If the GM wants it to exist it does, they are not hard rules, just guidelines, most people, including some developers, agree that infinite charge cure light wounds is too powerful to allow cheaply.
Personally I think that obviously powerful items, should have a corresponding caster level, infinite cure light wounds should not be a caster level 1 item if it exists at all.
They would be a custom item so a GM would have to approve of them. The price is up to him also. The book only gives a guideline for pricing items, not actual rules. I would probably price it between 750 to 1000.
The formula for charges per day is-->Charges per day Divide by (5 divided by charges per day).
I don't think this item is bad since it is limited to a few charges per day. At low levels it is really good, but later on it is not so good.
example: bracers whit 5 charge/day cure light wounds = 1x1x1800= 1800
bracers whit infinite charge/day cure light wounds exist?
A round is 6 seconds. there are 10 rounds in a minute, 600 rounds in an hour and 14,400 rounds in a 24 hour day.
Merely make it using the normal guidelines and buy 14,400 uses per day. That is your cure light wounds item with 'unlmited' charges.
CAN it be done? Yeah if your GM lets it. WILL it be done? Not if your GM is smart. Plus it should be kinda pricey.
Note that that item would be the equivalent of 288 Wands of Cure Light Wounds every day, forever, that anyone would be able to activate.
Yeah that will be expensive. You could heal armies with that thing almost overnight.
To price a cure light wounds item I would compare it to a pearl of power.
1charge per day: 1*1*1800/5 =360gp
Pearl of Power 1 = 1000gp
Pearl of power is a standard action to regain any 1st level spell already cast and then another to cast it.
The CLW item is just a standard action but is specifically limited to just CLW. Thus, I would (approximately) double the cost to 750gp. This would place it under Pearl of Power so that it remained useful but still place it close enough where it is not a 'must have' item.
For 5charges per day, multiply by 5
- Gauss
P.S. I would compare an infinite CLW per day item to the Ring of Regeneration and price it somewhere in that neighborhood.
use-activated Spell level (1) x caster level (1) x 50 gp = 50 gp
If item is continuous or unlimited, not charged, determine cost as if it had 100 charges. If it has some daily limit, determine as if it had 50 charges.
Charges per day (100) Divide by (5 divided by charges per day(100)) = 2000
So does that mean 50 gp x 2000 gp = 100,000 gold. Im probably doing that wrong but I think that would give you an unlimited cure light use activated.
Then again I have seen it listed as only 2000 gold for such an item. So who knows lol.
Dragonamedrake, I think you are confusing the rules for material component cost for continuous items with the cost for continuous items.
Cost for continuous items are Spell Level * Caster Level * 2000.
Cost for continuous item material components are Material Component cost *100.
Same issue for charges per day.
Cost for charges per day item are Spell level * Caster Level * 1800/(5/charges)
Cost for material component on a charges per day item are Material Component cost *50.
Potions (and other single use items) are what have a cost of spell level *caster level * 50
- Gauss
The price for an unlimited use per day item is exactly the same as a 5/day item.
spell level * caster level * 2000 for an unlimited use, use-activated item
spell level * caster level * 1800 for an unlimited use, command word activated item
Intelligent items can have at will spells. But they're more likely to use you, than vice versa.
CLW at will isn't really continuous though- is it?
To me- ( and i'm probably wrong) continuous would be for an item that used a spell with a duration, and that duration was basically permanent. Like a cloak that made you invisible forever or whatever. You'd use the item and it'd last until you stopped using it. (or in the case of invis- until you attacked and cast again).
But with CLW having an instantaneous duration a "continous" item is basically a potion.. because the spell itself discharges in one use.
So you'd nearly have to go by the 5/day charges- which the guidelines list as 5 being the cap at.
I don't usually mess with making custom magical items.. so maybe i'm just completely off base here..
-S
I don't think this item is bad since it is limited to a few charges per day. At low levels it is really good, but later on it is not so good.The major problem with items like these are the precedents set for later items. Let someone build an item like this at low-mid level, what are they going to expect approval up when they're in the high levels?
