Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mind Flayer Monk 11-01-07, 01:08 AM	So, a player bought two Anklets of something or other, which can only be used twice a day. After the second usage, this player swapped out his anklet and put on a second one he bought. I ruled the "magic" only works twice a day, no matter how many anklets you have. Was this the correct ruling? If so, can someone point out to me where in the rules it is written?
magebeast 11-01-07, 01:53 AM	So, a player bought two Anklets of something or other, which can only be used twice a day. After the second usage, this player swapped out his anklet and put on a second one he bought. I ruled the "magic" only works twice a day, no matter how many anklets you have. Was this the correct ruling? If so, can someone point out to me where in the rules it is written? As I've understood it, X per day magic items are "charged" similarly to wands and such. The difference is that the charges recharge after 24 hours or whatever and you can use them again. It's not like the anklet of translocation is accessing some innate or other magic, the spell's in the item. Let's put it this way. A Wand of X is 50/forever essentially. When you use that up, can you use a different wand of the same spell?
bitznarf 11-01-07, 10:46 AM	So, a player bought two Anklets of something or other, which can only be used twice a day. After the second usage, this player swapped out his anklet and put on a second one he bought. I ruled the "magic" only works twice a day, no matter how many anklets you have. Was this the correct ruling? If so, can someone point out to me where in the rules it is written? There are some items that are worded that way (X's Fortifying Bedroll from Complete Mage, only usable every other day by the same person). Anything that doesn't include this sort of a limit is simply an item with charges.
cetiken 11-01-07, 10:55 AM	I gota agree with Mage Beast. You made the call, but if I was DMing I'd probably take the opposite opinion. I am curious what rule you used to justify your position.
_metz_ 11-01-07, 12:17 PM	This is why I LOVE 24 hours of attunement period. Stops this sort of abuse. Unfortunately not all the items have this, I rule in home campaigns that they do, but unfortunately in LG that cannot happen. Silly writers for not thinking of this abuse (hey... if I just get two...)
JamesMaissen 11-01-07, 01:58 PM	So, a player bought two Anklets of something or other, which can only be used twice a day. After the second usage, this player swapped out his anklet and put on a second one he bought. I ruled the "magic" only works twice a day, no matter how many anklets you have. Was this the correct ruling? If so, can someone point out to me where in the rules it is written? I don't believe that you are in any way correct. Your idea is basically that the 'charge' is with the person and not the item. Well then flip the idea around for a second and see how it looks... What if the person above had their character hand over the first anklet after using it twice to someone else. Would you rule that the second character, having not used an anklet today, could use it twice still? -James
magebeast 11-01-07, 03:58 PM	This is why I LOVE 24 hours of attunement period. Stops this sort of abuse. Unfortunately not all the items have this, I rule in home campaigns that they do, but unfortunately in LG that cannot happen. Silly writers for not thinking of this abuse (hey... if I just get two...) I'm not sure why you consider this abuse? They spent their cash on it. If the item is too cheap, fix it that way.
Mind Flayer Monk 11-01-07, 05:28 PM	Fair enough, as long as I have two of the item, I can fully use the daily charges for both items. If I have 2 anklets of translocation, I can translocate 4 times a day. If I have 2 armbands of avoidance, I can avoid and AoO 4 times a day, and if I have 2 healing belts, I can heal xx times a day. Makes sense.
Hariman 11-01-07, 06:57 PM	Don't forget, he'll probably either sell an anklet or two down the road when he gets a better item for the "feet" slot. There's also no known rule that Anklets of Translocation can't be swapped out.
Mattastrophic 11-02-07, 01:59 PM	This is why I LOVE 24 hours of attunement period. Stops this sort of abuse. Abuse? Does this mean you consider owning two Pearls of Power I abuse? -Matt
_metz_ 11-05-07, 10:49 AM	Abuse? Does this mean you consider owning two Pearls of Power I abuse? -Matt not at all. But owning 7 healing belts, etc is getting into the realms of sillyness. Considering how underpriced some MIC stuff is considering the way LG mods are constructed, they are a little overpowered as it is... (how often are there a significant number of encounters a day? especially more than 2-3?)
Jay_Ibero_911 11-05-07, 12:42 PM	not at all. But owning 7 healing belts, etc is getting into the realms of sillyness. Considering how underpriced some MIC stuff is considering the way LG mods are constructed, they are a little overpowered as it is... (how often are there a significant number of encounters a day? especially more than 2-3?) Well what about owning 7 pearls of power? Is that getting into the realm of sillyness? The character still had to make a significant investment to aquire that many of the item and tie up any relevant slots with whatever they are mass purchasing, and in the case of the anklets of translocation there are many mods that they wouldn't even be needed. Healing belts are certainly a bargain, but they are mostly only useful for out of combat healing like wands.
magebeast 11-05-07, 01:01 PM	not at all. But owning 7 healing belts, etc is getting into the realms of sillyness. Considering how underpriced some MIC stuff is considering the way LG mods are constructed, they are a little overpowered as it is... (how often are there a significant number of encounters a day? especially more than 2-3?) Better isn't necessarily overpowered.
