# Healing Belt in MIC = broken?



## aboyd

A Healing Belt allows _any_ character wearing it to heal 4d8, once per day.  It has some other options too, but for now, let's stick with 4d8 1/day.  Of course, it can be used every day, forever.  It costs *750 gp.*

A potion of Cure Serious Wounds, which offers roughly the same healing but only a _one time use_ also costs *750 gp!*

A wand of Cure Serious Wounds can heal up to 50 times, but then it's used up forever.  It can _only_ be used by spellcasters or high UMD types.  It costs *11,250 gp.*

I think there is a disparity there that makes me uncomfortable.  In addition, I can't see how -- following the Wondrous Item guidelines -- to make a Healing Belt cost 750 gp.  The cheapest way I can think of is:


+2 to Heal skill = 400 gp as per "skill bonus" line on page 285 of DMG.
Cure Moderate* spell = 2160 gp as per "command word" line divided by "charges per day" line on page 285 of DMG
Total = 2560 gp.

Can anyone explain how -- using normal magic/crafting rules -- you could make a Healing Belt for 750 gp?

I've heard that at one point the "cost to make" a belt was listed as 1000 gp (more than the selling price).  I would have expected it to be fixed in such a way as to increase the selling price.  However, in my MIC, they fixed it by reducing the cost to make (down to 500 gp).  This perplexes me.  Help?

* I really think it should be a Cure Serious Wounds spell, to match the amount of hit points healed.  That would double the price, roughly.  However, the MIC says that the belt is powered by a Cure Moderate Wounds spell, _and_ I'm trying to be generous and figure out how in the world to follow the rules and still get that low price, so Cure Moderate it is.


----------



## freyar

Well, I'm not sure where the healing belt first came from or if it's an MIC original.  But I think the real idea is that the designers of MIC felt that the pricing guidelines in the DMG were too expensive.  So they repriced things downwards, and that might make a lot of items look broken for the price.  I don't know exactly how I feel about that philosophy; I guess I haven't played quite enough with enough different groups to tell.   For fun, I'm slowly reworking magic items that didn't make it into the MIC, but I haven't had much time for it, and I vary on how to price things.

Didn't notice that about the price of the healing belt and the potion.  Kind of a curious coincidence!


----------



## Runestar

Healing belt only seems overpowering when you compared it with clearly overpriced items such as a potion of cure serious wounds (pitiful damage healed, and you provoke an AoO, so the damage you take likely offsets the hp healed). However, when you place it side by side with other more efficient modes of healing, it starts to pale in comparison.

In core, we have the wand of cure light wounds, which at 50 charges, heals on average 5.5*50, or 275hp. Or the wand of vigor, which takes somewhat longer, but can heal up to 550hp (twice that of a wand of CLW). Both cost just 750hp per wand. These are the yardsticks the belt should be compared with.

Before you start arguing that the wand will eventually be exhausted, while the belt will automatically recharge everyday, bear in mind that at 27hp/day, it will take 20 days before the healing belt starts breaking even with a wand of vigor. At 4 encounters a day (and 13.3 encounters to gain a level on average), your party will have gained 5 lvs at least before the belt of healing starts paying off. During which time you will likely have gained a lot more gold to purchase additional wands of vigor. And you can use the wands as often as you need healing. The belt is more limited (1/day), so it can only supplement your healing needs at most, not replace it.

The only time a belt of healing may be more useful is if you use it to "burst heal" during combat for 4d8 (when vigor would be too slow to make a difference, and the cleric is too far away) or use that 4d8 as a touch attack against undead (like incorporeal undead you have trouble hitting normally). 

The belt is priced at 750gp because the designers believed that was a fair indicator of its usefulness. It deviates from the item creation guidelines because those have proven to be inaccurate when crafting certain items (and the healing belt is clearly one of them).


----------



## aboyd

So, Runestar, if I follow your comment to the logical conclusion, you're saying that the Healing Belt _can't_ be priced at 750 gp using the DMG magic item rules, because the MIC authors decided to bypass those rules as too limiting?


----------



## Runestar

> So, Runestar, if I follow your comment to the logical conclusion, you're saying that the Healing Belt _can't_ be priced at 750 gp using the DMG magic item rules, because the MIC authors decided to bypass those rules as too limiting?




That would appear to be the case. The designers wanted to give the players a meaningful choice between the big six items, and other more utilitarian eq, and the only way they would ever opt for the latter were if they were priced more competitively (before, they would be too expensive if priced using DMG guidelines). 

So they apparently just ad-hocced the priced based on what they felt would be appropriate. Which is just as well - the usefulness of these items are simply too variable to fall under the umbrella of a 1-size-fits-all formula.


----------



## aboyd

Got it.  I'm just going to house rule it out of my game.  Thanks for the help!


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty

aboyd said:


> Got it.  I'm just going to house rule it out of my game.  Thanks for the help!




What?!?!

That's the kind of DM-fiat that I absolutely *loathe*. Instead of fixing the "problem" (which arguably isn't if you see the analysis done above), just "ban it". 

If you've done any kind of research at all into magic item creation you'd know full well that the game designers have said time and time again that magic items should be compared to existing magic items to determine the appropriate price. There is no hard and fast rule or formula of item creation.


----------



## Elethiomel

aboyd said:


> So, Runestar, if I follow your comment to the logical conclusion, you're saying that the Healing Belt _can't_ be priced at 750 gp using the DMG magic item rules, because the MIC authors decided to bypass those rules as too limiting?



There are pricing *guidelines* for custom magic items in the DMG. There aren't any pricing rules for custom magic items in it.

Also, those guidelines allow you to make a pair of infintite charge use-activated gloves of True Strike for 1 (caster level) * 1 (spell level) * 2000 gp.
If the guidelines can be so ridiculously wrong in one direction, why can't they be wrong in the other direction?


----------



## aboyd

Ogrork the Mighty said:


> What?!?!
> 
> That's the kind of DM-fiat that I absolutely *loathe*. Instead of fixing the "problem" (which arguably isn't if you see the analysis done above), just "ban it".



You know what'll make your head explode?  I've DM-fiat'd _tons_ of stuff, including a bunch of magic creation rules.  Woah!  My game must SUCK!

It's unheard of, I know.  A DM thinks something is broken and doesn't allow it in the game.  Crazy.


----------



## aboyd

Elethiomel said:


> If the guidelines can be so ridiculously wrong in one direction, why can't they be wrong in the other direction?



They can, in your game.  In mine, not.


----------



## milo

Nobody mentioned the fact that wand and potions don't take up an item slot.  I haven't seen the belt overused when I DM or play, in fact I am the only one who has picked one up in my group.
So if you go by the DM pricing guide could I get a belt of healing made that is CLW wounds at will 1st level caster x 1st level spell x 2000 = 2000gp for an at will healing item.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

To answer the OP: IMHO, no, it's not broken.  4d8 once per day and takes up a body slot?  Sure it's cheap and anyone can use it..._once per day_, but anything that helps prevent the 15-minute adventuring day is fine with me.


----------



## Elethiomel

aboyd said:


> They can, in your game.  In mine, not.



Okay. This will serve as a lesson for me not to make auxiliary points, as my main point is then too easily dodged by only replying to my auxiliary point.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

I would say that the healing belt is not particularly broken as long as you only have one of them.

It is true that it costs less than comparable healing items from the core rules. The rejoinder that comparable healing items from the core rules are over-priced is right on target. Nobody bought wands of cure critical wounds. People would occasionally buy potions of cure serious wounds, but only because those potions were the only game in town when it came to in-combat healing. You couldn't get anything more powerful that was usable without the ability to cast spells. Of course, past level 5 or 6, it was inadequate and even before then it was too expensive to be used regularly.

The problem with the healing belt (and other x/day items from the MIC such as counterstrike bracers or the ring of thunderclaps) is that nothing other than shame at being so cheesy prevented you from making or buying multiples and just changing belts when you ran out of charges. That is the aspect of the belt that might possibly be broken (but you still need to consider the 10 belts of healing over the course of a long campaign before they become more efficient than ten wands of cure light wounds (or faith healing) or ten wands of lesser vigor and they put all of the costs of the effiency up front rather than spreading it out over the course of several levels as multiple wands would do). So, even if you deliberately abuse them, I'm not convinced that they're broken. (Other items like counterstrike bracers, on the other hand, are broken if they are abused in that manner).


----------



## aboyd

Elethiomel said:


> This will serve as a lesson for me not to make auxiliary points, as my main point is then too easily dodged by only replying to my auxiliary point.



_Dodged?_  Like you're a _prosecutor_ and I'm on _trial?_  I think you might have a misconception about what's happening here.  This is a _game_ and I do it to have fun, not to defend myself.

I think I might not want to address your point simply to disabuse you of the notion that this is a _court room._


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty

aboyd said:


> They can, in your game.  In mine, not.




Nice.

You asked a question and you got a lot of advice that you're choosing to ignore and just "ban" the spell instead. That's your choice. I know what I think of it.


----------



## aboyd

EDIT... more words:

I don't understand you.  First of all, in what world does asking for advice mean you're slavishly chained to the responses you get?  What if the responses are mutually exclusive?  And again, this is a _game._  Why do I have to have fun exactly the way you dictate?  Why does my house rule = personal affront to you?  Why are you turning this into disparaging comments?  What does that accomplish?

I didn't jump down your throat because you posted that the Combust spell is "horribly overpowered" so I'm not sure why I am not allowed to have the same discernment.


----------



## Leatherhead

The belt is based on having multiple 2d8 charges, that you can can then combine and overcharge for a larger heal.


----------



## krupintupple

to the OP:

although i had a similar initial reaction, i just modified it and it's actually greatly contributed to game play.

1. bumped price to 1000 gp even.
2. healing is use-activated and self only; no pseudo lay-on-hands.
3. belt must be worn continously for 24 hours before any, or it won't function*.

i think if you at least try the above instead of outright banning it, you'll find that it makes a wonderful addition to the game. arguably, the ones who'd want it the most - melee-types, will have to debate between this or a strength-boosting girdle. most of the blaster and healer types find it interesting, but ironically don't flock to it as fast as you'd think.



