# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 >  3.x/Pf: How common is the use of a wand of Cure Light Wounds in your groups?

## Elvensilver

In every guide to classes I have read, opinions were clear that healing should be done out of combat, with a wand of Cure Light Wounds. 

Now in every group I am in (Pathfinder 1e, low to mid-level optimization), healing is done by the Cleric via channel positive energy. If there is no cleric, everybody who can pitches in with cure spells or lay on hands, and it is rough.
In the absence of MagicMarts/ need of additional healing/ knowledge of the other player about this "standard", there was never any wand for curing.

I would like to know from all of you D&D 3.x and Pathfinder-players: how does your group heal? How prevalent is using a wand of Cure Light Wounds?

----------


## Quertus

When the Cleric is unconscious, that Wand of Cure Light Wounds / Potion is invaluable to getting them back on their feet. 10/10, would recommend for every party.

So, yes, most parties Ive seen have CLW / Lesser Vigor / Faith Heal on tap and most prefer not to waste the 15 GP if the Cleric / Bard / Druid hasnt been wrung dry yet.

----------


## Crake

in pathfinder, infernal healing is a great substitute if you have an imp familiar to ignore the material cost.

Bonus: it can be used by both arcane and divine casters too, so most of the party will be able to use wands of it if they have some kind of casting.

----------


## AnonJr

Fairly common in our groups, especially when there's no cleric or similar handy. When affordable, most of us have healing belts for the "I'm one hit from dying in combat" emergency heal, and we use wands/potions for the out-of-combat healing.

One game, on hold due to the absence of a member, has an Artificer doing most of the healing via wands, scrolls, and other items. The other game has our rogue doing the same with some UMD. In the latter, my Psi Warrior will finally be able to manifest some self-healing in another level - but for the group it's still the same.

----------


## ericgrau

About half and half.  Though something I've noticed is that the cost is significant at lower levels, and even up through level 8ish you'll want the cleric to use leftover or spare slots on healing to save a little coin.  Having a party ranger or paladin wield the wand without a cleric is doable but the cost is not trivial until level 10ish+.  And likewise you better consider whether you can find a town with replacements since you might not be able to afford spares at first.  Shopping for magic items isn't supposed to be easy and you aren't always near a big city.  And running out of healing is deadly.

While there are many good alternatives, healing in general is underrated and usually shouldn't be ignored.  And yes the online world is full of hyperbole and different from a lot of in person games.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> How prevalent is using a wand of Cure Light Wounds?


Exceedingly common.

In organized play (PFS) social contract demands that every character must buy a wand of CLW or infernal healing as soon as he can afford it. Even if you can't use it, someone else in the party will use it for you. But even outside PFS, all my groups have quickly started using CLW wands. Sometimes of their own accord, sometimes because the adventure module had one as loot (and _they all_ do) and as soon as it ran out, players asked if they could buy more. Smart players will use channels (and other renewable resources) before tapping wands.

I'll add that resource scarcity is a valid campaign style _if that's what you want_ (but if you do, you'd likely ban channel energy). Like, I once ran a campaign on the premise that it's winter and the orcs have torched the granaries; so that means no Create Food spell, and hunger penalties were quite common, and the PCs were at some points decidedly not in good shape for a fight. But again, if that's what you want. In most campaigns I've seen, PCs are in tip-top shape almost always, and that basically requires wand-based healing.

----------


## Eldonauran

I'v only played in three adventures that made use of a Wand of Cure Light Wounds for healing outside of battle.  And they tended to be the harder adventure paths that we've come across, and getting a wand in one of them was simply not possible until about level 7 due to the location one of the adventures took place.  

Generally, a cleric with channel energy was more than capable of keeping us healed for fights that were properly handled at our level, and we had other forms of consumable items to help.  I arrived to the conclusion a long time ago that the need for wands of cure light wounds is more of a manifestation of imbalance in the system that turns just about every fight into a possible 'wipe' for the party, and that full HP going in was essential for staying alive.  Without the dial turned up to 11, there is simply no need for it.  

