item creation - surely this can't be right...

[NecroRick]

Hi. I was looking at Hand of the Mage as a base item. 900 gp for an at will cantrip.

The cost looks right when reverse engineered. But I look at it and think to myself "cure minor wounds is a cantrip". So for 1000 gp I effectively get persisted vigor???

Tell me I'm wrong! (And why!)

While that might not even be unbalanced, Faith Healing is a level 1 spell, so healing 9 hit points per round for ony twice the cot??? That seems broken. Certainly it puts the healing belt to shame.

[NNescio]

Hi. I was looking at Hand of the Mage as a base item. 900 gp for an at will cantrip.

The cost looks right when reverse engineered. But I look at it and think to myself "cure minor wounds is a cantrip". So for 1000 gp I effectively get persisted vigor???

It's a persisted Vigor that eats up your standard action every round.

[Drachasor]

It's a persisted Vigor that eats up your standard action every round.

Yarp, though technically the item creation "rules" are more like guidelines and just because you CAN do something with them doesn't mean the DM should or will allow it. Not that I am saying the above is remotely broken, mind you.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Make it a teddy bear that gives you a Cure Minor Wounds whenever you hug it. RP makes anything legit!

[NecroRick]

It's a persisted Vigor that eats up your standard action every round.

It's continuous, no activation required. (???)

[Glimbur]

The item creation guidelines are guidelines for a reason. More often people point out constant effect Wraithstrike or use-activated gauntlets of True Strike or some such, but the point is that the rules are not really well balanced.

That said, infinite out of combat healing isn't really a big deal for the play style I prefer.

[NNescio]

It's continuous, no activation required. (???)

Hand of the Mage is not continuous.


Hi. I was looking at Hand of the Mage as a base item. 900 gp for an at will cantrip.


Hand of the Mage

This mummified elf hand hangs by a golden chain around a character’s neck (taking up space as a magic necklace would). It allows the wearer to utilize the spell mage hand at will.

Cure Minor Wounds also requires standard action to cast, and has a duration of instantaneous.


Cure Minor Wounds
Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Clr 0, Drd 0

This spell functions like cure light wounds, except that it cures only 1 point of damage.


Cure Light Wounds
Conjuration (Healing)
Level: Brd 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Healing 1, Pal 1, Rgr 2
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Will half (harmless); see text
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless); see text

You also can't make an enchant a continuous magic item with an instantaneous spell effect, any more than you can make, say, Bows of Continuous Orbs of Force, or an Armour of Continuous Fireball.


If a continuous item has an effect based on a spell with a duration measured in rounds, multiply the cost by 4. If the duration of the spell is 1 minute/level, multiply the cost by 2, and if the duration is 10 minutes/level, multiply the cost by 1.5. If the spell has a 24-hour duration or greater, divide the cost in half.

[molten_dragon]

It's continuous, no activation required. (???)

Doesn't work that way. Cure spells have an instantaneous duration, so you can't persist them or make a continuous item out of them. It would be like having a continuous duration fireball, it just doesn't make any sense. You'd have to make the item command word, and it would eat up your standard action every round, so it would essentially be unlimited out-of-combat healing. There are several other ways to pull off the same thing, so I don't consider it broken at all. Some DMs might though, and that's why the item creation guidelines are just that, guidelines which the DM doesn't have to adhere to slavishly.

[tyckspoon]

It's continuous, no activation required. (???)

Continuous Cure X Wound doesn't make sense, because it's an instantaneous effect. You'd want Use-Activated, keyed to some basic action that you do all the time anyway- "draw my weapon", "slap the Halfling for a stupid pun", "breathe."

(I don't recommend actually doing this- using the custom item guidelines exactly as written will make your game very stupid, very fast.)

[Doug Lampert]

Hi. I was looking at Hand of the Mage as a base item. 900 gp for an at will cantrip.

The cost looks right when reverse engineered. But I look at it and think to myself "cure minor wounds is a cantrip". So for 1000 gp I effectively get persisted vigor???

Tell me I'm wrong! (And why!)

