Whats necessarily uncool about wands?
I'm a big fan of them from the Dresdenverse myself, but apparently the Harry Potter fandom loves the more traditional sort to a ridiculous degree; I know a guy who came back from Universal Studios with half a dozen of the things for people who couldn't have been happier to spend their money on them.
Not being a fan of either, they just seem dainty to me.
Reasonable gamers may differ on this issue. The picture of that vampire looking dude wanding himself (even sounds wrong!) in the CRB magic chapter is my least favorite illustration of all Paizo-dom.
Plainly a matter of opinion.
I presume you are also ignoring the costs of potions as well because potions are exorbitantly expensive.I've also most often been in groups that tend to use the magical items and equipment we find, as opposed to played "Let's Go to the Mall...Today!"
Great, now I have Robin Sparkles suck in my head.
So you make up potions and somehow insert enough of them into the game such that they are both useful and don't need a mule to carry them.
That's great and all, but random loot rarely contains enough healing to keep any party going without a dedicated healer. Our groups have to go buy a wand or potions or scrolls and wands are worth way more than potions or scrolls in terms of return on the investment.
channeling also tends to be more useful in situations that do not allow for alot of time, combat for instance, which isn't by default a bad use of your round. Also you might want to take into account resale value, while the wands lose in value the phylactery keeps it's full value which cuts it down to 72 uses in a party of 4.
First, Channeling is almost NEVER useful in combat, unless you've invested feats and other resources (charisma, selective channeling) into making it even slighly so; even then it falls victim to the fact that anything short of a full on Heal spell is far less beneficial to the survival of a party member than doing something to take an opponent out of the fight.
Second, you can't really say that potentially selling an item somehow makes it more worth its value. Especially since we're talking about efficiency, and the only way to make it more efficient is to actually use it beyond the point where it was 'as' cost effective as the wands.
- Combat Action: characters may take a full round action to restore 25% of their hitpoints (round down) 1 + CHA times per day (min 1)- Spell: Cure Minor Wounds (level 0 spell, available to all classes who can cast Cure Light Wounds and 0-level spells, 1 minute cast time) - Heals 1 hitpoint, up to half hitpoints (round down)
- Skill: Heal - add +1 to "Cure" spells per 2 ranks of Heal skill
- Feat: Enhanced Heals - a standard action "Cure" spell may be cast as a full round action to gain a bonus equal to casting stat in amount healed
**************************
I dislike the effect "instant full after combat" of the Wand of Cure Light Wounds. There is a lot of strategy lost in the game if hitpoints and healing are de-valued so completely.
These are decent house rules, thanks for sharing. I might try them out next time I have a non-PFS game.
Thematically it seems silly to me, but to have fixed it the devs would have needed to be a bit more bold with how hit points function in the game, either buffing the Heal check, add in healing surges-like rules, or doing the UC alternate hit point rules.
Consider the abstract/literal damage rule I posted last page. It has all of the advantages of healing surges, but it doesn't change the rules of combat at all. Plus, it makes more sense than "healing surges". In theory, it's as simple as the GM just giving you the HP back and charging you the 750 gp somewhere else. Crits, failed saves, and killing blows keep magical healing desirable (including the occasional wand) but no longer does every party need a happy stick to function.
So in that regard, the CLW wand is almost essential with PFS games as you never know who's going to be sitting down at the table. There have been plenty of times where it was all martial characters, but thankfully someone was playing a Ranger, so they became the healer for the party.
I agree.
In addition to that, the combats are challenging enough that if you don't top up your health, if you have a challenging scenario, you could be one-shoted. How many times have 2-4 hp been the difference between life and death of being one shotted? I've seen it many times.
Everyone should keep in mind that organized play is very different from home games, what works in one will not work in the other.
|
Thematically it seems silly to me, but to have fixed it the devs would have needed to be a bit more bold with how hit points function in the game, either buffing the Heal check, add in healing surges-like rules, or doing the UC alternate hit point rules.Consider the abstract/literal damage rule I posted last page. It has all of the advantages of healing surges, but it doesn't change the rules of combat at all. Plus, it makes more sense than "healing surges". In theory, it's as simple as the GM just giving you the HP back and charging you the 750 gp somewhere else. Crits, failed saves, and killing blows keep magical healing desirable (including the occasional wand) but no longer does every party need a happy stick to function.
