Re-usable CLW items?

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
33 answers Last reply
More about usable items
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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)
  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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
  22. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Jasin Zujovic hastily scrawled:
    >> Ed Chauvin wrote:
    >> > 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.

    They *could*, but they've probably got far more efficient methods of
    recovering that HP that would actually get used.


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

    On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:10:36 -0600, David Serhienko
    <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:

    >> 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.

    No, because it would still be an x/day item. Something that could
    cast CLW at will would be an epic item.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel@removethis.hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Something that could cast CLW at will would be an epic item.

    ITYM "should"...

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

    David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
    > Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    >>
    >> 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.

    Bear in mind that *any* soldier who survives the battle can expect to be
    back in top form within two weeks, given reasonable conditions... and no
    magic. Faster if they've got sufficient medics (people with enough
    ranks in Heal).

    A wand of cure light is most effective when it prevents someone from
    dying. In battle -- mass combat, that is -- that means it'd probably
    have to be in the hands of the field medics, not the company surgeons.
    If it's not, the person either walks back on his own (hp > 0) and
    doesn't need it, or got dropped (pretty safe to assume dead). There
    will be some who get knocked unconscious (hp 0); they can either recover
    on their own or killed -- they fit in the other two categories.

    Now, a wand of cure light can help the army recover faster -- useful in
    a high-attrition scenario like a long battle or the like -- but unless
    you need the wounded mook better *now*, time alone will be sufficient in
    most cases.

    In short, a wand of cure light will have startlingly little impact on
    army survivability, if they're not in the meat grinder. Even then, a
    single wand won't be a lot of use.

    A permanent, at-will healing item will keep a bad situation running
    longer, but eventually attrition will wipe out the smaller side. A
    single item can't keep up to the damage done in most cases -- you can't
    cycle the troops fast enough to heal them and get them back to the front
    ranks. It's another matter if you use a mass CLW item, but that's
    getting back up to a reasonable price for the benefit, and even then
    doesn't work on a *lot* of creatures at once.

    Overall, I suspect cure light items just won't have a big impact on
    typical military engagements, any more than a single fireball will. I'd
    probably give a bonus to unit survivability after the unit is broken and
    leave it at that.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
    keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Keith Davies wrote:
    > David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
    >
    >>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    >>
    >>>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.
    >
    >
    > Bear in mind that *any* soldier who survives the battle can expect to be
    > back in top form within two weeks, given reasonable conditions... and no
    > magic. Faster if they've got sufficient medics (people with enough
    > ranks in Heal).

    Yes, true, but my army with my CLW power will be back on its feet in
    days or hours, and attacking you again.

    The strategies will change, I believe.

    > A wand of cure light is most effective when it prevents someone from
    > dying. In battle -- mass combat, that is -- that means it'd probably
    > have to be in the hands of the field medics, not the company surgeons.
    > If it's not, the person either walks back on his own (hp > 0) and
    > doesn't need it, or got dropped (pretty safe to assume dead). There
    > will be some who get knocked unconscious (hp 0); they can either recover
    > on their own or killed -- they fit in the other two categories.

    > Now, a wand of cure light can help the army recover faster -- useful in
    > a high-attrition scenario like a long battle or the like -- but unless
    > you need the wounded mook better *now*, time alone will be sufficient in
    > most cases.

    It wouldn't need to be a meat-grinder battle though. I could stage my
    attack, and, assuming I didn't get overrun though bad luck, bad
    strategy, or the like, I will be ready to press the assault far earlier
    than normal. Which tilts the battle in my favor.

    Essentially, the CLW items will favor the aggressive fast paced war of a
    blitzkrieg.

    > In short, a wand of cure light will have startlingly little impact on
    > army survivability, if they're not in the meat grinder. Even then, a
    > single wand won't be a lot of use.

    Good Point. It would make a small dent in survivability, but only if
    you had a dedicated medical corps, and even then, quite a low percentage
    of those that would normally bleed out would receive treatment.