But I totally get why people play, and like to play, the game with higher optimization.  Superheroes need super villains to feel properly challenged.  No one (generally) wants to play the more mundane hero like Hawkman when Superman is an option.

----------


## Thunder999

Don't think I've ever played a game where we didn't use wands of CLW/Lesser Vigor/Infernal Healing.  

If we have a positive channeling cleric in a pathfinder game then sure, we'll burn the channels first to save a bit of money, and if we're done for the day then yeah, burn any spare slots to top people off, use up any remaining Lay on Hands etc.  
But we don't waste slots on it during the day.   
Pathfinder lay on hands is saved for mid-fight swift action self heals or condition removal via mercies, would be a waste to use it on out of combat hp.   
3.5 Lay on Hands is trickier, sometimes we just use it up, other times we save a bit for 1hp stabilising, forced march nonlethal healing and the like.

----------


## Biggus

If we're in a high-magic world where they're relatively freely available, we generally do use them. The group I'm currently DMing for has no Cleric so they've been really valuable, but they're in FR so even small towns often have them for sale. In lower-magic worlds the PCs have to rely on their own healing more.

----------


## Thurbane

When we first start playing 3.5, not very common, as that's not how wands really worked in the earlier edition games we played (we went straight from 2E to 3.5, due to a long hiatus of the group).

However, not long after starting, Wands of CLW became a staple of our gaming, and we use them in pretty much every session now.

----------


## Rynjin

Extremely. One of our first priorities as a party is to buy a CLW or Infernal Healing wand and some potions in most cases.

The cost is only "non-trivial" if you consider everyone in the party's gold as separate pools which shall not be mixed.

Realistically, even sticking by strict WBL, by 2nd level your characters will have amassed 1000 gp each. Across 4 party members, that's 4000 gp. Plenty of money to buy a 750 gp wand. Everyone just has to chip in 187 gp.

This is why our party usually allocates a separate "party fund" as a full share from whatever cash we get. Party fund is where healing items, business expenses, vehicles, resurrections, etc. come from

----------


## Remuko

Guess I'll be the odd one out here.

I don't recall anyone in any of the campaigns I played in 3.0/3.5 ever using ANY wand much less a cure one. Maybe it happened but if it did it was exceedingly rare. We used potions and spell slots and rest to heal

----------


## pabelfly

Not at all. The group will more typically use potions or healing belts in an emergency. Most of the group aren't casters and don't typically have ranks in UMD to use wands.

----------


## Zanos

Wands of CLW or Lesser Vigor are pretty common first buys in every 3.5 game I play where it's allowed and most 3.5 games I run, since usually at least one person in my groups is experienced.

----------


## holbita

No healing wands here, potions are the way to heal in our games. And we prefer it that way, we are of the thought that if the group wants to be healed constantly then get an actual healer. Taking a few minutes to go to full health after every fight means you don't get to enjoy that "we are injured after the fight but must go on" moments... we like those moments. As such we don't use wands.

----------


## ciopo

Wands of cure X wounds are relatively common loots in all campaigns I've been in so far. they've all been published modules. It's like every other divine caster enemy has at least one, and every humanoid mook has at least one potion of some sort.

Downtime on the other hand feels like a nonentity more often than not

----------


## icefractal

In 3.5 - fairly common, replaced by Lesser Vigor once that came out
Not saying it was every game, but the majority of them

In PF1, the habit initially carried over, and is still applicable
With the extra healing from Channel Energy, it wasn't quite as necessary and started being used several levels later.  Infernal Healing is sometimes used.

But currently, we're using SoP and other 3PP material, and many alternatives exist, like getting Fast Healing at a non-absurd price, or just extremely efficient healing, and so the need for wands really hasn't arisen.

----------


## Quertus

> healing belts for the "I'm one hit from dying in combat" emergency heal,





> healing belts in an emergency.


Why healing belts instead of Amulet of Emergency Healing? Immediate action, at a range, can be used for this hit will kill me rather than preemptively, 3 charges/day means little fear of wasting it, and if 4 party members use it at once, thats an average of 30 HP healed.

Whats the advantage of the healing belt in comparison?