Doesn't work with PFS.
One of my DMs used to want to press upon how dying is bad. So he decided to do this: If you go to negatives, you lose all spells, and must rest for 24 hours in order to heal. Healing once you go into negatives only takes you to 1 HP.
It was a very very very slow campaign. And we couldn't buy healing items.
|
Second, I use a special HP rule where all "abstract" damage is healed between encounters with a short rest.It was never practical to use CLW potions or wands during a combat — players were starting every combat at full HP every time if they had a few minutes to burn charges. So now I just let them have the HP, and I'm a little bit firmer on rules like food and lodging costs to make up for their extra gold.
We had a house rule along similar lines in one campaign. All healing outside of combat was automatically maximized. This eliminated a lot of dice roling and sped up play significantly.
First, Channeling is almost NEVER useful in combat, ...
I think that if the healing you give to your side gets one or two members to stand up, and doesn't cause any of the other side to by brought from unconscious to conscious it's a pretty solid choice. If channel will put you in the positive on action economy, it's a good choice.
If you're just healing your teammates for 15 points of damage, and had to grab a feat to not heal the baddies, and have a higher charisma then you wanted, yeah, its not useful in combat though.
It's obvious what's happenning in games that don't use wands of CLW in people's home games. If they're playing with the 5 minute day, they're doing one or more of the following:
1) Have a full time heal bot who uses every spell to heal. Some players like this, most don't.
2) The combats are not that challenging, so they don't drain the resources (especially the healing resources) of the party. Even with a healbot, this is how it has to be if you want to do more than a few encounters a day. Then again, some gaming groups are just slow, so this is fine.
3) They have house rules like Healing Surges or some kind of unlimited healing. Although it's also unrealistic, this is my preferred playstyle now.
4) The DM gives them plenty of free healing potion stashes. I don't know how anyone can say wands of CLW are silly and yet they play with this play style, which is at least as equally silly.
4) The DM gives them plenty of free healing potion stashes. I don't know how anyone can say wands of CLW are silly and yet they play with this play style, which is at least as equally silly.
I ran a campaign once where most npc's would spend a little bit of their resources on a emergency potion or two.
Since its not very likely that most NPC's will have an action to spare to actually drink that, against the sort of nastiness my party was putting out, the party ended up with a pretty ludicrous stash of healing potions. With that, pluss a bomber alchemist with infusion who tended to brew extracts as needed, they did pretty well without investing in wands.
Now, would I do that sort of thing again? I dont know.
Certainly, it was definately not any MORE absurd than investing in a wand or two would have been; certainly, it would have been more logistically sane (and less silly looking) than carrying around a big sack full of potions.
channeling also tends to be more useful in situations that do not allow for alot of time, combat for instance, which isn't by default a bad use of your round. Also you might want to take into account resale value, while the wands lose in value the phylactery keeps it's full value which cuts it down to 72 uses in a party of 4.First, Channeling is almost NEVER useful in combat, unless you've invested feats and other resources (charisma, selective channeling) into making it even slighly so; even then it falls victim to the fact that anything short of a full on Heal spell is far less beneficial to the survival of a party member than doing something to take an opponent out of the fight.
Second, you can't really say that potentially selling an item somehow makes it more worth its value. Especially since we're talking about efficiency, and the only way to make it more efficient is to actually use it beyond the point where it was 'as' cost effective as the wands.
It depends on the encounter, but I disagree, there are situations that channeling is an efficient choice in combat and they will happen more often than you think, sure you can do more efficient things but you do not want to go all out every encounter, though admitedly that might be a difference in gaming style if you never choose to go beyond 3 encounters per day you will be less likely to be put in such a situation. Non-lethal damage, bleed effects, getting a party member back up on it's feet, the fact that it is ranged healing can not be counterspelled, aside from the fact it is an item that is useful against undead as well in certain situations.