Not really. I have set the tone that any item idea might be shut down, and so should any other GM. Just because you get an item that lets you have a ray of force energy(3d6) at level 5 that does not mean you should get another one that lets you do 15d6 later one. Players just need to understand boundaries that the GM set.
If the GM is not setting boundaries, and/or the players don't respect them.....PS 1:I do see your point, and I have seen similar players on these boards. All a GM can do is judge his group according in the end though.
PS2 :That force ring does not exist. :)
But with CLW having an instantaneous duration a "continous" item is basically a potion.. because the spell itself discharges in one use.
So you'd nearly have to go by the 5/day charges- which the guidelines list as 5 being the cap at.
No you don't. You can have an unlimited use item of CLW. Making it use activated (say, an elixir you can drink that replenishes itself after use, or a special bandage) would cost 2000gp.
Or make it so it required a command word to activate costs 1800gp.
Both do require activation (as a standard action), but both have unlimited uses.
Jeraa while what you say is true, I wouldn't allow that pricing for this item. I would require it be charged or require it cost about as much as a ring of regeneration as I stated previously. The pricings are guidelines.
A ring of invisibility is calculated to be priced at 2*3*1800 = 10,800gp but instead is priced at 20,000gp. Why? because it is too cheap otherwise.
Similarly, an unlimited use activated Cure Light Wounds is calculated to be priced at 1*1*1800 = 1800 but is sooo useful I would price it near or at a ring of regeneration (90,000gp).
- Gauss
Dragonamedrake, I think you are confusing the rules for material component cost for continuous items with the cost for continuous items.
Cost for continuous items are Spell Level * Caster Level * 2000.
Cost for continuous item material components are Material Component cost *100.Same issue for charges per day.
Cost for charges per day item are Spell level * Caster Level * 1800/(5/charges)
Cost for material component on a charges per day item are Material Component cost *50.Potions (and other single use items) are what have a cost of spell level *caster level * 50
- Gauss
I figured I was doing it wrong. Ive not done much with custom items. Mostly because other DMs in our gaming group dont allow them, and Ive never had a player ask to make one.
2000 gold for unlimited 1st level spell though. It wouldn't be a big deal in my games because we allow the 3.5 feat Versatile Spellcaster which lets you cast a spell of a level higher by combining two slots of the level below it... so combining 2 infinite cantrips gives you infinite 1st level spells for spontanious casters.
So Bards, Sorcs, Inquisitors, magus, oracles, ect can take a feat and cast unlimited 1st level spells. Overpowered compared to what the spell is supposed to do? Absolutly. Does it work really well at lower levels at extending casters work days. Sure does. I like it when my players take it when I DM. It actually helps me when I plan several fights in one day... expecially at lower levels.
Well, I was going to post how your group's use of Versatile Spellcaster is overpowered but you stated that yourself. With that said, you should always state when you are using alternate rules (or comparing them to alternate rules) when responding in a rules forum.
By PF RAW there is no such equivalency and as a result I compare the pricing of a 1st level spell single use spell against a Pearl of Power 1. Comparing unlimited use CLW to a ring of regen also seems appropriate to me.
- Gauss
Jeraa while what you say is true, I wouldn't allow that pricing for this item. I would require it be charged or require it cost about as much as a ring of regeneration as I stated previously. The pricings are guidelines.
A ring of invisibility is calculated to be priced at 2*3*1800 = 10,800gp but instead is priced at 20,000gp. Why? because it is too cheap otherwise.
Similarly, an unlimited use activated Cure Light Wounds is calculated to be priced at 1*1*1800 = 1800 but is sooo useful I would price it near or at a ring of regeneration (90,000gp).
- Gauss
If the ring was truly unlimited like a ring of invis which you can just keep using all day a really high price might be reasonable, but for 5 times a day, and only getting 1d8+x that is way too much money. The player is better off getting some type of staff.
Well, I was going to post how your group's use of Versatile Spellcaster is overpowered but you stated that yourself. With that said, you should always state when you are using alternate rules (or comparing them to alternate rules) when responding in a rules forum.
