There's no reason why a character wouldn't be able to use multiple Pearls of Power each once a day is there? I'm thinking of making a magic item somewhat like prayer beads where each enchancted bead serves as one Pearl - like 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd and a 4th all on one strand.
Use all you want we will make more!!!
Yes you can use more than 1.
Thanks. Thought it might be a nice high-level item for a Paladin.
In fact, its pretty standard practice in my games for wizards to wear pearl neclaces.
My druid has three pearl earrings and is going to get a fourth.
There is no RAW limit to pearls. There has been lots of discussion about the need to house rule limits to them. So far in my campaigns nobody has abused them to the point that I feel a need to do something about them.
Currently my 8th level druid has two level 1 pearls and one level 2 pearl. She's contemplating buying a second level 2 pearl.
Why limit them? For 1k*spell level squared is expensive enough to prevent abuse alone. For 1k I could buy 8 level 1 cl 5 scrolls that I can use once a round. Since most 1st level spells cap at cl 5 for usefulness, this would be pretty equitable. To use a pearl in combat I have to spend 2 rounds to do what I can in one with a scroll. Heck if I didnt care about it being cl 1, I can get 40 scrolls for 1k or a 50 charge wand for 750...A singular pearl is only once a day...Having played many casters I have seldom used any given pearl more than 20 times...
At the end of combat I use my pearls to replenish spells I cast. So they are ready for the next combat. If I had enough pearls, I'd be able to use all my spells in one combat and then replenish them all for the next.
So you don't really take two rounds to use them, at least not two combat rounds.
For most campaigns I've been in, wealth is the easiest thing to obtain. SO buying lots of pearls isn't that hard.
AD, for those campaigns, was the avg WBL not being used as a cap?
We use it in our campaign, and it's the reason that my Druid doesn't have any pearls yet. (prioritized other things higher).
AD, for those campaigns, was the avg WBL not being used as a cap?
We use it in our campaign, and it's the reason that my Druid doesn't have any pearls yet. (prioritized other things higher).
The druid in question has been in a series of adventure modules. The WBL is not being used as a cap. I don't use the cap in my campaigns either, although I would be very surprised if I was even close to the cap.
Here is what my level 8 druid currently owns:
+1 longbow.
+1 ring of protection
Lesser rod of metamagic: extend
+1 leather armor
2 first level pearls of power
1 second level pearl of power
A few first level scrolls and potions.
Arrows and mundane gear
150 gold
If that's more than an 8th level character should have, well she just picked up the longbow and ring of protection in our last dungeon crawl. Before that she had MW items.
|
I love them even if they get a little bit exprensive after level 3. Of course as a magus with magical lineage (shocking grasp) and intensify spell I get a lot of damage out of my level1 spell slots.
As a house rule we allow them to work for bards, sorcerers .... I really saw no reason to make them pay double.
List of about 15,000gp worth of goods.
You are about half under. But if it is working for your campaign I'm certainly not knocking it.
If you are interested in what the assumptions of wealth by level are here is the chart.
But again if you and the campaign are going good I wouldn't worry too much about it.
|
I see pearls as a flexibility thing providing more fun options and power through breadth.
Once you have one pearl at a level you can generally avoid taking duplicates in your fixed slots which allows you to take one of everything including the less often used but more fun spells like disguise self, unseen servant, etc. or just to achieve a wider toolbox of spells to draw upon daily.
After the first pearl at each level I see it as rapidly diminishing returns.
Cost wise you need to use a pearl over 20 times before it is cheaper than just buying scrolls (40 times at level one). So they are best for broadening daily options.
Yeah, after posting that I went and calculated the gold value. Its about 20,000g (I forgot to list a belt of dex). So my druid is roughly 13,000 below "market value."
It's never been a problem in our game. Heck, through level 5 I role-played her to be oblivious to treasure. She made her own MW bow, made her own arrows, used a scimitar her druid teacher gave her and lived off the land. When her party would go into town between adventures, she would typically seek out a local dryad grove and rest there.
But starting about level 6 the party cleric took it upon himself to teach her about gold and magic items. Since then she's been learning rapidly. Now she actually enjoys shopping.
As far as scrolls vs pearls of power are concerned, I don't equate a single scroll with a single use of the pearl. The pearl is far more flexible than buying scrolls. Since I use my pearls pretty much every day when adventuring, I would have had to haul an implausibly large collection of scrolls to achieve the same effect, plus assuming I would be using the scrolls in combat, I would have to invest a move action for every scroll use to get the scroll out. Just not comparable, imho.
If I had unlimited funds I would probably want three pearls for every level so I could recast the same buff or combat spell once in each encounter. (Four encounters per day is pretty much the max for our group.) Besides, I would pay a good bit of gold just to avoid the literal paperwork of hauling and tracking all those scrolls. And what if I get fireballed?
Our party just completed a major campaign module and is heading back to town with a heap of treasure. Cashing it in will likely bring my druid up to par in wealth, whichis why I posted a different thread about how to spend the upcoming 12,000g windfall heading her way.
Yeah some advantages the pearl has:
Better caster level
Better DC
Any spell prepared
Passable to other prepared casters
Daily recharge
The scroll is cheaper if you want more of a single spell -- but for random "am I going to need another (x) or (y) today?" I prefer pearls.
Yeah some advantages the pearl has:
Better caster level
Better DC
Any spell prepared
Passable to other prepared casters
Daily rechargeThe scroll is cheaper if you want more of a single spell -- but for random "am I going to need another (x) or (y) today?" I prefer pearls.
Let's not forget:
You can metamagic the renewed spell
You can spontaneous cast your class spell in place of the renewed spell
You can cast the renewed spell in a surprise round
I mean there really is no comparison whatsoever between using a pearl of power and stashing scrolls in your backpack. None at all. It's like apples to hand grenades.