----------


## ciopo

> Why healing belts instead of Amulet of Emergency Healing? Immediate action, at a range, can be used for this hit will kill me rather than preemptively, 3 charges/day means little fear of wasting it, and if 4 party members use it at once, thats an average of 30 HP healed.
> 
> Whats the advantage of the healing belt in comparison?


the amulet is 6000gp the belt is 750gp

Not that I've ever seen either used

----------


## Quertus

> the amulet is 6000gp the belt is 750gp


Thats certainly one advantage to explain its more common usage.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## vasilidor

I actually cannot remember the time I last was in a group where multiple characters did not have 1 or more cure light wound wands or better.
EDIT: Never mind,  I do. It was an undead campaign and we traded them out for Cause light wounds.

----------


## Telonius

3.5 here. Wands of Cure Light Wounds: almost never. Wands of Lesser Vigor: constantly. (It takes longer, but is more cost-effective than Cure Light Wounds). In-combat, Clerics typically use their spells for buffs (preventing damage) rather than heals (mitigating damage). Unless you're tossing around a _Heal_ spell, in-combat healing is just too low or slow otherwise. Unless you're literally at the end of the day and have spell slots to burn, the Cleric's not using their spells for healing. During the day, if anyone has Lay On Hands, they'd burn through those first (since they refresh every day) before getting to the wands. But an ability like that is not a common thing in 3.5.

----------


## pabelfly

> Thats certainly one advantage to explain its more common usage.


Yeah, I'll typically get a Belt of Healing some time during third level. What level do you think it would be feasible to get the Amulet of Emergency? And would you combine it with Amulet of Natural Armor and/or an Amulet of Health beforehand?

----------


## Darg

Pretty much not at all. Though, we play with a different rule than everyone else. We take the RAW about touching 6 friends as a full-round action quite literally, so out of combat healing is already efficient without the need of wands. So potions are much more common and it makes reimbursing the party much easier to keep track of when wealth is spent at once rather than in dribbles.

----------


## Gnaeus

Pretty much every party I have been has had a wand of CLW. The part I disagree with is how this invalidates healing abilities somehow. If a truenamer with the healing utterance or a Dragon Shaman is replacing 5 charges per day, they are basically producing a free wand every adventure or 2. Does this replace the extra healing you may need after replacing a more productive class with a truenamer? Maybe not. But given that I recently saw someone describe a L1 truenamer as "basically a commoner" I think it is overlooked.

----------


## Shpadoinkle

Seems like the group I'm in currently never used healing wands until I joined. Seems like I'm the only one who invests in consumables, but the group is generally pretty casual and not very minmaxy, so I guess there hasn't been much call for it. Another player basically said "Shouldn't we save that?" when I asked her to heal up the party with the wand I had (she was playing a cleric, I was playing a fighter, so I couldn't use it myself.) My response was "This is exactly what I bought it for." ('This' being pretty much the entire party being at around half HP.)

I know a lot of players have trouble getting over "But I might need it later" syndrome. I did for a while, and I often ask myself if a situation's really bad enough that I need to use a consumable on it. But you know what? If you use them, you can always get more potions, and scrolls, and wands. If you DON'T use them, you might not have the opportunity to get more.

----------


## Crake

> Pretty much not at all. Though, we play with a different rule than everyone else. We take the RAW about touching 6 friends as a full-round action quite literally, so out of combat healing is already efficient without the need of wands. So potions are much more common and it makes reimbursing the party much easier to keep track of when wealth is spent at once rather than in dribbles.


Wait, do you allow a single healing spell to heal up to 6 people in a single casting? Is that what Im getting from this?

----------


## sreservoir

> Wait, do you allow a single healing spell to heal up to 6 people in a single casting? Is that what Im getting from this?


{Scrubbed}

----------


## Eldonauran

> {Scrub the post, scrub the post}


Wow.  That's some magical thinking that can turn a single target touch spell into a multiple creature healing spell.

----------


## Chaos Jackal

Not necessarily from the get-go, but people were quick to pick it up even when they were otherwise playing really low-op games. It's practical and it shows.