Potentially selling an item seems fairly significant if you want to know at which point it breaks even, if after 100 pops of channeling you decide to sell it and get half your money back you expended less money than buying wands, how is it not more efficient ?
|
I am surprised to hear someone bothered by this. Most people have a problem with the fact that in Pathfinder/3.X you need to bring a cleric with you every time you use the outhouse. I think I would be more on board with what you were saying if we had more options for healing classes. Comparing it to damage doesn't help because there are a lot of different classes who do damage differently even with magic. Pathfinder took a step forward by adding more healing options among the classes however they took two back with channeling IMO. Even though its not true, a lot of people think having a cleric in the party is more important than ever now because of the new feature. I for one am glad there are options for folks to play the game without having to make sure all roles are represented.
Doesn't work with PFS.
Given the thread premise, I never thought it would. Is any part of this discussion PFS? I don't think there's going to be a society-legal world-without-wands any time soon.
That's one of the reasons I don't really get into PFS — not enough leeway for the GM.
|
I want to point out one of CLW saving graces for the player who runs a cleric. At the begining of the campaign I run, our cleric would use the CLW for lower level of healings outside of combat, and emergencies during combat.
The saving grace for him was that he could use his spell slots, when he didn't have as many as he has now, on combat related spells or summoning monsters to fight for him (Either way he gets to control an active combatant and not just a heal-boy). Especially when he got access to flame strike. That way he can be a healer, combat caster and tank. Using CLW and CMW wand allows him to be more versatile and therefore he feels more useful.
If he did not have access to wands, he would not have played a cleric, along with the other players of my group. They all want to be a part of the action.
Like many others have said, the wand is primarily for between combat situations to heal up. Many times there are wasted charges because they heal up only to find out that there are no more encounters for the rest of the day. During combat, he has healing surges and spontaneous casting ( which is a full-round action and takes from one of his other spells ).
One last point I would like to make is when the cleric is knocked unconscious a Rogue or Bard can take out a wand and use it. Thus becoming a support healer.
Wands are utilities, like swords. If you take them away from the game you take away the players versatility.
channeling also tends to be more useful in situations that do not allow for alot of time, combat for instance, which isn't by default a bad use of your round. Also you might want to take into account resale value, while the wands lose in value the phylactery keeps it's full value which cuts it down to 72 uses in a party of 4.One of these isn't a bad option, either: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/wondrousItems.html#phylactery -of-positive-channeling
In terms of efficiency, and use of the cleric's time.
Erm, thats the same cost as 14 2/3 wands of cure light wounds. If we assume each wand is worth 275 average healing (4033.33 total healing for the 14 2/3 wands), you'd need to use the phylactery 576 times on average for it to give you more healing than the wands would.
As thats unlikely to happen, its the very definition of inefficient.
I think you've got some good points, and I appreciate the breakdown. Part of the issue we're addressing here is the cleric player's Quality of Life, or play. For instance--the ability to do other things while still being an effective healer. It's effectively a free "wand tap" on everyone within range, on top of channel...and on average, awards more than the average CLW.
That's huge.
More effective healing lets someone shoehorned into the healbot role heal less often. It means they get to do other things more often.
And part of the benefit is overall action economy. Even if it's just one more action a scene, that can make a difference between a win and a loss. Or...hell, just throwing those extra dice can make the cleric player feel a little more like a superstar and this game is all about having fun.
The cleric enjoying themselves more often: that's huge.
Better action economy: fantastic.
Not all benefits are easily tangible, and I suspect that "catching up" cost-wise would speed up at higher levels, if only because there's more damage to be healed per character. In other words, the posted numbers will change.
Now, depending on games and play styles, this will vary. I said it's an option--it isn't the only one. I can equally predict you'll be tempted to break the numbers down by level. I only hope I don't get the response that: "fun is inefficient." :D
Overall, I don't think that it hurts to have it around.
In 10 years of playing the game with about 6 different groups, I don't think I've ever seen a wand of cure light wounds show up.