    > A permanent, at-will healing item will keep a bad situation running
    > longer, but eventually attrition will wipe out the smaller side. A
    > single item can't keep up to the damage done in most cases -- you can't
    > cycle the troops fast enough to heal them and get them back to the front
    > ranks. It's another matter if you use a mass CLW item, but that's
    > getting back up to a reasonable price for the benefit, and even then
    > doesn't work on a *lot* of creatures at once.

    What about single-use/day Cure Minor Wounds items? How much something
    like that cost? Or, pure single use Cure Minor Wounds potions/salves.

    Say each soldier carries one or two. When you fall, the soldier who
    pulls you out activates your cure minor wounds item. Combined with
    unlimited CLW, this would SEVERLY cut down on actual battlefield deaths.

    > Overall, I suspect cure light items just won't have a big impact on
    > typical military engagements, any more than a single fireball will. I'd
    > probably give a bonus to unit survivability after the unit is broken and
    > leave it at that.

    OK.

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

    David Serhienko wrote:

    > What about single-use/day Cure Minor Wounds items? How much something
    > like that cost?

    Same as a single-use per day CLW item, so no win here.

    > Or, pure single use Cure Minor Wounds potions/salves.

    This would work, but be expensive. Maybe... at 12.5 gp creation cost
    (plus 1 xp per potion), you save the life of a soldier quickly.

    What are the training costs of a soldier? What is the value of the
    Morale your soldier's get knowing you'll save their lives if possible?
    How much is it worth to not have to wait for reinforcements or replacements?

    Hopefully, more than 12.5 gp per battle =)

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

    David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
    > David Serhienko wrote:
    >
    >> What about single-use/day Cure Minor Wounds items? How much something
    >> like that cost?
    >
    > Same as a single-use per day CLW item, so no win here.

    Half that of a 1/day CLW. CMinorW is a level 0 spell, which gets priced
    as a half-price level 1 spell. So, assuming an amulet of cure minor,

    command-word 1/day spell: $spell * $caster * 2000 gp / 5

    (1/2) * 1 * 2000gp / 5 == 200gp // 1/2 for a level 0

    You could probably trim another 10% off this for 'command word'. I'd be
    more inclined to bump it by about 25% and make it a trigger item
    ("whenever the wearer goes unconscious from damage", or even "whenever
    the wearer goes unconscious" -- it's a daily item, if it hasn't been
    used yet that day, might as well use it last thing in the day).

    I'd allow the item IMC as written. It probably wouldn't see a lot of
    use in military groups because it's too expensive. Elite troops might
    have them, but the typical grunt probably wouldn't. For most of them,
    decent armor and weapons are better than this, since they're both easily
    understood and applied (rather than relying on 'unnatural powers') and
    keep the soldier from getting hurt in the first place.

    "Yeah, yeah, very nice, it'll keep me alive if I get hurt badly but not
    killed outright. Leave me right at the feet of the guy that hit me,
    too. Gimme better armor and I'll take care of the 'getting hurt' bit
    myself."

    >> Or, pure single use Cure Minor Wounds potions/salves.
    >
    > This would work, but be expensive. Maybe... at 12.5 gp creation cost
    > (plus 1 xp per potion), you save the life of a soldier quickly.
    >
    > What are the training costs of a soldier? What is the value of the
    > Morale your soldier's get knowing you'll save their lives if possible?
    > How much is it worth to not have to wait for reinforcements or replacements?
    >
    > Hopefully, more than 12.5 gp per battle =)

    For the more elite troops. I could see a mercenary corps having these
    potions. Levies almost certainly wouldn't. If it's cost effective and
    practical to provide a healing potion, it's more likely to be at least a
    cure light (double the cost, but for it to be cost effective you will
    have sunk enough into the soldier that that's still pretty minor).

    Thing is, while cure moderate is *handy*, it's not always applicable.
    Another downside is that if someone dies without using it, and the body
    is not recovered/looted by the his team, it provides the healing to the
    *other* side. Side A gets spanked and has to retreat, Side B gets to
    recover *faster* and chase them sooner.

    That's not good.

    Anyone who is likely to need the item... has a decent chance of not
    living long enough to benefit from it, unless he carries one into
    battle. If he does, it's vulnerable to capture by the enemy. As I said
    in my earlier post, a person is likely to either not need it, or not be
    able to apply it himself. All things considered, it isn't practical for
    each soldier to carry one.

