3.x/Pf: How common is the use of a wand of Cure Light Wounds in your groups?

[vasilidor]

A thing I started doing with my pathfinder warrior characters is getting the enchantment that cast breath of life when you drop below 0 on their armor.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items...determination/

[AlexanderML]

Some members of the group I run are always careful to keep one CLW wand with at least half of the charges still inside on them at all times. The other members of the party don't really notice or care.

[Quertus]

While I’m glad Lesser Vigor has gotten some attention, I can’t help but feel Faith Heal deserves more love than it’s gotten. Maximized CLW as a 1st level spell is not exactly shabby.

Yeah, I'll typically get a Belt of Healing some time during third level. What level do you think it would be feasible to get the Amulet of Emergency? And would you combine it with Amulet of Natural Armor and/or an Amulet of Health beforehand?

To be fair, I don’t usually consider it before we can craft it ourselves - it requires a 4th level spell, so level 7 or so?

And I’m all about the multipurpose items, like Winged Travel Cloak of Resistance +X. Between adventures, items are often “in the shop” getting upgrades.

[Xervous]

They’ve been rather plentiful. Some of my frequent players have learned money can buy happiness when it comes to throwing consumables at player desired outcomes. There’s often debate over when it’s worth using, but I pity the NPCs when the players skip debate and bring out consumables with no questions asked.

[Darg]

Wow. That's some magical thinking that can turn a single target touch spell into a multiple creature healing spell.

Magical thinking.... I have to ask, in 3.5e what would you hold the charge and touch up to 6 friends as a full-round action for in the core rules? Now, remember that with multi-target touch spells you must touch all targets in the same round you cast the spell and you do so as a free action. You can't hold the charge with these spells. So, tell me what other touch spells would allow you to hold the charge and touch up to 6 friends? The only kind that are left are regular touch spells. Also, to bring the point home there is no rule that actually limits a touch spell to only one target. Even if the rule is a copy paste mistake from 3.0e (which it likely is) the RAW is more logically sound than precocious apprentice working for early entry.

[Eldonauran]

--snip--

I will repeat, magical thinking. You are turning a general rule that covers spells that CAN target multiple creatures (note the plurality of the targets) into a universal claim that any spell that allows you to touch a target (note the lack of plurality) can be used to touch up to six creatures. I am not interested in debating this issue as you have been told you are wrong by people already. It is not worth my time. If you want to play with that as a houserule, that is entirely fine. I am not going to critique what happens at your table, so long as it stays there.

[Kurald Galain]

Magical thinking.... I have to ask, in 3.5e what would you hold the charge and touch up to 6 friends as a full-round action for in the core rules?

For example, Water Breathing. Note how WB targets "creatures" touched (plural) whereas Cure Light Wounds targets "creature" touched (singular). But this is really a topic for another thread.

[Drelua]

Yeah, the description of holding the charge is very clear that it can be done with a multi-target touch spell. The bit you seem to be basing this on is describing what happens if you touch as part of the action used to cast the spell, so that's what happens if you don't hold the charge.

Even if I agreed with the interpretation that there are otherwise no spells that text could apply to, then that's just a dysfunctional rule. A dysfunctional rule cannot force other, clearer rules to bend to allow it to function. If a rule is written in such a way that it cannot function, it just doesn't. It doesn't change other rules, like the target of a spell being very clearly singular.

Others have said that this is a topic for another thread, so if you want to continue discussing it I'll join you there. Just wanted to say that much.

[False God]

When I DM I run low-magic-item games, and wands of CLW are pretty rare, I also adjust the difficulty based on party comp. Usually I see one or two people with some healing, but rarely a dedicated healer.

When I play I actually like to play the healer. I tend to min/max so healing is usually very good and very easy for my characters, leaving lots of room for me to do other stuff. I cut my teeth on healing in MMOs, folks who stand in fire don't get heals. It's quite amazing how quickly the stupid gets dialed down when healing becomes a reward for cooperative play and not an excuse to screw up.

[Rynjin]

A thing I started doing with my pathfinder warrior characters is getting the enchantment that cast breath of life when you drop below 0 on their armor.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items...determination/

I've always been a big fan of this armor property as well.

[Darg]

I will repeat, magical thinking. You are turning a general rule that covers spells that CAN target multiple creatures (note the plurality of the targets) into a universal claim that any spell that allows you to touch a target (note the lack of plurality) can be used to touch up to six creatures. I am not interested in debating this issue as you have been told you are wrong by people already. It is not worth my time. If you want to play with that as a houserule, that is entirely fine. I am not going to critique what happens at your table, so long as it stays there.