Though I am not even sure if I ever saw any wand being used in a game.
You'll see 'em in PFS. Probably spend your first 2pts of fame on one.
You'll need it.
You are completely missing that that statement is being used to convey derision and holier-than-thou-ness more than any fact. Or at least that's what it means when Kthulhu says it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see the problem as an out-of-combat healing issue, so maybe you could add something like this instead of carrying around 6 wands.
Halkar’s Handy Healer’s Kit
In addition to the contents a normal Healer’s Kit provides, this enchanted chest allows for skilled hands to maximize their healing potential. The user may announce a Heal DC check between 5 and 30 and roll accordingly. If successful, one target gains that number of hit points. The kit contains enough supplies for 10 uses per day and is magically replenished and restocked at dawn.
Add some arbitrary upkeep costs if you want.
Also, Healing Belts are cool because they allow everyone to be responsible for combat healing.
In a world with no wands of cure light wounds, only one class can save the day, and is thus always forced on someone. Coming this fall to a theater near you is Looking For Cleric; the thrilling tale of one party's quest to have a cleric join them no matter what.
I agree. Generally as a thrifty adventurer, if there something I need, I make sure it is self-replenishing, especially if it is something I am going to want to use often. That is why I depend on the healers of the team and save my gold for items that have no limited use.
If I find such disposable items like a wand or potion, I would tend to use them than sell them.
-101+100These topics where someone asks "Is it possible to play the game without X, or is it just too deeply ingrained" always amuse me. Because 90% of the time, I've never bothered with X in any game I've ever played in. Like I said before, I've never played in a game where wands were overly stressed, and I don't think I've EVER seen a wand of CLW. And it didn't slow us down any.
Maybe I just have a different concept of an adventurer than most. But the majority of my characters have a motivation that keeps them going even after they've suffered a hit or two, even if that motivation is only a love of adventure. From most of the stuff I see posted here, many people play on a vastly conservative scale. If the odd are not overwhelmingly in their favor, they just aren't going to bother. I guess if it works for them that's fine, but I personally would find it intensely boring.
If you refuse to go adventuring without a sackful of healing wands, the "big six", all the magical items that so many of deem absolutely necessary, and an Oort Cloud of ion stones circling around your head, and retreat at the first sign that a battle might actually drain a substantial amount of your resources, then you aren't an adventurer, you're a somewhat cowardly glory-hound.
Hey, that's cool. Heroic adventuring isn't for everybody.
Neither is sandbagging. Wuss. ;)
Often times, in fact in virtually every guide that talks about healing even peripherally, we speak about Wands of Cure Light wounds as the main source of healing in PF. From a calculation, statistical and RAW point of view, this is a logical conclusion. But is it how things are meant to be?Healing has been a role for a very long time across virtually every scope of fantasy gaming. Now you might combine it with something else to add a bit more flavor, but it is as tried and true an idea as a fighter or a wizard is. But both in 3.5 and now in Pathfinder, we find this concept being boiled down to a twig because, frankly it does the job better than any class.
Would we accept this if a wand of magic missile managed something similar for damage? Naturally there are all sorts of reasons why it doesn't, but let's say it was just as able to substitute for killing your enemies as well as a wand of CLW substitutes for keeping your friends alive (which is to say, in the long run, the wand is better than all but the most dedicated of classes and builds). Would it be accepted so easily? There is certainly one school of thought that suggests devoted healer or "support" shouldn't be a role, but let's leave that out of this talk for the moment. Leadership is often spoken of as a feat that is so powerful, every build should take it and most games ban it:
Is a wand of CLW not approaching the same level? Certainly people use things like rings of protection a lot as well, but at least they use -different levels- of rings of protection (we don't even use wands of cure serious wounds) and they aren't the sole source of what was once a primary purpose. Is it really in the spirit of things to carry around 20 healing twigs as a main source of mending? Is it really any fun or how anyone imagines heroic characters?