*i've added this addendum to all of the "3 charge" items from the MIC, to balance them and prevent people from hoarding belts and charms and such.


----------



## Runestar

> Nobody mentioned the fact that wand and potions don't take up an item slot. I haven't seen the belt overused when I DM or play, in fact I am the only one who has picked one up in my group.




There is nothing stopping you from storing the belt in your backpack, and wearing it only when you want the healing (though this will make it viable only outside of combat). At low lvs, there aren't really any other belts you could be wearing anyways (belt of str shouldn't come until lv8+). At higher lvs, there are easily better belts (belt of battle), and the MIC has rules for adding stat boosters to your existing eq at 1xcost (rather than 1.5cost).

I am not quite sure what is so cheesy about getting multiple belts at higher lvs though. 4d8 is negligible at higher lvs (confining its use to 6d8 outside of fights) As I have demonstrated, nothing beats a wand of vigor (550hp for 750gp, you just don't get any more efficient than that). 

There are also many other ways of optimizing your healing capabilities.
A Player's Guide to Healing (And, why you will be Just Fine without a Cleric to heal) - Wizards Community


----------



## blacktie347

*As the only cleric in the OP's game...*

whatever


----------



## frankthedm

Ogrork the Mighty said:


> Nice.
> 
> You asked a question and you got a lot of advice that you're choosing to ignore and just "ban" the spell instead. That's your choice. I know what I think of it.



OP asked about the item because it seemed very incongruent with the way the DMG priced healing. 
The answers said the item is incongruent with the price of DMG healing items.
OP is not allowing the item because it is incongruent with the price of DMG healing items.


----------



## Leatherhead

blacktie347 said:


> So...I agree with the OP's decision about disallowing this item at the MIC price.  It's so obviously broken compared to the Potion of CSW that it's not even comparable.




Most DMG healing items are notoriously underpowered. Like the ring of regeneration, that can heal 24 hps in one day, and costs 90,000 gold.


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## Runestar

> This is why it's nice to play Clerics.  They can heal well, and other sources are not as easy.
> 
> Likewise, Rogues can take down magical traps, etc. If you eliminate the exclusivity healing that only a Cleric can reliably and cheaply provide, then you reduce the incentive for playing a cleric.




Not really. You simply remove the incentive to play the cleric as a dedicated healbot (which not everyone may be willing to play), thus freeing him up to do other more effective stuff such as fighting. Or you can look at it another way. If nobody in your party wants to play a cleric, then at least your healing requirements are not shafted as there are viable alternatives available (such as a rogue UMD'ing wands of vigor). 

Likewise, MIC item prices have to be low, else no one would ever choose them over the standard big six. The stark reality was that nobody was buying a ring of regeneration at that price, not when you could be getting a ring of protection+5 and amulet of NA+5 for almost the same amount.

MIC items only seem undercosted if you believe that the DMG items are priced correctly. In hindsight, I think we can conclude that it is actually the other way around - the majority of DMG items apart from the big six are just way too overcosted for the limited benefits they provide. That is the disease, and MIC is the cure. 

Wotc addressed this issue in an article here.
Design & Development: Magic Item Compendium, part 1


----------



## Elethiomel

aboyd said:


> _Dodged?_  Like you're a _prosecutor_ and I'm on _trial?_  I think you might have a misconception about what's happening here.  This is a _game_ and I do it to have fun, not to defend myself.
> 
> I think I might not want to address your point simply to disabuse you of the notion that this is a _court room._



You're taking my post way out of proportion. Seriously. I had no intention of evoking trials. I have no notion that this is a court room. I have no notion that I am a prosecutor. I have no notion that you are on trial. Your condescension is not warranted. 

This is not a court room. This is the rules forum. It is a place to discuss rules. When interpreting rules, sometimes wording is very important. One such case, in my opinion, is the custom item pricing section which uses words such as "guidelines" and "estimate".  Treating them as rules to be followed to the letter is, again in my opinion, misguided. 

I have significant experience as a GM and as a player, and in my experience having access to items such as the healing belt makes the game more fun. Resource management is something DnD has quite a lot of. a lot of it is tedious; items like the healing belt make interesting choices available (do I blow all three charges NOW or do I just blow one for more healing over a longer period?). Interesting choices is what makes the game mechanical side of DnD fun. Again, in my opinion.

Hence my first point was raised for two reasons: I was concerned that you had misinterpreted the custom magic item pricing guidelines as ironclad rules. And, I was concerned that you were throwing away interesting choices (and hence fun) because they didn't fit those guidelines. You chose to ignore that point and went straight to my auxiliary point. I posted defensively (and I must admit, a little passive-agressively; sorry about that) and you give me back a post full of condescencion and sarcasm. That's my reading of the situation.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

blacktie347 said:


> This is why it's nice to play Clerics.  They can heal well, and other sources are not as easy.
> 
> Likewise, Rogues can take down magical traps, etc.  If you eliminate the exclusivity healing that only a Cleric can reliably and cheaply provide, then you reduce the incentive for playing a cleric.




Huh, I come to exactly the opposite conclusion.  If basic healing implements are rare/expensive and the cleric is the only real source of healing, then I'll want to play pretty much anything _but_ a cleric.  I mean, most of the daily spells I choose will get converted into cures, and the rest ought to be other healing type spells just in case.  So I get to suck as a wannabe fighter until someone goes down.  No thanks.  In fact, in the games I run, I divide the price of all _cure_ items by 10 just to avoid this and related scenarios.  It works for us -- the party pushes further and we have more fun than we do retreating to the nearest heal zone. YMMV.


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## blacktie347

This is quite interesting. How do you explain this MIC wonder, then?

Amber amulet of vermin,​
Huge monstrous scorpion
1/day summons a Huge monstrous scorpion to serve you for 1 minute
700 gp

A Huge Monstrous Scorpion has 75 HP and is a CR 7 monster. Does this seem balanced to you? Why would anyone buy a Bag of Tricks, then?

The MIC is designed to make money for WotC, and if they have to change the game mechanics to do it, they will. Bottom line, it's money...the reason why TSR does this...oops, they're out of business now...perhaps they didn't do this effectively enough.


----------



## Lou

aboyd said:


> A Healing Belt allows _any_ character wearing it to heal 4d8, once per day. It has some other options too, but for now, let's stick with 4d8 1/day. Of course, it can be used every day, forever. It costs *750 gp.*




Wasn't the price raised to *1000 GP* in an errata?  I can't lay my finger on the exact reference at the moment.


----------



## EroGaki

blacktie347 said:


> This is quite interesting. How do you explain this MIC wonder, then?
> 
> Amber amulet of vermin,​
> Huge monstrous scorpion
> 1/day summons a Huge monstrous scorpion to serve you for 1 minute
> 700 gp
> 
> A Huge Monstrous Scorpion has 75 HP and is a CR 7 monster. Does this seem balanced to you? Why would anyone buy a Bag of Tricks, then?
> 
> The MIC is designed to make money for WotC, and if they have to change the game mechanics to do it, they will. Bottom line, it's money...the reason why TSR does this...oops, they're out of business now...perhaps they didn't do this effectively enough.





WotC is a business. Of course they want to make money. However, I doubt the Healing Belt is "broken" because they wanted to increase profit. I'm pretty certain the reason behind was enough people wanted magic items that where useful, versatile, and actually affordable. Many of the core items in the DMG are jacked up. Why should you have to pay 750gp for a crappy potion of Cure Serious Wounds that you can use _once? _It seems like a big waste of money, to me. Many people don't like playing clerics for the sole purpose that they become Band Aids instead of using their spells for what they want to use them for. Have an item like the Healing Belt offers some decent healing at a low price, and the item is reusable. Oh my god!! A useful item? It must be broken! Kill it, kill it!!

Give me a break. The OP and some others need to lighten up, and stop crying "broken" at every little thing that is actually useful and magical.


----------



## Runestar

> his is quite interesting. How do you explain this MIC wonder, then?
> 
> Amber amulet of vermin,
> 
> Huge monstrous scorpion
> 1/day summons a Huge monstrous scorpion to serve you for 1 minute
> 700 gp
> 
> A Huge Monstrous Scorpion has 75 HP and is a CR 7 monster. Does this seem balanced to you? Why would anyone buy a Bag of Tricks, then?




There are likely to be a few outliers who fall outside the mold (in that I believe this to be an honest pricing mistake by wotc), but overall, I find the MIC offerings quite balanced for their reduced cost. Admit it - who would consider using a belt of healing if it was priced at the DMG guideline of 2500gp? 

Same here. Who would normally buy a bag of tricks in the first place? The amulet may be a little undercosted, but not by much, at any rate. 

Another reason I like MIC is that it makes these little charged eq cheap enough to be used by monsters (who are normally gimped by very crappy wealth guidelines), great for adding a little variety or rounding out their abilities (and unlike potions, the items can be looted by the party when they defeat the foe).  Imagine the horror when a dragon is wearing a belt of battle (move + full attack), a giant uses a belt of 1 mighty blow or bracers of counterstriking to augment its attack, or a wizard adds up to 72 temp hp to fortify his normally anemic hp.


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus

At the end of the day, it's a game-style thing. The OP would probably freak if someone wanted to play a Dragon Shaman, despite conventional wisdom being that the DS sucks.

Being able to dish out large amounts of damage and restrict players ability to heal it is something some folks like for their games. Other people aren't as interested in the resource management of hit points and how much you can get back for what cost and all that. *shrug* No biggie. You don't have to play in his game, nor do you have to have him in yours, so cut him some slack. If his players hate it, they'll quit or say something. If they don't, he'll keep running the game.

Either way it's not like you're going to change his mind right now. Just tell yourself, "I'm man enough to let him be wrong and don't have to try and prove it." and move on.