Especially in PF, it's really convenient. A wand of _infernal healing_ was one of the first items I bought in my most recent PF game where I played a magus and the spell's distribution to arcane casters in addition to it healing more on average than _cure light wounds_ made the thing invaluable, particularly considering that we lacked healing magic for a good part of that campaign. Could even use it in combat for stuff like bleeding and negatives just below 0, thanks to my faerie dragon Improved Familiar.

After a few sessions of demonstrating how a five-minute walk between encounters could get someone to full hit points, the rest of the party picked up their own wands - it even prompted the rogue to finally use his UMD in general, because until then his skill points were going largely unused. Even when we later got access to healing magic, we still stuck with the wands; we had a fair amount of encounters and gold was way less of an issue than spending caster resources between fights.

So yeah, common even among people who were otherwise unable or unwilling to optimize their way out of a paper bag. It was way too simple and useful at the same time to overlook.

----------


## vasilidor

A thing I started doing with my pathfinder warrior characters is getting the enchantment that cast breath of life when you drop below 0 on their armor.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items...determination/

----------


## AlexanderML

Some members of the group I run are always careful to keep one CLW wand with at least half of the charges still inside on them at all times. The other members of the party don't really notice or care.

----------


## Quertus

While Im glad Lesser Vigor has gotten some attention, I cant help but feel Faith Heal deserves more love than its gotten. Maximized CLW as a 1st level spell is not exactly shabby.




> Yeah, I'll typically get a Belt of Healing some time during third level. What level do you think it would be feasible to get the Amulet of Emergency? And would you combine it with Amulet of Natural Armor and/or an Amulet of Health beforehand?


To be fair, I dont usually consider it before we can craft it ourselves - it requires a 4th level spell, so level 7 or so?

And Im all about the multipurpose items, like Winged Travel Cloak of Resistance +X. Between adventures, items are often in the shop getting upgrades.

----------


## Xervous

Theyve been rather plentiful. Some of my frequent players have learned money can buy happiness when it comes to throwing consumables at player desired outcomes. Theres often debate over when its worth using, but I pity the NPCs when the players skip debate and bring out consumables with no questions asked.

----------


## Darg

> Wow.  That's some magical thinking that can turn a single target touch spell into a multiple creature healing spell.


Magical thinking.... I have to ask, in 3.5e what would you hold the charge and touch up to 6 friends as a full-round action for in the core rules? Now, remember that with multi-target touch spells you must touch all targets in the same round you cast the spell and you do so as a free action. You can't hold the charge with these spells. So, tell me what other touch spells would allow you to hold the charge and touch up to 6 friends? The only kind that are left are regular touch spells. Also, to bring the point home there is no rule that actually limits a touch spell to only one target. Even if the rule is a copy paste mistake from 3.0e (which it likely is) the RAW is more logically sound than precocious apprentice working for early entry.

----------


## Eldonauran

> --snip--


I will repeat, magical thinking.  You are turning a general rule that covers spells that CAN target multiple creatures (note the plurality of the targets) into a universal claim that any spell that allows you to touch a target (note the lack of plurality) can be used to touch up to six creatures.  I am not interested in debating this issue as you have been told you are wrong by people already.  It is not worth my time.  If you want to play with that as a houserule, that is entirely fine.  I am not going to critique what happens at your table, so long as it stays there.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> Magical thinking.... I have to ask, in 3.5e what would you hold the charge and touch up to 6 friends as a full-round action for in the core rules?


For example, Water Breathing. Note how WB targets "creature*s*" touched (plural) whereas Cure Light Wounds targets "creature" touched (singular). But this is really a topic for another thread.

----------


## Drelua

Yeah, the description of holding the charge is very clear that it can be done with a multi-target touch spell. The bit you seem to be basing this on is describing what happens if you touch as part of the action used to cast the spell, so that's what happens if you don't hold the charge.

Even if I agreed with the interpretation that there are otherwise no spells that text could apply to, then that's just a dysfunctional rule. A dysfunctional rule cannot force other, clearer rules to bend to allow it to function. If a rule is written in such a way that it cannot function, it just doesn't. It doesn't change other rules, like the target of a spell being very clearly singular.