I think the wand is good at low levels because it extends the 15 minute work day, but by higher levels they are not used so much. It also helps prevent "healbot" syndrome.
|
I've banned wands of CLW at my table. We get along fine (and I am now on the player's side of the screen, as a Druid).
They're actually not as necessary if groups give a modicum of thought to A) the normal healing rules B) Tactical Awareness on the battlefield and c) Character builds that put a bit of emphasis on defense instead of the standard-issue "I do 568 points of damage" builds that are thrown around as optimization.
You are completely missing that that statement is being used to convey derision and holier-than-thou-ness more than any fact. Or at least that's what it means when Kthulhu says it.
You do realize you just made a post that does exactly what you accused Kthulhu of doing, right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've banned wands of CLW at my table. We get along fine (and I am now on the player's side of the screen, as a Druid).
They're actually not as necessary if groups give a modicum of thought to A) the normal healing rules B) Tactical Awareness on the battlefield and c) Character builds that put a bit of emphasis on defense instead of the standard-issue "I do 568 points of damage" builds that are thrown around as optimization.
I have to disagree with (c) very strongly. You will NOT win a war of attrition against the DM. Your opponents will either have magic and bypass your armor or will be able to do damage far more than a glancing blow if they can hit. The BEST defense in D&D is having the best offense. I would bet you everything that a Barbarian doing 568 points of damage a round would stay alive significantly longer than a turtling Fighter (I say Fighter because Paladins can heal themselves and it would be cheating) doing inconsequential amounts of damage.
Also, the normal healing rules are awful. Or did they improve it from "You regain Con mod hit points per level with a full night's rest?"
|
3. Not feeling afraid to enter an encounter with less than 100% hit points.3. Be idiots.
Entering any remotely serious combat with less than 80% hit points is foolish, possibly suicidal.
As much as I understand and appreciate the sentiment... you sound like you think you have the choice. I've played many an adventure broken into smaller encounters in which we don't have the luxury of rest between each one.
In any case, I would definitely approve of some buffing of the Heal skill; as it stands, it's pretty much a flavor skill, and not useful.
In the campaign I'm in, everything is pretty much always low level (I've been in the campaign for over a year, and in that time we've gone from 2nd level to 3rd level). It is also very strongly magic-item rare. There's a "Second Wind" mechanic that allows people to rest for ten minutes after a battle to recover some HP without spending resources. However, we often don't get ten minutes' rest.
Oh, and don't think you can just take an item creation feat and supply all the magic items you're missing out on; you probably won't have the funds to be able to make anything.
All in all, it keeps things difficult, but not necessarily lethal; we even once repelled boarders on our ship without losing a single crew member, including NPCs, thanks to careful coordination. We were smarting, but alive to fight another day.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've banned wands of CLW at my table. We get along fine (and I am now on the player's side of the screen, as a Druid).
They're actually not as necessary if groups give a modicum of thought to A) the normal healing rules B) Tactical Awareness on the battlefield and c) Character builds that put a bit of emphasis on defense instead of the standard-issue "I do 568 points of damage" builds that are thrown around as optimization.
I have to disagree with (c) very strongly. You will NOT win a war of attrition against the DM. Your opponents will either have magic and bypass your armor or will be able to do damage far more than a glancing blow if they can hit. The BEST defense in D&D is having the best offense. I would bet you everything that a Barbarian doing 568 points of damage a round would stay alive significantly longer than a turtling Fighter (I say Fighter because Paladins can heal themselves and it would be cheating) doing inconsequential amounts of damage.
Also, the normal healing rules are awful. Or did they improve it from "You regain Con mod hit points per level with a full night's rest?"
Come on, you won't win a war of anything against the DM. You could have an auto-initiative, auto-hit, auto-kill weapon at your disposal, and the DM could still destroy you if he feels like it. The best build is the one that gives everyone at the table the most fun, where you and your friends get to define "fun."
The best defense in D&D is a sense of humor and adventure.
