Would you ban wands?

[kenjigoku]

Personally, when it comes to cure wands it seems that if they are crafted they are way too inexpensive. It hardly seems to do any good to have them, from the DM perspective. I was hoping that someone here could change my mind and show me why they are not as good as I make them out to be.

[JellyPooga]

Yes, Cure wands are very good for their price, but bear in mind that you need to be a UMD'er or be able to cast the spell anyway to use it, so if they were banned, it's not like cure's won't be being thrown around anyway...then also bear in mind that potions are also easily available and anyone with Craft Wondrous Item could devise a x/day Cure-ma-jig that would never run out of charges for a relatively (in the long run) cheap price.

[kenjigoku]

Thanks for the input. I was having a hard time with the perspective of the matter.

(Edit: I can't spell.)

[valadil]

Wands are nice but hardly game breaking. You just need to curb their availability. In the case of characters crafting their own wands, that means limit how much downtime the players have to spend on wands. When a BBEG is poised to take over the world, you spend a day or two resting up, not 2 years crafting every wand you could ever need. As long as downtime is a commodity, crafting can't get too out of control.

[mostlyharmful]

I find having easy acess to hp recovery very beneficial to DnD beyound the first couple of levels, it's the resource that the lower tier classes rely on (meleers) while casters are better off going for other win options such as status conditions and battlefield controls. Basically cheap easy healing means the slugger classes stay useful for longer on endurance runs and doesn't really affect the game otherwise. It also reduces the instaces of nacolepsy wonderfully, increases caster frugalness since the tanks still want to plod on for anouther few encounters and lets the healer classes do more fun things with their time then burning all their slots on cures.

[Hario]

I'm more worried about healing belts and wands of Vigor (lesser) healing belts for the potential cheese of how much healing it gets and can be used on others, not to mention no time needed with item to use, so you may have multiple healing belts and can pretty much auto switch when you run out (almost no need for heal bots, if that's a problem) but can hurt your undead npcs fairly easily. Wands of vigor less, not only are better than wands of CLW but completely replace them because the point of CLW wands are to spend off time using charges, which wands of vigor allow you to walk around and do things for 11 rounds and if you are still below 11 from max another charge 'for good measure'. On the other spectrum I'm not worried about wands of magic missile (CL1) which in inevitably used for useless damage migitation when a character has no other action. But on a two wand weilding cheesed out artificer and maxed CL, then yes they become disturbingly ping-dead weapons of death (especially if you allow felldrain and that rod that allows you to put 3 wands in it at a time) Overall I don't see wands that overpowered though in some situations they can be, depending on spells.

[Frosty]

Items that make your party less dependant on a healbot is GOOD. Playing a healbot is boring, and nobody should *have* to do it.

[ZeroNumerous]

Items that make your party less dependant on a healbot is GOOD. Playing a healbot is boring, and nobody should *have* to do it.

I like playing the healbot.. And then mixing in some Inflict Serious Wounds sometimes.

[Riffington]

Let's ignore the healing question for now (since healing someone with a wand is conceptually flawed, and really they should just make the Heal skill actually good.)

Out of the box, Casters are more powerful than noncasters - but their power is slightly limited by the number of spells they can cast each day. Wands are a way to overcome that limitation, at the cost of some gp. So yeah: if your characters have a lot of gold they can spend on magic items, wands are just increasing casters' powers still further. If characters receive random or planned magic items, and can't often buy custom-made items, then wands are kinda cool.

In short, I'd ban *certain* wands.

[Artanis]

I think it'd also depend on the party makeup. A party with a healer can just have the Cleric save a couple slots for Cure X Wounds spells, but a party without a healer is pretty much screwed if it gets beat up too badly and has no access to an alternative.

[sikyon]

I think it'd also depend on the party makeup. A party with a healer can just have the Cleric save a couple slots for Cure X Wounds spells, but a party without a healer is pretty much screwed if it gets beat up too badly and has no access to an alternative.

What party would ever make their (regular) Cleric save spots for cure? *coughspontaneouscastingcough*

[NullAshton]

What party would ever make their (regular) Cleric save spots for cure? *coughspontaneouscastingcough*

An evil party, perhaps. Evil clerics can still heal as far as I know, but can't spontaneously cast healing spells.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

In the case of characters crafting their own wands, that means limit how much downtime the players have to spend on wands.
I find it interesting that you find downtime to be the bigger issue than the financial cost...