Vamroc 11-05-07, 03:35 PM	Better isn't necessarily overpowered. "Don't hate the player that the game" The anklet says twice a day if you have two that four times a day. The Duel Wand Wielders PrC can use two wands at once Wand of Flesh to Stone and Wand of Shatter = instant death. With no chance to of being raised while other players can do this the penelties are huge.
Mattastrophic 11-05-07, 03:36 PM	not at all. But owning 7 healing belts, etc is getting into the realms of sillyness. Considering how underpriced some MIC stuff is considering the way LG mods are constructed, they are a little overpowered as it is... (how often are there a significant number of encounters a day? especially more than 2-3?) What's really going on is that the writer's version of the power level of D&D characters and the LG standard has diverged. The MIC-compliant PC has stat mods attached to other wondrous items as well as items that have multiple powers (I wish I could make a Greater Choker of Eloquence of Health +6 of Fortune Prevailing). So of course the MIC items might seem really cheap; their standards are different than ours. Also consider that the standard PC can have things like Imbue Familiar With Spell Ability (Closed), Robilar's Gambit (Closed), and the Belt of Battle (The One Item That Might Have Killed LG If It Was Not Already Ending). -Matt
Mattastrophic 11-05-07, 03:53 PM	Remember, you can't have a Wand of Flesh to Stone. Wands only go up to 4th-level spells. -Matt
Hariman 11-06-07, 12:00 AM	What's really going on is that the writer's version of the power level of D&D characters and the LG standard has diverged. The MIC-compliant PC has stat mods attached to other wondrous items as well as items that have multiple powers (I wish I could make a Greater Choker of Eloquence of Health +6 of Fortune Prevailing). So of course the MIC items might seem really cheap; their standards are different than ours. Also consider that the standard PC can have things like Imbue Familiar With Spell Ability (Closed), Robilar's Gambit (Closed), and the Belt of Battle (The One Item That Might Have Killed LG If It Was Not Already Ending). -Matt You're exactly right. The MIC actually rewrites much of the magic item pricing for D&D 3.5. It's an entire new standard that's getting introduced while LG has been trying to maintain the original standard. I can't say the cheaper, more accessible pricing is a bad thing either. I won't argue that the cheap items aren't relatively more powerful than the older cheapies. But I don't think they're overpowered. You'll probably see many Anklets of Translocation either sold or relegated to "spare/handout" status once better items become available. Although my sorcerer's new Artificer's Monocle is going to stay with him for quite a while. Free "Identify" from casting detect magic is great. And he'll no longer be jealous of Clerics who don't need to spend the 100gp pearl to cast identify.
_metz_ 11-06-07, 01:23 AM	All I am saying is that in LG -MIC items change the curve, and unless everyone is getting equal access, is favouring some PCs massively over others. A healing belt for 750 gold is so much better than a PoP1... It alters the basic mechanic, and until everyone gets the MIC access, rather than it being prevalent in some regions, etc (not pointing any one region out) than it is a bit different. EVERYone has PoP access, not everyone gets a healing belt or an anklet of translocation, but if you do, you always buy 4. if someone is stupid to NOT buy it, then its unbalancing a little, is all I saying. I also favour attunement periods as well, just for character purposes. In any case there is little point argueing over it now, as the system is about to change.
Redfist 11-06-07, 02:59 AM	EVERYone has PoP access, not everyone gets a healing belt or an anklet of translocation, but if you do, you always buy 4. Not to nit-pick, but that's not true. PoPs aren't open. You need to get access. However, I do agree that access to PoPs is more common than to anklets.
_metz_ 11-06-07, 08:29 AM	Not to nit-pick, but that's not true. PoPs aren't open. You need to get access. However, I do agree that access to PoPs is more common than to anklets. Half the core mods give access, so if you actually play your character, then yes, you really do. I didn't say they were open...