Others have said that this is a topic for another thread, so if you want to continue discussing it I'll join you there. Just wanted to say that much.

----------


## False God

When I DM I run low-magic-item games, and wands of CLW are pretty rare, I also adjust the difficulty based on party comp.  Usually I see one or two people with some healing, but rarely a dedicated healer. 

When I play I actually like to play the healer.  I tend to min/max so healing is usually very good and very easy for my characters, leaving lots of room for me to do _other stuff_.  I cut my teeth on healing in MMOs, folks who stand in fire don't get heals.  It's quite amazing how quickly the stupid gets dialed down when healing becomes a reward for cooperative play and not an excuse to screw up.

----------


## Rynjin

> A thing I started doing with my pathfinder warrior characters is getting the enchantment that cast breath of life when you drop below 0 on their armor.
> https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic-items...determination/


I've always been a big fan of this armor property as well.

----------


## Darg

> I will repeat, magical thinking.  You are turning a general rule that covers spells that CAN target multiple creatures (note the plurality of the targets) into a universal claim that any spell that allows you to touch a target (note the lack of plurality) can be used to touch up to six creatures.  I am not interested in debating this issue as you have been told you are wrong by people already.  It is not worth my time.  If you want to play with that as a houserule, that is entirely fine.  I am not going to critique what happens at your table, so long as it stays there.


And you seem to be under the impression that you can hold the charge of a multi-target touch spell. The rules explicitly forbid it. You say I'm wrong, but that is not what RAW is. There is no inate singularity in the use of a singular for the purpose of classification. The category of creature contains a plethora of creatures. WotC isn't stingy for most spells numerating with "one." Your conclusion of fanciful thinking is without merit and your words contradict yourself because you are in fact critiquing and debating by commenting and replying. It's what they mean.




> For example, Water Breathing. Note how WB targets "creature*s*" touched (plural) whereas Cure Light Wounds targets "creature" touched (singular). But this is really a topic for another thread.





> Touch Spells and Holding the Charge: In most cases, if you dont discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. 
> *Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets as part of the spell. You cant hold the charge of such a spell; you must touch all targets of the spell in the same round that you finish casting the spell.*


Doesn't hold water as water breathing is a spell you cannot hold the charge for. A singular can be used for categorical reference to a plurality. Which fits the theme. For argument's sake you agreed with me that you could touch multiple targets as a full-round action, it's quite easy to see that "creature" doesn't necessarily mean "one creature." This is especially so when numerating with "one" in the target line is far from rare. The difference is that multi-target touch spells allow you to touch all targets as part of casting the spell.




> Some touch spells, such as teleport and water walk, allow you to touch multiple targets. You can touch as many willing targets as you can reach *as part of the casting*, but all targets of the spell must be touched in the same round that you finish casting the spell.


A non-multi-target touch spell doesn't allow you to touch more than one target as part of casting the spell, but the general rule after holding the charge would still allow you to because it isn't contradicted.

I'm not saying it is the intent of the rules, but it is definitely RAW which by definition does not take intention or it being a mistake on the part of the writers into account.




> Yeah, the description of holding the charge is very clear that it can be done with a multi-target touch spell. The bit you seem to be basing this on is describing what happens if you touch as part of the action used to cast the spell, so that's what happens if you don't hold the charge.
> 
> Even if I agreed with the interpretation that there are otherwise no spells that text could apply to, then that's just a dysfunctional rule. A dysfunctional rule cannot force other, clearer rules to bend to allow it to function. If a rule is written in such a way that it cannot function, it just doesn't. It doesn't change other rules, like the target of a spell being very clearly singular.
> 
> Others have said that this is a topic for another thread, so if you want to continue discussing it I'll join you there. Just wanted to say that much.


Of course it's dysfunctional when you take into account the origin of the rule in the first place, 3.0e. Multi-target touch spells didn't let you touch more than one target as part of casting the spell. You held the charge until you actively touched to the target limit or cast another spell. The most obvious cause for the rule to be in the 3.5e PHB is because of copy pasta. My groups' perspective comes from entering table top 3.5e D&D cold turkey with no reference to any other kind of table top game. When you come in like that, dysfunctional rules just aren't apparent if there is a plausible explanation of them not being dysfunctional. Take the overrun on a charge rule that is errata'ed out. We've been using it for a long time with 0 problems even though the errata says it was removed because the rule contradicted itself (it doesn't if you actually read it).