By PF RAW there is no such equivalency and as a result I compare the pricing of a 1st level spell single use spell against a Pearl of Power 1. Comparing unlimited use CLW to a ring of regen also seems appropriate to me.
- Gauss
I guess what I was trying to get at (and doing a poor job of conveying), was that while 2000 gold for an unlimited 1st level spell might seem overpowered, in actual practice this has not been the case in the games I run.
Wraithstrike, yes, I meant an unlimited charge use-activated Cure light wounds. A 5charge use-activated CLW item I would charge only 3750 as I posted earlier.
Dragonamedrake, we will have to agree to disagree. I personally see an unlimited use CLW to be extremely powerful regardless of source. The Developers would seem to agree since they changed Cure Minor Wounds into Stabilize to prevent people from spam healing after a battle.
- Gauss
The price for a use-activated, use-it-whenever amulet of CLW would be 2000 gp. That's the price to buy it from the MagicMart.
Whether or not that's gamebreakingly underpriced depends a lot on your groups playstyle. If you feel that is underpriced, there are a couple options that don't involve random price multipliers (assuming you want to allow it at all):
- You could easily rule that all spell-effect items (or maybe all instantaneous effect, or maybe just everything) require a charge limit of some kind.
- You could require a 24 hour attunement period. Keeping the cleric at full health for 2000 gp is a decent, but not gamebreaking deal. Buying enough for the whole party would get expensive until later, when it wouldn't matter so much anyway.
- You could alter the amount of healing they get from it. Magic items don't have to replicate spell effects exactly. This is probably less likely if they are making it themselves.
Or, you could just tell them to save up for a Ring of Regeneration.
BTW, a simpler formula for a charges per day item would be: caster level * spell level * charges per day * 400 (or * 360 for command word). I don't see any reason (or anything in RAW) to limit it to 5 per day besides the fact that 5/day costs the same as unlimited use. Of course, it could get very expensive to have enough to heal the whole party to full.
Edit: I can tell you that my 1/day CLW item is definitely not overpowered. It only cost 330 gp (due to other limitations). It's very nice to have when I hit 3 hp (again), but it won't replace the healer.
I get that Gauss and I can see why a DM wouldnt like it. Personally I have had little issue with it, but then I tend to be a pretty open DM.
You could always limit items to a max of 50 charges and to disallow unlimited uses. Or change it to only work on items with a duration longer then one round.
MagiMaster, do you also subscribe to that pricing for an unlimited use magic item of Truestrike?
Page 549 states that these formulas are only a starting point and that the price of an item may be modified by actual worth.
- Gauss
No, because that falls on the first section of the table which is more specific. +20 to hit is priced as 20 * 20 * 1000, depending on how you'd split the 2000 base between to-hit and damage. (I agree the table's not perfect, but I think it's a lot better than most GMs give it credit for.)
I wouldn't mind a 5/day truestrike for 2000 though.
I wouldn't mind a 5/day truestrike for 2000 though.
Would you mind it if everyone in the party had 5? At 10K a party member that is 25 uses of true strike a day each person. More than enough to be unholy terrors in hit and run.
Now we're running into campaign assumptions. The WBL table suggests they should be at least level 5 before they could afford that, and then they wouldn't have anything else. Let's say level 7 is more reasonable, assuming your campaign roughly follows the WBL guidelines and they aren't crafting these themselves.
Second, that's assuming this is a slotted item (it's a bit vague when you do or don't apply that multiplier, but this seems to fit). So they'd have to stop every 5 swings to change out amulets, or else fill 5 slots with variations of this thing. Also (and I'd have to double check this) other than the sword itself (swing activated), it takes a move action to active most use-activated items, right?
So, a 5th level full BAB type will be using at least 2 of those charges per swing, so he's good for about 12 rounds (ignoring the complications of running out half way through a round, or activating the various rings and amulets). Truestrike wears off after one swing, hit or miss, though it'll probably hit.
We have to have a specific character in mind to really be able to do the math here. The real question isn't whether this is powerful, it's whether this is so powerful that no one would take another option. I'm not much of an optimizer, so I'll leave that exercise to someone else.