----------



## Runestar

To say that the entire book reeks of blatant power creep just because of 1 or 2 black sheep seems a little unreasonable. The other items seem fairly balanced. How many other items have been abused thus far? Can't think of any. Apart from a few bad eggs, the rest simply add more options to your party, without requiring you to pay though your nose.


----------



## DragonBelow

When you see most members of a party trying to acquire one of this, you know it's broken, specially when you know what style of players you have at the gaming table.

if you are playing in a group with no access to divine healing, I would allow it.


----------



## Thurbane

I wouldn't go so far as to say the belt is broken, but I would say it is seriously undervalued in the MIC, compared to existing healing items...


----------



## GlassEye

blacktie347 said:


> This is quite interesting. How do you explain this MIC wonder, then?
> 
> Amber amulet of vermin,​
> Huge monstrous scorpion
> 1/day summons a Huge monstrous scorpion to serve you for 1 minute
> 700 gp
> 
> A Huge Monstrous Scorpion has 75 HP and is a CR 7 monster. Does this seem balanced to you? Why would anyone buy a Bag of Tricks, then?





I explain it by referring you to the official errata for the MIC where they correct the size.  It is supposed to be a Large scorpion, not Huge.

As for the Belt of Healing, I like being able to afford a decent magic item by third level.  If MIC had a failing, it was that it didn't go far enough and reprice the items in the DMG.


----------



## blacktie347

*Two words:*

what ever


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## Runestar

> But there are some items that are just out of whack with the current pricing of magic items compared to the DMG. THAT is my point.




Which we have never denied.

My point is that this disparity is intentional. The guidelines in the DMG are just that - guidelines, and as with any 1-size-fits-all template, it cannot possibly price every magic item accurately. Otherwise, you end up with stuff like items of persistent mage armour being cheaper than bracers of armour+4, or a wand of CLW-at-will at just 2000gp.

The biggest offender was the npc cr guidelines. The item pricing rules comes a close second. The best solution was always to just look at each item and price it based on its own merit (using viable alternatives as yardsticks). Just look at the ring of regeneration. You should never have a reason to have to regrow limbs, and at 1 hp/hour, the 24 hp healed each day is actually inferior to that from the healing belt. This means that the ring of regen should actually cost less than a healing belt, definitely a far cry from its exhorbitant 90000gp price tag!

I really couldn't care less what the OP allows or bans in his games (since I am not a member), but I think to conclude that an item is overpowered simply because it deviates from the DMG pricing guidelines...


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## EroGaki

glasseye said:


> i explain it by referring you to the official errata for the mic where they correct the size.  It is supposed to be a large scorpion, not huge.
> 
> As for the belt of healing, i like being able to afford a decent magic item by third level.  If mic had a failing, it was that it didn't go far enough and reprice the items in the dmg.




qft.


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## aboyd

Wow.  I was also about to post in the Monopoly forum that I don't do the "landing on Free Parking = cash money" thing.  What have I been _thinking?_


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## Runestar

blacktie347 said:


> Everyone loves a good Monty Haul game where you can acquire powerful magic items at low character levels, right? The MIC certainly helps in this regard.
> 
> ________________
> Power gamers of the world, unite!




Keep up the strawman. 

The items are balanced for their cost. So it certainly won't break any sort of balance even if players are allowed to acquire them at lower levels, so long as the DM does not give them to the party any sooner than they are supposed to (using the level guidelines in the MIC).  

Allowing a belt of healing at 3rd lv is no more overpowering than letting the fighter access to masterwork fullplate at 4th lv. If anything, it at least gives them something to look forward to other than masterwork eq and low lv consumables.

The DMG had a dearth of useful low-lv magic items.


----------



## Jhaelen

Imho, the Healing Belt from MIC actually _helps_ to _restore_ game balance. It's an excellent item that should be pretty useful in pretty much every campaign. I definitely encourage my players to get one of these for their characters.

I didn't read the whole thread, but I'd like to point out another item from the MIC that changed my game in a good way: The artificer's monocle.
Yay, no more stupid hunting for black pearls!


blacktie347 said:


> But there are some items that are just out of whack with the current pricing of magic items compared to the DMG.  THAT is my point.  Now one could reshape game balance to make magic more plentiful and cheap in one's world, sure, that's also fine.



Well, arguing that the DMG item creation rules are balanced seems a bit wacky to me. They may work for about 80% of the items, but for the rest they lead to grossly miscosted items (in both directions: cheap items that are overpowered and expensive items that don't do much of anything).


blacktie347 said:


> My point is that without reshaping the magic item economy, some items are broken.



Any my point is that sticking to the DMG item creation rules will result in a lot more broken items than allowing the MIC items.
After reading the MIC I immediately banned custom item creation. That did wonders for the balance of my game!


blacktie347 said:


> So I'm saying, therefore, that the OP is right for disallowing some items from the MIC or other books in order to maintain game balance as described in the DMG.



Of course the OP is free to ban some of the items in the MIC. I just don't think it's necessary. I'd strongly recommend to give them a try first.


blacktie347 said:


> I'm also saying that allowing all items and having a different pricing system for magic is also fine, but not balanced with the DMG's pricing.



Yup, replacing a system that didn't work well (DMG pricing) with one that does (MIC) may have an effect on your game's balance - in a good way!


----------



## freyar

Wow, I'm surprised at the emotional level of this thread!

Here's the issue as I see it, and I think some of you have been trying to say this, but the message has gotten a bit lost.

The DMG and MIC have two different pricing schemes, a lower-magic one and a higher-magic one (neither one is perfectly balanced, either).  The problem is that they are kind of meshed together, which leads to inconsistencies.  It would have been nice if the MIC tables had repriced the DMG items to the MIC system, so we could have a consistent high-magic pricing (note that some of the SRD psionic items did get repriced in the MIC).  It also would have been nice (but WotC would never have gone against whatever their current design philosophy was) if they'd had a listing of MIC items more consistent with the DMG prices.


----------



## blacktie347

Hey, don't get me wrong.  I like Monty Haul games where magic is cheap and plentiful.  Sure it breaks game balance...or "restores" it to a level where magic is more powerful...certain classes lose exclusivity...WotC designed these power books with YOU in mind!  Keep lapping it up.


----------



## Starbuck_II

blacktie347 said:


> Hey, don't get me wrong. I like Monty Haul games where magic is cheap and plentiful. Sure it breaks game balance...or "restores" it to a level where magic is more powerful...certain classes lose exclusivity...WotC designed these power books with YOU in mind! Keep lapping it up.




You want to redefine your terms.

Monty Haul= more wealth per level than DMg indicates. 
It has nothing to do with plentiful magic (not having it plentiful would be low magic game world; which isn't DMG guidelines either).

So yeah.


----------



## Deset Gled

3.0 and 3.5 are both very "resource dependant" games.  Towards the end of 3.5, there were a large number of things released to lessen the amound of resource dependence.  This includes the Healing Belt and other infinite use items (less dependence on casters and inventory), Reserve casting feats (less dependence on low level spells or back-up items), mulit-function items (less dependence on slots), and countless other uber-items.  

When all of these new things are added in together, with all parties having access, they do not break the game.  The game can still be played by all, with party balance, and lots of fun.  Some people will even enjoy the game more without resource management. The problem is that the removal of resource dependence is not balanced with the core 3.5 material.  It significantly changes major aspects of the game, from pricing, to party roles, to daily cycles.  If you are playing in a game with limited non-core material, or without acounting for these changes, these items will cause major problems.


----------



## blacktie347

The MIC does provide more power per level than the DMG indicates. Heck, a 750 gp Belt of Healing provides more renewable HP healing per day on average than a 90,000 gp Ring of Regeneration!


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## Eldritch_Lord

blacktie347 said:


> The MIC does provide more power per level than the DMG indicates.  Heck, a 750 gp Belt of Healing provides more renewable HP healing per day on average than a 90,000 gp Ring of Regeneration!




...and the vast majority of people have been saying that the _ring of regeneration_ sucks and is vastly overpriced since the DMG came out.  You know why it's so expensive?  Because in prior editions it _actually_ provided regeneration--the equivalent of Regeneration 5 in 3e.  The devs changed the effect but left the price the same.  Most of the MIC stuff isn't "Yay, we're so much more powerful now!  Thank you, MIC!" it's "Yay, some of this stuff is _actually worth buying_, unlike the DMG stuff!  Thank you, MIC!"

It's like the Tome of Battle: Some folks hate it, because they think it's making fighters obsolete and this is a Bad Thing.  Most folks like it, because they realize the 3e fighter has pretty much always been obsolete, and now they can play a fighter-type and enjoy it.  Restoration of balance, not breaking thereof.



> Perhaps you haven't taken Macroeconomics yet.  When stuff is cheap, there will be more of it on the market, because more people will buy it.  So when a Belt of Healing provides more HP healing than a 90k gp Ring of Regeneration, just about everyone and their mother will buy one if they can and need regular healing.  So that's where magic becomes more plentiful.
> 
> This is an extra logical step that I guess I should have not expected everyone to realize on their own.  Have you taken Macroeconomics yet?  I didn't mean to talk down to you there.




Thank you for the condescension--it's really appreciated.  Here's an example the macroeconomics major might understand better.

The Ring of Regeneration is a $5,000,000 Honda.  Great car...but no one in their right mind would buy it, since it's ridiculously expensive.  It used to be a $5,000,000 Boeing 747--a ridiculously good bargain--but Boeing was bought out and they turned it into a Honda while keeping the same name, to fool people used to the old name.

Potions of Cure Serious Wounds, Wands of Cure Critical Wounds, etc. are $300,000 Fords.  Yeah, you can get them, but no one really wants to.

Wands of Cure Light Wounds are $30,000 Saabs.  They're well-priced, they're reliable, and generally people like them.

Your generic +X ability enhancers are $50,000 college tuition loans.  Given that everyone _must_ have one of these things, what car is actually worth the money?  A $5,000,000 Honda, a $300,000 Ford, or a $30,000 Saab?  The Saab, of course.  Does that mean it's a Monty Haul car, that it's too cheap?  No; it's _rationally_ priced, and the others are too _expensive_.