----------


## AnonymousPepper

There's at least one Vigor or Infernal Healing wand acquired ASAP in every game I play, often several just to be sure. It's just too useful to be able to tap up to full between combats.

In-combat healing, though, is almost never done through magic items, at least not until Heal and Mass Heal are online. Only ever done with other spells in magic items if we've got custom magic items on the table. Cure Light is left untouched in items and only ever done through casting spontaneously, and ditto all the other Cures; healing in combat is almost exclusively through channels and lay on hands until Heal is online (or through Life Sphere if SoP is in play).

----------


## Rynjin

> And you seem to be under the impression that you can hold the charge of a multi-target touch spell. The rules explicitly forbid it. You say I'm wrong, but that is not what RAW is. There is no inate singularity in the use of a singular for the purpose of classification. The category of creature contains a plethora of creatures. WotC isn't stingy for most spells numerating with "one." Your conclusion of fanciful thinking is without merit and your words contradict yourself because you are in fact critiquing and debating by commenting and replying. It's what they mean.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't hold water as water breathing is a spell you cannot hold the charge for. A singular can be used for categorical reference to a plurality. Which fits the theme. For argument's sake you agreed with me that you could touch multiple targets as a full-round action, it's quite easy to see that "creature" doesn't necessarily mean "one creature." This is especially so when numerating with "one" in the target line is far from rare. The difference is that multi-target touch spells allow you to touch all targets as part of casting the spell.
> 
> 
> ...


I mean if we're talking pure RAW with no regard to intent, you're ignoring a very important bit of text in your interpretation.




> If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.


So the first guy you touch, spell discharges. Sure you can touch up to 5 more people, but without a spell effect.

----------


## Darg

> I mean if we're talking pure RAW with no regard to intent, you're ignoring a very important bit of text in your interpretation.
> 
> 
> 
> So the first guy you touch, spell discharges. Sure you can touch up to 5 more people, but without a spell effect.


Where does it say that it can only discharge once? It's not a discharge spell. The line you quoted is written after the line about touching up to 6 friends. If it were meant to contradict the earlier statement, it would have said so. As I mentioned, it is quite obviously a copy pasta error if you have hands on a copy of the 3.0e PHB; which, at the time of our adoption of the rule, was not available.

----------


## Rynjin

> Where does it say that it can only discharge once?


Right there in the quoted text. "Discharge" is unambiguous. There is no usage of the word discharge in the rulebook that allows for continuity. A discharge is the end stage. The spell has been discharged. Hence text such as "postpone the discharge". Discharge being a singular effect which may be postponed.

And also in the spell text.




> Target:	Creature touched
> 
> When laying your hand upon a living creature


"Creature" is arguably plural if you for some reason ignore the context of spell formatting and how spells will always specify number of targets with plurality or text such as "creature/level".

"A" is not.

----------


## Darg

> Right there in the quoted text. "Discharge" is unambiguous. There is no usage of the word discharge in the rulebook that allows for continuity. A discharge is the end stage. The spell has been discharged. Hence text such as "postpone the discharge". Discharge being a singular effect which may be postponed.
> 
> And also in the spell text.
> 
> 
> 
> "Creature" is arguably plural if you for some reason ignore the context of spell formatting and how spells will always specify number of targets with plurality or text such as "creature/level".
> 
> "A" is not.


You've never partially discharged a static shock have you. Yes, discharge is ambiguous. There are spells like chill touch which prove the one and done wrong.

The spell text doesn't need to mention multiple creatures as it is already a general rule. Does every Scrying spell need to mention or allude to the general rules about scrying spells?