What party would ever make their (regular) Cleric save spots for cure? *coughspontaneouscastingcough*
But (evil and certain neutral clerics aside) you need to have the spell you're converting uncast. So you still have to save those slots by not casting the spells that reside in them wantonly.

[AKA_Bait]

I like playing the healbot.. And then mixing in some Inflict Serious Wounds sometimes.

Me too. :-)


But (evil and certain neutral clerics aside) you need to have the spell you're converting uncast. So you still have to save those slots by not casting the spells that reside in them wantonly.

Indeed. This is one of the reasons I typically ban cure wands. The other is price. A potion of CLW is 50 gp for CLW once. A wand of CLW is 750 GP for 50 uses. That means it's 15 gp a shot, a signifigant savings for the first few levels where those potions are useful. If really bugged about it, I allow the wands, but raise the price.

[Kantolin]

Personally, having the entire party at good hit points after an encounter for money strikes me as a good thing.

As stated before, this supports fighters more than mages (As they're the ones who, in theory, are taking damage most often), and fighters can use support. It also encourages the idea of 'a dungeon of enemies, then a tougher boss at the end' without having to worry about a lack of hit points at the end.

And while I like playing the support-buff unit, being a healbot is not very fun for me - and it's certainly not something I'd force onto people.

Edit: Forgot a point.

The reason that wands are cheaper is becuase you have to buy them at 50 a pop, and then only people who can currently cast cure spells can use wands. In core, that's the Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Druid, and Bard - barring use magic device (Which only adds the rogue to that list). Potions are great for other people who can't use them, and you don't have to get them at 50 doses. They're also good for when/if the party's only healer(s) go down.

When you're low level, 750gp is a lot of money - the wealth per level of a level 2 character is only 900gp, and 750 doesn't leave much money leftover for anything else. Conversely, almost everyone can afford to spend 50gp by level 2.

And then higher level wands get insane quickly. Let alone wands of (say) Cure disease, which is incredibly unlikely to happen to you 50 times throughout your adventuring career and is thus potion-preferred or scroll-preferred.

[AKA_Bait]

Personally, having the entire party at good hit points after an encounter for money strikes me as a good thing.

Well, I disagree with you there I suppose. Hit points, and healing thereof, are part of a party's resources. Draining resources after each daily encounter is part of what the CR system is built on.


And while I like playing the support-buff unit, being a healbot is not very fun for me - and it's certainly not something I'd force onto people.

Who's having anything forced on them? They can buy a potion or suck it up and hire an Adept or Cleric to come along if no one wants to do the healing. It's a dangerous world out there.

[Severus]

Items that make your party less dependant on a healbot is GOOD. Playing a healbot is boring, and nobody should *have* to do it.

QFT.

D&D tends to assume any combat is going to result in lost hit points. You can pace the game differently, but you'd better have a clear picture in mind if you want to limit healing.

[Artanis]

What party would ever make their (regular) Cleric save spots for cure? *coughspontaneouscastingcough*
That was probably worded badly. I meant saving the last unused spell or two of a level to convert into Cure spells if they're running low and think they'll need healing soon. Like "Hmm, the only level 1 spell I have left is one Summon Monster 1. I'll see if I can forgo casting that so that I can use a CLW on the Fighter."



Edit: And now I see that Shhalahr Windrider already summed it up perfectly :smallredface:

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Well, I disagree with you there I suppose. Hit points, and healing thereof, are part of a party's resources. Draining resources after each daily encounter is part of what the CR system is built on.
Wand charges are another resource factored into the CR system. So are potions, packets of magical dust, magic ammunition, >50% of nonmagic ammunition, and every other bit of expendable equipment available in the game.

[Devils_Advocate]

"It's vaguely concerning that an entire person can be replaced by several magical items. But, hey, what can you expect in these modern times?"
- Vander, tiefling monk and Sigil Prep (http://www.sigilprep.com/) student

[leperkhaun]

i dont have a problem with wands. You just ramp up the encounters. Make them hurt a bit more, thus requireing more charges from the wand = more money spent to keep going.


Now back when heal healed you to full HP and the party got a hold of a staff of healing....... that was rough.

[Talic]

The reason that wands are cheaper is becuase you have to buy them at 50 a pop, and then only people who can currently cast cure spells can use wands. In core, that's the Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Druid, and Bard - barring use magic device (Which only adds the rogue to that list).

Or Artificers. Or Warlocks. Or the Giamonk. :smallbiggrin:

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Or Artificers. Or Warlocks. Or the Giamonk. :smallbiggrin:
Kantolin did say "in core."

'Cause there's also a lot more spellcasters than the ones he listed, too.

[Jayabalard]

Wands are nice but hardly game breaking. That really depends on the game; there's a fair number of people who consider resource management, and specifically spell slot management to be one of the most important facets of D&D; anything that allows characters to sidestep their spells per day limitation (like cure wands) can certainly be game breaking to them.

[AKA_Bait]

The reason that wands are cheaper is becuase you have to buy them at 50 a pop, and then only people who can currently cast cure spells can use wands. In core, that's the Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, Druid, and Bard - barring use magic device (Which only adds the rogue to that list). Potions are great for other people who can't use them, and you don't have to get them at 50 doses. They're also good for when/if the party's only healer(s) go down.

That's something I have a problem with. I can understand a portion of the decreased expense for the limitation of who can use it (which isn't much of a limitation considering also that a level 1 wand doesn't have much of a UMD check and that makes 7 classes in Core that can use it without any cross class ranks) but not one that drops each charge to less than a third of the cost of the potion.


When you're low level, 750gp is a lot of money - the wealth per level of a level 2 character is only 900gp, and 750 doesn't leave much money leftover for anything else. Conversely, almost everyone can afford to spend 50gp by level 2.

Most players can spend 150 - 200 gp at level 2 or 3. The party needs only buy one of these to make everything, especially at that level where death from HP loss is much more common than at higher levels.


And then higher level wands get insane quickly. Let alone wands of (say) Cure disease, which is incredibly unlikely to happen to you 50 times throughout your adventuring career and is thus potion-preferred or scroll-preferred.

Most other wands I have no problem with, in part because of that reason. The charges will probably not be used which def facto raises the per charge price. CLW wands aren't like that. All those charges will get used.


Wand charges are another resource factored into the CR system. So are potions, packets of magical dust, magic ammunition, >50% of nonmagic ammunition, and every other bit of expendable equipment available in the game.

Indeed. I happen to think that CLW wands are an example of when the designers screwed up pricing though. Hence, the charges are cheaper than they ought to be, giving more of a resource for the money than should really be there in terms of reccovered HP at low levels.

[Theli]

That's something I have a problem with. I can understand a portion of the decreased expense for the limitation of who can use it (which isn't much of a limitation considering also that a level 1 wand doesn't have much of a UMD check and that makes 7 classes in Core that can use it without any cross class ranks) but not one that drops each charge to less than a third of the cost of the potion.

Minor note: A level 1 wand has the same UMD check as a caster level 20 one: DC 20

Oh, and you can't use UMD untrained.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

...doesn't have much of a UMD check...
Level 2 Rogue. Max ranks. Charisma 14. That's a +7 to the check.

Needs a 13 or higher. So the rogue fails 60% of the time.

Pretty risky if ya need some healing right now, I think...

[AKA_Bait]

Pretty risky if ya need some healing right now, I think...

Thing is, the CLW wand really isn't the thing that gets used if you need some healing right now before the owlbear eats your head. It's the item that gets used over and over bettween encounters to keep everyone at top HP before the next one.


Oh, and you can't use UMD untrained.

I don't think I said you could, but anyone can take cross-class ranks in it.

[Theli]

I don't think I said you could, but anyone can take cross-class ranks in it.

:smallconfused: But, but, you said...

which isn't much of a limitation considering also that a level 1 wand doesn't have much of a UMD check and that makes 7 classes in Core that can use it without any cross class ranks
7 classes in core that can use it without any cross class ranks?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Thing is, the CLW wand really isn't the thing that gets used if you need some healing right now before the owlbear eats your head. It's the item that gets used over and over bettween encounters to keep everyone at top HP before the next one.
At that point the DC doesn't really matter, then. Just a distraction. You only face consequences for failure when using the "Activate Blindly" task, so you can pretty well take 20 (even if you can't honestly take 10 :smallamused:). So why bother bringing it up?

In my experience, though, continually keeping hp topped off with a wand drains charges awfully quickly. Gets pretty expensive, even with all party members contributing to the cost.

In any case, now and then, I'm sure there's gonna be the occasional situation where you don't have the luxury of saving the wand for when the healing's over. Particularly on those encounters that are above party level. (Yeah, those are part of the balance trick, too.)


7 classes in core that can use it without any cross class ranks?
This number includes classes that don't need any ranks. Y'know those ones with the spell on their class lists already.

Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Bard, Rogue... Hm, I'm only counting six here.

[Fax Celestis]

Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Bard, Rogue... Hm, I'm only counting six here.

You forgot Adept.

[AKA_Bait]

At that point the DC doesn't really matter, then. Just a distraction. You only face consequences for failure when using the "Activate Blindly" task, so you can pretty well take 20 (even if you can't honestly take 10 :smallamused:). So why bother bringing it up?

Well, because if you can't take 10 then you can't take 20. Taking 20 on activating a wand would be pretty odd anyway considering:


Taking 20 means you are trying until you get it right, and it assumes that you fail many times before succeeding. Taking 20 takes twenty times as long as making a single check would take.

Since taking 20 assumes that the character will fail many times before succeeding, if you did attempt to take 20 on a skill that carries penalties for failure, your character would automatically incur those penalties before he or she could complete the task. Common “take 20” skills include Escape Artist, Open Lock, and Search.

i.e. if you took 20, you would expend 20 charges before it worked.



This number includes classes that don't need any ranks. Y'know those ones with the spell on their class lists already.

Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Bard, Rogue... Hm, I'm only counting six here.

Yeah, looks like I miscounted. Stupid Giamonk had me thinking UMD was class for them.


You forgot Adept.

Fax to the rescue. Heh.

[Theli]

This number includes classes that don't need any ranks. Y'know those ones with the spell on their class lists already.

Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Bard, Rogue... Hm, I'm only counting six here.

Ohh, duh!


Well, because if you can't take 10 then you can't take 20. Taking 20 on activating a wand would be pretty odd anyway considering:

There's a specific exception which only restricts the player from taking 10. There's no such restriction for taking 20.


i.e. if you took 20, you would expend 20 charges before it worked.

It doesn't look like, by RAW, you expend a charge for failing to emulate the wand by rolling too low on the check.

[AKA_Bait]

It doesn't look like, by RAW, you expend a charge for failing to emulate the wand by rolling too low on the check.

I would consider a charge being expended a 'penalty for failure' myself. I'll grant that it's not clear that it would expend twenty charges, but that seems to be the most reasonable reading of the SRD section I quoted above.

[Artanis]

Thing is, the CLW wand really isn't the thing that gets used if you need some healing right now before the owlbear eats your head. It's the item that gets used over and over bettween encounters to keep everyone at top HP before the next one.
On a related note:

I once did the math, and a wand of Cure Light Wounds is the single most cost-effective way to use an item (as opposed to actual spells) for between-battle healing. ...in Core at any rate. Cure Minor doesn't heal enough for the lower cost to be worth it, and the price scales up so quickly that Cure Moderate and above have a higher gp per hp ratio than Cure Light.

Leads to a mental image of a level 20 party sitting around a campfire, dumping forty Wands of CLW on the grounds, and running through them like Pixie Stix :smalltongue:

[Theli]

I would consider a charge being expended a 'penalty for failure' myself. I'll grant that it's not clear that it would expend twenty charges, but that seems to be the most reasonable reading of the SRD section I quoted above.

Please review this recent Simple Q&A (By RAW) answer:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3879721#post3879721

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Well, because if you can't take 10 then you can't take 20.
In this case, "taking 20" is just saying, "Yeah, let's not sit around rolling the dice. You'll eventually get it, so let's move on."

That's really all the take 20 rules represent anyway. The take 10 rules represent being able to do something reliably when you aren't been rushed or otherwise subjected to exceptional stress, which is something entirely different.


i.e. if you took 20, you would expend 20 charges before it worked.
Failing does not cost a charge. There is no penalty or cost for failure.

[AKA_Bait]

In this case, "taking 20" is just saying, "Yeah, let's not sit around rolling the dice. You'll eventually get it, so let's move on."

That's really all the take 20 rules represent anyway. The take 10 rules represent being able to do something reliably when you aren't been rushed or otherwise subjected to exceptional stress, which is something entirely different.


You are correct. For some reason its stuck in my head that if you can't do one you can't do the other.