But, yeah, the healing rules could use some updating.
|
|
I have to disagree with (c) very strongly. You will NOT win a war of attrition against the DM. Your opponents will either have magic and bypass your armor or will be able to do damage far more than a glancing blow if they can hit. The BEST defense in D&D is having the best offense. I would bet you everything that a Barbarian doing 568 points of damage a round would stay alive significantly longer than a turtling Fighter (I say Fighter because Paladins can heal themselves and it would be cheating) doing inconsequential amounts of damage.
It wouldn't be a Wednesday if you and I didn't disagree on something, Carty. I agree with you that, in a vacuum, the barbarian would live longer than the fighter. However, surrounded by a team all using resources to buff the good guys and debuff the bad guys, the fighter (who, by the way, is not "turtling" - what I said was "put a bit of emphasis on defense", not "completely disregard the need to deal damage") actually does very well, and needs healed less than the glass cannon.
Also, the normal healing rules are awful. Or did they improve it from "You regain Con mod hit points per level with a full night's rest?"
Yes, they have been changed from that. You should take a look! The Heal skill is also fairly useful.
As much as I understand and appreciate the sentiment... you sound like you think you have the choice. I've played many an adventure broken into smaller encounters in which we don't have the luxury of rest between each one.3. Not feeling afraid to enter an encounter with less than 100% hit points.3. Be idiots.
Entering any remotely serious combat with less than 80% hit points is foolish, possibly suicidal.
Apologies. It was unstated that "when you don't have to." You SHOULD be afraid to enter encounters without nearly full HP and you should never do so if you have the choice. Unless you just want to kill your character, but then, just do that and don't deride healing.
Assumptions:
Conclusion:
If you were never going to deny the players the money or access to a wand of CLW, then you can just presume they heal to full HP between encounters with any reasonable amount of time to catch their breath (a few minutes basically). Then just charge them the occasional 750 gold somewhere else (or don't, because WBL math is mutable to the GM anyway).
The only reason to struggle with the CLW ritual is if you actually like it for some reason. I'm baffled at the thought, but I admit that it is possible that somebody likes doing it.
EDIT: Making some damage a little sticky is a good thing. If you reserve crits and failed saves so that they don't heal between encounters, they tend to make more memorable wounds that the players take more seriously. They also preserve the role of magic healing while vastly reducing paperwork.
It wouldn't be a Wednesday if you and I didn't disagree on something, Carty. I agree with you that, in a vacuum, the barbarian would live longer than the fighter. However, surrounded by a team all using resources to buff the good guys and debuff the bad guys, the fighter (who, by the way, is not "turtling" - what I said was "put a bit of emphasis on defense", not "completely disregard the need to deal damage") actually does very well, and needs healed less than the glass cannon.
A Barbarian is not a glass cannon. Wooden maybe, but not glass. A character more focused on defense than offense is going to need MORE healing overtime than a character who can kill the opponent before they can dish out tremendous blows. Sure, you might not get hit that much with 35 AC at level 10, but what does hit you will either be a crit and kill you straight or will be a large amount of damage. The slower you kill the opponent, the more chances he has to hit you, and the more chances he has to hit you, the more likely he is to kill you before you whittle him down.
As I've oft repeated over the years, the biggest problems with hit points is that they are called "hit" points. Only in the early years of D&D, when everyone understood the abstract nature being derived from miniature wargaming, was it clear what this terminology meant. If Gygax had just translated the fluff nomenclature into the character scale of D&D in the early years to something that was more obviously abstract, like fate points, then the endless confusion over the years wouldn't have existed.
It does say as much in the Pathfinder definition of HP:
What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.
That HP are abstract in combat but literal during healing is a major gripe of mine. Just highlighting the difference (failed save, critical = literal, normal hits = dodged, parried, armor intercept, etc) is enough to fix 90% of the cognitive dissonance with HP, and it fixes the wand problem too.
Call HP plot armor, or readiness, or combat pool. It makes more sense.
But no amount of CLW wand charges will be enough to heal this dead horse by the time I'm done beating it.
|
|
Really? Really? I like to spend my party money on stuff that is actually beneficial. Clearly, this makes me the fool.
...