> Scrying
> 
> A scrying spell creates an invisible magical sensor that sends you information. Unless noted otherwise, the sensor has the same powers of sensory acuity that you possess. This level of acuity includes any spells or effects that target you, but not spells or effects that emanate from you. However, the sensor is treated as a separate, independent sensory organ of yours, and thus it functions normally even if you have been blinded, deafened, or otherwise suffered sensory impairment.
> 
> Any creature with an Intelligence score of 12 or higher can notice the sensor by making a DC 20 Intelligence check. The sensor can be dispelled as if it were an active spell.
> 
> Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is so blocked.


I don't know about you, but I wouldn't know anything about those rules just looking at scrying spell descriptions.

----------


## Rynjin

Specific trumps general.

----------


## Darg

> Specific trumps general.


That's only if it is trumping something. There isn't a conflict just like how scrying spells are blocked by lead.

----------


## Crake

> There are spells like chill touch which prove the one and done wrong.


Chill touch, and the way it works, is the exact kind of spell that your rule is pointing toward, a spell that can affect multiple targets through multiple touches, but is not an instantaneous spell.

If you had a hypothetical chill touch-esque spell that was beneficial, and you wanted to discharge up to 6 charges amongst your party members, you could do that as a full round action instead of 6 individual attacks

----------


## Darg

> Chill touch, and the way it works, is the exact kind of spell that your rule is pointing toward, a spell that can affect multiple targets through multiple touches, but is not an instantaneous spell.
> 
> If you had a hypothetical chill touch-esque spell that was beneficial, and you wanted to discharge up to 6 charges amongst your party members, you could do that as a full round action instead of 6 individual attacks


I mean, that is how touch spells worked in 3.0e where I've already said it was likely a copy pasta mistake. Just like how I just recently learned that the "one action" cast time in the metamagic feat rules is also a copy and paste mistake.

I'm not defending the interpretation on the intent of it, just that as written it wasn't the leap of logic to come to that conclusion as others earlier claimed it must have been.

----------


## Crake

> I mean, that is how touch spells worked in 3.0e where I've already said it was likely a copy pasta mistake.


Citation needed? I'm looking through my 3.0 phb, and no, chill touch has a listed target of: "Creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)" wheras cure light wounds only has "Creature touched".

The rule you're talking about merely says that you CAN touch up to 6 friendly creatures in a full round action, but it literally says nothing about how that influences spell effects. In the absense of any further rules, we have to assume that the spell functions as normal, IE only affecting the number of creatures in it's target component.

Let me ask you this: a CL 4 chill touch can affect up to 4 people. With your "interpretation", does this mean a) if you use a full round action, you can affect 6 different people while only consuming 1 charge, meaning you could in theory affect up to 24 different characters across all 4 charges, b) if you use a full round action, you can touch up to 6 different people, but because you've used 6 charges, the spell ends after that, or c) you can use a full round action to touch up to 6 people, but only the first 4 are affected as per the spell's target line.

----------


## Rynjin

Even by his interpretation, no. You can only touch 6 friendlies as a full Round, not enemies.

----------


## Darg

> Citation needed? I'm looking through my 3.0 phb, and no, chill touch has a listed target of: "Creature or creatures touched (up to one/level)" wheras cure light wounds only has "Creature touched".
> 
> The rule you're talking about merely says that you CAN touch up to 6 friendly creatures in a full round action, but it literally says nothing about how that influences spell effects. In the absense of any further rules, we have to assume that the spell functions as normal, IE only affecting the number of creatures in it's target component.
> 
> Let me ask you this: a CL 4 chill touch can affect up to 4 people. With your "interpretation", does this mean a) if you use a full round action, you can affect 6 different people while only consuming 1 charge, meaning you could in theory affect up to 24 different characters across all 4 charges, b) if you use a full round action, you can touch up to 6 different people, but because you've used 6 charges, the spell ends after that, or c) you can use a full round action to touch up to 6 people, but only the first 4 are affected as per the spell's target line.


I was talking about how spells like teleport or water walk required holding the charge to touch multiple friendlies. The rules between the original and the update are different.

A) there is a stated limit. You can only discharge that many times.

B) the spell works like normal, but the general rule would apply. Allowing you to touch up to 6 friends as a full-round action.

C) as I mentioned, the spell has a specific limitation on the number of targets. In this case, as it would be a contradiction, specific trumps general. So yes only 4 targets.

