One of my players had the idea to take a level of Cleric, in order to craft wands of Cure Light Wounds for just 375gp (375 x 1 {Spell level} x 1 {Caster Level})
He already has 5 levels of Sorcerer, meeting the prerequisites for the Craft Wand feat. Do these levels stack when calculating the cost of the wand? Or is he really counted as a level 1 caster because he'll only have 1 Cleric level?
Although at our group's level CLW doesn't really heal enough to be effective in combat, he's thinking more of post-battle recovery. Wands are created with 50 charges, so that's a minimum of 100 damage healed per wand, and 375gp is going to be pretty much pocket change for our group soon. Also, at that price, he can craft one per day, RAW!
While it would be useful to have curative wands, due to a distinct shortage of dedicated healers in our group, I don't think they should be that cheap.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The creator can set the CL of a want to any level between his current level in the appropriate class to the minimum level needed to cast the spell.
So a Cleric 6 and a Sorcerer 5/cleric 1 can both made a wand of CLW with a Caster level of 1 and a market price of 750 gp, so a crafting cost of 375 gp.
A wand need to memorize the appropriate spell and can't be made with a CL higher than the crafter CL in the appropriate class, so a level 6 cleric can make a wand of CLW with a CL of with a value between 1 and 6, a level 1 cleric/5 sorcerer can make a CLW with a Cl only of 1.
One of my players had the idea to take a level of Cleric, in order to craft wands of Cure Light Wounds for just 375gp (375 x 1 {Spell level} x 1 {Caster Level})
He already has 5 levels of Sorcerer, meeting the prerequisites for the Craft Wand feat. Do these levels stack when calculating the cost of the wand? Or is he really counted as a level 1 caster because he'll only have 1 Cleric level?
It's the caster level of the wand, not the crafter, that determines the cost (and the effect).
Although at our group's level CLW doesn't really heal enough to be effective in combat, he's thinking more of post-battle recovery. Wands are created with 50 charges, so that's a minimum of 100 damage healed per wand, and 375gp is going to be pretty much pocket change for our group soon. Also, at that price, he can craft one per day, RAW!
Healing damage out of combat for pocket change is pretty much the default play mode.
While it would be useful to have curative wands, due to a distinct shortage of dedicated healers in our group, I don't think they should be that cheap.
It's actually not even remotely cheap. He's giving up a level of caster progression to spend loose change instead of small bills on healing. If anybody in the group can cast CLW, they can cooperate to craft.
The character doesn't need to take a Cleric level to actually craft the wand. Spell requirements can be bypassed by adding +5 to the DC (or, for a spellcasting character, having a Page of Spell Knowledge). CL is not a requirement, merely an indication of the item's power (and serves to resist dispel attempts, as well as determining the item's base crafting DC). In the same way, a character can craft an item with a CL higher than the one he has, the consequence being a higher craft DC, a higher resistance to dispels, and a higher CL for the spell itself.
Using the wand, however, needs the character to have the spell in his spell list. This can be achieved in several ways (buying a Page of Spell Knowledge is one). Even if the character doesn't have the spell, the fact that Sorcerers have UMD as class skill can help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The character doesn't need to take a Cleric level to actually craft the wand. Spell requirements can be bypassed by adding +5 to the DC...
Wrong. Spell Trigger and Spell Completion items have their spells as a hard requirement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The character doesn't need to take a Cleric level to actually craft the wand. Spell requirements can be bypassed by adding +5 to the DC...Wrong. Spell Trigger and Spell Completion items have their spells as a hard requirement.
This is correct, and Pupsocket's information is confirmed in an FAQ.
ok, ok I will be nice and provide a quote.
Brew Potion: Can a character with this feat create a potion of any spell he knows simply by adding +5 to the DC, even without preparing it?
No. When creating potions, the crafter must prepare and expend the spell used by the potion as part of its creation. This is an exception to the normal rules that allow a caster to skip one of the prerequisites for crafting an item by adding +5 to the DC.Update: Page 549, in the Magic Item Creation rules, in the second paragraph, change the last sentence to read as follows.
In addition, you cannot create potions, scrolls, staves, wands, or any other spell-trigger or spell-completion magic item without meeting its prerequisites
Okay, I wasn't aware of the update. My bad. However, I often reference d20pfsrd, and it hasn't been updated so.