And you seem to be under the impression that you can hold the charge of a multi-target touch spell. The rules explicitly forbid it. You say I'm wrong, but that is not what RAW is. There is no inate singularity in the use of a singular for the purpose of classification. The category of creature contains a plethora of creatures. WotC isn't stingy for most spells numerating with "one." Your conclusion of fanciful thinking is without merit and your words contradict yourself because you are in fact critiquing and debating by commenting and replying. It's what they mean.

For example, Water Breathing. Note how WB targets "creatures" touched (plural) whereas Cure Light Wounds targets "creature" touched (singular). But this is really a topic for another thread.

Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates.
Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You can’t hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

Doesn't hold water as water breathing is a spell you cannot hold the charge for. A singular can be used for categorical reference to a plurality. Which fits the theme. For argument's sake you agreed with me that you could touch multiple targets as a full-round action, it's quite easy to see that "creature" doesn't necessarily mean "one creature." This is especially so when numerating with "one" in the target line is far from rare. The difference is that multi-target touch spells allow you to touch all targets as part of casting the spell.

Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach as part of the casting, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.

A non-multi-target touch spell doesn't allow you to touch more than one target as part of casting the spell, but the general rule after holding the charge would still allow you to because it isn't contradicted.

I'm not saying it is the intent of the rules, but it is definitely RAW which by definition does not take intention or it being a mistake on the part of the writers into account.

Yeah, the description of holding the charge is very clear that it can be done with a multi-target touch spell. The bit you seem to be basing this on is describing what happens if you touch as part of the action used to cast the spell, so that's what happens if you don't hold the charge.

Even if I agreed with the interpretation that there are otherwise no spells that text could apply to, then that's just a dysfunctional rule. A dysfunctional rule cannot force other, clearer rules to bend to allow it to function. If a rule is written in such a way that it cannot function, it just doesn't. It doesn't change other rules, like the target of a spell being very clearly singular.

Others have said that this is a topic for another thread, so if you want to continue discussing it I'll join you there. Just wanted to say that much.

Of course it's dysfunctional when you take into account the origin of the rule in the first place, 3.0e. Multi-target touch spells didn't let you touch more than one target as part of casting the spell. You held the charge until you actively touched to the target limit or cast another spell. The most obvious cause for the rule to be in the 3.5e PHB is because of copy pasta. My groups' perspective comes from entering table top 3.5e D&D cold turkey with no reference to any other kind of table top game. When you come in like that, dysfunctional rules just aren't apparent if there is a plausible explanation of them not being dysfunctional. Take the overrun on a charge rule that is errata'ed out. We've been using it for a long time with 0 problems even though the errata says it was removed because the rule contradicted itself (it doesn't if you actually read it).

[AnonymousPepper]

There's at least one Vigor or Infernal Healing wand acquired ASAP in every game I play, often several just to be sure. It's just too useful to be able to tap up to full between combats.

In-combat healing, though, is almost never done through magic items, at least not until Heal and Mass Heal are online. Only ever done with other spells in magic items if we've got custom magic items on the table. Cure Light is left untouched in items and only ever done through casting spontaneously, and ditto all the other Cures; healing in combat is almost exclusively through channels and lay on hands until Heal is online (or through Life Sphere if SoP is in play).

[Rynjin]

And you seem to be under the impression that you can hold the charge of a multi-target touch spell. The rules explicitly forbid it. You say I'm wrong, but that is not what RAW is. There is no inate singularity in the use of a singular for the purpose of classification. The category of creature contains a plethora of creatures. WotC isn't stingy for most spells numerating with "one." Your conclusion of fanciful thinking is without merit and your words contradict yourself because you are in fact critiquing and debating by commenting and replying. It's what they mean.





Doesn't hold water as water breathing is a spell you cannot hold the charge for. A singular can be used for categorical reference to a plurality. Which fits the theme. For argument's sake you agreed with me that you could touch multiple targets as a full-round action, it's quite easy to see that "creature" doesn't necessarily mean "one creature." This is especially so when numerating with "one" in the target line is far from rare. The difference is that multi-target touch spells allow you to touch all targets as part of casting the spell.



A non-multi-target touch spell doesn't allow you to touch more than one target as part of casting the spell, but the general rule after holding the charge would still allow you to because it isn't contradicted.

I'm not saying it is the intent of the rules, but it is definitely RAW which by definition does not take intention or it being a mistake on the part of the writers into account.