While that might not even be unbalanced, Faith Healing is a level 1 spell, so healing 9 hit points per round for ony twice the cot??? That seems broken. Certainly it puts the healing belt to shame.

You're wrong. As to why you're wrong, the first rule for judging the cost of a magic item isn't the table or the level of spell it emulates, it's other items that do the same thing. You can't make an item of mage armor (level 1 spell) for only 1800 GP because +4 armor bonus is already an existing item and costs 16,000 GP. Similarly for Shield of Faith and deflection bonuses, we ignore the spell and go with the similar effect.

The rules for the table TELL you not to blindly follow it, the title is "Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values" not "Rules for Magic Item Gold Piece Values". Only scrolls, wands, and potions have hard rules for what they cost. And the rules for using that table tell you to first consider items with a similar effect.

So what has a similar effect to use activated unlimited healing or command word activated unlimited healing? In core about the only non-epic item that does that is a Ring of Regeneration, which gives about 1 HP every 3-4 minutes at the levels where it's cost would make it a "reasonable" item and costs 90,000 GP. It has some other minor beniees, but they're even worse than the crappy healing!

Conclusion 1: The DMG designers didn't know squat about ballance.

Conclusion 2: Despite this being 3.5 the designers hadn't noticed that magic sticks had been providing fairly cheap and effectively unlimited out of combat healing ever since 3.0 had come out years earlier.

Conclusion 3: MiC has cheaper and better healing items because someone finally noticed (2) above, but those items still aren't unlimited healing per day or as cheap as a spell of healing would imply they should be.

Conclusion 4: Eventually the designers noticed that they'd BADLY overpriced healing, and added better ballanced items in the MiC. These items are now the baseline for the price of reusable healing items. You can go a bit higher or lower without really hurting anything, but if you want to go "by the rules" those items are the baseline.

Compare with similar items FIRST. Estimated cost tables and spell levels are the last resort and even then should be used only with GM judgment.

DougL

[Drachasor]

Continuous Cure X Wound doesn't make sense, because it's an instantaneous effect. You'd want Use-Activated, keyed to some basic action that you do all the time anyway- "draw my weapon", "slap the Halfling for a stupid pun", "breathe."

I don't think that's how "use activated" works. It means you can spend a standard action to activate it any time without limit, not that you can say "it works whenever I snap my fingers" or something.

[Boci]

I don't think that's how "use activated" works. It means you can spend a standard action to activate it any time without limit, not that you can say "it works whenever I snap my fingers" or something.

Use activated means the item is activated by using it, like how flaming weapon enchantment is activated by attacking with the weapon.

[tyckspoon]

I don't think that's how "use activated" works. It means you can spend a standard action to activate it any time without limit, not that you can say "it works whenever I snap my fingers" or something.

If you're spending a Standard to use it, it's a Command Word (or, if you're using the MIC activations, 'manipulation', which covers things that require an action but aren't actually command words.) Use-Activated is 'done as part of another action' ..and I'm not sure if there actually are any examples of it in the DMG items. Not entirely sure why they bothered mentioning it; almost everything that could reasonably be a Use Activated item was laid out as a continuous effect instead.


like how flaming weapon enchantment is activated by attacking with the weapon.

Flaming and its like are actually Command properties; usually people ignore this because you can just turn them on once and simply never turn it back off.. and the properties specify that the damage is only done when you *hit* something with them, so the acid/fire/cold/lightning aura on the weapon doesn't destroy whatever you're using to store it.

[Drachasor]

Use activated means the item is activated by using it, like how flaming weapon enchantment is activated by attacking with the weapon.

That's intesting.

Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given. A flaming weapon deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. Bows, crossbows, and slings so crafted bestow the fire energy upon their ammunition.

Explicitly NOT activated by attacking with the weapon.

Looking it up...


Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity, unless the use involves performing an action that provokes an attack of opportunity in itself. If the use of the item takes time before a magical effect occurs, then use activation is a standard action. If the item’s activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use activation is not an action at all.

Though, honestly, "flaming" and weapon qualities don't really fit under the use-activated pricing guidelines at all. With things that do, most are standard actions, I believe. Others might not be, but have very limited effects (like making light). Since these are guidelines, I'd say a standard action when in doubt, but subsuming it as part of another action if the effect is relatively minor.

[NecroRick]

Hand of the Mage is not continuous.

I didn't say it was. Also: Rayleigh scattering.


Cure Minor Wounds also requires standard action to cast, and has a duration of instantaneous.

Almost every continuous effect magic item that is based off a spell (e.g. excluding things like skill bonuses) is based off a spell which requires a stadard action to cast. See for instance Cloak of Resistance. Also: Rayleigh scattering.

The duration point is interesting, but I think if I poked around I could probably find a counter-example.


You also can't make an enchant a continuous magic item with an instantaneous spell effect, any more than you can make, say, Bows of Continuous Orbs of Force, or an Armour of Continuous Fireball.

I agree in principle. It would e nice if here was some RAW to back this up though. Moreoer there are spells that even though their duration isn't instantaneous they shouldn't be made continuous, or even use activated... such as Truestrike.

[SowZ]

If you're spending a Standard to use it, it's a Command Word (or, if you're using the MIC activations, 'manipulation', which covers things that require an action but aren't actually command words.) Use-Activated is 'done as part of another action' ..and I'm not sure if there actually are any examples of it in the DMG items. Not entirely sure why they bothered mentioning it; almost everything that could reasonably be a Use Activated item was laid out as a continuous effect instead.



Flaming and its like are actually Command properties; usually people ignore this because you can just turn them on once and simply never turn it back off.. and the properties specify that the damage is only done when you *hit* something with them, so the acid/fire/cold/lightning aura on the weapon doesn't destroy whatever you're using to store it.

Eh, I am fairly sure, (but not positive,) a Cure Light Wounds use activated or command word would function the same, (standard action.) The advantage of use activated would be the lack of a verbal component. I would be willing to pay an extra couple hundred gold for that, sometimes.

[Boci]

That's intesting.


Explicitly NOT activated by attacking with the weapon.

Looking it up...

Though, honestly, "flaming" and weapon qualities don't really fit under the use-activated pricing guidelines at all.

Right you (and tyckspoon) are, I just assumed that was how it would work for some reason.



Almost every continuous effect magic item that is based off a spell (e.g. excluding things like skill bonuses) is based off a spell which requires a stadard action to cast. See for instance Cloak of Resistance. Also: Rayleigh scattering.

Cloak of resistence isn't based off a spell, its based off the bonus to saves formula.

[Drachasor]

..and I'm not sure if there actually are any examples of it in the DMG items.

Burst weapons -- use-activated on a critical
Eversmoking Bottle -- use-activated upon unstoppering
Lantern of Revealing -- use-activated upon being lit

There are others. Not a lot, generally.

[NecroRick]

Though, honestly, "flaming" and weapon qualities don't really fit under the use-activated pricing guidelines at all. With things that do, most are standard actions, I believe. Others might not be, but have very limited effects (like making light). Since these are guidelines, I'd say a standard action when in doubt, but subsuming it as part of another action if the effect is relatively minor.

Use activated with respect to weapons typically refers to how you don't need to turn on the +1 (or larger) bonus.

In the DMG standard action for use activation is so ubiquitous as to be assumed in most cases.

However in the MIC a great many use activated items require swift actions, lots require no activation at all, and a considerable number are immediate actions.

[Boci]

Burst weapons -- use-activated on a critical
Eversmoking Bottle -- use-activated upon unstoppering
Lantern of Revealing -- use-activated upon being lit

There are others. Not a lot, generally.

And the second two could just be magical items that take a standard action to activate.

[Drachasor]

And the second two could just be magical items that take a standard action to activate.

You rig up something to pull the cork of the bottle automatically, it should still work. Same with the lantern. Not hard to set up machines to do that even with D&D-level technology.

Also, the eversmoking bottle is pretty clearly NOT a standard action by any reasonable interpretation. It is a lot easier to do that than use a potion (no drinking). Maybe normally a move action, though if you are clever you could cut that down.

More precisely, use-activated that require a standard action do some on command or the like. These items explicitly list what is done as part of another action. Just like use-activated items discuss.

[Boci]

Also, the eversmoking bottle is pretty clearly NOT a standard action by any reasonable interpretation. It is a lot easier to do that than use a potion (no drinking). Maybe normally a move action, though if you are clever you could cut that down.

I'm pretty sure that unless it says otherwise, a magical item takes a standard action to activate. Good point about rigging them though.

Edit: Yes it is a standard action, as per the rules you quoted.

[Shpadoinkle]

I houserule Cure Minor Wounds to only affect creatures with 0 or fewer HP. Solves a lot of problems and makes "use CMW at will" items a hell of a lot less broken, but still useful in an emergency, if for no other reason than being able to automatically stabilize anyone bleeding out.

[Drachasor]

I'm pretty sure that unless it says otherwise, a magical item takes a standard action to activate. Good point about rigging them though.

Edit: Yes it is a standard action, as per the rules you quoted.

Not quite.

"If the item’s activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use activation is not an action at all."

If the item says "to use it, pull the cork" then activating it is subsumed in that action and requires no additional action beyond that.

[Boci]

Not quite.

"If the item’s activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use activation is not an action at all."

If the item says "to use it, pull the cork" then activating it is subsumed in that action and requires no additional action beyond that.

And since we are not told what action it takes to pull the cork, the rules say it will be a standard action.

[Drachasor]

And since we are not told what action it takes to pull the cork, the rules say it will be a standard action.

You are told. The action is pulling the cork. That's it.

Also, note: Unless stated otherwise, activating a use-activated magic item is either a standard action or not an action at all and does not provoke attacks of opportunity

[Boci]

You are told. The action is pulling the cork. That's it.

I know, and pulling the cork would presumably be a standard action. It could be a none action, but that!s doubtful.

[Telonius]

Hi. I was looking at Hand of the Mage as a base item. 900 gp for an at will cantrip.

The cost looks right when reverse engineered. But I look at it and think to myself "cure minor wounds is a cantrip". So for 1000 gp I effectively get persisted vigor???

Tell me I'm wrong! (And why!)

While that might not even be unbalanced, Faith Healing is a level 1 spell, so healing 9 hit points per round for ony twice the cot??? That seems broken. Certainly it puts the healing belt to shame.

"Congratulations, it works. You, and all the enemies you will ever face, now have this belt."

[Drachasor]

I know, and pulling the cork would presumably be a standard action. It could be a none action, but that!s doubtful.

When it is a "non-action" that means it is part of doing whatever other action is stated to active it.

In other words, you pull the cork + non-action to activate the item, is the breakdown. How much of an action it takes to pull the cork is up to the DM. I'd say it fits into a Move Action pretty well, though with some setup it could be a swift or free.

In other, other words, if you do the specified action for such items, then it activates at no additional action cost.

[Boci]

In other, other words, if you do the specified action for such items, then it activates at no additional action cost.

So we need an action for uncorking a bottle, for which we have little RAW, so I still think it would default to a standard action.

[Drachasor]

So we need an action for uncorking a bottle, for which we have little RAW, so I still think it would default to a standard action.

You'd go to the rules on actions.


In most cases, moving or manipulating an item is a move action.

This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table: Move Actions.

This seems to fit under that.

It doesn't suggest you have to use a standard action for its effect anymore than Flaming Burst does.

[Boci]

You'd go to the rules on actions.



This seems to fit under that.

True, but its nots listed there, and its a magical item, and activating item is typically a standard action.

[Grendus]

"Congratulations, it works. You, and all the enemies you will ever face, now have this belt."

Heck, I'd take it. Unlimited, out of combat healing is much more useful to the PC's than random monsters. If a monster survives for four rounds, that's 36 hp total... maybe five rounds for 45 since he's healing a bit. The PC's meanwhile get to start each battle topped off and probably benefit more from the belt than the monsters, since they have smaller HP pools. And, of course, they can collect the extra belts, keep a backup or two in case the DM decides to sunder yours, and sell the rest for ludicrous amounts of money.

[Drachasor]

True, but its nots listed there, and its a magical item, and activating item is typically a standard action.

Except that's not at all what the rules say on use-activated items. They give no preference for "standard action" vs. "no action save what activity is described." So, when an activity is described, that clearly fits into the second category. Seems extremely straightforward to me.

[Eldariel]

Let's remember that Custom Item Creation Guidelines are in the DMG as tools for DM to estimate prices for new items they might want to create, rather than an exact table that players can use to design toys for themselves.

[NecroRick]

Let's remember that Custom Item Creation Guidelines are in the DMG as tools for DM to estimate prices for new items they might want to create, rather than an exact table that players can use to design toys for themselves.

Yes, of course.

I was kind of hoping there was a RAW explanation of 'continuous' that I'd somehow missed in my rules spelunking.

Thanks everyone for your contributions to this thread, no matter how rouge icthyian they were :D

[Boci]

Except that's not at all what the rules say on use-activated items. They give no preference for "standard action" vs. "no action save what activity is described." So, when an activity is described, that clearly fits into the second category. Seems extremely straightforward to me.

Yes but there are no rules on what action uncorking a bottle is.

[Drachasor]

Yes but there are no rules on what action uncorking a bottle is.

Is a bottle an object? Are you manipulating it?

[candycorn]

Yes but there are no rules on what action uncorking a bottle is.

A bottle is an item.

"In most cases, moving or manipulating an item is a move action."

Which means that the DEFAULT for moving an item, or manipulating one, is that it's a move action. Exceptions will be noted.

Unstoppering a bottle isn't "activating a magic item", any more than "drinking a vial" is.

Regardless of whether that vial contains a potion, or an antitoxin, the rules for drinking are exactly the same. It is a standard action, and is explicitly laid out as such, which makes it an exception to manipulating an item normally being a move action.

Regardless of whether that bottle is wine, or a eversmoking bottle, unstoppering a bottle is unstoppering a bottle. No action type is given, so it defaults to move action.

Use-activated items are just that. Their effect activates on use. A flaming sword, for example, is a command word activated item (whether or not it flames), and a use activated (deals 1d6 fire damage on a hit). If I take a full round action to full attack, and attack 3 times with a flaming sword, it can deal fire damage 3 times.

A potion is also use-activated. You drink it, you get the effect.

A candle of invocation? Broken, but you activate it by lighting it, not by using a command word.

[Boci]

Is a bottle an object? Are you manipulating it?


A bottle is an item.

"In most cases, moving or manipulating an item is a move action."

Which means that the DEFAULT for moving an item, or manipulating one, is that it's a move action. Exceptions will be noted.

Unstoppering a bottle isn't "activating a magic item", any more than "drinking a vial" is.

Regardless of whether that vial contains a potion, or an antitoxin, the rules for drinking are exactly the same. It is a standard action, and is explicitly laid out as such, which makes it an exception to manipulating an item normally being a move action.

Regardless of whether that bottle is wine, or a eversmoking bottle, unstoppering a bottle is unstoppering a bottle. No action type is given, so it defaults to move action.

Use-activated items are just that. Their effect activates on use. A flaming sword, for example, is a command word activated item (whether or not it flames), and a use activated (deals 1d6 fire damage on a hit). If I take a full round action to full attack, and attack 3 times with a flaming sword, it can deal fire damage 3 times.

A potion is also use-activated. You drink it, you get the effect.

A candle of invocation? Broken, but you activate it by lighting it, not by using a command word.

I do love how different people take different aproaches to laying out their argument.

Anyway, yeah I guess I was wrong. I just assumed that unless otherwise noted, gaining the benefit of a magical item was always a standard action.

[Tyndmyr]

So...you can spend a standard action at any time to heal....1 hp.

Wee. Not broken. At all.

[Midnight_v]

Maybe you could make a reseting trap that cast healing on you when triggered. . ?

That seems like the best way. I'm sure it'd be pretty cheap also.

[mint]

If a continuous magic item could have an instantaneous effect, why would it be limited to once per round?