Mattastrophic 11-06-07, 09:38 AM	All I am saying is that in LG -MIC items change the curve, and unless everyone is getting equal access, is favouring some PCs massively over others. That's been a complaint since 2001. The MIC did not change anything in regards to various regions having various amounts of access. if someone is stupid to NOT buy it, then its unbalancing a little, is all I saying. As an arcanist, I know I'd rather have a Pearl I and my Belt of Endurance over a Healing Belt. I also know I'd rather have Boots of Speed over an Anklet of Translocation. This Healing Belt and Anklet of Translocation, they're merely low-level treats, though I do see their uses. ...though out-of-combat, that Healing Belt is pretty strong. It's basically a five-charge-per-day (6d8=5d8+5) Eternal Wand of Cure Light Wounds that anyone can use. -Matt
Redfist 11-06-07, 09:39 AM	You said "everyone has access". That's not true since they're not open. By definition, the only thing that "everyone" has access to are open items. For example, one of my mid level clerics doesn't have access to PoP 4+. My lowbie fighter (3rd level) doesn't have access to any PoPs. My 13th level wizard has access to 1-5 but not beyond. etc. Like I said... a nit-pick.
Mind Flayer Monk 11-06-07, 01:26 PM	As an addendum to this question: Does an item showing up on an AR entitle you to buy an item multiple times? If one defeated foe has say a wand of magic missiles with 10 charges, can I buy 3 of those wands (even though only 1 dropped in the adventure)?
bitznarf 11-06-07, 01:28 PM	Unless the AR specifially says otherwise then the answer is yes. For example I have seen "+1 shock arrows Max 10".
copperwyrmling 11-06-07, 07:01 PM	That's been a complaint since 2001. The MIC did not change anything in regards to various regions having various amounts of access. No, but it seems to change the power-to-cost ratio - relative to the Open items - far more than most other books that have been released. That said, all the nicest MIC access I've seen has been in Cores ;) As an arcanist, I know I'd rather have a Pearl I and my Belt of Endurance over a Healing Belt. I also know I'd rather have Boots of Speed over an Anklet of Translocation. This Healing Belt and Anklet of Translocation, they're merely low-level treats, though I do see their uses. On both my arcanists I'd prefer an anklet of translocation and 10,000 gp to boots of speed ;) I'd keep the healing belt for out-of-combat use - but if we're comparing MIC items to those from other books, my L14 sorc much prefers her Belt of Battle to the Belt of Endurance, and their prices are almost the same. You said "everyone has access". That's not true since they're not open. By definition, the only thing that "everyone" has access to are open items. For example, one of my mid level clerics doesn't have access to PoP 4+. My lowbie fighter (3rd level) doesn't have access to any PoPs. My 13th level wizard has access to 1-5 but not beyond. etc. Like I said... a nit-pick. Indeed. I've seen people similarly say that "everyone has access to Boots of Speed at high levels", but my cleric didn't find hers until late in L13 and my dervish burned an "any item from the DMG" favor to get his (he's L10). Sure, there's been access in Cores, but I played them with different characters. The way LG manages access, it's entirely possible to get to very high levels without having seen fairly basic items (my cleric used a favor to get her +4 periapt, and hadn't seen access to a +6 version until they made them Open).
Hariman 11-06-07, 07:22 PM	Indeed. I've seen people similarly say that "everyone has access to Boots of Speed at high levels", but my cleric didn't find hers until late in L13 and my dervish burned an "any item from the DMG" favor to get his (he's L10). Sure, there's been access in Cores, but I played them with different characters. The way LG manages access, it's entirely possible to get to very high levels without having seen fairly basic items (my cleric used a favor to get her +4 periapt, and hadn't seen access to a +6 version until they made them Open). Characters looking for Mythral armor see this happening nowadays. My rogue/Wizard only ever saw access to PoP 2s, while my sorcerer has much more PoP access, but no Memento Magicka access. Plus, there are times when items aren't recovered or access is lost due to a lack of funds. And even healing belts are only so good. At high levels even 7 or 8 healing belts can't hold a candle to a Wand of Lesser Vigor or a Heal spell. And I have seen wand of Lesser Vigor access.
Timlagor 11-07-07, 08:59 AM	The rules are quite clear that you can use both sets of anklets to get more than 2 uses a day. I do agree that they messed up with MIC and should have given all the x/day items a 24hour atunement period for those prices ..but it's a foot-item my centaur can actually use! [and I just got access to Belt of Battle with my Wizard :devil:] For out of combat healing a Healing Belt is by far the cheapest method over time (-clearly wands are more efficient if you're only going to need to heal once). The in combat utility is just adding gravy to cheese ;) [Healing Belts are the Poutine of healing :D] Wand of LV is about half the price of CLW Healing Belt is about half the price per HP of PoP1 for a Cleric with Augment Healing casting LV. (still 10% cheaper on average even if you allow the Cleric to count LV as "natural healing" for Healthful Rest <which I don't> and don't count that spell as a cost) PLUS: you can burn the charges in combat AND you don't need a divine caster to use them AND they are much quicker than LVs if you don't have long between combats. ..of course you can't use a Healing Belt for Prot Evil or Mage Armour...
