me.
>
>
> In practice, 100 charges is close enough to unlimited as to be
> considered so practically.

I think you mean in the context of adventuring? If so, that's true.

What would the social, military and health effects of an unlimited use
Cure Light Wounds wand in the campaign world be, though?

An army with one of these would march faster, and recover fater, being
able to refield any soldier that wasn't actually killed. Thus the
soldiers would have a much higher morale, and, since you aren't
constantly replacing troops with newer, greener, troops, the skill level
of the troops would avance quickly.

Just for one example.
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:

> Mere moments before death, Jasin Zujovic hastily scrawled:
>
>>lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>2) anyone can use it, not just the [cleric]. So it's very useful when
>>>>>he goes down.
>>>>
>>>>I actually didn't know that.
>>>>
>>>>Can the item be made cheaper if only a healer can use it?
>>>>Like 10% or 20% cheaper?
>>>
>>>16.67% cheaper.
>>>
>>>The command word item is 1800x, the spell completion is 750x x2
>>>(uncharged) = 1500x.
>>
>>Would you allow such and item?
>>
>>An unlimited amount of charges at the price of 100 seems awful cheap to
>>me.
>
>
> In practice, 100 charges is close enough to unlimited as to be
> considered so practically.
>
>
>
> Ed Chauvin IV
>

That's one of my problems with wands. They're nice in idea, but 100, 50,
or even 25 charges can be way too much, depending on the spell.

CH
 
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Piggybacking...

none@nowhere.com wrote:

> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
> >>>>>2) anyone can use it, not just the [cleric]. So it's very useful when
> >>>>>he goes down.
> >>>>
> >>>>I actually didn't know that.
> >>>>
> >>>>Can the item be made cheaper if only a healer can use it?
> >>>>Like 10% or 20% cheaper?
> >>>
> >>>16.67% cheaper.
> >>>
> >>>The command word item is 1800x, the spell completion is 750x x2
> >>>(uncharged) = 1500x.
> >>
> >>Would you allow such and item?
> >>
> >>An unlimited amount of charges at the price of 100 seems awful cheap to
> >>me.
> >
> > In practice, 100 charges is close enough to unlimited as to be
> > considered so practically.

For CLW? 100 charges is ~550 hp worth of healing. A party can burn that
much in a single fight at higher levels.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom