|
Good Stuff
This seems like a hole in the system and wands of cure light wounds look more like a wad of chewing gum stuck in the hole. They work, but I can't help but feel like there is a better way.
This post was right on. Spot on. Applause.
Many groups, as previously identified, want to consistently top off after a fight, and refuse (to whatever degree they're able) to continue until they're fully healed. The fact that they feel that this is necessary is the crack in the system, and is the problem that causes wands of CLW to be necessary. In turn, the reason they feel this way is related to the massive damage some monsters can inflict with a single hit.
Essentially, I blame the concept of critical hits.
Good Stuff
This seems like a hole in the system and wands of cure light wounds look more like a wad of chewing gum stuck in the hole. They work, but I can't help but feel like there is a better way.
This post was right on. Spot on. Applause.
Many groups, as previously identified, want to consistently top off after a fight, and refuse (to whatever degree they're able) to continue until they're fully healed. The fact that they feel that this is necessary is the crack in the system, and is the problem that causes wands of CLW to be necessary. In turn, the reason they feel this way is related to the massive damage some monsters can inflict with a single hit.
Essentially, I blame the concept of critical hits.
Critical hits? I've lost a half of my hit points as a Fighter with good con to two blows from a single creature of appropriate CR. The problem isn't wanting to heal up to full after every fight. That is not what is happening. What is happening is people want to heal themselves up so they can actually fight more than one fight in a day. Without the ability to heal, you have a 15 minute adventuring day just so people don't drop like flies against CR appropriate creatures.
D&D before 4th ed was a game of resource management. Most problems with the system are because people don't like worrying about resource management.
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.
1.I favorited Cartigan's post because he stated that his post came from play experience which is similar to mine.
2. I was not insulting you or saying your play experience has no merit. The first sentence was against theoretical game play where people have super AC's, but only because they got to pick and choose gear. It was not direct against you specifically.
Nobody is saying ignore defense, at least I am not, but from I read I understood you were trying to say defense 1st offense 2nd. If I misunderstood I apologize.
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.Also, if GMs will modify the monsters to up the challenge of hitting you, won't they also modify them to keep them alive?
If so you're in an arms race with the GM, which you can't win.
Yes they should in most cases. It really depends on the situation though, and the GM.
Of all the things that Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying did, the one thing that really struck me as truly groundbreaking was out-of-combat healing.
Priests of Light could use healing touch as often as they liked out of combat, and summoners could create a circle of healing that would heal everyone outside of combat as well.
By divorcing 'topping off' from spell slots per day, it let the party members do cool stuff in combat... including attempting to heal, if it was appropriate.
When I first played Palladium, this was a crazy idea... but it really worked. Much better than the Wand of CLW solution that is the default 'efficient' option in 3.x
|
|
Yes they should in most cases. It really depends on the situation though, and the GM.
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.Also, if GMs will modify the monsters to up the challenge of hitting you, won't they also modify them to keep them alive?
If so you're in an arms race with the GM, which you can't win.
When discussing mechanics, it generally helps if we stick to a baseline in which everybody plays by the rules (including the GM). I think that's the core point here.
I favorited it to show my support for actual play over beardscratching. I actually agree with you as well, Jeremz
Personally, I'm in favor of beardscratching. Sometimes they just itch. I do agree that playing the game is good too though.
|
|
I wasn't really going for critical hits as being the core of the worry, but a sort of more elaborate concern.
Oh, I know. I was sort of riffing off your theme, was all. Personally, I think the way damage is dealt (and to a degree, how encounters are commonly constructed) in the game is a problem here. I totally get that that wasn't what you were saying.
Critical hits? I've lost a half of my hit points as a Fighter with good con to two blows from a single creature of appropriate CR. The problem isn't wanting to heal up to full after every fight. That is not what is happening. What is happening is people want to heal themselves up so they can actually fight more than one fight in a day. Without the ability to heal, you have a 15 minute adventuring day just so people don't drop like flies against CR appropriate creatures.
I didn't respond to this earlier, Carty, because I really wanted to take some time with it to show you how much you're actually saying the exact same thing that I am and not realizing it.
Critical hits? I've lost a half of my hit points as a Fighter with good con to two blows from a single creature of appropriate CR.
Good point. So have I. But you know what does exactly as much damage as two blows from a single creature of appropriate CR?
That's right, 1 Critical hit from the same creature. Those two things are exactly the same on the damage-o-meter. The only difference is that one is more scary than the other, because one still gives the creature the rest of his iterative attacks to hit you again, which now can put you in very dangerous waters, or possibly even into negative HP.
My theory is that we tend to want to have full HP going into a fight because we want to be able to survive Q amount of damage in a fight. Whether or not Q comes as Q damage or 2 x P damage where P = 1/2 of Q isn't really a distinction worth arguing over. Monsters can do a lot of damage, and can do it quickly enough to kill you. On this point we seem to agree.
The problem isn't wanting to heal up to full after every fight. That is not what is happening. What is happening is people want to heal themselves up so they can actually fight more than one fight in a day.