TWG_Prometheus 11-07-07, 12:11 PM	The rules are quite clear that you can use both sets of anklets to get more than 2 uses a day. I do agree that they messed up with MIC and should have given all the x/day items a 24hour atunement period for those prices ..but it's a foot-item my centaur can actually use! [and I just got access to Belt of Battle with my Wizard :devil:] For out of combat healing a Healing Belt is by far the cheapest method over time (-clearly wands are more efficient if you're only going to need to heal once). The in combat utility is just adding gravy to cheese ;) [Healing Belts are the Poutine of healing :D] Wand of LV is about half the price of CLW Healing Belt is about half the price per HP of PoP1 for a Cleric with Augment Healing casting LV. (still 10% cheaper on average even if you allow the Cleric to count LV as "natural healing" for Healthful Rest <which I don't> and don't count that spell as a cost) PLUS: you can burn the charges in combat AND you don't need a divine caster to use them AND they are much quicker than LVs if you don't have long between combats. ..of course you can't use a Healing Belt for Prot Evil or Mage Armour... That last statement is why I still prefer Pearls of Power I over Healing Belts in a general sense. I'd stock up on Pearls with most any character before I got a big stash of Healing Belts. Healing Belts are moderately more efficient than Pearls of Power with Lesser Vigor for pure healing, but can't perform other (possibly essential) tasks. That said, one of my characters can use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, and the other can't. The one that can use a Wand would likely turn a Healing Belt down, while the other would likely get at least one Belt because not all modules are played with Wand-capable characters.
Timlagor 11-07-07, 07:43 PM	I'd get belts before Pearls with most* characters -every table needs healing and that "moderately more efficient" is more than DOUBLE. Of course that's no reason not to get PoPs too! ..and I might get fewer belts on the grounds that the PoPs can be used for healing as well -you are always going to need some healing; you may well need some PoPs but it makes sense to have belts cover the minimum necessary healing (and if you don't need any post-combat healing at all then it clearly didn't matter :D 2-3 clerics at the table might do that) You do have a point TWG but I think you've failed to grasp how much cheaper the Belts are: 6d8 ~ 27HP per day. That's nearly TWO LVs for 75% of the price of one! (..also ignoring the speed, possible combat use, and usefulness for any character!) [Even assuming Augment Healing, you get 2.11 times as many HP for your gp on average from the belt that you can from a PoP] * Wizards want PoPs so much that they should get PoPs (which they can craft) well before Belts (which iirc they can't ..though the belts are STILL more efficient for healing purposes!) -especially as healing tends to be someone else's problem.
MwaO 11-08-07, 10:48 AM	I'd get belts before Pearls with most* characters -every table needs healing and that "moderately more efficient" is more than DOUBLE. 4 Belts = 108 hp on average 3 Pearls = 45 or 51* hp on average 6 crafted Pearls = 90 or 102* hp on average * = cleric in party has Augment Healing Belts are definitely a strong choice, but I think most characters actually benefit more from a Pearl. You can have too much healing or not enough 1st level slots. Also, if you're asking for a specific 1st level spell, it helps when the caster can cast it on himself afterwards. An example of this is an environmental mod(heat, cold, etc...) where you want to cast Endure Elements on every character every day. Or you're a Monk who wants Mage Armor.
JamesMaissen 11-08-07, 04:39 PM	I'd get belts before Pearls with most* characters -every table needs healing and that "moderately more efficient" is more than DOUBLE. Actually that's great. The healing belt is a focused item, not to mention it has weight. It might not be much weight, but if you're carrying a dozen of them they do add up. The pearl of power is essentially weightless and more importantly much more versatile. The pearl should cost more. Besides the thinking is moving to a more encounter based balanced system over a per day balanced system. The bottom line is that downtime healing should not be a great deal of resources. And frankly it is refreshing to see reasonably priced items as opposed to those that sheer economics make useless. For example by the time you can afford wands of higher level cure spells the in-combat use for them is long gone, but they certainly don't hold up to buckets full of wands of cure light wounds. But another question: how 'broken' is downtime healing anyway? How much in resources *should* it take up? Put another way, when was the last time you saw the EL of a combat adjusted upwards because the PCs had faced prior combats earlier that day (i.e. not one up top of another, but time for healing/searching between them)? -James
Timlagor 11-08-07, 07:15 PM	I'm not arguing that it's broken or overpowered or even necessarily too cheap in this instance -I'm just saying that's is considerably cheaper than all other options for out of combat healing. PoPs should certainly be more expensive per HP.. but 2.11 times as much? If you want other spells they you should get PoPs as well (and a wand): the first belt should come before the first PoP for the vast majority of PCs however -Belt+PoP beats hell out of 2xPoP and most casters will have crafted PoPs. You need a lot more weight than that to make it relevant to any but the most exceptional party. I certainly wouldn't compare the Healing Belt to the Ring of Spell Battle or the Belt of Battle.
rockondon 12-04-07, 08:24 PM	I don't see why he didn't just put one anklet on each ankle. I'd certainly allow that if I were GM. Can't imagine why you would say the second anklet wouldn't work. What if two PCs had an anklet of translocation, would you rule that using up one anklet drains the other? One bonus about the POP over the healing belt is the belt uses up the waist slot. So while in combat, the POP is useful while the belt uses up a slot or isn't useful.