Hey, if you create a custom item, you'd be able to specify your own prerequisites, wouldn't you? Just kidding, don't drop the CRB on my head. Please.
Anyways, let the character buy a Page of Spell Knowledge, and the rest is history.
The character doesn't need to take a Cleric level to actually craft the wand. Spell requirements can be bypassed by adding +5 to the DC...Wrong. Spell Trigger and Spell Completion items have their spells as a hard requirement.
But could he not work together with someone who CAN cast CLW to create the item? I thought that was allowed.
If there is no one in the party that's another kind of problem.
The character doesn't need to take a Cleric level to actually craft the wand. Spell requirements can be bypassed by adding +5 to the DC...Wrong. Spell Trigger and Spell Completion items have their spells as a hard requirement.But could he not work together with someone who CAN cast CLW to create the item? I thought that was allowed.
If there is no one in the party that's another kind of problem.
Yes that is allowed assuming the other caster is willing to cooperate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the player wants to skip the level of cleric have them find a level 1 adept NPC. Said adept has CLW studied for the day. The player pays them 10 GP for casting the spell into their newly created wand, and it's done.
Also if you're using Ultimate Campaign's Downtime rules, the PC could use a skill to earn Magic capital at the cost of 50 GP/pt. Spending one pt of magic capital is then the equivalent of 100 GP towards the cost of the wand. In this manner they could work a bit more to earn the capital and spend 200 GP instead of 375 for the creation of the wand.
Finally it might be worth it to just have the player research Infernal Healing as one of their spells. This is a 1st level spell that grants 1 minute (10 rounds) of Fast Healing 1. Essentially this is (over the full minute) more healing than CLW at CL 1 and costs the same for the PC to put in a wand. Of course, they have to find either 50 doses of unholy water or a vial (50 drops) of devil blood, but I'm sure that's in every corner apothecary right?
Thanks for all the input. Seems too cheap for me, and as my friend pointed out, our rulebook states the cost as:
375 gp x level of the spell x level of the crafter
He (a more experienced GM than I am) interpreted that slightly differently. The 'level of the spell' is the Caster Level at which it is to be cast, while the 'level of the crafter' is the Character's level, including any multi-classing, thus being a minimum of level 5, since that's the earliest you can take the Craft Wand Feat. This makes even level 1 wands slightly more of an expense, and is more in line with our campaign setting.
Finally it might be worth it to just have the player research Infernal Healing as one of their spells. This is a 1st level spell that grants 1 minute (10 rounds) of Fast Healing 1. Essentially this is (over the full minute) more healing than CLW at CL 1 and costs the same for the PC to put in a wand. Of course, they have to find either 50 doses of unholy water or a vial (50 drops) of devil blood, but I'm sure that's in every corner apothecary right?
He have a Tiefling witch with that spell in our guild, with infernal heritage. Devil blood isn't a problem as long as he has a knife....
Tiefling's aren't devils.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for all the input. Seems too cheap for me, and as my friend pointed out, our rulebook states the cost as:375 gp x level of the spell x level of the crafterHe (a more experienced GM than I am) interpreted that slightly differently. The 'level of the spell' is the Caster Level at which it is to be cast, while the 'level of the crafter' is the Character's level, including any multi-classing, thus being a minimum of level 5, since that's the earliest you can take the Craft Wand Feat. This makes even level 1 wands slightly more of an expense, and is more in line with our campaign setting.
Finally it might be worth it to just have the player research Infernal Healing as one of their spells. This is a 1st level spell that grants 1 minute (10 rounds) of Fast Healing 1. Essentially this is (over the full minute) more healing than CLW at CL 1 and costs the same for the PC to put in a wand. Of course, they have to find either 50 doses of unholy water or a vial (50 drops) of devil blood, but I'm sure that's in every corner apothecary right?He have a Tiefling witch with that spell in our guild, with infernal heritage. Devil blood isn't a problem as long as he has a knife....
Your GM is missing this part of the rules:
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for all the input. Seems too cheap for me, and as my friend pointed out, our rulebook states the cost as:375 gp x level of the spell x level of the crafterHe (a more experienced GM than I am) interpreted that slightly differently. The 'level of the spell' is the Caster Level at which it is to be cast, while the 'level of the crafter' is the Character's level, including any multi-classing, thus being a minimum of level 5, since that's the earliest you can take the Craft Wand Feat. This makes even level 1 wands slightly more of an expense, and is more in line with our campaign setting.