Failing does not cost a charge. There is no penalty or cost for failure.

Humm. where am I getting that from then? I know I've seen it someplace.

Regardless, my being incorrect about taking 20 on it, although it makes pointless my comment about DC, it just emphasizes that for the 'bettween battles healing' aspect (and imo problem) with Wands of CLW. Since if taking 20 wasted no charges then any character willing to spend 2 skill points could make full use of a Wand of CLW in that capacity.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Regardless, my being incorrect about taking 20 on it, although it makes pointless my comment about DC, it just emphasizes that for the 'bettween battles healing' aspect (and imo problem) with Wands of CLW.
I'm still not seeing the problem. If it's not one resource being expended, it's another. And generally, you're still losing those resources that are less easily replenished than hp.

[AKA_Bait]

I'm still not seeing the problem. If it's not one resource being expended, it's another. And generally, you're still losing those resources that are less easily replenished than hp.

It's more that the resource being used, healing, when in wand form is cheaper per use than the same benifit in potion form.

[Devils_Advocate]

They actually stuck a special clause into the Use Magic Device skill that says that if you roll a natural 1, you can't activate the item for 24 hours. So no taking 20, since there is a potential penalty for failure.

A party can reduce the chance the that cures will become unavailable this way by having several wands and several party members trained in UMD. And, of course, a high UMD modifier still helps because that means it takes less rolls to succeed on a check, and thus fewer chances to roll that natural 1.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

It's more that the resource being used, healing, when in wand form is cheaper per use than the same benifit in potion form.
That goes for all wands. It's part of the wand system. It's just a major bulk discount. Basic economics, really.

Though personally, if the discount is too much, I'd almost rather close the gap by making potions cheaper instead. :smalltongue:


They actually stuck a special clause into the Use Magic Device skill that says that if you roll a natural 1, you can't activate the item for 24 hours. So no taking 20, since there is a potential penalty for failure.
Well... You can tell I don't use Use Magic Device very often in my games... :smallredface:

[Narthon the Bold]

If you roll a 1 when trying to use a wand, you can't use it again for 24 hours. Because of this, you can't take 20 on it.

[AKA_Bait]

That goes for all wands. It's part of the wand system. It's just a major bulk discount. Basic economics, really.

Though personally, if the discount is too much, I'd almost rather close the gap by making potions cheaper instead. :smalltongue:

I've thought about that, but I think it's just a playstyle thing. I like my game world to be pretty deadly, so healing magic should cost more rather than less. No reason for that other than taste though.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I've thought about that, but I think it's just a playstyle thing. I like my game world to be pretty deadly, so healing magic should cost more rather than less. No reason for that other than taste though.
Well, then I guess we're not going to see eye to eye here. I'm not very fond of potentially scrapping many, many hours of work on just a few unlucky rolls. Deadliness should have certain limits for the most part. That's not to say there's never a time when the gloves should come off, of course... :smallamused:

[Thrawn183]

I'm confused here. Wands of CLW aren't used for in battle healing, but you're still worried about them because you want battles to be deadly?

In all honesty, how do you justify characters running around and not wanting to get healed up to full? Not even counting discomfort, how do you justify the willingness to risk being critted out of existence when healing is just a pointy stick away?

As for the high level party using healing: high level parties don't use wands of cure light wounds. That is what the heal spell is for. Once characters reach 11th level, heal takes over, and heal is god. On steroids.

Also, don't forget that while paladins can use wands of CLW, they also get lay on hands which... can be used to heal imbetween combats already, so I don't really think they should be on the list of classes that can "abuse" CLW rather; they should be on the list of reasons for why CLW isn't "abuse." Healing outside of combat is apparently already built into the game.

[Duke of URL]

anyone with Craft Wondrous Item could devise a x/day Cure-ma-jig that would never run out of charges for a relatively (in the long run) cheap price.

I'd be more likely to ban this class of Wondrous Item than I would be to ban Wands.

[Duke of URL]

Cleric, Paladin, Ranger, Druid, Bard, Rogue... Hm, I'm only counting six here.

Add Expert, it can be one of the chosen "class skills".

[AKA_Bait]

I'm confused here. Wands of CLW aren't used for in battle healing, but you're still worried about them because you want battles to be deadly?

Yes because if they can heal to full after each of the say, 4 encounters that day, the subsequent encounters are less deadly than they otherwise would have been because the PC's regained hitpoints they might not have without the wand.