Of course it's dysfunctional when you take into account the origin of the rule in the first place, 3.0e. Multi-target touch spells didn't let you touch more than one target as part of casting the spell. You held the charge until you actively touched to the target limit or cast another spell. The most obvious cause for the rule to be in the 3.5e PHB is because of copy pasta. My groups' perspective comes from entering table top 3.5e D&D cold turkey with no reference to any other kind of table top game. When you come in like that, dysfunctional rules just aren't apparent if there is a plausible explanation of them not being dysfunctional. Take the overrun on a charge rule that is errata'ed out. We've been using it for a long time with 0 problems even though the errata says it was removed because the rule contradicted itself (it doesn't if you actually read it).

I mean if we're talking pure RAW with no regard to intent, you're ignoring a very important bit of text in your interpretation.

If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.

So the first guy you touch, spell discharges. Sure you can touch up to 5 more people, but without a spell effect.

[Darg]

I mean if we're talking pure RAW with no regard to intent, you're ignoring a very important bit of text in your interpretation.



So the first guy you touch, spell discharges. Sure you can touch up to 5 more people, but without a spell effect.

Where does it say that it can only discharge once? It's not a discharge spell. The line you quoted is written after the line about touching up to 6 friends. If it were meant to contradict the earlier statement, it would have said so. As I mentioned, it is quite obviously a copy pasta error if you have hands on a copy of the 3.0e PHB; which, at the time of our adoption of the rule, was not available.

[Rynjin]

Where does it say that it can only discharge once?

Right there in the quoted text. "Discharge" is unambiguous. There is no usage of the word discharge in the rulebook that allows for continuity. A discharge is the end stage. The spell has been discharged. Hence text such as "postpone the discharge". Discharge being a singular effect which may be postponed.

And also in the spell text.

Target: Creature touched

When laying your hand upon a living creature

"Creature" is arguably plural if you for some reason ignore the context of spell formatting and how spells will always specify number of targets with plurality or text such as "creature/level".

"A" is not.

[Darg]

Right there in the quoted text. "Discharge" is unambiguous. There is no usage of the word discharge in the rulebook that allows for continuity. A discharge is the end stage. The spell has been discharged. Hence text such as "postpone the discharge". Discharge being a singular effect which may be postponed.

And also in the spell text.



"Creature" is arguably plural if you for some reason ignore the context of spell formatting and how spells will always specify number of targets with plurality or text such as "creature/level".

"A" is not.

You've never partially discharged a static shock have you. Yes, discharge is ambiguous. There are spells like chill touch which prove the one and done wrong.

The spell text doesn't need to mention multiple creatures as it is already a general rule. Does every Scrying spell need to mention or allude to the general rules about scrying spells?

Scrying

A scrying spell creates an invisible magical sensor that sends you information. Unless noted otherwise, the sensor has the same powers of sensory acuity that you possess. This level of acuity includes any spells or effects that target you, but not spells or effects that emanate from you. However, the sensor is treated as a separate, independent sensory organ of yours, and thus it functions normally even if you have been blinded, deafened, or otherwise suffered sensory impairment.

Any creature with an Intelligence score of 12 or higher can notice the sensor by making a DC 20 Intelligence check. The sensor can be dispelled as if it were an active spell.

Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is so blocked.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't know anything about those rules just looking at scrying spell descriptions.

[Rynjin]

Specific trumps general.

[Darg]

Specific trumps general.

That's only if it is trumping something. There isn't a conflict just like how scrying spells are blocked by lead.

[Crake]

There are spells like chill touch which prove the one and done wrong.

Chill touch, and the way it works, is the exact kind of spell that your rule is pointing toward, a spell that can affect multiple targets through multiple touches, but is not an instantaneous spell.

If you had a hypothetical chill touch-esque spell that was beneficial, and you wanted to discharge up to 6 charges amongst your party members, you could do that as a full round action instead of 6 individual attacks

[Darg]

Chill touch, and the way it works, is the exact kind of spell that your rule is pointing toward, a spell that can affect multiple targets through multiple touches, but is not an instantaneous spell.

If you had a hypothetical chill touch-esque spell that was beneficial, and you wanted to discharge up to 6 charges amongst your party members, you could do that as a full round action instead of 6 individual attacks

I mean, that is how touch spells worked in 3.0e where I've already said it was likely a copy pasta mistake. Just like how I just recently learned that the "one action" cast time in the metamagic feat rules is also a copy and paste mistake.

I'm not defending the interpretation on the intent of it, just that as written it wasn't the leap of logic to come to that conclusion as others earlier claimed it must have been.

