Items and Attunement

[MichielHagen]

By RAW it is possible to have for example multiple healing belts, multiple crystals of life drinking, ....

When the 1st healing belt has all its charges used you equip the next.

I was a player before this week, and even though i knew this was possible by RAW i did not use this method and no one else did (most probably because they have less rules knowledge). I believed it to be an unspoken rule and for good reason imho. It gives me too much the idea that it is metagaming where i do not want to see it.

Anyway, now i am DM-ing (my 1st time at it too) and the former DM uses multiple belts. I told him how i feel and he firmly disagrees. I am not the kind of person to force something upon the group, so tonight i will ask the other players how they feel.

I would also like to hear other people's thoughts on this forum though. To see if i am being unreasonable about this issue....

<edit> oh, the house rule i made was that worn items with charges that run out need to be worn since the beginning of the day to use. (So the 2nd healing belt will not work)

[FishAreWet]

Why bother? What's wrong with just letting him have two?

'By RAW..." has such a bad connotation. Do you not think the ability to have multiple of an item was intended?

[flabort]

I don't think that's a house rule...
isn't it in the Player's Handbook? page... 32? 23?

[2xMachina]

It's your rules.

Though, personally, I'm ok with it. It's still a 2nd cost.

[Cyrion]

For a healing belt specifically, I'd allow multiples because my experiences with "15 minute adventuring days" tend to be driven by healing capacity rather than the arcane casters that seem to be the bane of other DMs. As a result, I tend to try to get my parties stocked up on some healing items.

In general, I guess I'd allow multiple items within reason. That's not really an issue in my games because I don't put multiples of most items in treasures, and Magic-R-Us stores are exceedingly rare.

[MichielHagen]

I don't think that's a house rule...
isn't it in the Player's Handbook? page... 32? 23?

I would like to know more about this...there is nothing on those pages though...

[Ashtar]

There are items which don't start working until 24 hours after you equipped them, like:

Ring of Rapid Healing
This ring grants a living wearer fast healing 3. It must be worn for 24 hours before its powers activate, and if removed it will not function again until it has been worn for 24 hours by the same individual.

The belt doesn't have that, but as DM you are perfectly justified in requiring such a rule, as long as you announce it to the group and apply it consistently. You are DMing, your rules .

[Tiktakkat]

I second Ashtar.
There are enough items that explicity require a "power up" time that that absence of such is sufficient evidence that by RAW, multiple change outs are permitted.

As for myself, I have no problems with stacking such items for the reason Cyrion notes, it helps cut down on the 15 minute workday syndrome.
The only item I specifically alter are pearls of power so they have the same limitations as mementoes magica. Otherwise they get passed around between spellcasters, and that is way over the top to me.

[Dr Bwaa]

I have thought both ways on this issue, and where I come down now is that yeah, you can have two, but you can't wear them simultaneously, so you'll have to grab the second one out of your Haversack and put it on (move/standard actions?) if you want to use it. Effectively, if you want to spend the extra gp to make it an "encounter power," go right ahead.

As for making rules, you're the DM. You make every rule. If you don't think it makes any sense, you're perfectly justified in telling your players "I don't think X makes any gosh darn sense, so while I'm DMing, X doesn't work that way."

[FishAreWet]

I'm going to ask once again for anything who disagrees;

What is wrong with allowing a PC to have two Healing Belts? You let the rogue have two Magical Swords, right?

[Eldariel]

I'm going to ask once again for anything who disagrees;

What is wrong with allowing a PC to have two Healing Belts? You let the rogue have two Magical Swords, right?

I guess people dislike the idea of having an equipped item with certain limitations and once it's used up, switching to another one and then charging 'em all and so on. People are much more ok with having things that are consumed permanently.

[Douglas]

For things that are limited uses per day like Healing Belts and Crystals of Life Drinking, I see no problem with allowing effectively doubling the uses per day for double the cost. These items were designed, I think, to be limited by the uses to cost ratio, not by an absolute uses per day limit.

There are many items that do explicitly require wearing for a full day specifically to prevent this kind of thing, but they are typically things with an ongoing constant unlimited benefit that might be extra useful with rapid swapping of which party member has it. For example, the Ring of Enduring Arcana - if you have a bunch of casters with all day buffs, you could have one caster buff up while wearing the ring and then pass it to the next for his buffs and effectively get one ring per caster for the cost of just one ring. Even a single caster could just take the ring off after buffing, thereby getting the benefit without giving up his ring slot. Thus, it gets an attunement period to prevent this.

Items with passive or unlimited use abilities that have lasting consequences when used outside of combat need attunement times to prevent getting more benefit than you paid for. Most or all of these already have attunement times explicitly specified in the individual item description. Items with active abilities limited by charges do not need such a restriction; the gold cost per charge is the only balancing factor needed.

[Ashtar]

The only problem with the healing belt is it's too good. It has become a no-brainer byword instant classic healing item.

[Douglas]

The only problem with the healing belt is it's too good. It has become a no-brainer byword instant classic healing item.