Interesting interpretation considering that page 496 of the Core Rules shows a L1 wand as having a market price of 750 gold. That would be 375 gold to craft.
If you went with 375x1x5 as the minimum cost for a wand... that would make a wand of a 1st level spell cost 1875 to craft, which would be 3750 on the open market. That's would be 37.5 or 75 gold per charge respectively.
By contrast, a scroll of that same first level spell would cost 12.5 gold to craft or 25 gold on the open market.
Tiefling's aren't devils.
And a Half-elf doesn't count as an Elf then? If the Tiefling has devils in their ancestry, they should count as devils. They do count as Outsiders, albeit with the native subtype.
My fellow GMs and I decided that since our Tiefling cuts himself with a dagger to get the blood for Infernal Healing, he suffers 1 point of damage whenever he casts the spell in that way. Of course, if he has access to another source of devil blood or unholy water, he doesn't take that damage.
Tiefling's aren't devils.And a Half-elf doesn't count as an Elf then? If the Tiefling has devils in their ancestry, they should count as devils. They do count as Outsiders, albeit with the native subtype.
My fellow GMs and I decided that since our Tiefling cuts himself with a dagger to get the blood for Infernal Healing, he suffers 1 point of damage whenever he casts the spell in that way. Of course, if he has access to another source of devil blood or unholy water, he doesn't take that damage.
By the rules the tiefling does not count as other outsider type, so no he is not a devil. The rules for a half elf counting as an elf for certain affects has nothing to do with tieflings. Tielfings also come from some humanoid stock, but they don't count as that stock either.
Your GM is missing this part of the rules:
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell. Using metamagic feats, a caster can place spells in items at a higher level than normal.
No he isn't. He interpreted the bold section (which I assume is the part you want me to consider) as the 'level of the spell' part of the equation. Since we're talking about Cure Light Wounds, that can be as low as 1, since a cleric can cast it at 1st level. However, it can also be as high as the creator's caster level if they so choose.
If you went with 375x1x5 as the minimum cost for a wand... that would make a wand of a 1st level spell cost 1875 to craft, which would be 3750 on the open market. That's would be 37.5 or 75 gold per charge respectively.
By contrast, a scroll of that same first level spell would cost 12.5 gold to craft or 25 gold on the open market.
And? Scrolls are generally made of paper, and are thus flimsy and prone to tearing. They have to be kept rolled up in tubes and cases to prevent wrinkling or tearing that might render them unusable. Wands are significantly sturdier, having 5 times the HP, double the break DC and actually possessing a Hardness that scrolls don't. That almost justifies the increased cost per charge in itself, but there's more:
A scroll must be seen and read to activate, which can't be done in the dark (no emergency Light scrolls, I'm afraid!); it provokes an attack of opportunity; and the reader needs to have the requisite minimum ability score, as though casting it themselves.
A wand, on the other hand, simply needs holding in a hand and pointing in the general direction of the target; does not provoke an attack of opportunity; and may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.
Ultimately we went for our cost interpretation based on the nature of our campaign setting. Many of our players have two or more characters, which they switch between as they feel, meaning that while one is on a quest, the other is on 'downtime' crafting or otherwise working on more mundane endeavours. One adventure with the non-crafter could easily mean 3 or 4 wands made by the time the crafter is played again, and I for one don't think magic items should be that prolific, even in a magic fantasy setting. (Which is the main reason I don't let players buy magic items during my sessions. Commission them, yes, but they're just not commonly available for sale.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your other post made it seem like your GM thought that by the official rules a wand could not be cast at CL 1. That is different from what you are saying now, and if you are introducing house rules into the rules section you should say so. People tend to avoid listing house rules here because it is assumed that the posters will be giving them the actual rules.
The problem is this statement "He (a more experienced GM than I am) interpreted that slightly differently. "
Later on you said "This makes even level 1 wands slightly more of an expense, and is more in line with our campaign setting."
That 2nd line makes it a little more evident that it is a house rule, but a house rule is different from a rules interpretation.
The rules interpretation is how someone thinks the rule actually works.
A houserule is when they just choose to run it differently at their table.