Does that help?


----------



## s-dub

The DMG rules for generating magic items are IMHO fundamentally flawed due to what they are based off of, which are spells.  Just as you have spells that are considered underpowered or must have, magic items which derive their abilities from these spells will have the same issues.

I'm surprised no one has yet brought up that you can get unlimited healing per day by creating a command word activated item imbued with cure minor wounds and create this item for 900 gold.

.5 * 1 * 1800 = 900

If we wanted to get really crazy and make the LG cleric his own special item (he has 5 ranks in heal) we could create an item only usable by a LG cleric with ranks in heal for:

900*.7*.7*.9 = 397 

It wouldn't be good at all for in combat healing but it would definately work just fine for out of combat healing.


----------



## cdrcjsn

Love the comparison of the college tuition and the cars.

But yeah, I think it was actually in the foreword of the MIC where the designers discussed the reasoning behind the pricing of the items.

The core items (stat enhancers, resist vest/cloak) were the baseline items.  They wanted to price things so that you actually had to make a choice rather than go with the assumed stat items.

Also, healing was made to be much easier to come by in the latter days of 3.5.  If you look at the various feats, classes, items and spells, it definitely fit the pattern that out of combat healing was assumed to be available.


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## Jeff Wilder

I've not found _belts of healing_ to be a problem in our games, though a couple of PCs own one.

I personally have much more issue with the teleportation items, like _dimension stride boots_ and _anklets of translocation_.  Those -- and quite a few other items from the _MIC_ -- won't be in my next game (or will be modified).


----------



## Starbuck_II

blacktie347 said:


> LOL. Justify it to yourself however you want, complain about DMG pricing all you want. Compared to the Core rulebooks, this is seriously overpowered. If you're so used to overpowered adventures that using "weak" stuff seems lame, fine. But compared to the DMG, these MIC items are Monty Haul stuff.
> 
> And no, I'm not an economics major. In fact, a Macroeconomics major does not exist; that is but one class of a typical Economics department in college. You'll find that out, perhaps, if you go to college oneday.




Compare Ring of Regeneration to Core items: 6 Wands of ClW. It would take 15 levels before the Ring comes even with the six wands. By then you are level 33 or something: where the ring is chicken feed.

Even in Core the Ring sucks.


----------



## billd91

blacktie347 said:


> The MIC does provide more power per level than the DMG indicates.  Heck, a 750 gp Belt of Healing provides more renewable HP healing per day on average than a 90,000 gp Ring of Regeneration!




More, on average, than a ring of regeneration? What level character are we talking about here? A 1st level character? Because that ring of regeneration restores 1 hit point _per level_ every hour. A 10th level character may be getting back up to 240 hit points from that ring (assuming he takes that much damage while wearing the ring). 
Worth the 90,000? I'm not sure, but better than a belt of healing? Far and away.




blacktie347 said:


> Perhaps you haven't taken Macroeconomics yet.  When stuff is cheap, there will be more of it on the market, because more people will buy it.  So when a Belt of Healing provides more HP healing than a 90k gp Ring of Regeneration, just about everyone and their mother will buy one if they can and need regular healing.  So that's where magic becomes more plentiful.
> 
> This is an extra logical step that I guess I should have not expected everyone to realize on their own.  Have you taken Macroeconomics yet?  I didn't mean to talk down to you there.




 That would be *micro*economics you're talking about there. The small scale decisions that determine supply and demand and price...


----------



## Sparafucile

The healing belt is pretty cool. . . it does little harm to the game balance. It's a question of utility, and how much the presence of the item  can change the overall outcome of the game session. Frankly, getting a single heal one a day for free does little.

On the other hand, a once a day Freedom of Movement, Fire Shield, or Improved Invisibility, is absolutely broken at that price. They can have a much greater effect on the outcomes of the game.

Also, why is anyone on this thread using modern free market principals to describe the economic situation of characters who live in a mideval fantasy world?  The inclusion of a "Bob's Bargain Basement - We Buy/Sell/Trade/Make Anything!" in every city, town, and hamlet of your campaign world is, as far as I can tell, optional.


----------



## frankthedm

The way it looks to me is that the cleric got extra character power because it was assumed that his resources would be used for combat healing and that the cleric had to carry the rogue's weight in combat against the undead. If the clerics actions in combat don't have to be burned away healing, that makes the cleric *much* stronger than the class is meant to be. Also if the rogue is all of a sudden sneaking attacking the undead, then the cleric is no longer needed to pick up the rogue's slack.

To allow either of those without also nerfing the cleric is a mistake IMHO.


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## Piratecat

blacktie347, I've just edited your post #60 in this thread. Please double-check our rules, ratchet back your instincts towards rudeness and condescension, and email me if you have any questions. Thanks.


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## Runestar

> 1. The items in the MIC are overpowered compared to the DMG. I and others have mentioned examples of this. The rationale is irrelevant; the comparison is evident.




Which I have been repeatedly explaining as expected and a necessary step towards correcting the obvious item pricing errors/discrepancies in the DMG.  You keep harping on that one point as though it were supposed to mean something, but my point now, as always is that it doesn't count for anything.

Yes, it deviates from the DMG norms. SO WHAT??? If something is erroneous, it should be corrected. Just that wotc prefers to released its so-called errata in the form of supplements we have to pay for (think rules compendium) rather than free PDFs.



> 2. I was not, nor am not, nor have I implied that I was a "macroeconomics major". To my knowledge, that major does not exist. I believe you might be referring to an economics major, which does exist.




Which is kinda ironic, given that a few posts back, you certainly were giving us the impression that you were some sort of expert in economics, and were attempting to use that information to refute our points (however irrelevant it may be). 

Now someone gives a very good analogy using cars to demonstrate what MIC is to DMG, and you suddenly make an about-face and go "Actually, I am not all that good, so it doesn't really matter that you are suddenly citing excellent examples that I cannot answer." 

To which, I say: DnD is not a real-life economy anyways. It is simply an artificial one created for the sole purpose of allowing PCs to dump their useless gear and purchase the eq which they need/want.

So what if a higher demand ought to result in a higher supply of healing belts? The DM is ultimately in control of how plentiful or readily accessible they are in his campaign world. The desigers price the MIC items based on how useful they are, not on how they are supposed to interact on a supply-and-demand basis in a real-life economy.


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## concerro

aboyd said:


> Wow.  I was also about to post in the Monopoly forum that I don't do the "landing on Free Parking = cash money" thing.  What have I been _thinking?_




The belt does take up a slot and 750 is a lot of gold for low level characters. My group whether I played or DM has always pooled money to get wands for the cleric to use because they cost so much. The item is very good for its price. It  allows the cleric to do something besides heal all day, making the class more attractive. It takes up a spell slot which means melee types have to make a choice between staying power and killing power meaning it is not an obvious choice which is something to look at before calling something broken. 
I consider wands to be overprice but the law of supply and demand says low level clerics don't have a lot of heal spells so the party almost has to have them. I would pay about 1000 max for the belt because giving me 20 points of healing is not worth more than that especially when the item already takes up a slot. Once you get to the mid-levels a character can take 20 points of damage if the enemy breathes(almost any hit) on them. Someone could by 3 or 4 belts but they would need the money. At low levels the money is not there, and at higher levels it becomes inefficient to do so.


----------



## blacktie347

whatever


----------



## Runestar

> I like that you attribute positive motives to WotC for releasing supplements that increase the power allowed in the core books. They're "correcting" errors, apparently.




For MIC at least, I have not seen any substantiated evidence to the contrary. Do you honestly believe that the pricing guidelines in the DMG are absolutely correct and error-free, and are to be followed to the letter, regardless of what future supplements say that may contradict those guidelines? 



> I disagree with you that WotC is correcting errors, but rather would speculate that between releases of editions of D&D, WotC is attempting to generate more profit and avoid TSR's fate. But apparently that is irrelevant to you.




It is not so much that it is irrelevant, but more that it does not seem to be the case for MIC here. I still fail to see how MIC results in blatant power creep, when all it does is introduce affordable (and balanced) magic items for players to use. 

I don't deny that the purpose for MIC was more revenue, but that still does not mean that the book is necessarily game-breaking, nor does it make the information in the book any less credible. 

It is like the rules compendium. The book seems like something that the designers should have released as free weekly articles on their wotc website, but they opted to bundle them as a book to sell. But that certainly does not make the information contained within any less correct or valuable.



> A Potion of Cure Serious Wounds costs 750 gp, which can cure 3d8+5 HP for an average of 18 HPs, once.




Has it then ever occured to you, that perhaps it is the potion of cure serious wounds that is severely overpriced? It is pretty much suicidal to use one during combat (you provoke an AoO for quaffing a potion, so you might possibly end up killing yourself before you even get to drink that healing potion). And outside of combat, its benefits pale in comparison to that of a wand of CLW. 

Even before MIC came out, I would never ever contemplate spending that much gold on healing potions. When MIC came out, all it did was assure me that my belief bad always been correct.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

blacktie347 said:


> Okay, after this post, I'm not going to repeat points again in this thread, at least.




Promise? 



blacktie347 said:


> A Potion of Cure Serious Wounds costs 750 gp, which can cure 3d8+5 HP for an average of 18 HPs, once.  The belt costs the same but can do the same every day.  The "slot" is not relevant because the belt does not need to be worn for a period of time before use, except in combat.  So the belt is way more powerful than the Potion which cures the same amount.  Both the belt and the potion can be used by any class.
> 
> A Scroll of Cure Serious Wounds costs 375 gp, which cures approximately the same amount of HP damage, but can normally only be used by a divine spellcaster.  The difference in price accounts for "requirement" that a cleric/druid uses the magic.
> 
> Having a Belt of Healing is unbalanced compared with these prices.  It's nice that your group likes using the Belt of Healing and that you don't think that it's overpowered...enjoy that addition to the game.  However, I don't think that it quite balances the same way with comparable healing items in the DMG, which is my point, and has been for some time.