Mattastrophic 12-04-07, 09:18 PM	Because you only have one footwear slot, that's why. "Ankle" isn't a slot, but "Feet" is. So one anklet takes up one slot, in this case the footwear slot. For the longest time, a strange case was the Glove of Storing. It's only one glove, and you've got two hands; can you wear two of them? Magic Item Compendium clarified this one, though, spelling out that you're limited to one item per slot, not one item per limb. One Glove of Storing, one Anklet of Translocation. My opinion on the matter is that because the supplements have added a lot of low-level teleportation magic, like Benign Transposition, Stand, and Dimension Hop. And so, the Anklet is on par with what's out there. If the Anklet seems strong, it's because the bad guys aren't doing what WotC intends for them to do: use Anticipate Teleportation, which punishes just those types of teleportation tricks. As for the Healing Belt: All it is, when it comes to it, is a slotted Happy Stick. Pearls are stronger, because they do a hell of a lot more than grant another Cure Light Wounds. -Matt's latest use is Nerveskitter and Combat Readiness recursion.
rockondon 12-05-07, 01:58 AM	Because you only have one footwear slot, that's why. "Ankle" isn't a slot, but "Feet" is. So one anklet takes up one slot, in this case the footwear slot. That sounds ridiculous to me but that's D&D for ya I guess - common sense just has no place here. Thanks for the info.
Madfox11 12-05-07, 03:37 AM	Common sense and game balance do not always match very well. In this case though, the IC reason for this is that the magic of an item clashes with the magic of an other item in the same slot. Their auras disrupt one another. Actually, the NPCs do not even have to use anticipate teleportation when dealing with these short ranged dimensional hops. The PCs do this them selves ;) Mind you, as far as game balance goes, the absence or presence of one spell is not a very good argument. Anticipate teleportation is a sorcerer/wizard spell. Sorcerers and wizards are not present at any fight. Besides, a fun game does not take away the PCs' toys. It just deals with them.
CSHunt68 12-05-07, 07:51 AM	That sounds ridiculous to me but that's D&D for ya I guess - common sense just has no place here. Thanks for the info. What place SHOULD "common sense" have in a fantasy game?! What sense does planar travel make? Time Stop? Magic? Undead? ... Seriously. As far as the rules go, it makes plenty of common sense. You get one item per slot. An anklet is an item, so it takes up a slot. You don't get to wear two different boots just because you have two feet. That wouldn't make any sense, common or otherwise.
rockondon 12-05-07, 11:03 AM	You don't get to wear two different boots just because you have two feet. That wouldn't make any sense, common or otherwise. because its an anklet of translocation, not anklets of translocation.
Iswald 12-05-07, 11:17 AM	If the Anklet seems strong, it's because the bad guys aren't doing what WotC intends for them to do: use Anticipate Teleportation, which punishes just those types of teleportation tricks. Really? Maybe you play in an easy region? ;) I've seen NPCs use anticipate teleport, though I suspect it was to block dimension door and not the anklets.
CSHunt68 12-05-07, 11:51 AM	because its an anklet of translocation, not anklets of translocation. What "sense" does it make that you can't wear ten rings, in that case?? You get one item per slot. That's the "common sense" that makes wearing two anklets not work.
rockondon 12-05-07, 01:32 PM	What "sense" does it make that you can't wear ten rings, in that case?? You get one item per slot. That's the "common sense" that makes wearing two anklets not work. Which is why one ring uses up a slot. Oh wait, it doesn't - so much for your common sense. I can tell this is a deeply personal and important issue for you so I feel I must apologize, not only for myself, but for all those lost souls who thought they could wear two gloves of storing. We are sick depraved people that are lost without the guidance of those enlightened few like yourself. Feel free to keep this pointless discussion going, I'm sure everyone wants this tired argument dragged out and kicked around the thread a while longer. :rolleyes:
JamesMaissen 12-05-07, 01:35 PM	What "sense" does it make that you can't wear ten rings, in that case?? You get one item per slot. That's the "common sense" that makes wearing two anklets not work. Well to be exacting, you can wear 2 anklets (or 10 rings for that matter) but only the first one (or two in the case of rings) worn is functional. So wear two and take a move action to remove one when its needed. Typically this isn't something that you bother with... the neck slot is about the only one I can see it occuring with any frequency. -James
Mattastrophic 12-05-07, 03:56 PM	But then again, according to WotC, we should be able to spend 2100gp and upgrade to Boots of Speed of Translocation, which solves the issue right there. -Matt
CSHunt68 12-05-07, 06:53 PM	Which is why one ring uses up a slot. Oh wait, it doesn't - so much for your common sense. Of course it does. You have two ring slots. I can tell this is a deeply personal and important issue for you so I feel I must apologize, not only for myself, but for all those lost souls who thought they could wear two gloves of storing. We are sick depraved people that are lost without the guidance of those enlightened few like yourself. I don't think you're sick and depraved. Just misinformed. You can't wear two Gloves of Storing. The DMG says so. ;) And it's only "common sense" to read the rules, before playing the game. Feel free to keep this pointless discussion going, I'm sure everyone wants this tired argument dragged out and kicked around the thread a while longer. :rolleyes: I'm happy to oblige. :) I'm confused what the "tired argument" is, though. It really seems pretty clear.