PS: Just to be clear I am only stating all of this to avoid confusion in the future.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the player wants to skip the level of cleric have them find a level 1 adept NPC. Said adept has CLW studied for the day. The player pays them 10 GP for casting the spell into their newly created wand, and it's done.
Also if you're using Ultimate Campaign's Downtime rules, the PC could use a skill to earn Magic capital at the cost of 50 GP/pt. Spending one pt of magic capital is then the equivalent of 100 GP towards the cost of the wand. In this manner they could work a bit more to earn the capital and spend 200 GP instead of 375 for the creation of the wand.
Finally it might be worth it to just have the player research Infernal Healing as one of their spells. This is a 1st level spell that grants 1 minute (10 rounds) of Fast Healing 1. Essentially this is (over the full minute) more healing than CLW at CL 1 and costs the same for the PC to put in a wand. Of course, they have to find either 50 doses of unholy water or a vial (50 drops) of devil blood, but I'm sure that's in every corner apothecary right?
Mark, no where does it require a full vial of unholy water, nor any significant amount of devil blood to cast Infernal Healing. Whatever is needed is, technically, included in the standard SP{ell Component Pouch by default, since the spell does not list any exp[licit cost for the material component, unlike, say, Stoneskin.
So, a wand of CLW or IH would both cost 375 to craft, or 750 to buy.
IH would also fit within the FAQ'd information on spells known versus spell list, as IH is on the Sorcerer list, so buying a Page of Spell Knowledge of it would let him add it to his spells known and spell castable.
1,000 gp for the Page, 500 if crafted instead; one first level spell slot set aside to power the wand crafting, and, presumably, Spellcraft trained, and the crafter is golden. 1 wand, for 500 hp healing, per day. Less than a gold per hit point, so not a bad exchange. Still not a good in-combat healing option, although having Fast Healing running can have its benefits, since that would negate the need for worrying about your down buddy stabilizing, unless he is under a Bleed effect, since he would be either dead already or stabilized...
|
|
Mark, no where does it require a full vial of unholy water,If the player wants to skip the level of cleric have them find a level 1 adept NPC. Said adept has CLW studied for the day. The player pays them 10 GP for casting the spell into their newly created wand, and it's done.
Also if you're using Ultimate Campaign's Downtime rules, the PC could use a skill to earn Magic capital at the cost of 50 GP/pt. Spending one pt of magic capital is then the equivalent of 100 GP towards the cost of the wand. In this manner they could work a bit more to earn the capital and spend 200 GP instead of 375 for the creation of the wand.
Finally it might be worth it to just have the player research Infernal Healing as one of their spells. This is a 1st level spell that grants 1 minute (10 rounds) of Fast Healing 1. Essentially this is (over the full minute) more healing than CLW at CL 1 and costs the same for the PC to put in a wand. Of course, they have to find either 50 doses of unholy water or a vial (50 drops) of devil blood, but I'm sure that's in every corner apothecary right?
Infernal Healing
Components V, S, M 1 drop of devil blood or 1 dose of unholy water
nor any significant amount of devil blood to cast Infernal Healing. Whatever is needed is, technically, included in the standard SP{ell Component Pouch by default, since the spell does not list any exp[licit cost for the material component, unlike, say, Stoneskin.So, a wand of CLW or IH would both cost 375 to craft, or 750 to buy.
IH would also fit within the FAQ'd information on spells known versus spell list, as IH is on the Sorcerer list, so buying a Page of Spell Knowledge of it would let him add it to his spells known and spell castable.1,000 gp for the Page, 500 if crafted instead; one first level spell slot set aside to power the wand crafting, and, presumably, Spellcraft trained, and the crafter is golden. 1 wand, for 500 hp healing, per day. Less than a gold per hit point, so not a bad exchange. Still not a good in-combat healing option, although having Fast Healing running can have its...
Along the pieces of the Popobala, I suppose, after all any 5th level wizard can use Monstrous Physique I, so it is only "logical" that he will have the pieces of a CR 15 medium monstrous humanoid in his spellpouch.
Sadly the spell pouch description support that interpretation as it say: "Spell Component Pouch: A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn't fit in a pouch." and pieces of a dragon or extremely rare creature don't have a "specific cost".It is a house rule, but in our playing group we agree that a spellcaster can't get out of his spell pouch rare spell components simply because they don't have a listed price in the CRB or Ultimate Equipment.
Edit:
Especially when a spell either has either a component with a cost (the unholy water dose) and another with no listed cost (the devil blood).