If you believe that the DMG pricing guidelines are infallible and sacrosanct, then yes, the MIC is pretty much as "borkenz!" as it gets.  If, on the other hand, you suspect that there's something _seriously wrong_ with the DMG pricing guidelines, then you may want to give the MIC another look.


----------



## Deset Gled

Eldritch_Lord said:


> The Ring of Regeneration is a $5,000,000 Honda.
> 
> Potions of Cure Serious Wounds, Wands of Cure Critical Wounds, etc. are $300,000 Fords.
> 
> Wands of Cure Light Wounds are $30,000 Saabs.




The wand of CLW is a donkey.  In the middle ages, it would cost an average person (a peasant) about half of a years worth of wages to buy a donkey at a market*.

The Belt of Healing is a Honda Civic.  Today, it would cost an average person (middle class, first world country) about a half of a years worth of wages to buy one new*.

Both the price of the donkey in the middle ages and a new Honda Civic in 2009 are reasonably priced when you consider the monetary cost, the usefulness that an owner gets out of them, and what other options are available at the time.  Just about everyone would agree that the Civic is a better option for travel, but there are some people take pleasure in imagining what life was like back in the middle ages and what it would be like to be a hero, adventuring in a fantastical world long before Civics were available.



			
				blacktie347 said:
			
		

> Very intelligent post, by the way =)



Thanks much.  The MIC is a book that took me a very long time to get my head around.


----------



## billd91

Runestar said:


> Has it then ever occured to you, that perhaps it is the potion of cure serious wounds that is severely overpriced? It is pretty much suicidal to use one during combat (you provoke an AoO for quaffing a potion, so you might possibly end up killing yourself before you even get to drink that healing potion). And outside of combat, its benefits pale in comparison to that of a wand of CLW.
> 
> Even before MIC came out, I would never ever contemplate spending that much gold on healing potions. When MIC came out, all it did was assure me that my belief bad always been correct.




That's been an issue in my games too. I have yet to see a PC actually take Brew Potion and consider it a worthwhile investment. The other low-level item creation feats have been quite popular by comparison.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord

blacktie347 said:


> PirateCat, I was responding to two parts from Eldritch_Lord's statement.  Sure, I can see that my original post could be deemed condescending because I speculated that Eldritch_Lord might realize more about Economics in college.  Let me restate the main points from post 60 that are more neutral in tone.




Just so you're aware, blacktie, I'm currently a college freshman and am taking an economics course at the moment, which is why I took a bit of offense at your condescending tone.  I referred to you as a macroeconomics major because (A) you were making such a big deal about it and (B) you were muddling the macro/micro distinction.  I should probably have used a  smiley, but I wasn't thinking about that at the time.

No hard feelings on the tone; just be more careful next time.



> The wand of CLW is a donkey. In the middle ages, it would cost an average person (a peasant) about half of a years worth of wages to buy a donkey at a market*.
> 
> The Belt of Healing is a Honda Civic. Today, it would cost an average person (middle class, first world country) about a half of a years worth of wages to buy one new*.
> 
> Both the price of the donkey in the middle ages and a new Honda Civic in 2009 are reasonably priced when you consider the monetary cost, the usefulness that an owner gets out of them, and what other options are available at the time. Just about everyone would agree that the Civic is a better option for travel, but there are some people take pleasure in imagining what life was like back in the middle ages and what it would be like to be a hero, adventuring in a fantastical world long before Civics were available.




It would cost an average person the same relative amounts, yes, but a medieval noble would have many donkeys (or the equivalent in horses, cattle, etc.), giving the equivalent in horsepower (er, donkeypower) to the Civic and the equivalent in prestige as well.  Considering that most adventurers would be upper middle- to upper class given all of the wealth they accumulate, it would certainly make more sense to have the Civic, no?


----------



## Kask

aboyd said:


> So, Runestar, if I follow your comment to the logical conclusion, you're saying that the Healing Belt _can't_ be priced at 750 gp using the DMG magic item rules, because the MIC authors decided to bypass those rules as too limiting?





That's what happened.  It also lead designers to ignore spell schools and create spells and designate them as belonging to incorrect schools, etc... Anything outside of core books needs to be checked for adhering to the basic game rules.


----------



## AllisterH

Kask said:


> That's what happened.  It also lead designers to ignore spell schools and create spells and designate them as belonging to incorrect schools, etc... Anything outside of core books needs to be checked for adhering to the basic game rules.




While this is true, it assumes that the core of the game is better balance than the supplements.

Which, is somewhat laughable.

For all the claims that the supplements increased the power of PCs, the fact is, 80% of the feats, base and prestige classes released pretty much blew monkey chunks when compared to the standard PHB.

There isn't one 3.5 PHB supplement IMO, that was as overpowering compared to core as say the 2e Complete Book of Elves was to the 2e PHB (now THERE, that's blatant power creep).

Sure, we get things like Shivering Touch (what were they thinking there?), Initiate of the Seven Veils and the Archivist but the VAST majority of stuff released fall more along the lines of the Scout (a poor man rogue) and Samurai (why is this class worse than the fighter). 

Most spellcasting prestige classes actually had dead levels, none of the melee base classes released could equal a PHB-built barbarian (even the Bo9S melee classes can't match the damage output of an equivalent levelled Barbarian) and frankly, most spells released pretty much were worse than the PHB.


----------



## Kask

AllisterH said:


> While this is true, it assumes that the core of the game is better balance than the supplements.




Balanced?  I never mentioned that.  I said, basic game rules...


----------



## ehren37

blacktie347 said:


> Having a Belt of Healing is unbalanced compared with these prices. It's nice that your group likes using the Belt of Healing and that you don't think that it's overpowered...enjoy that addition to the game. However, I don't think that it quite balances the same way with comparable healing items in the DMG, which is my point, and has been for some time.




One might easily argue the converse... Its nice that your group likes using potions of cure serious wounds, and you dont think its underpowered.

The magic item guidelines in the DMG are estimates. I could easily argue that Gauntlets of Dexterity +4 (cost to create 8000) are broken because by the item pricing guidelines, gauntlets of continuous Cat's Grace (+4 Dex) cost 9000 gp. And what kind of chump makes bracers of armor +4 when they could make bracers of continuous mage armor for 1500? Slotless item of protection from evil for 4000?

Using the guidelines to prove the belt is broken in comparison to a potion of CSW seems odd given the items of unlimited cure light wounds and continuous vigor you can make...


----------



## AllisterH

Kask said:


> Balanced?  I never mentioned that.  I said, basic game rules...




And if those basic game rules have been found to be wanting?

The designers of MIC actually gave a rationale for their pricing and their rules on the MIC (something I think more books from WOTC should've had) and as others have stated, one of those rules is that many of the items in the DMG were simply not price correctly.

As for the cure serious wound wand, who actually uses that? It has ALWAYS been CLW or Wands of  lesser vigor.


----------



## Kask

AllisterH said:


> And if those basic game rules have been found to be wanting?




Like?

I have found that some of the rules can make for a Monty Haul type of environment...


----------



## akbearfoot

*Healing belt*

The point of the Healing Belt, as well as tons of the other cheap items in the MIC was to add depth, variety and choice to the game...Normally pretty much every D&D game ends up the same way...players all get the big 6 and they suck if they dont...It's better to sell everything they find for half price if it gets them that extra +1 on their ring of protection or their cloak of resistance etc... because everything else sux for the price.


The designers and most players agree that the 15-minute adventuring day is very tired.  Party wakes up, explores till they have a fight, then they RUSH to the next encounter as fast as they can because their precious buffs are gonna wear our in 5 minutes.  As soon as the buffs are gone, they stop and rest till they get their spells back.

The healing belt is a interesting fix for this problem...For an affordable price, and a magic item slot, a low PC can actually have more than 1 fight in a day before needing to rest, or using all of the daily spell resources of another PC to get healed....Oh wait!  This fix already exists.  Wands of lesser vigor...

If you've experimented with 4th edition, or allowed the Tome of Battle classes or Warlocks  or any of the reserve feats in your games then you will have already experienced how much more fun games can be when characters get to participate for bigger portions of gaming sessions.  I personally don't have a lot of fun when we do the 1 fight followed by 8 hours of rest thing over and over again.

If you think healing belts are broken, then simply require a 1 hour attunement period before they function.  Problem solved.


----------



## Kask

akbearfoot said:


> The designers and most players agree that the 15-minute adventuring day is very tired.  Party wakes up, explores till they have a fight, then they RUSH to the next encounter as fast as they can because their precious buffs are gonna wear our in 5 minutes.  As soon as the buffs are gone, they stop and rest till they get their spells back.




Interesting.  In 30 years of playing I've never seen this as a _Modus operandi  for groups I've DMed for or played with._

Is it some new trend with RPGers?


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Kask said:


> Interesting.  In 30 years of playing I've never seen this as a _Modus operandi  for groups I've DMed for or played with._
> 
> Is it some new trend with RPGers?




It's not so much _modus operandi_ as it is intelligent play, both from the player's and the character's perspective.  Given the choice, why go into a fight at anything less than 100%, when the consequences are that you (your character) may die?  Why not give yourself the best chance of survival?  Of course, sometimes circumstances are beyond your control, but given the choice....


----------



## billd91

Kask said:


> Interesting.  In 30 years of playing I've never seen this as a _Modus operandi  for groups I've DMed for or played with._
> 
> Is it some new trend with RPGers?




I haven't seen the behavior either, but you'd have to have hidden under some remote rock for the last few years or be extremely new to the internet to not have heard of it. 

So, rather than assume that you're not just being pointlessly sarcastic or that you've been a hermit these last few years, I'd like to welcome you to the internet. Enjoy your stay.

~ On the subject of pointless sarcasm - don't do it, and cut out the snark. Thanks - PS ~


----------



## Runestar

Kask said:


> Like?
> 
> I have found that some of the rules can make for a Monty Haul type of environment...




You are really going to have to explain your definition of monty haul to us. I think my take on what passes for it is a lot looser than yours...