Timlagor 12-06-07, 09:54 AM	As for the Healing Belt: All it is, when it comes to it, is a slotted Happy Stick. Pearls are stronger, because they do a hell of a lot more than grant another Cure Light Wounds. Have you read it? 1) It heals more than Wand of CLW in one action 2) Pearls are practically never used in combat because of the extra standard action 3) "Happy Sticks" get used up; healing belts don't. 4) Healing belts are BY FAR the cheapest form of out of combat healing -they don't replace PoPs completely but they sure as hell replace them as out of combat healing resources. Using up the slot is an issue in combat at higher levels when people can afford Belts of Battle and Giant Strength (ignoring access issues) but there isn't a lot of competition for the belt in the 1kgp range.
Mattastrophic 12-06-07, 04:22 PM	Have you read it? Yes, yes I have. I also have a cleric, who at 7th-level, crafted way more than enough Pearls I to out-of-combat heal everyone during RHoD, then used Insignias and Cure Serious in-combat. Anyone who adventured with her didn't need their own healing. My primary has a Cleric cohort who borrows his Pearls to do the same thing. Again, the Healing Belt probably does provide more healing/gp/day. But that's all it does. If you don't need healing, you don't need a Healing Belt. If you don't need healing, your Pearls I can be Lesser Orbs, Rays of Enfeeblement, Magic Missiles, Resurgences, Remove Fears, Blesses, and so many more. Also, a Belt you'll sell later on, but a Pearl is always useful. I say concentrate your spending on stuff that's useful for your entire career. There may not be a lot of competition for the Belt in the 1K range, but if you buy and then sell one, that's less gold toward the item you really want. -Matt
rockondon 12-06-07, 10:29 PM	I also have a cleric, who at 7th-level, crafted way more than enough Pearls I to out-of-combat heal everyone during RHoD, then used Insignias and Cure Serious in-combat. Anyone who adventured with her didn't need their own healing. My primary has a Cleric cohort who borrows his Pearls to do the same thing. If you played around here everyone would love you. Everyone wants a cleric in the party but nobody (aside from me) wants to play one. And I don't heal nearly as much as you - I'm always front row and try to be the first into battle. My healing usually comes in the way of a delay death and I'll cure what's left of you after the battle. Not many people are willing to hang out in the back healing others so they can be the heroes. People want to be Batman, not Robin. Anyways, my point is, anyone can use a healing belt, not everyone can use a "happy stick". The belt might not be that attractive to a cleric, but to a barbarian/fighter its solid gold.
_metz_ 12-06-07, 10:55 PM	Again, the Healing Belt probably does provide more healing/gp/day. But that's all it does. If you don't need healing, you don't need a Healing Belt. If you don't need healing, your Pearls I can be Lesser Orbs, Rays of Enfeeblement, Magic Missiles, Resurgences, Remove Fears, Blesses, and so many more. -Matt Its fun to play in parties with lots of clerics! In some places clerics are rare, clerics of the right APL even more so. And finally, lets not forget that the kind of player willing to play a cleric and put up with all the #@%# from selfish players who demand certain buffs etc is rare as well... My cleric refuses to buff someone unless he is confident that PC will use the buff WELL. He does drop a fair few recitations and divine protections though...
Mattastrophic 12-06-07, 11:36 PM	Not many people are willing to hang out in the back healing others so they can be the heroes. People want to be Batman, not Robin. Well, Leadership is a good way to ensure that a healer is at least always available. I made that decision with my primary after noticing that musters at cons always seemed to hinge around how many clerics there were. Best decision he ever made. To redirect the thread: Your statement is also why I believe the Radiant Servant was only beneficial to LG. It encouraged people to play healers! -Matt
Hariman 12-10-07, 11:52 AM	Its fun to play in parties with lots of clerics! In some places clerics are rare, clerics of the right APL even more so. And finally, lets not forget that the kind of player willing to play a cleric and put up with all the #@%# from selfish players who demand certain buffs etc is rare as well... My cleric refuses to buff someone unless he is confident that PC will use the buff WELL. He does drop a fair few recitations and divine protections though... Oh I love seeing either multiple clerics or multiple wizards/sorcerers at a table. Preferable both. All the clerics in my area are either pretty well experienced or willing to accept advice from those who are. But there are still times where I've been in a party that should have had a cleric.