To me it seem that the writer intention was clear: Infernal healing has a spell component cost of 25 gp, the price of the unholy water.
Further edit:
my kitten walking on the keyboard don't help with the formatting. ;-)
The game assumes you have access to cheap healing for in between combats, nothing wrong with it at all. My witch took the feat and is crafting like 20 IH wands and retraining it out. The first item any party usually splurges for is a wand of IH or CLW.
But he should really just craft wands of infernal healing and not loose a sorcerer level to dipping.
|
|
@Diego: How many doses of unholy water are there in a vial of unholy water?
How much blood can you get out of an imp (CR2)?
How about a lemure (CR1)?
Since a "dose" is undefined, it is difficult to determine how many can be taken from a 25 gp vial of unholy water.
And how much money does it cost to buy one drop of devil blood?
Seriously, how much would an adventurer charge for a drop of blood form a CR1 creature like a lemure?
Oh, and for a Sorcerer, since there is no serious price listed, it would be covered under Eschew Materials, in any case.
Meh.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When a spell has a costly material component it also has the price. That unholy water with no price beside it means the cost is neglible. There is no reason to have two options, with only one being free if the intent is to pay.
An example is this:
HOLY ICE
School transmutation [cold, good, water]; Level cleric 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a flask of holy water or 5 pounds of powdered silver worth 25 gp)
Holy water is sold by the "flask", not by the dose.
Holy water (flask)
So let's look at the evidence. The option other than the unholy water is free, and they don't use a "flask" like the other spells do. I would say a dose was meant to be a "drop".
There is also this spell.
UNHOLY ICE
School transmutation [cold, evil, water]; Level cleric 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a flask of unholy water or 5 pounds of powdered silver worth 25 gp)
Once again we have a flask.
The game assumes you have access to cheap healing for in between combats, nothing wrong with it at all. My witch took the feat and is crafting like 20 IH wands and retraining it out. The first item any party usually splurges for is a wand of IH or CLW.
But he should really just craft wands of infernal healing and not loose a sorcerer level to dipping.
The only RPG I've played that allows such cheap healing between combat is AD&D 4th Edition. (Although I have acquired the 1980s Marvel Super Hero RPG to run a City of Heroes campaign, which does something similar.) Every other one required the players to take a certain amount of downtime to fully heal, either through lack of convenient rapid healing, or a more complex damage system. (Sometimes both - I'm looking at you, Babylon Project!)
Such rapid healing, as you claim PF assumes, just seems incredibly wrong to me. It takes some of the fun out of the whole thing. If the players start every battle at full health, with enough healing items spare to remain at full health without using up any limited, class-based healing abilities, then where's the challenge? The struggle of fighting through hordes of minions, in order to face the Big Bad with the few resources you have remaining?
Almost every fantasy epic has the protagonists fighting against impossible odds and only just winning through perseverance and determination, despite being outclassed in almost every way. That, to me, is how a role-playing campaign should be played. The fun, the satisfaction of managing to win when your party is at its weakest. It's at those times that the class abilities of fighters and rogues really come into their own, since they are never depleted like those of the casters.
As to the Infernal Healing: since we now have the book that comes from, our sorcerer probably will get it, instead of taking a level of cleric, as he'd originally considered. Even though we are rather short of healers in our Adventurer's Guild. (2 paladins, 1 bard, 1 ranger, 1 thief/cleric - not all available at the same time, due to players having multiple characters.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game assumes you have access to cheap healing for in between combats, nothing wrong with it at all. My witch took the feat and is crafting like 20 IH wands and retraining it out. The first item any party usually splurges for is a wand of IH or CLW.
But he should really just craft wands of infernal healing and not loose a sorcerer level to dipping.
The only RPG I've played that allows such cheap healing between combat is AD&D 4th Edition. (Although I have acquired the 1980s Marvel Super Hero RPG to run a City of Heroes campaign, which does something similar.) Every other one required the players to take a certain amount of downtime to fully heal, either through lack of convenient rapid healing, or a more complex damage system. (Sometimes both - I'm looking at you, Babylon Project!)
Such rapid healing, as you claim PF assumes, just seems incredibly wrong to me. It takes some of the fun out of the whole thing. If the players start every battle at full health, with enough healing items spare to remain at full health without using up any limited, class-based healing abilities, then where's the challenge? The struggle of fighting through hordes of minions, in order to face the Big Bad with the few resources you have remaining?