    You *might* try giving each unit a medic who carries a few. That could
    be workable, but running around in the middle of unit melee trying to
    heal your companions in a situation that stands a decent chance of them
    taking enough more damage to kill them immediately after probably isn't
    that effective.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "English is not a language. English is a
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org bad habit shared between Norman invaders
    keith.davies@gmail.com and Saxon barmaids!"
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ -- Frog, IRC, 2005/01/13
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:52:53 GMT, Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org>
    scribed into the ether:

    >David Serhienko <david.serhienko@ndsu.nodak.edu> wrote:
    >> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    >>>

    >> 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.
    >
    >Bear in mind that *any* soldier who survives the battle can expect to be
    >back in top form within two weeks, given reasonable conditions... and no
    >magic. Faster if they've got sufficient medics (people with enough
    >ranks in Heal).

    A near-dead soldier is back and completely healthy in, at worst, 3 casts of
    the wand, or roughly 18 seconds. Ignoring the mental trauma, this army is
    fully up and ready to go within hours, not weeks.

    >A wand of cure light is most effective when it prevents someone from
    >dying. In battle -- mass combat, that is -- that means it'd probably
    >have to be in the hands of the field medics, not the company surgeons.
    >If it's not, the person either walks back on his own (hp > 0) and
    >doesn't need it, or got dropped (pretty safe to assume dead). There
    >will be some who get knocked unconscious (hp 0); they can either recover
    >on their own or killed -- they fit in the other two categories.

    In mass combat, people are unlikely to receive a lot of instantly fatal
    wounds. Mooks on mooks and all that. You'll get a lot of -1s to -9s who
    would probably be casualties except for this wand. Given the wand, you
    train your soldiers for it...few things would be taken closer to heart: Man
    down = man taken to the rear before he has a chance to be wounded again
    (which would almost certainly be fatal). It's not going to save everyone,
    but it will cut down your fatalities by a huge amount. This also likely has
    a big impact on the loyalty of your army.
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matt Frisch <matuse73@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
    >On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:52:53 GMT, Keith Davies <keith.davies@kjdavies.org>
    >scribed into the ether:

    >>Bear in mind that *any* soldier who survives the battle can expect to be
    >>back in top form within two weeks, given reasonable conditions... and no
    >>magic. Faster if they've got sufficient medics (people with enough
    >>ranks in Heal).

    >A near-dead soldier is back and completely healthy in, at worst, 3 casts of
    >the wand, or roughly 18 seconds. Ignoring the mental trauma, this army is
    >fully up and ready to go within hours, not weeks.

    If there's only one healing item serving an entire army, the
    logistics of using it efficiently would be a mess. It would
    be a big advantage, sure, but you've still got to either get
    it to every individual wounded soldier, or get every individual
    wounded soldier to it. If you want to bring badly wounded
    soldiers away from the front lines to the healer, you're going
    to need a lot of infrastructure that might not otherwise
    be present. In a regular army medics can work to stabilize
    wounded soldiers, but they don't have to get them back
    to the hospital right friggin' now so they can be healed
    and put back into the fight. Still, it would definitely
    be a big advantage used this way.

    If you want to use the healing item at or near the front
    lines, to maximize the fighting efficiency of your quickly-
    healed soldiers, you're going to be a ginormous target
    for the army you're fighting. As soon as they figure
    out what you're up to - and they will - they'll descend
    upon the guy with the healing item with everything
    they can spare, to either put it out of action or grab
    it to use themselves. The same will happen if the healing
    item is away from the front lines, except there it'll
    be spies or small strike forces rather than a front
    line push.

    As someone else said, it'll change the tactics used by
    both sides. What it won't do, though, is turn your
    soldiers into kamikazes. Knowing that they can be
    healed is great and all, but getting stabbed through
    the chest hurts like a mother, and there's absolutely
    no guarantee they'll survive long enough to be healed.
    PCs tend to throw themselves into battle without
    caring about the consequences, but I for one think
    NPC soldiers would act very differently, even if magical
    healing were cheap and plentiful.

    Pete
Ask a new question

Read More

Command Prompt Video Games