I don't see a party as having access to a wider variety of magic gear at lower levels as monty haul. My definition of monty haul is when the party has access to much more gear than their wealth guidelines would otherwise indicate. Since I do believe that MIC magic eq is fairly priced for its effect (for most part), there is nothing wrong with lower level parties spending their hard earned cash on cheap magic eq to round out their abilities. At the end of the day, they still aren't exceeding their wealth limits because of it.

Fighters for instance are not just limited to move+attack, 5-ft move+full attack or a bunch of special combat maneuvers with a fairly low rate of success. Now they can do things normally not allowed by their classes thanks to these MIC items such as eschewing difficult terrain, countering status effects, charging as a standard action, making touch attacks, moving+full attack etc (compared to the DMG, where the big six simply improved their base stats, so they still played the same for most part). 

Like Tome of battle, MIC just makes combat more fun again by adding options to your PCs, over and above what they already have.


----------



## aboyd

Runestar said:


> You are really going to have to explain your definition of monty haul to us.



I suspect his definition of monty haul is pretty similar to the one that blacktie347 already put forward.  And I'd say how Kask has used it thus far is how I perceive it too, so he's making sense.


----------



## Jhaelen

akbearfoot said:


> If you think healing belts are broken, then simply require a 1 hour attunement period before they function.  Problem solved.



Umm. Is THAT the reason people are screaming "OMG, it's teh broken!"?

In my game all items require a 24 hour period of attunement, maybe that's why I never worried about any MIC items.


----------



## EroGaki

akbearfoot said:


> The point of the Healing Belt, as well as tons of the other cheap items in the MIC was to add depth, variety and choice to the game...Normally pretty much every D&D game ends up the same way...players all get the big 6 and they suck if they dont...It's better to sell everything they find for half price if it gets them that extra +1 on their ring of protection or their cloak of resistance etc... because everything else sux for the price.
> 
> 
> The designers and most players agree that the 15-minute adventuring day is very tired.  Party wakes up, explores till they have a fight, then they RUSH to the next encounter as fast as they can because their precious buffs are gonna wear our in 5 minutes.  As soon as the buffs are gone, they stop and rest till they get their spells back.
> 
> The healing belt is a interesting fix for this problem...For an affordable price, and a magic item slot, a low PC can actually have more than 1 fight in a day before needing to rest, or using all of the daily spell resources of another PC to get healed....Oh wait!  This fix already exists.  Wands of lesser vigor...
> 
> If you've experimented with 4th edition, or allowed the Tome of Battle classes or Warlocks  or any of the reserve feats in your games then you will have already experienced how much more fun games can be when characters get to participate for bigger portions of gaming sessions.  I personally don't have a lot of fun when we do the 1 fight followed by 8 hours of rest thing over and over again.
> 
> If you think healing belts are broken, then simply require a 1 hour attunement period before they function.  Problem solved.





This. The 15 minute adventure day is a pain. Anything that helps fix it is appreciated in my book. I can't tell you how much it bugs me when I am DMing, and the PC's try feel the need to retreat after every big encounter because they are out of spells/healing, etc. And the same goes when I am a player. I recently created a Mystic Theurge just so I could have a 30 minute adventure instead of 15 minutes...


----------



## Runestar

Jhaelen said:


> Umm. Is THAT the reason people are screaming "OMG, it's teh broken!"?
> 
> In my game all items require a 24 hour period of attunement, maybe that's why I never worried about any MIC items.




I have never bothered with attunement time, and I still don't find them game-breaking. 

In case you are thinking of complaining of how a player can easily lug around 20-30 of them at higher levels, my reply is - let them. It is still less efficient than wands of vigor. 

All I can say is, give it a try before thinking of banning/nerfing it. You may be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Kask

Runestar said:


> You are really going to have to explain your definition of monty haul to us. I think my take on what passes for it is a lot looser than yours...




I think the best definition was written in the 1st Ed DMG.


----------



## Starbuck_II

Kask said:


> I think the best definition was written in the 1st Ed DMG.




Could you quote it?


----------



## Kask

Starbuck_II said:


> Could you quote it?





Not off the top of my head.  Look in the 1st DMG, if you don't own one I highly suggest getting one if not just for the invaluable data on DMing.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord

1e DMG said:
			
		

> "Thoughtless placement of magical items has been the ruination of many a campaign.  Not only does this cheapen what should be rare and precious, it gives player characters undeserved advancement and empowers them to become virtual rulers of all they survey...many campaigns are little more than a joke, something that better DMs jape and ridicule at--rightly so on the surface--because of the foolishness of player characters with astronomically high levels of experience and no real playing skill.  These god-like characters boast and strut about with retinues of ultra-powerful servants and scores of mighty magic items, artifacts, relics adorning them as if they were Christmas trees decked out with tinsel and ornaments.  Not only are such 'Monty Haul' games a crashing bore for most participants, they are a headache for their DMs as well, for the rules of the game do not provide anything for such play--no reasonable opponents, no rewards, nothing!  The creative DM can, of course, develop a game which extrapolates from the original to allow such play, but this is a monumental task to accomplish with even passable results, and those attempts I have seen have been uniformly dismal."




---------------------------------

However, this talk of Monty Hauls is mostly irrelevant when talking about 3e.  The reason high levels of magic items and cash was discouraged then because you gained experience from your loot as well, so getting too many items would level you up, giving you access to more powerful items which would level you _more_, and so on.


----------



## Kask

Eldritch_Lord said:


> The reason high levels of magic items and cash was discouraged then because you gained experience from your loot as well, so getting too many items would level you up, giving you access to more powerful items which would level you _more_, and so on.




Actually, XP wasn't the reason.  The reason is given in the DMG.


----------



## Michael Silverbane

In the games that I run, I haven't found the healing belt to be a problem.  In the short-term, they are slightly less useful than a wand of _cure light wounds_.  In the long-term, they are slightly more useful than a wand of _cure light wounds_.


----------



## Eldritch_Lord

Kask said:


> Actually, XP wasn't the reason.  The reason is given in the DMG.




You said to look at the 1e DMG, and I posted the _exact_ quote of why Monte Haul campaigns are discouraged by Gygax.  Having too many magic items "gives player characters undeserved advancement and empowers them to become virtual rulers of all they survey"...which is only the case because you got XP when you found treasure.  Using a healing belt is not remotely related to having a Monty Haul campaign in that context (or, I would argue, in any context).


----------



## Thurbane

AllisterH said:


> And if those basic game rules have been found to be wanting?



You release errata, or a new edition of the game! 

...like others in this thread, that's my beef with things like the Healing Belt, and a lot of what's in the ToB. If things in your core rulebooks are found to be wanting (and let's face of it, some of the stuff in 3.5 probably is) then ammend or update the core rulebooks. Don't release things in splatbooks with the thought *"Oh yeah, we messed a few things up in the core, but hey, we added other, different things here that are how things should have been all along. YMMV - sorry if this makes some core and non-core things totally out of whack with each other!"*

Each to their own, but this type of approach really irks me. If something in the core rules is busted, go ahead and fix the core, don't have us shell out for splatbook band-aids...as much as many people at the time weren't happy with the jump from 3.0 to 3.5, it DID address a lot of issues, and free update documents were released so that (theoretically, anyway) you still could use your 3.0 books in a 3.5 game.


----------



## Herzog

> If something in the core rules is busted, go ahead and fix the core, don't have us shell out for splatbook band-aids.



Or, at the very least, accompany the splatbook band-aids with an appropriate list of 'fixes' for the core material (indicating new pricing for core items to indicate this is what the authors of the new material have in mind).

Now, we have either very low prices for MIC material (when compared to DMG), or very high prices for DMG material (when compared to MIC), regardless of which of the two is 'correct'.


----------



## s-dub

I think that the designers rethought healing item pricing due to the attractiveness of divine casters in 3.5 being much higher than in previous editions.

My thoughts are maybe the healing items in the DMG were priced so high so that people would not be able to afford to not have a cleric in the party.

With all of the abilities released in splatbooks and even in core clerics and druids are certainly not neglected in parties and so there is an incentive to play them even if magical healing items are cheap.


----------



## Kask

Eldritch_Lord said:


> Having too many magic items "gives player characters undeserved advancement and empowers them to become virtual rulers of all they survey"...




It doesn't talk about XP bloat in the quote...


----------



## Elethiomel

Kask said:


> It doesn't talk about XP bloat in the quote...



It implies XP bloat. It is after all in a rulebook where XP is awarded for the value of treasure found.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Kask said:


> Actually, XP wasn't the reason. The reason is given in the DMG.




Strike one!



Kask said:


> It doesn't talk about XP bloat in the quote...




Strike two!

Swing battter, batter, swing!


----------



## Sparafucile

Kask said:


> It doesn't talk about XP bloat in the quote...




While I appreacite the socratic method thing you have going on in your last few posts, I'd really like to understand your point of view. Would you like to give your interepretation of what the quote means to you, i.e. monty haul campaigns?

Perhaps you can compare that to a DM's adherence to table 5-1 on pg 135 of the 3.5 DMG (the one that gives "balanced" wealth by character level). Is adherance to this table in a 3.5 game considered "monty haul"? DId 1st edition EVER offer such an attempt at balance?

Furthermore, back to the OP's question, where does table 5-1 fit on the different scales of prices offered by items in the DMG vs. the MIC?


----------



## Kask

Sparafucile said:


> While I appreacite the socratic method thing you have going on in your last few posts, I'd really like to understand your point of view.




Actually, I'll dig out my DMG from storage and tackle it by posting the source and commenting.  Will be better that way.


----------



## Jhaelen

Thurbane said:


> Each to their own, but this type of approach really irks me. If something in the core rules is busted, go ahead and fix the core, don't have us shell out for splatbook band-aids...



However, as this discussion is exemplifying there are people out there that refuse to believe that a fix was in order. For them it is easier to argue 'I ban the MIC in my games' than to say 'I ban errata to the core books'.