In all honesty, how do you justify characters running around and not wanting to get healed up to full? Not even counting discomfort, how do you justify the willingness to risk being critted out of existence when healing is just a pointy stick away?

Wanting to? Sure they do. Have the means to? That's a different story.


As for the high level party using healing: high level parties don't use wands of cure light wounds. That is what the heal spell is for. Once characters reach 11th level, heal takes over, and heal is god.

Not so sure of that. Wands conserve spell slots and 750 gp to many high level characters is a sneeze.


Also, don't forget that while paladins can use wands of CLW, they also get lay on hands which... can be used to heal imbetween combats already, so I don't really think they should be on the list of classes that can "abuse" CLW rather; they should be on the list of reasons for why CLW isn't "abuse." Healing outside of combat is apparently already built into the game.

Sure it is, the issue is how much of it we want, not if it should exist at all.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Personally, when it comes to cure wands it seems that if they are crafted they are way too inexpensive. It hardly seems to do any good to have them, from the DM perspective. I was hoping that someone here could change my mind and show me why they are not as good as I make them out to be.

Would you ban wands? No, but limiting them is certainly a good ideal.

Consider the Dragon Shaman and fast healing aura when PCs are below 50%.

I like using the suggested wealth by level mechanic without magic stores except in the most prosperous cities and metropolis (maybe an occassional town with a very limited selection) since the default demographics DMG page 139 say 90% of the total population live in Thorps -3 to highest level PC, Hamlets -2 to highest level PC, Villages -1 with negative modifiers to the the highest level NPC generated since that.

Sorcerers and Wizards roll a 1D4 to determine the "highest" level NPC with the average being 2 or 3 before the locale modifier.
Adepts, Clerics and Druids** roll a 1D6* averaging 3 or 4 before the locale modifier.

Even that rare 1 in 6 (6) would be lowered by the locale down to a 5 or lower (except for that 1 in 20 Druid at Thorps and Hamlets) at a point where the majority of the NPCs would be unable to take the CL5+ crafting feat until gaining another bonus feat at L6.

Consider that for a moment 90% of the crafters in game can not mechanically qualify although there may be a rare L5 divine PC spellcaster in one of six villages (they need to reach L6 for the bonus feat for the chance to choose the feat) with the exception of the random high level druid randomly generated for 1 in 20 Thorps and Hamlets.

*ECS has another web article by Keith that changes it for Adepts if utilized.

** According to the DMG 1 in 20 Thorps and Hamlets may have a chance of a high level druid (he may be the same one visiting several locales)).

The Craft Wand feat requires a CL5+. Normally with the exception of a wizard NPC most other NPCs would not be eligible to take the feat until L6 if that was the feat they took (awfully specialized compared to craft wondrous item available at L3+ particularly for Adepts with their limited known spell list).

I like a consistent game and I don't favor raising the cost mechanic because that allows PC wealth creation machines just limit the supply.

If the PCs had to pay double or triple or more a standard item consistently leveling up then taking the feat would be a good ideal in game unless it was nerfed by wand prices suddenly defaulting back to standard market when they try to sell things for half price now.

I prefer the bartering and custom ordering method via a DM NPC. If the PCs want something really good high cost to utility without the feat there is generally a "waiting" period while it is located (DM merchant broker consortium) because it has a ready demand more used wands with very low and minimal charges of CLW (12 or less) than Silent Image (normally36+ charges). Custom crafters are good for the occassional side trek adventure.

Good example today I went into a used book store looking for a Copy of Magician Master by Raymond Feist. Like D Francis he's written quite a few books with printings in the hundreds of thousands and millions of copies. Most paperbacks retail under $10 and most hardcover under $30 (Comparable to a GP). The store had a good selections with thousands of books but only a single paperback the 4th in the rift war series and 2 hard covers by Fiest along with several paperbacks by D Francis and I live in a Metropolis.

[Theli]

If you roll a 1 when trying to use a wand, you can't use it again for 24 hours. Because of this, you can't take 20 on it.

You only suffer mishap on a one if you try to activate it blindly. Once you know what the wand does, you don't have a chance of suffering a mishap.