Almost every fantasy epic has the protagonists fighting against impossible odds and only just winning through perseverance and determination, despite being outclassed in almost every way. That, to me, is how a role-playing campaign should be played. The fun, the satisfaction of managing to win when your party is at its weakest. It's at those times that the class abilities of fighters and rogues really come into their own, since they are never depleted like those of the casters.
As to the Infernal Healing: since we now have the book that comes from, our sorcerer probably will get it, instead of taking a level of cleric, as he'd originally considered. Even though we are rather short of healers in our Adventurer's...
The challenge is still there, and if they burn through expendable items it eats into their loot. Keeping wands of cure light wounds in stock is smart tactic. Also by the time a caster is 7th level they are not likely to run out of spells, and if they do and the fight is difficult then it is the noncasters that are normally in the most trouble. The game is not a movie or book, and while I like gritty games, the players topping off has not diminished my ability to challenge them. Ambush them, use combat that go against their weakness, use terrain, use ability damage/drain, etc etc.
Then houserule a total ban on Wands and crafting, and maybe even healing.
You now know how it works, both RAW, RAI, and even the reasoning behind both.
Other than you not liking it, what else is there to discuss?
Wands, crafting and healing are useful and valid features of the game. To ban them would turn it into something other than it is.
I understand that yes, RAW it is that cheap to craft a wand of CLW, but I cannot for one moment believe that was how it was truly intended to be. I have seen no conclusive reasoning in this thread regarding it other than a single suggestion that
Healing damage out of combat for pocket change is pretty much the default play mode.
- unlike the various incarnations of the game from which Pathfinder is derived. There's a reason magic items in AD&D required Experience Points as part of their creation costs.
You're right that I don't like it, and neither do my fellow GMs, which is why we've decided to houserule crafting the way we have.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that yes, RAW it is that cheap to craft a wand of CLW, but I cannot for one moment believe that was how it was truly intended to be. I have seen no conclusive reasoning in this thread regarding it other than a single suggestion thatHealing damage out of combat for pocket change is pretty much the default play mode.- unlike the various incarnations of the game from which Pathfinder is derived. There's a reason magic items in AD&D required Experience Points as part of their creation costs.
You're right that I don't like it, and neither do my fellow GMs, which is why we've decided to houserule crafting the way we have.
First off, let me applaud you for crafting house rules that work for your group and your play style. If the rules don't work for you at your table, by all means change them.
As to how the game was intended to be, for that I have to fall back on a piece written by Sean K Reynolds.
You can read the piece in it's entirety here:
A Different Take on Wands in D&D/PF
In the article he discusses an alternate concept for wands... and how it differs from what was laid out in Pathfinder, but he does it in the context of the game as it exists.
Here are a few relevant portions:
Wands are the most efficient way to purchase charges (a potion of cure light wounds is 50 gp for 1 charge, a scroll of cure light wounds is 25 gp for 1 charge, but a wand of cure light wounds is 750 gp for 50 charges, which is 15 gp per charge).
...
A wand of cure light wounds also provides buckets full of cheap and easy healing in between combats. This is good and bad. On one hand, the cheap healing wand is good because it allows clerics to use their spells for other fun things (like attacks and buffs) and extends the “15 minute adventuring day” by allowing the PCs to heal up in between fights and be fresh for the next combat. On the other hand, the cheap healing wand is bad because it gives the cleric more opportunities to use attack and buff spells instead of having to use spells for healing–adding power to a class that is already really powerful (the cleric arguably one of the most powerful classes in the game).
Oh... and in the comments:
...long gone are the days of “crap, we’re at half hp and only partway into the dungeon, we’d better spike the door of a side room closed and rest up until tomorrow.”
If affordable Wands of Cure Light Wounds weren't intended in Pathfinder, I'm sure Sean would have mentioned that in the course of his breakdown on how they work as sources of cheap healing between combats.
With that I think I'm done.
|
|
Then houserule a total ban on Wands and crafting, and maybe even healing.
You now know how it works, both RAW, RAI, and even the reasoning behind both.
Other than you not liking it, what else is there to discuss?
Wands, crafting and healing are useful and valid features of the game. To ban them would turn it into something other than it is.