----------



## aboyd

You say that like it's an objective truth -- "a fix was in order."  What if someone _likes_ the DMG system?  What if they want a low-magic campaign where the only items available are those in the DMG, and only at the outratgeous prices that are listed?  Is such a person "refusing to believe that a fix was in order" or is such a person "not liking the fix and having fun without it?"


----------



## Jeff Wilder

aboyd said:


> You say that like it's an objective truth -- "a fix was in order."  What if someone _likes_ the DMG system?  What if they want a low-magic campaign where the only items available are those in the DMG, and only at the outratgeous prices that are listed?  Is such a person "refusing to believe that a fix was in order" or is such a person "not liking the fix and having fun without it?"



First, let me say that I _completely_ support your right to ban anything you want from your game.

Second, I prefer low-magic games myself, although Eberron has been a surprising (to me) exception.

Third, I think the pricing of some items in the MIC is _crazy_.  As I said up-thread, I've not had an issues with _belts of healing_, but IMO there are a good number of items in the MIC that are too good for the cost.

That said, a game using DMG pricing isn't a low-magic game, and it's not "low-magic" that the MIC fixes (or purports to fix, whichever your perspective may be).

A game using the DMG is a normal-magic D&D game (which is to say, magic items are plentiful), but it's a normal-magic game dominated by stat-boosting items, save-boosting items, AC-boosting items, and so forth.  (The Big Six.)

By contrast, a game using the MIC is a normal-magic D&D game with higher variety, because for 16,000 gp, you can purchase non-Big Six magic items with a utility in the ballpark of a +4 stat-boosting item (for instance).

I think, if you're going to play normal-magic D&D, that increased variety is definitely a good goal to have had in a supplement, even if the mark was missed in some cases.


----------



## aboyd

Excellent.  You & I are on the same page, Jeff.  I don't much care what label the DMG system is given -- low magic, normal magic but only for the big 6, whatever works.  I think I just bristle at the negative characterizations of _people_ who like that flavor of campaign, as if MIC is the only _correct_ way to run a game, and anyone going in a different direction is simply too deficient to grasp reality.  As someone implied (but did not quite write) earlier in this thread, I'm _having fun wrong,_ as if that is possible.

"Your happiness is incorrect!  You will be happy the approved way!  Any other way is impossible!"

And that is of course not directed at you, as you certainly have not made value judgments of people in this thread (or if you have, you haven't posted them).


----------



## Runestar

> Excellent. You & I are on the same page, Jeff. I don't much care what label the DMG system is given -- low magic, normal magic but only for the big 6, whatever works. I think I just bristle at the negative characterizations of _people_ who like that flavor of campaign, as if MIC is the only _correct_ way to run a game, and anyone going in a different direction is simply too deficient to grasp reality. As someone implied (but did not quite write) earlier in this thread, I'm _having fun wrong,_ as if that is possible.




Except that only until recently, you made no mention of what sort of campaign you were running. I do not feel it was unreasonable for posters to assume that unless stated otherwise, you would be following the assumptions laid out in the rulebooks, and not the low-powered setting. 

If you had explained right from the very beginning your rationales for wanting to stick with the (clearly flawed) pricing guidelines in the DMG despite clear evidence demonstrating that they are problematic, the discussion would likely have ended there and then. You are making a conscious and informed decision, and that is really all that matters, regardless of how you wish to rule in your game. 

Instead, when you appeared to blatantly disregard sound advice given, I think that the other posters responded the way they did not so much because they are trying to twist your arm into playing your game the way they see fit, but more so out of concern that you may have either misinterpreted the points raised (hence our repeated attempts at clarifying and reinforcing our earlier, original statements), or dismissed them outright as the mad ravings of a power-hungry munchkin interested only in raising the power-level of his own campaign (I suspect it is this latter notion which led to the posters becoming self-defensive in their responses - that using MIC somehow translates to power creep).


----------



## aboyd

/me shrugs

We disagree, Runestar.  Not much sense going over it.  We won't come to any middle ground, as our opinions don't align.


----------



## Sparafucile

Runestar said:


> Except that only until recently, you made no mention of what sort of campaign you were running. I do not feel it was unreasonable for posters to assume that unless stated otherwise, you would be following the assumptions laid out in the rulebooks, and not the low-powered setting.
> 
> If you had explained right from the very beginning your rationales for wanting to stick with the (clearly flawed) pricing guidelines in the DMG despite clear evidence demonstrating that they are problematic, the discussion would likely have ended there and then. You are making a conscious and informed decision, and that is really all that matters, regardless of how you wish to rule in your game.




Well, all that is pretty much true. 

I'd also like to add the entire purpose of the original poster's query was to discuss the balance issues of the MIC's Healing Belt. That discussion, to some extent, is still going on. . . despite the OP's final (personal) decision on the matter. 

If the OP made up his mind, and doesn't wish to argue any further points outside of "It's my game, I'll play it how i want so don't judge me," then frankly. . . he's no longer adding anything to the meat of the discussion. 

Back to discussion:

I, for one, find the healing belt "balanced," inn the sense that it will never help the PC's accomplish anything. . . utliity. It doesn't overcome traps, aid in NPC reactions, do damage, provide extra movement. . . or anything. All it does is aid in the ability to take just ONE MORE hit a day from the girallion. 

Hell, based on sheer uselessness, it may be overpriced.


----------



## Thurbane

Runestar said:


> If you had explained right from the very beginning your rationales for wanting to stick with the (clearly flawed) pricing guidelines in the DMG despite clear evidence demonstrating that they are problematic, the discussion would likely have ended there and then.



Speaking for myself, I think most of those "clearly flawed" guidelines are better than throwing things out at bargain basement prices in splatbooks because A.) the author of that particular book didn't agree with the pricing in the core rules or B.) to satisfy the "rule of cool". I suspect a fair bit of both of these see the light of day in various printed sources.

Look, honestly, most of what's in the MIC is great, and sees a lot of use in my group's games. But some items seem questionably priced compared to similar items in the core - and by that I mean actual printed items, not just pricing guidelines for "homebrewed" items. If you want to allow the Healing Belt in a game at it's listed price, you either have to accept that no one in their right mind would ever buy (or create) a Potion of Cure Serious Wounds again; or you have to completely redo the pricing structure of potions in your game...

...at the end of the day, whatever works for a particular group is fine. There is no right or wrong way to play D&D, only what is fun for your group.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Thurbane said:


> If you want to allow the Healing Belt in a game at it's listed price, you either have to accept that no one in their right mind would ever buy (or create) a Potion of Cure Serious Wounds again; or you have to completely redo the pricing structure of potions in your game...




But...no one in their right mind would ever buy (or create) a potion of _cure serious wounds_, with or without healing belts on the shelf.  And again, the fact that some items seem "questionable priced" is a reflection of the (IMHO) problem that some items are just way overpriced.  Given the option, no one in their right mind would buy anything but a wand of _cure light wounds_, and this tells me that there is something wrong with the DMG pricing guidelines and that they shouldn't be held as the standard by which prices are compared.


----------



## Starbuck_II

Thurbane said:


> Speaking for myself, I think most of those "clearly flawed" guidelines are better than throwing things out at bargain basement prices in splatbooks because A.) the author of that particular book didn't agree with the pricing in the core rules or B.) to satisfy the "rule of cool". I suspect a fair bit of both of these see the light of day in various printed sources.
> 
> Look, honestly, most of what's in the MIC is great, and sees a lot of use in my group's games. But some items seem questionably priced compared to similar items in the core - and by that I mean actual printed items, not just pricing guidelines for "homebrewed" items. If you want to allow the Healing Belt in a game at it's listed price, you either have to accept that no one in their right mind would ever buy (or create) a Potion of Cure Serious Wounds again; or you have to completely redo the pricing structure of potions in your game...
> 
> ...at the end of the day, whatever works for a particular group is fine. There is no right or wrong way to play D&D, only what is fun for your group.




NPCs might buy potions; cheap way to heal without giving PCs extra treasure


----------



## AllisterH

Wait, do those that think the healing belt is broken actually think that the HEALING BELT is why nobody creates potions of Cure Serious Wounds?

I hate to say that's totally false.

Even prior to the healing belt, nobody actually created or even bought these things as in terms of value for money, the CSW potion is VERY, VERY POOR


----------



## concerro

AllisterH said:


> Wait, do those that think the healing belt is broken actually think that the HEALING BELT is why nobody creates potions of Cure Serious Wounds?
> 
> I hate to say that's totally false.
> 
> Even prior to the healing belt, nobody actually created or even bought these things as in terms of value for money, the CSW potion is VERY, VERY POOR



I have to agree. I have never bought a potion, ever. I might chip in to buy a wand to use on the group and when the MIC came out I jumped on the healing belt, but once again the only potions I use are the ones I find on dead enemies.


----------



## Runestar

Starbuck_II said:


> NPCs might buy potions; cheap way to heal without giving PCs extra treasure




Drinking potions in combat is tantamount to suicide, unless you have that delayed potion feat from complete mage. You provoke an AoO for doing so, waste a standard action (which can be used to attack), and the damage taken on this AoO possibly exceeds the hp healed (assuming it did not kill them outright before the healing kicks in, since the attack is made before they actually drink the healing potion).

At least the healing belt doesn't provoke an AoO when used.


----------



## concerro

Runestar said:


> Drinking potions in combat is tantamount to suicide, unless you have that delayed potion feat from complete mage. You provoke an AoO for doing so, waste a standard action (which can be used to attack), and the damage taken on this AoO possibly exceeds the hp healed (assuming it did not kill them outright before the healing kicks in, since the attack is made before they actually drink the healing potion).
> 
> At least the healing belt doesn't provoke an AoO when used.




5-foot step, pull out the potion, drink it. I am not advocating potions of course, but they may keep you alive for the extra round needed so you can get some backup, but I will state I am only drinking potions as a last resort .