Taking 20 works for wands once their function is identified.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Yes because if they can heal to full after each of the say, 4 encounters that day, the subsequent encounters are less deadly than they otherwise would have been because the PC's regained hitpoints they might not have without the wand.
Not necessarily. The previous encounters also drain various resources that help conserve hit points, such as defensive spells and even offensive spells capable of ending the fight quickly. That, in turn, results on a greater drain on healing as the day goes on, of course.


Not so sure of that. Wands conserve spell slots and 750 gp to many high level characters is a sneeze.
The point being that 1d8+1 hp to such a character isn't even a sniffle. At sufficiently high levels, you could probably be going through a wand a day at that rate.


You only suffer mishap on a one if you try to activate it blindly. Once you know what the wand does, you don't have a chance of suffering a mishap.
This is separate from the Activate Blindly mishap. Check the "Try Again" clause of the skill description.

[Theli]

This is separate from the Activate Blindly mishap. Check the "Try Again" clause of the skill description.

Edit: Confused. Sorry. Thought you were saying something else.

[Narthon the Bold]

You only suffer mishap on a one if you try to activate it blindly. Once you know what the wand does, you don't have a chance of suffering a mishap.

Taking 20 works for wands once their function is identified.


Try Again

Yes, but if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can’t try to activate that item again for 24 hours.

That says nothing about it only being on activating blindly. It is any attempt to activate.

[Jack_Simth]

There's a specific exception which only restricts the player from taking 10. There's no such restriction for taking 20.
You can't take 20 because there's a consequence for failure; if you roll a natural 1 on a UMD check, not only does it not activate, it refuses to talk to you for 24 hours.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

You can't take 20 because there's a consequence for failure; if you roll a natural 1 on a UMD check, not only does it not activate, it refuses to talk to you for 24 hours.
So you're saying that if I roll a 1 on a Use Magic Device Check, the item is broken for me for a day?

[Worira]

So you're saying that if I roll a 1 on a Use Magic Device Check, the item is broken for me for a day?

Yes.Pointless message padding goes here.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Yes.
Okay.

For some reason I though that's what was being said, but I couldn't quite figure out why.

[NoDot]

Problem with wands? :smallconfused:

You better hope you players don't figure out how to make/get 1,800gp items of Command Word CL 1 <Insert Level One Spell Here>. Hello, Command Word CL 1 Cure Light Wounds Rubber Duck (lol) which heals me between every fight up to full all day long, all the time. Of course, anyone with even 900gp to spare (Cure Minor Wounds is half cost!) has something similar, so no one cares.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

You better hope you players don't figure out how to make/get 1,800gp items of Command Word CL 1 <Insert Level One Spell Here>. Hello, Command Word CL 1 Cure Light Wounds Rubber Duck (lol) which heals me between every fight up to full all day long, all the time. Of course, anyone with even 900gp to spare (Cure Minor Wounds is half cost!) has something similar, so no one cares.


Not all items adhere to these formulas directly. The reasons for this are several. First and foremost, these few formulas aren’t enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point. The pricing of scrolls assumes that, whenever possible, a wizard or cleric created it. Potions and wands follow the formulas exactly. Staffs follow the formulas closely, and other items require at least some judgment calls.
Emphasis is, of course, mine.

[NoDot]

People listen to those rules as often as they listen to things like Cleric prayer time limitations, i.e. not at all.

Moving on, what is the problem with infinite healing?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

People listen to those rules as often as they listen to things like Cleric prayer time limitations, i.e. not at all.
Pretty broad stroke there.

Given your post indicated certain DMs would find a problem with not following said rules, I would be surprised that said DMs wouldn't enforce them. Particularly as has been pointed out, magic item pricing is solely the domain of the DM.

[deadseashoals]

Moving on, what is the problem with infinite healing?

No problem inherently, I've played with it and without it. I think some people want a flavor of campaign that can only be achieved without it, and the wand of CLW happens to be core rules.

[Starbuck_II]

Problem with wands? :smallconfused:

You better hope you players don't figure out how to make/get 1,800gp items of Command Word CL 1 <Insert Level One Spell Here>. Hello, Command Word CL 1 Cure Light Wounds Rubber Duck (lol) which heals me between every fight up to full all day long, all the time. Of course, anyone with even 900gp to spare (Cure Minor Wounds is half cost!) has something similar, so no one cares.

Wrong price:
If unlimited charges cost is not x1.
So 100 x price ; Reason you determine as if 100 charges (don't divided because not per day).
90, 000 for cure minor at unlimited use.