Only in campaigns with abnormally low wealth gain, or for people who haven't done the math or have an overly strong aversion to expendable items. It takes a long time for a Healing Belt to outdo a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, and even longer to match a Wand of Lesser Vigor. Long enough that, in a game with treasure rewards anywhere near the official guidelines, the money saved by using the Belt instead of expendable wands will be pocket change by the time the wands would run out.

[MichielHagen]

I do math can do it yes. I no stupid.

A healing belt can heal 6d8 per day. That is 27 hp.

A Cure Light Wounds Wand can heal 50 * 5.5 hp, which adds up to 275 hp.

That means it takes 11 days to profit from a Healing Belt....is that much cause i think it's not...


That said, i was NOT talking about if it is too broken to use multiple belts, i am not talking about whether the RAW says it is possible.
I am talking about a character who unzips his belt after battle, zips on his healing belt to heal himself, then unzips his healing belt followed by zipping on his regular belt, which i find silly, have you seen anyone in a fantasy novel do that?

[FishAreWet]

No but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't be able to.

If you dislike the flavor of it, allow the player to buy a Healing belt with twice as many charges for, say, x2.5 the cost of the first one.

[Noble Savant]

I do math can do it yes. I no stupid.

A healing belt can heal 6d8 per day. That is 27 hp.

A Cure Light Wounds Wand can heal 50 * 5.5 hp, which adds up to 275 hp.

That means it takes 11 days to profit from a Healing Belt....is that much cause i think it's not...

That's because you're using a wand of cure light wounds. Use a wand of lesser vigor instead.

The wand heals 50*15 damage. Or 750 HP. It'll be a long time before it catches up.

[Tavar]

Also, often times you need more than 27 hp healed in one go. With a wand, no problem. It is a problem with the belt, though.

I think the only reason it's a no brain item is that unlike potions, it's not a waste of an action, and that there aren't really many 'must have' items under 1000gp. Seriously, for the first couple levels it's easy to have a couple 100gp left over, why not spend it on something useful?

[Douglas]

That means it takes 11 days to profit from a Healing Belt....is that much cause i think it's not...

11 days of adventuring. At the "standard" rate of 4 level-appropriate encounters per day, that's 3 levels and part of a 4th. Let's say you got the Healing Belt at level 3, because at level 2 it costs over 80% of your Wealth By Level. In the process of going from level 3 to level 6, you should gain over 10000 gp, and that's after deducting for use of some expendables. If you add back in the expendables, you're supposed to gain over 12000 gp in that time. Compared to that 750 is almost nothing, and it gets even more negligible the higher level you get.

Now if you compare it to a Wand of Lesser Vigor, the break even point is 20 days, which equates to a 6 level increase and corresponding wealth gain. You're worried about a 750 increase over 39000 gp or more why, exactly?

Now, if you slow down the pace of adventuring then no, you won't be going up in levels and wealth that fast. You'll also be having a lot of days where you don't need healing. If you're not fighting battles and gaining xp and treasure, you're not likely to be taking enough damage for either a Healing Belt or a Wand to be relevant, so those days don't really count. If you have multiple days of down time, then any divine caster in the party should be able to get you back to max with ease without using items at all.

That said, i was NOT talking about if it is too broken to use multiple belts, i am not talking about whether the RAW says it is possible.

RAW it is most definitely possible.

I am talking about a character who unzips his belt after battle, zips on his healing belt to heal himself, then unzips his healing belt followed by zipping on his regular belt, which i find silly, have you seen anyone in a fantasy novel do that?

No, but only because I haven't seen a fantasy novel where an item like the Healing Belt exists. Given what the item does, using it in that fashion is a perfectly logical thing to do that any character who has multiples of them would just about have to be an idiot to not try.

[Runestar]

but as DM you are perfectly justified in requiring such a rule, as long as you announce it to the group and apply it consistently. You are DMing, your rules .

Though preferably, I would like the DM to be right for the correct reasons and not simply because he is the DM(ie: he made that ruling for a genuine game-balance and not due to knee-jerk reactions).

Allowing multiple healing belts is possibly one of the most underpowered things you can do. It is one of those things which likely offends a player's senses but won't really do anything to upset the game.

Especially when the players could just as easily be carrying that many wands of vigor or CLW, which heal much more hp.

1 belt of healing --> 27hp/day average.
1 wand of vigor --> 550hp
1 wanf of CLW --> 275hp average

You need to use a belt for 20 adventuring days just to break even with the wand of vigor. By raw, there is nothing stopping you from swapping out healing belts, nor do I feel there is any need to prohibit this.

[Devils_Advocate]

I believed it to be an unspoken rule and for good reason imho. It gives me too much the idea that it is metagaming where i do not want to see it.

It's not metagaming. At all.

I am talking about a character who unzips his belt after battle, zips on his healing belt to heal himself, then unzips his healing belt followed by zipping on his regular belt, which i find silly, have you seen anyone in a fantasy novel do that?

Buckles, not zips, surely. (Since they're belts.) And not specifically, but I'm sure that fantasy novels are filled with example of characters performing rituals with specific items to get a desired effect.

But why would that make something bad, anyway? What's wrong with departing from the standard tropes? Is it a goal to keep the story cliche? Because that sounds not only restrictive but dull to me. If anything, I think that I'd want to steer away from that.