----------



## EroGaki

concerro said:


> 5-foot step, pull out the potion, drink it. I am not advocating potions of course, but they may keep you alive for the extra round needed so you can get some backup, but I will state I am only drinking potions as a last resort .




Pulling a potion is a move action, so you can't take a 5ft step _and _pull out the potion _and _drink it. Unless I am in error, which does happen sometimes.


----------



## Herzog

> Pulling a potion is a move action, so you can't take a 5ft step and pull out the potion and drink it. Unless I am in error, which does happen sometimes.



It happened! 

You can take a 5' step, take a move action and a standard action, all in one round. You can NOT use that move action to perform an actual move, since you can not take a 5' step in a round where you also perform a move.


----------



## concerro

Herzog said:


> It happened!
> 
> You can take a 5' step, take a move action and a standard action, all in one round. You can NOT use that move action to perform an actual move, since you can not take a 5' step in a round where you also perform a move.



I stand corrected. I was thinking that since you could do a full attack or take a full round action and still take the 5 foot step  then the 5 foot step and the move action would also be ok.

Potion sucks, down with potions


----------



## Herzog

You're confusing me.

Let me re-state:
You can take a 5' step, dig out your potion (move (equivalent) action) and drink the potion (standard action?)

You can NOT:
take a 5' step, drink the potion (you happen to have in your hand), then move away.

So, 5' step + move equivalent action = OK
5' step + move != ok


----------



## Runestar

I utterly forgot about the move action required to take out a potion! 

That makes it suck even more in my eyes...since we have never enforced it in our games...


----------



## Jhaelen

aboyd said:


> You say that like it's an objective truth -- "a fix was in order."  What if someone _likes_ the DMG system?  What if they want a low-magic campaign where the only items available are those in the DMG, and only at the outratgeous prices that are listed?  Is such a person "refusing to believe that a fix was in order" or is such a person "not liking the fix and having fun without it?"



I was specifically replying to Thurbane who said 'if something in the core rules is busted'.
Naturally, if you don't think anything in the core rules is busted you can ignore what I wrote since it wouldn't apply.


----------



## Kask

Herzog said:


> 5' step + move  != ok




5' step + move equivalent + move  != ok


----------



## EroGaki

Herzog said:


> It happened!
> 
> You can take a 5' step, take a move action and a standard action, all in one round. You can NOT use that move action to perform an actual move, since you can not take a 5' step in a round where you also perform a move.




Can you give me a page number for reference? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious. Thanks.


----------



## Foxworthy

EroGaki said:


> Can you give me a page number for reference? I'm not doubting you, I'm just curious. Thanks.




pg 138 oh the PHB last paragraph on the right side of the page under Move Actions.


----------



## Herzog

In the section Action Types, under Move Action:


			
				PH p.138 said:
			
		

> If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because
> you have swapped your move for one or more equivalent actions,
> such as standing up), you can take one 5-foot step either before,
> during, or after the action




and again, in the section 'Take 5-Foot Step', PH p. 144


----------



## AllisterH

So what have we learned in this rule discussion?

Drinking potions sucks ROYALLY.

Which kind of proves the point that even if the belt didn't exist, nobody would actually buy and or make Cure Serious Wounds potion

Seriously I've asked this before but I'll ask again who here actually made/bought cure serious wound potions? Sure if the the enemy dropped a couple I chug them but actually spend money on them?


----------



## Starbuck_II

AllisterH said:


> So what have we learned in this rule discussion?
> 
> Drinking potions sucks ROYALLY.
> 
> Which kind of proves the point that even if the belt didn't exist, nobody would actually buy and or make Cure Serious Wounds potion
> 
> Seriously I've asked this before but I'll ask again who here actually made/bought cure serious wound potions? Sure if the the enemy dropped a couple I chug them but actually spend money on them?




Agreed, the problem is action economy: why use a potion that you have to draw (there is a potion belt but that costs more money) and then use when I can wear a belt that does same thing with lots actions used.

The only exceptions are spells like Fly, enlarge person, etc that are worth the action to use as a potion.


----------



## Kask

Starbuck_II said:


> Agreed, the problem is action economy: why use a potion that you have to draw (there is a potion belt but that costs more money) and then use when I can wear a belt that does same thing with lots actions used.




Well, if you don't have a belt you have to make due...


----------



## SnowHeart

Runestar said:


> Drinking potions in combat is tantamount to suicide... You provoke an AoO for doing so, waste a standard action (which can be used to attack), and the damage taken on this AoO possibly exceeds the hp healed (assuming it did not kill them outright before the healing kicks in, since the attack is made before they actually drink the healing potion).
> 
> At least the healing belt doesn't provoke an AoO when used.




They should come up with a Drink Defensively ability.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

There's a potion bracer somewhere: 50 gp, holds six potions, allows drinking of a potion as a satndard action that doesn't provoke AoOs, and uses the bracer slot.

I still rarely use potions, though.


----------



## coyote6

One of the early purchases for nearly every character in every game I GMed was a MW potion belt (originally from the core FR book, IIRC, and reprinted a couple of other places), which makes drawing potions stored in it a free action. 

Potions -- especially cure potions -- are still overpriced, though.


----------



## Deset Gled

AllisterH said:


> Which kind of proves the point that even if the belt didn't exist, nobody would actually buy and or make Cure Serious Wounds potion
> 
> Seriously I've asked this before but I'll ask again who here actually made/bought cure serious wound potions? Sure if the the enemy dropped a couple I chug them but actually spend money on them?




Maybe I stand alone here, but whenever I play a (3.x) character that does not have the ability to cast healing spells in some way, I _always _carry enough potions to cure at least half my HP.  You always need a method of healing that you can use by yourself, in case your healer ever dies or gets separated from the group.  It doesn't matter if the wand is a better economic choice if you have no way to use it.  I always assumed this was SOP.  Then again, I don't use the MIC, either.

Potions should be equally common in the (non-high magic) game world for the same reason; magical healers are not so common that you can always assume one is nearby.  Potions are the AEDs or CPR of the D+D world; you'd rather visit a cleric in the emergency room, but you'll be just as happy to be fed a potion while you're waiting for the ambulance to show up.


----------



## concerro

Herzog said:


> You're confusing me.
> 
> Let me re-state:
> You can take a 5' step, dig out your potion (move (equivalent) action) and drink the potion (standard action?)
> 
> You can NOT:
> take a 5' step, drink the potion (you happen to have in your hand), then move away.
> 
> So, 5' step + move equivalent action = OK
> 5' step + move != ok



Sorry about that I got confused. We are in agreement now. Ignore my last post.


----------



## concerro

Deset Gled said:


> Maybe I stand alone here, but whenever I play a (3.x) character that does not have the ability to cast healing spells in some way, I _always _carry enough potions to cure at least half my HP.  You always need a method of healing that you can use by yourself, in case your healer ever dies or gets separated from the group.  It doesn't matter if the wand is a better economic choice if you have no way to use it.  I always assumed this was SOP.  Then again, I don't use the MIC, either.
> 
> Potions should be equally common in the (non-high magic) game world for the same reason; magical healers are not so common that you can always assume one is nearby.  Potions are the AEDs or CPR of the D+D world; you'd rather visit a cleric in the emergency room, but you'll be just as happy to be fed a potion while you're waiting for the ambulance to show up.




Before the MiC I was the cleric's bodyguard because if he died I knew I would die. As far as separation, until I had stored enough potions to live without the cleric I was almost his shadow. I did not know the value of UMD until about 2 years ago, but I do now, and if I can make it fit RP-wise I will have ranks in it. I will have access to a cleric barring every extreme circumstances, even if it means I have to play the cleric.


----------



## Thurbane

AllisterH said:


> Wait, do those that think the healing belt is broken actually think that the HEALING BELT is why nobody creates potions of Cure Serious Wounds?
> 
> I hate to say that's totally false.
> 
> Even prior to the healing belt, nobody actually created or even bought these things as in terms of value for money, the CSW potion is VERY, VERY POOR



Different strokes for different folks, but they see use in the two 3.X groups I've been involved with on a regular basis. I guess we were playing the game wrong.


----------



## concerro

Thurbane said:


> Different strokes for different folks, but they see use in the two 3.X groups I've been involved with on a regular basis. I guess we were playing the game wrong.



Do you follow the wealth chart or give out loot when you feel like it? The only time my group bought potions was when I intentionally ran an overpowered campaign with character way above the WBL chart.


----------



## Thurbane

concerro said:


> Do you follow the wealth chart or give out loot when you feel like it? The only time my group bought potions was when I intentionally ran an overpowered campaign with character way above the WBL chart.



Nope, we generally run pretty close to the WBL tables, if not slavishly adhering to them. Some games have been significantly below WBL, in fact.

Just remember - not everyone plays the game exactly the same way. Not every group is as concerned with plotting out the most efficient use of their wealth to the last GP. There's no right or wrong way to play D&D, only what's fun for your group. I am often taken aback by the fact that there is an underlying assumption by  many forum members (not neccessarily yourself) here and elsewhere that uneless a group plays to optimize to the Nth degree, they aren't playing the game properly. Hence, sometimes people in my group pick up a Potion of Cure Serious to have a quick (i.e. 1 round) access to 3d8+5 points of healing, for when they get seperated from the party healers or such. I'm not saying it happens all the time, or even a lot, but it does happen. As always, YMMV...


----------



## Starbuck_II

Thurbane said:


> Hence, sometimes people in my group pick up a Potion of Cure Serious to have a quick (i.e. 1 round) access to 3d8+5 points of healing, for when they get seperated from the party healers or such. I'm not saying it happens all the time, or even a lot, but it does happen. As always, YMMV...



 True, but in battle most people eventually deal 3d8 +5 damage so the potion is good at low levels; not so much in later levels.

And since the damage almost equals the healing: it would be something I'd use after battle when separated not during (unless I was trying to buy time till friends arrived).

There are exceptions: if you have displacement or high AC and enemies regularly miss you than healing is a better idea since the might not deal damage.


----------



## Seregélyesi Bálint

Absolutely agreed, it is heavily underpriced.


----------