Yup. I definitely want one pearl for each level. The second pearl at the same level not so much. I would much rather put the cash towards a pearl of a higher level than buy a second one of an existing level.
The economies of scale don't facilitate that approach. By the time you are able to spend 4,000 gold on a second level pearl of power, it's a whole lot easier to get 1,000 gold than when you can buy a second first level pearl of power. Like maybe a single encounter at most. So by purchasing a second first level pearl of power as soon as you can afford it then you get use of that for several encounters until you get high enough to spend 4,000g. And if you really want to push the economics of it, sell the second first level PoP back for half price and for 500g you've gotten use of an extra spell per day for a dozen or so encounters, vs maybe not having a second level PoP for a single encounter or maybe two. Having that second first level PoP is also at a time when your first level spells are more competitive too.
There have been tons of studies on purchasing items in RPG games and all of them end up showing that it is best to get what you can when you can, saving gold is almost always a missed opportunity for more powerful play as you move up.
|
|
There have been tons of studies on purchasing items in RPG games and all of them end up showing that it is best to get what you can when you can, saving gold is almost always a missed opportunity for more powerful play as you move up.
The balance as I see it is: marginally more powerful play now (2nd pearl of the same level) vs much more powerful play a bit earlier later on (first pearl of a higher level earlier) - and no cash wasted.
Treasure also tends to arrive in large chunks rather than a steady stream of smaller amounts that a simple economic model might expect.
I guess bottom line though it comes down to the relative value of a second pearl - on which we seem to disagree. Is there a non-subjective value test we can apply? I would be very interested to find out if I have undervalued pearls in general.
There have been tons of studies on purchasing items in RPG games and all of them end up showing that it is best to get what you can when you can, saving gold is almost always a missed opportunity for more powerful play as you move up.The balance as I see it is: marginally more powerful play now (2nd pearl of the same level) vs much more powerful play a bit earlier later on (first pearl of a higher level earlier) - and no cash wasted.
Treasure also tends to arrive in large chunks rather than a steady stream of smaller amounts that a simple economic model might expect.
I guess bottom line though it comes down to the relative value of a second pearl - on which we seem to disagree. Is there a non-subjective value test we can apply? I would be very interested to find out if I have undervalued pearls in general.
I don't have a method of coming to a solution for both of you, but I would like to chime in and point out something that is noteworthy.
Core casters (as opposed to psionic casters) benefit from "free-scaling", which means their spells tend to get better as they level, but they put no extra effort or resources into it. In fact, they generally use less of their total resources while getting a more powerful effect (at 1st level, magic missile is easily 50% of your resources and does 1d4+1 damage, and at 5th level it's less than 10% of your resources and deals 3d4+3 damage, and at 10th level, it's a blip on the radar as far as resources go, and deals 5d4+5 damage).
This favors multiple lower level pearls. If you get a 2nd level pearl at the earliest opportunity, it's likely that you're getting just as much bang from your 1st level spells at the time. Same with higher level spells in general. Which is better, a 10d6 fireball or a 10d6 cone of cold? Well cone of cold (+1 DC), but not by much.
I feel this lends further credibility to the purchasing of multiple lower-level pearls, and then upgrading later as it becomes feasible to do so. A 3rd level wizard is more likely to get more bang out of 4 1st level pearls than a single 2nd level pearl.
It's good for other casters too. A ranger can easily afford multiple 1st level pearls, which allows him to effectively act like a sorcerer, spamming resist energy and delay poison as needed, which are generally always effective, while draining very little of their overall resources. In fact, it's arguable that the ranger is actually gaining resources in this case.
Having "current" pearls can be good for utility, and I support that. However, having multiple low level pearls is very feasible and it's hard to go wrong with them. :)
There have been tons of studies on purchasing items in RPG games and all of them end up showing that it is best to get what you can when you can, saving gold is almost always a missed opportunity for more powerful play as you move up.The balance as I see it is: marginally more powerful play now (2nd pearl of the same level) vs much more powerful play a bit earlier later on (first pearl of a higher level earlier) - and no cash wasted.
Treasure also tends to arrive in large chunks rather than a steady stream of smaller amounts that a simple economic model might expect.
I guess bottom line though it comes down to the relative value of a second pearl - on which we seem to disagree. Is there a non-subjective value test we can apply? I would be very interested to find out if I have undervalued pearls in general.
I don't have a method of coming to a solution for both of you, but I would like to chime in and point out something that is noteworthy.
Core casters (as opposed to psionic casters) benefit from "free-scaling", which means their spells tend to get better as they level, but they put no extra effort or resources into it. In fact, they generally use less of their total resources while getting a more powerful effect (at 1st level, magic missile is easily 50% of your resources and does 1d4+1 damage, and at 5th level it's less than 10% of your resources and deals 3d4+3 damage, and at 10th level, it's a blip on the radar as far as resources go, and deals 5d4+5 damage).
This favors multiple lower level pearls. If you get a 2nd level pearl at the earliest opportunity, it's likely that you're getting just as much bang from your 1st level spells at the time. Same with higher level spells in general. Which is better, a 10d6 fireball or a 10d6 cone of cold? Well cone of cold (+1 DC), but not by much.
I feel this lends further credibility to the purchasing of multiple lower-level pearls, and then upgrading later as it becomes feasible to do so....
Nicely stated Ashiel. That's part of what I was trying to say about pearls. Early and often is the best approach for them, up to the point that you never run out of that level's spells.
On the general subject of "spend what you have" instead of "save to buy something better" I suppose people will play how they like, but I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the magic item I can use in combat is a superior choice to a bag full of gold coins every single time.