All this is predicated on targeting friendly targets as the rule mentions. Obviously, by definition attacking your allies makes them opponents, not friends. So you can't use the spell + full-round action in that way.

As for the "can" in the rule, as per normal elsewhere in the rules it gives the player agency in deciding who and how many to touch. It is a permissive word.

As per the 3.0e and 3.5e rules, a spell like chill touch requires expending attacks to deliver all the charges. The rules for delivering multi-target spells and not holding the charge only applies to spells meant to apply to willing targets; as those are the only spells called out as not being able to hold the charge and ruled to allow touching multiple targets as part of the casting.

----------


## AnonJr

{Scrubbed}

----------


## Telok

> When we first start playing 3.5, not very common, as that's not how wands really worked in the earlier edition games we played (we went straight from 2E to 3.5, due to a long hiatus of the group).
> 
> However, not long after starting, Wands of CLW became a staple of our gaming, and we use them in pretty much every session now.


Basically this, although we use healing belts as a first base before getting to wands. It does assume that the items can be bought, but 3.x generally works in that fashion barring setting specific bans on general buy/sell stuff.

----------


## truemane

*Metamagic Mod*: let's stay on topic, everyone. If you want to talk about the rules for touch spells, make another thread.

----------


## Elkad

Yes we use them.  And we don't depend on individuals to fund healing the party out of their own share.
The "party" gets a treasure share (or two in larger parties), same as individuals in all my groups.  Started that way back in 1e.

So with 6 players, we'd split treasure 8 ways.

Those 2 shares buy CLW wands, water breathing potions, remove curse and neutralize poison scrolls, and a whole host of other things, including high cost "party use" items like a Folding Boat, or spellcasting services back in town (Raise Dead, etc).

----------


## Vizzerdrix

I have always bought several healing belts and a vigor wand. I swap out fresh belts after combat and use the wand for topping off the team after battles.

----------


## Thunder999

Never really used the belt or amulet, they're nice items that probably save money over time, but wands are cheap and slotless, whereas there's plenty of useful Neck and Waist items competing for those slots.

----------


## pabelfly

> Never really used the belt or amulet, they're nice items that probably save money over time, but wands are cheap and slotless, whereas there's plenty of useful Neck and Waist items competing for those slots.


Belts don't require UMD checks though, so they always work regardless of class. Theyre extremely useful in low-level combat.

----------


## Darechan

We've settled into a pattern where, basically as soon as they _can_ afford it, they'll buy a wand of Cure Light Wounds. A, singular, wand. It's not for in combat  casters spot healing is for in combat  but rather for out-of-combat healing.

That one wand will last them until they can get a _rod_ of Cure Minor Wounds, at which point that becomes the standard out-of-combat healing source. And we don't tend to play high enough they "outgrow" that.

----------


## Quertus

> That one wand will last them until they can get a _rod_ of Cure Minor Wounds,


A what now?

----------


## Curbludgeon

In some of the games I'm in, there's a bit of party contribution required for higher power concepts. A DMM Persist Cleric has to pony up something like a Persistent Mass Lesser Vigor. A bit of Healing Belt for in-combat and CLW Wand use for stabilizing people takes up the slack.

----------


## Crake

> A what now?


Guessing it's a custom, at-will cure light wounds item?

----------


## Drelua

Most of my games use them a lot, I've played a fair bit of PFS and as has been mentioned it's considered bad form not to have one. The open play format makes party composition unreliable, and you also don't have to spend money to get them. You get 1 or 2 prestige points per session, usually 2, and you can spend 2 of them to get an item worth up to 750. They can be worth saving up in case you need a raise dead, but 750 can seem like a lot at very low levels. I have some characters that have had the same wand for about 10 levels, and a barbarian that I think is most of the way through his second wand at level 6.

They weren't as common in my Kingmaker game, just because the amount of travel in my group made using spell slots to heal before resting a good idea. Plus we had a Cleric and my Inquisitor in the party, so plenty of healing available. I can't even remember if that party had a CLW wand, we probably did just for the rare occasion we had multiple fights in a day.

----------