And even less bang for your buck since the cost of the potion is based on its level instead of its effectiveness. A Cure Moderate Wounds potion will heal, on average, twice as much HP as a Cure Light. While costing 6x as much. A Cure Serious Wounds potion will heal, on average, three times as much HP as a Cure Light. While costing 15x times as much.
Never mind that a Cure Light Wounds wand with 50 charges of Cure Light Wounds costs as much as 15 potions of Cure Light Wounds (or one Cure Serious Wounds potion!)
...
I presume you are also ignoring the costs of potions as well because potions are exorbitantly expensive.
Let's Go to the Mall!Really? Really? I like to spend my party money on stuff that is actually beneficial. Clearly, this makes me the fool.
...
And even less bang for your buck since the cost of the potion is based on its level instead of its effectiveness. A Cure Moderate Wounds potion will heal, on average, twice as much HP as a Cure Light. While costing 6x as much. A Cure Serious Wounds potion will heal, on average, three times as much HP as a Cure Light. While costing 15x times as much.
Never mind that a Cure Light Wounds wand with 50 charges of Cure Light Wounds costs as much as 15 potions of Cure Light Wounds (or one Cure Serious Wounds potion!)
...
I presume you are also ignoring the costs of potions as well because potions are exorbitantly expensive.
That was pretty impressive - quoting the same thing twice. That totally makes your argument and logic more valid.
Accounting?
This is basic common sense.
If I can get an item that lets me do something 50 times, as opposed to 3 times for the same price I don't need a degree in accounting to make the obvious choice. I will buy and make scrolls if I have too, but I won't waste gold on over priced potions.
|
|
A Barbarian is not a glass cannon. Wooden maybe, but not glass.
Conceded.
A character more focused on defense than offense is going to need MORE healing overtime than a character who can kill the opponent before they can dish out tremendous blows. Sure, you might not get hit that much with 35 AC at level 10, but what does hit you will either be a crit and kill you straight or will be a large amount of damage. The slower you kill the opponent, the more chances he has to hit you, and the more chances he has to hit you, the more likely he is to kill you before you whittle him down.
If you can only be hit on a natural 20, the chances of confirmation are not very good, and I'll take those odds (and their good friend, probability!) every time. But I'm not talking exclusively about characters that can only be hit on natural 20's.
Also, I know you're describing what you (and others) feel to be elementary game theory, but I'm here to tell you that it's not an axiom. I do not subscribe to the "nova party" theory of party composition and character building, and my characters and those of folks at my table nearly always live, and thrive even. Pathfinder is built with enough leeway in favor of the PC's that suboptimal characters can in fact survive. Assuming that there is a party of people and they work cohesively, of course. It's a team sport.
One that doesn't require Wands of CLW. Sure, they make life easier. Adventuring isn't supposed to be easy. *shrug*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I know you're describing what you (and others) feel to be elementary game theory, but I'm here to tell you that it's not an axiom. I do not subscribe to the "nova party" theory of party composition and character building,
What theory? I'm speaking from play experience. Contrary to some of the neckbeards around here might assert, I don't just wax philosophical about the game, I play it.
Maybe I've just been playing too many campaigns that make use of larger than medium creatures that have 30 Str normal and a +20 to hit and do 1d10+20 damage with each hit.|
|
Also, I know you're describing what you (and others) feel to be elementary game theory, but I'm here to tell you that it's not an axiom. I do not subscribe to the "nova party" theory of party composition and character building,What theory? I'm speaking from play experience. Contrary to some of the neckbeards around here might assert, I don't just wax philosophical about the game, I play it.
Maybe I've just been playing too many campaigns that make use of larger than medium creatures that have 30 Str normal and a +20 to hit and do 1d10+20 damage with each hit.
Oh, I know you play the game.
For me, that's one type of monster among many that the party may encounter. In such an encounter, I'm counting on casters debuffing some strength off of the creature. My casters don't disappoint (I'm one of them, in fairness).
Edit: Really? That last post was favorited by two people? Seriously? He didn't even say anything meaningful.
A Barbarian is not a glass cannon. Wooden maybe, but not glass.Conceded.