[Crake]

I mean, that is how touch spells worked in 3.0e where I've already said it was likely a copy pasta mistake.

Citation needed? I'm looking through my 3.0 phb, and no, chill touch has a listed target of: "Creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)" wheras cure light wounds only has "Creature touched".

The rule you're talking about merely says that you CAN touch up to 6 friendly creatures in a full round action, but it literally says nothing about how that influences spell effects. In the absense of any further rules, we have to assume that the spell functions as normal, IE only affecting the number of creatures in it's target component.

Let me ask you this: a CL 4 chill touch can affect up to 4 people. With your "interpretation", does this mean a) if you use a full round action, you can affect 6 different people while only consuming 1 charge, meaning you could in theory affect up to 24 different characters across all 4 charges, b) if you use a full round action, you can touch up to 6 different people, but because you've used 6 charges, the spell ends after that, or c) you can use a full round action to touch up to 6 people, but only the first 4 are affected as per the spell's target line.

[Rynjin]

Even by his interpretation, no. You can only touch 6 friendlies as a full Round, not enemies.

[Darg]

Citation needed? I'm looking through my 3.0 phb, and no, chill touch has a listed target of: "Creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)" wheras cure light wounds only has "Creature touched".

The rule you're talking about merely says that you CAN touch up to 6 friendly creatures in a full round action, but it literally says nothing about how that influences spell effects. In the absense of any further rules, we have to assume that the spell functions as normal, IE only affecting the number of creatures in it's target component.

Let me ask you this: a CL 4 chill touch can affect up to 4 people. With your "interpretation", does this mean a) if you use a full round action, you can affect 6 different people while only consuming 1 charge, meaning you could in theory affect up to 24 different characters across all 4 charges, b) if you use a full round action, you can touch up to 6 different people, but because you've used 6 charges, the spell ends after that, or c) you can use a full round action to touch up to 6 people, but only the first 4 are affected as per the spell's target line.

I was talking about how spells like teleport or water walk required holding the charge to touch multiple friendlies. The rules between the original and the update are different.

A) there is a stated limit. You can only discharge that many times.

B) the spell works like normal, but the general rule would apply. Allowing you to touch up to 6 friends as a full-round action.

C) as I mentioned, the spell has a specific limitation on the number of targets. In this case, as it would be a contradiction, specific trumps general. So yes only 4 targets.

All this is predicated on targeting friendly targets as the rule mentions. Obviously, by definition attacking your allies makes them opponents, not friends. So you can't use the spell + full-round action in that way.

As for the "can" in the rule, as per normal elsewhere in the rules it gives the player agency in deciding who and how many to touch. It is a permissive word.

As per the 3.0e and 3.5e rules, a spell like chill touch requires expending attacks to deliver all the charges. The rules for delivering multi-target spells and not holding the charge only applies to spells meant to apply to willing targets; as those are the only spells called out as not being able to hold the charge and ruled to allow touching multiple targets as part of the casting.

[AnonJr]

{Scrubbed}

[Telok]

When we first start playing 3.5, not very common, as that's not how wands really worked in the earlier edition games we played (we went straight from 2E to 3.5, due to a long hiatus of the group).

However, not long after starting, Wands of CLW became a staple of our gaming, and we use them in pretty much every session now.

Basically this, although we use healing belts as a first base before getting to wands. It does assume that the items can be bought, but 3.x generally works in that fashion barring setting specific bans on general buy/sell stuff.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: let's stay on topic, everyone. If you want to talk about the rules for touch spells, make another thread.

[Elkad]

Yes we use them. And we don't depend on individuals to fund healing the party out of their own share.
The "party" gets a treasure share (or two in larger parties), same as individuals in all my groups. Started that way back in 1e.

So with 6 players, we'd split treasure 8 ways.

Those 2 shares buy CLW wands, water breathing potions, remove curse and neutralize poison scrolls, and a whole host of other things, including high cost "party use" items like a Folding Boat, or spellcasting services back in town (Raise Dead, etc).

[Vizzerdrix]

I have always bought several healing belts and a vigor wand. I swap out fresh belts after combat and use the wand for topping off the team after battles.

[Thunder999]

Never really used the belt or amulet, they're nice items that probably save money over time, but wands are cheap and slotless, whereas there's plenty of useful Neck and Waist items competing for those slots.

[pabelfly]

Never really used the belt or amulet, they're nice items that probably save money over time, but wands are cheap and slotless, whereas there's plenty of useful Neck and Waist items competing for those slots.

Belts don't require UMD checks though, so they always work regardless of class. Theyre extremely useful in low-level combat.