Timlagor 12-15-07, 07:54 PM	Yes, yes I have. I also have a cleric, who at 7th-level, crafted way more than enough Pearls I to out-of-combat heal everyone during RHoD, then used Insignias and Cure Serious in-combat. Anyone who adventured with her didn't need their own healing. My primary has a Cleric cohort who borrows his Pearls to do the same thing. You're not making much sense. 1) There's no reason to ever sell the Belt 2) You are talking about groups using PoPs for healing!! If you spent half of that money* on belts you could cover the healing AND have half the pearls for all those other nice spells. the only time you don't want the belt is when you don't need any healing ..are those really the occasions when you need all your money most efficiently spent?
MwaO 12-15-07, 08:19 PM	You're not making much sense. 1) There's no reason to ever sell the Belt 2) You are talking about groups using PoPs for healing!! You don't always need hit point damage healing after combats. And as an example, I took 14 points of strength damage in a recent mod - took 2 rounds of attacks from 6 Greater Shadows at APL 10 and they rolled well(29 Touch AC, they could only hit me on a 20 and they hit me twice and rolled 7s each time...grr...) Our Pious Templar 1 cast Lesser Restoration 7 times on me with 6 Pearl 1s. I went into the last encounter at full strength. Belts would have been useless.
Iswald 12-16-07, 09:03 AM	Our Pious Templar 1 cast Lesser Restoration 7 times on me with 6 Pearl 1s. I went into the last encounter at full strength. Belts would have been useless. Did you need to be at full strength for the last encounter? Did you have any hits succeed only because you were at full strength? Did you only take out the bad guys because you did exactly enough damage to do so or, did you always do extra damage? Could you have succeeded if you hadn't been at full strength? If so, was it waste to use 7 lesser restorations and could the money spend on PoPs been used better another way?
JohnduBois 12-16-07, 11:55 AM	Did you need to be at full strength for the last encounter? Did you have any hits succeed only because you were at full strength? Did you only take out the bad guys because you did exactly enough damage to do so or, did you always do extra damage? Could you have succeeded if you hadn't been at full strength? If so, was it waste to use 7 lesser restorations and could the money spend on PoPs been used better another way? 14 Strength damage goes a long way. Unless you have a 27 STR to being with, you've just lost the ability to Power Attack or do anything that has Power Attack as a prerequisite. Even if the first Lesser gets you back about 13 STR, many effective combat techniques drop your to-hit roll, and each 2 points of STR he gets back makes it 5% more likely that he will hit whatever it is (unless its armor class is particularly low or particularly high). My question would have been, "APL 10? Where's the Restoration that cures all 14 points and eliminates the need for 7 Lessers?" (Unless, of course, said Restoration instead went to removing negative levels or getting another PCs Strength damage back)
magebeast 12-16-07, 01:44 PM	Did you need to be at full strength for the last encounter? Did you have any hits succeed only because you were at full strength? Did you only take out the bad guys because you did exactly enough damage to do so or, did you always do extra damage? Could you have succeeded if you hadn't been at full strength? If so, was it waste to use 7 lesser restorations and could the money spend on PoPs been used better another way? If he has as much as 14 strength, do you really think his combat role doesn't have SOMETHING to do with strength? If he only has 14 strength (a monk, maybe an archer) he's utterly incapacitated at this point. If he has slightly more than 14 strength - maybe a 24ish strength half-orc barbarian he suddenly has 10 strength and has lost +7 to hit and damage. Let me ask you - do YOU think it was a waste?
Redfist 12-16-07, 08:56 PM	Getting strength back to a strength based fighter only makes sense. It's what makes them effective. If a wizard lost 15 points of INT, you can be damn sure he'd be begging to get back to full INT. Same thing with strength based fighters.
_metz_ 12-16-07, 09:26 PM	We all know that PoPs are really useful, no need to reiterate that. Its just that healing belts are more usfeul for HEALING purposes. Many parties do not have a cleric. And at lower APLs where it matters most, there is an acute lack of a spare 10 Pearls. Hence if given the choice over THE entire adventuring career I'd prefer healing belt access. For high level ofc the pearls are better.