A character more focused on defense than offense is going to need MORE healing overtime than a character who can kill the opponent before they can dish out tremendous blows. Sure, you might not get hit that much with 35 AC at level 10, but what does hit you will either be a crit and kill you straight or will be a large amount of damage. The slower you kill the opponent, the more chances he has to hit you, and the more chances he has to hit you, the more likely he is to kill you before you whittle him down.If you can only be hit on a natural 20, the chances of confirmation are not very good, and I'll take those odds (and their good friend, probability!) every time. But I'm not talking exclusively about characters that can only be hit on natural 20's.
Also, I know you're describing what you (and others) feel to be elementary game theory, but I'm here to tell you that it's not an axiom. I do not subscribe to the "nova party" theory of party composition and character building, and my characters and those of folks at my table nearly always live, and thrive even. Pathfinder is built with enough leeway in favor of the PC's that suboptimal characters can in fact survive. Assuming that there is a party of people and they work cohesively, of course. It's a team sport.
One that doesn't require Wands of CLW. Sure, they make life easier. Adventuring isn't supposed to be easy. *shrug*
In actual games you don't normally get to pick and choose all your gear so getting your AC that high is not likely to happen, except maybe for the first few levels when monsters have a +1 or 2 to hit. Many GM's will also modify monsters if needed to up the challenge. That is why they must die and die quickly.
You don't have to one round an encounter but it is always in your best interest to neutralize the bad guys faster. I don't have super characters at my table either, but I know if the GM rolls enough D20's somebody will get hit so you must make sure the D20's stop rolling.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Really? That last post was favorited by two people? Seriously? He didn't even say anything meaningful.
Everyone loves nothing.
|
|
In actual games you don't normally get to pick and choose all your gear so getting your AC that high is not likely to happen, except maybe for the first few levels when monsters have a +1 or 2 to hit. Many GM's will also modify monsters if needed to up the challenge. That is why they must die and die quickly.
You don't have to one round an encounter but it is always in your best interest to neutralize the bad guys faster. I don't have super characters at my table either, but I know if the GM rolls enough D20's somebody will get hit so you must make sure the D20's stop rolling.
Thanks, wraith, for re-iterating that killing monsters faster is better, while managing to insinuate that I don't play in an actual game.
I promise you, the game I play in is real, and I am not delusional.
And since "monsters die quickly is better than monsters die slowly" is an obvious fact for which there is no reasonable argument, I guess I have to point out that at no time did I recommend lovingly caressing the monsters prior to killing them. They can still die quite quickly while diverting some WBL to defense. That's all.
I favorited it to show my support for actual play over beardscratching. I actually agree with you as well, Jeremz
|
|
There is no good way around the issue in 3.5 or PF. Someone has to suck it up and pay the healer. Channeling helps in PF because it heals without costing spell slots. WotC took a different approach in 4e and everyone is responsible for their own healing. But I don't know where the middule ground between the two camps falls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no good way around the issue in 3.5 or PF. Someone has to suck it up and pay the healer.
No.
Speaking as someone who loves to play clerics, nobody must "suck it up and play the healer."
UMD on a wand or found potions tend to be enough, in my experience. A healer certainly helps the logistics, but it is not requisite to fun.
Stop sticking one player in the party with a class he doesn't want. Although, if he is smart, he should want to play a cleric, but not necessarily to heal.
There is no good way around the issue in 3.5 or PF. Someone has to suck it up and pay the healer.No.
Speaking as someone who loves to play clerics, nobody must "suck it up and play the healer."
UMD on a wand or found potions tend to be enough, in my experience. A healer certainly helps the logistics, but it is not requisite to fun.
Stop sticking one player in the party with a class he doesn't want. Although, if he is smart, he should want to play a cleric, but not necessarily to heal.
Divine caster yes, healer NO. Clerics are awesome, but if they are walking bandaids they are not. Diseases, poisons and other negative conditions still need to be dealt with, but that and hp recovery shouldn't be the only thing one player does with their character. Scrolls, wands, and other magic items are perfectly reasonable ways to prevent this.