I understand that yes, RAW it is that cheap to craft a wand of CLW, but I cannot for one moment believe that was how it was truly intended to be. I have seen no conclusive reasoning in this thread regarding it other than a single suggestion that
Healing damage out of combat for pocket change is pretty much the default play mode.- unlike the various incarnations of the game from which Pathfinder is derived. There's a reason magic items in AD&D required Experience Points as part of their creation costs.
You're right that I don't like it, and neither do my fellow GMs, which is why we've decided to houserule crafting the way we have.
Actually in AD&D you didn't pay XP to craft magic items, you acquired them. But it was very difficult and time consuming to make magic items.
It is in D&D 3 and 3.5 that you had to pay XP to make magic items, but Pathfinder don't give extra XP to the lower level character like those versions of the game, so thre isn't a way to reduce the gap between the crafting character and the non crafting if you apply a XP cost.
Then houserule a total ban on Wands and crafting, and maybe even healing.
You now know how it works, both RAW, RAI, and even the reasoning behind both.
Other than you not liking it, what else is there to discuss?
Wands, crafting and healing are useful and valid features of the game. To ban them would turn it into something other than it is.
I understand that yes, RAW it is that cheap to craft a wand of CLW, but I cannot for one moment believe that was how it was truly intended to be. I have seen no conclusive reasoning in this thread regarding it other than a single suggestion that
Healing damage out of combat for pocket change is pretty much the default play mode.- unlike the various incarnations of the game from which Pathfinder is derived. There's a reason magic items in AD&D required Experience Points as part of their creation costs.
You're right that I don't like it, and neither do my fellow GMs, which is why we've decided to houserule crafting the way we have.
If it was not intended to be that way it would cost more or they would make healing harder to get. Pathfinder even gave clerics channel so they dont have to use cure spells. If they wanted healing to be more like AD&D, which they don't they could have made it more difficult. PF removed the XP cost which 3.5 had because they disliked the mechanic. It is not just RAW but RAI for wands to be that cheap. 3.5 was even nice enough to have the specific prices of spells, potions, and wands done for us. PF uses the same pricing formula so all you have to do is open up the 3.5 SRD.
As to how the game was intended to be, for that I have to fall back on a piece written by Sean K Reynolds.
You can read the piece in it's entirety here:
A Different Take on Wands in D&D/PFIn the article he discusses an alternate concept for wands... and how it differs from what was laid out in Pathfinder, but he does it in the context of the game as it exists.
Thank you for the link. It's an interesting article, but the part that stands out for me is the statement about healing wands "adding power to a class that is already really powerful," indicating that he sees the same potential for abuse that my friends and I noticed. The suggestions in the comments are interesting, and I plan to discuss them with my fellow GMs. Perhaps we can use one or two of them in our campaign....
Actually in AD&D you didn't pay XP to craft magic items, you acquired them. But it was very difficult and time consuming to make magic items.
It is in D&D 3 and 3.5 that you had to pay XP to make magic items
3 and 3.5 are AD&D. The 'basic' D&D came in 5 boxed sets covering levels 1-3, 4-14, 15-25, 26-36, and Immortals. I know, because I still have them all in my RPG collection.
Yes, it's true that you didn't need to spend XP in 1st and 2nd Editions to make magic items, but the other requirements amounted to pretty much the same thing. You needed to actually go out and get what you needed, and were rewarded with a healthy XP boost for creating the item. Probably to make up for the time you spent in research, and not out adventuring with your friends.
|
|
Actually in AD&D you didn't pay XP to craft magic items, you acquired them. But it was very difficult and time consuming to make magic items.
It is in D&D 3 and 3.5 that you had to pay XP to make magic items
3 and 3.5 are AD&D. The 'basic' D&D came in 5 boxed sets covering levels 1-3, 4-14, 15-25, 26-36, and Immortals. I know, because I still have them all in my RPG collection.
Yes, it's true that you didn't need to spend XP in 1st and 2nd Editions to make magic items, but the other requirements amounted to pretty much the same thing. You needed to actually go out and get what you needed, and were rewarded with a healthy XP boost for creating the item. Probably to make up for the time you spent in research, and not out adventuring with your friends.
I still have those booklets and all the incarnation of AD&D. The brand name is D&D 3rd edition, not AD&D.
It is different enough that it is neither D&D BECM nor AD&D.