[CASTLEMIKE]

Wrong price:
If unlimited charges cost is not x1.
So 100 x price ; Reason you determine as if 100 charges (don't divided because not per day).
90, 000 for cure minor at unlimited use.

Of course there are two other mechanics:

Drow House Insignia Level 1 spell 1/day at 360 gp market multiplied times 5 (Limited to Unlimited conversion mechanic) equals his 1,800 gp.

Faith Tokens Level 1 spell 1/day at 300 gp market multiplied times 5 (Limited usage to Unlimited Usage conversion mechanic) equals 1,500 gp.

[AKA_Bait]

No problem inherently, I've played with it and without it. I think some people want a flavor of campaign that can only be achieved without it, and the wand of CLW happens to be core rules.

Indeed. That is, in fact, my issue with it and why banning it, or upping the price, is a houserule where not allowing someone to buy, for example, the two items that Castle Mike indicated is just an application of the guidelines 'out' clause.

[Logos7]

I wouldn't ban wands

I would consider making the minimum caster level of any magic item the minimum caster level required for the feat.

Increased the cost of the lower level wands, althought not enough that at higher level they wouldn't be used. When something is a must have, it generally means that theirs a point of the cost equation that is really economical for no particular reason than the equations where meant more to work in the 5-15 range than in the ones.

Wand Cure Light 5000ish
Wand Cure Moderate 7500ish
Wand Cure Serious, 11250

seems much more reasonable a progression than

750, 4500, 11250

[AKA_Bait]

I wouldn't ban wands

I would consider making the minimum caster level of any magic item the minimum caster level required for the feat.

Increased the cost of the lower level wands, althought not enough that at higher level they wouldn't be used. When something is a must have, it generally means that theirs a point of the cost equation that is really economical for no particular reason than the equations where meant more to work in the 5-15 range than in the ones.

Wand Cure Light 5000ish
Wand Cure Moderate 7500ish
Wand Cure Serious, 11250

seems much more reasonable a progression than

750, 4500, 11250

Wow, and I thought I was harsh. That's a little much even for me. Something more like:

CLW= 1,500

By the time that it reaches the point of CMW it's not really a problem anymore.

[NoDot]

Wrong price:
If unlimited charges cost is not x1.
So 100 x price ; Reason you determine as if 100 charges (don't divided because not per day).
90, 000 for cure minor at unlimited use.May I ask where you're getting those numbers from? Mine came directly off of the SRD.

[Sebastian]

Yes, Cure wands are very good for their price, but bear in mind that you need to be a UMD'er or be able to cast the spell anyway to use it, so if they were banned, it's not like cure's won't be being thrown around anyway...then also bear in mind that potions are also easily available and anyone with Craft Wondrous Item could devise a x/day Cure-ma-jig that would never run out of charges for a relatively (in the long run) cheap price.

more than half of the core class have CLW in their spell list so it is not really a problem.

[potion]to use a potion you need at least a full turn, standard action to get it ready (if you have a handy haversack, more if you don't), standard action to drink it, and unlike using wands drinking a potion provoke AoO.

[magic item] Only if the GM give his ok, magic item guidelines are guidelines. Just because an item is possible by the RAW it don't mean it actually exist (see sword of true strike or other similiar examples.)

[Starbuck_II]

May I ask where you're getting those numbers from? Mine came directly off of the SRD.

So are mine.
Page 285 DMG
There is an extra cost if more than per day charges. I'll finish this later after philosophy class.
Edit: Back from class:
Back to what I was saying, "if item is continous or unlimited, determine cost as if 100 charges".
As there is no per day charge, you do not divided by any number (as per Per Day costs).
Thus x 100.



personally i make all wands crafted at level 5 cause that is when the feat first become available. makes no sense for somebody to deliberately create a wand weaker than that imo.
also gives better healing that way cause rolling a 2 is no longer so bad.
(i always played with a houserule rerolling 1's on cure spells and just carried on)

Actually, it does. It is cheaper to make wands at a lower caster... ,money and exp don't grow on trees unless they are Trents.

[its_all_ogre]

personally i make all wands crafted at level 5 cause that is when the feat first become available. makes no sense for somebody to deliberately create a wand weaker than that imo.
also gives better healing that way cause rolling a 2 is no longer so bad.
(i always played with a houserule rerolling 1's on cure spells and just carried on)