Iswald 12-16-07, 11:17 PM	Several of you seem to have missed my point. It doesn't matter if he started with 24 str. 26 str, or some other number. The question is whether or not getting that last point of strength back made a difference. Did that extra +1 to attack mean that he hit when he wouldn't have? Did the extra damage from getting that last point of strength back mean he did just enough damage to take out a bad guy? Most likely, he would have hit anyway. And, he did so much extra damage that the extra damage from having his strength back to full was wasted. If you hit something with 45 hps left, it doesn't matter if you just hit it for 65 damage or 75 damage. Either is enough to destroy the target. The extra damage only matters if it means you have to attack the target less. Even then, it may not matter if you can't do anything else that round. Ie, attacking twice and not having something to hit with your third attack and being unable to move. Note that you could combine a healing belt with caduceus bracers to heal ability damage.
MwaO 12-17-07, 12:11 AM	Several of you seem to have missed my point. It doesn't matter if he started with 24 str. 26 str, or some other number. The question is whether or not getting that last point of strength back made a difference. 24 Str. My character is weird, she's not a Dex-based character, she's a tank. I was the frontline BDF in a party with no characters above APL. And yes, it made a tactical difference. If not for the last one, I would have had a 21 Str. Also, you're arguing that there was some option that would have been better than the results - our party was fully healed going into the final combat...
Iswald 12-17-07, 10:04 AM	Also, you're arguing that there was some option that would have been better than the results - our party was fully healed going into the final combat... Your argument seems to be that having 6 PoP Is is better than having healing belts. You could have accomplished the same thing, in this case, by having multiple healing belts to use with caduceus bracers (which would also have taken less time). Also, you're stressing the importance of having had your strength at full. Not having been there, I just wonder how important that really turned out to be. Would it have been a TPK if your PC only had 21 strength? Would it have simply increased the time required to beat the bad guys by a round or two? Would the results have been exactly the same? I'm not seeing the tactical difference except you might have power attacked for two less.
Redfist 12-17-07, 10:10 AM	You claim I didn't see your point and I guess you're right. I don't see why people would choose to go into a battle not fully healed (even STR dmg) if they have a choice not to. They used resources to fully heal up for the battle. That's exactly what I (and 99% of other gamers) would have done. Are there different ways to use resources? Sure. Was their way effective for them? Sure it was. My real thought is the same as JohnDuBois'. At that APL, I would rather have seen 1 restoration than 7 lesser restorations. :-)
magebeast 12-17-07, 01:28 PM	You claim I didn't see your point and I guess you're right. I don't see why people would choose to go into a battle not fully healed (even STR dmg) if they have a choice not to. They used resources to fully heal up for the battle. That's exactly what I (and 99% of other gamers) would have done. Are there different ways to use resources? Sure. Was their way effective for them? Sure it was. My real thought is the same as JohnDuBois'. At that APL, I would rather have seen 1 restoration than 7 lesser restorations. :-) At APL 10 some casters have a lot of pearls 1 lying around, and it's possible they wanted to reserve a restoration for later use that day. When I was playing Red Hand we had 4 prep casters in the party and they had something like 14 pearls 1 between them.
Mattastrophic 12-17-07, 03:47 PM	At that APL, I would rather have seen 1 restoration than 7 lesser restorations. :-) In this case, Lesser Restorations did the job. I've learned the hard way, it's a smart idea to save those Restorations for things like level drain, which Lesser doesn't fix. I'll say it again, Pearls I > Healing Belts due to versatility. If that doesn't make sense to you, Timlagor, then I give up. -Matt
Mattastrophic 12-17-07, 03:50 PM	Also, you're stressing the importance of having had your strength at full. Sounds like you haven't played high enough level to see anyone miss their sixty-point attack by one. Also, considering that we'll drop 20,000gp to upgrade our Belts of Giant Strength from +4 to +6 just for an additional +1 to hit and +1-+2 to damage, that 1000gp Pearl I investment for that extra Lesser Restoration sure makes a lot of sense to me. -Matt
MwaO 12-17-07, 05:38 PM	Also, you're stressing the importance of having had your strength at full. Not having been there, I just wonder how important that really turned out to be. Would it have been a TPK if your PC only had 21 strength? Would it have simply increased the time required to beat the bad guys by a round or two? Would the results have been exactly the same? I'm not seeing the tactical difference except you might have power attacked for two less. I'm stressing that the choices were: Being at full. Not being at full. Would we have been TPK'd? Probably not. Is there a reason to go into a final combat weakened when you don't have to? I don't have Power Attack, I'm a grappler with odd damage options. Losing 2 on the grapple check greatly affects my ability to grapple.
MwaO 12-17-07, 05:41 PM	My real thought is the same as JohnDuBois'. At that APL, I would rather have seen 1 restoration than 7 lesser restorations. :-) Cleric was a Barbarian 1/Cleric 7...