As you are fond of saying, what.
It doesn't really matter why people want to heal themselves after each fight. You're saying it's so that they can fight more than once a day, I'm saying it's so that they don't die from massive damage during the next fight (which, to be fair, would prevent someone from adventuring more than once in a day). Who cares. The problem, if you accept that there is a problem, is the need to heal up after every combat. People complain about Feat Taxes; wands of Cure Light are an Equipment Tax, as much as the Christmas Tree items are. It's pretty lame-o.
To be fair, the reason I think banning them works at my table is that we're playing Kingmaker. The exploration-heavy aspect of that AP basically encourages and even mandates a 10 minute workday. You basically get one combat a day, rarely two. Banning CLW wands is not going to be the answer for every table, and I get that. Wands of CLW are still lame (IMO), either way.
To be fair, the reason I think banning them works at my table is that we're playing Kingmaker
-I'm curious, what are you trying to accomplish by banning them?
Right, because there's two of them. Each of them can take half the cure spells a party needs and still have some spells to have fun with. You're also doing 1 encounter per day. If you were doing 3-4 encounters per day with one healer they'd have to either keep resting or blow their entire allotment of spells into cure... no one wants to do that.
|
|
I know, that's why I said:
To be fair, the reason I think banning them works at my table is that we're playing Kingmaker. The exploration-heavy aspect of that AP basically encourages and even mandates a 10 minute workday. You basically get one combat a day, rarely two. Banning CLW wands is not going to be the answer for every table, and I get that. Wands of CLW are still lame (IMO), either way.
I'm not trying to misrepresent the situation.
I do want to say, though, that I most frequently play Clerics and Life Oracles, and I have absolutely no problem using spell slots to heal my companions. It's a team sport. I still get to swing a weapon if I want to, or help with flanking, or become a knowledge: religion monster, or any amount of other things that are fun for me as a player. Saying "Nobody wants to do" something is usually not a truism.
I'm not trying to misrepresent the situation.
I'm not saying you're misrepresenting it. I'm saying that your situation is born of some unusual circumstances, and that if those circumstances were different you would be getting vastly different results.
I do want to say, though, that I most frequently play Clerics and Life Oracles, and I have absolutely no problem using spell slots to heal my companions. It's a team sport. I still get to swing a weapon if I want to, or help with flanking, or become a knowledge: religion monster, or any amount of other things that are fun for me as a player. Saying "Nobody wants to do" something is usually not a truism.
Nobody sane wants to do it? *ducks*
The widespread use of wands has helped to somewhat reduce the "Awww man i have to play the healer" phenomenon. You CAN get by with just a wand, or better yet a wand and a secondary healer (alchemist, druid, paladin, inquisitor) I have no problem being a team player, but i want to be an individual too.
I've banned wands of CLW 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?"
You can't win a war of massive damage against the DM either. You always have to trust that he's going to set reasonable challenges for your group's play-style. Or, as you so often advise, you can get always get a new DM. After all they're just lying around like so much rotten fruit, begging for players to join their games.
Defense is a loosing proposition. There's too many ways you can be incapacitated and you can't keep up with them all (Hp, fort/ref/will saves, ability drain/damage). Even maxing out AC can fail to achieve your goals at higher levels.
I neither enjoy nor dislike the use of CLW wands in Pathfinder. I consider it easy enough to simply gloss over- it doesn't require much effort on the part of the players.
That being said, I wouldn't mind a game that used house rules to make them unnecessary. There's plenty of things I'd like to see changed, but I try not to get to worked up about it. For instance, I really dislike magic item dependency, and the way WBL tends to make people pick over corpses like vultures that eat gold, but hey... it's just part of the game. I enjoy it despite it's flaws- or to put it another way, I think the benefits outweigh the flaws.
When discussing mechanics, it generally helps if we stick to a baseline in which everybody plays by the rules (including the GM). I think that's the core point here.Yes they should in most cases. It really depends on the situation though, and the GM.
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.Also, if GMs will modify the monsters to up the challenge of hitting you, won't they also modify them to keep them alive?
If so you're in an arms race with the GM, which you can't win.
In sticking to the baseline I don't see anyone getting an AC high enough to need a +20 to hit though except low levels.
and the way WBL tends to make people pick over corpses like vultures that eat gold, but hey... it's just part of the game.
-Wizard: But elf ears aren't worth anything! Put that back!
-Rogue: On the contrary, I've heard they're an aphrodisiac like no other. Mind you i started that rumor when i heard we were coming here, but i HAVE heard it since...
|
|
When discussing mechanics, it generally helps if we stick to a baseline in which everybody plays by the rules (including the GM). I think that's the core point here.In sticking to the baseline I don't see anyone getting an AC high enough to need a +20 to hit though except low levels.
True. Check back a few posts and you'll see that was Cartigan's interpretation of what I said, not what I said.
Normal WBL Distribution: 75% offense, 25% defense (let's say).
What I'm saying: 60% offense, 40% defense (give or take).
Clearly this won't cause enemies to need natural 20's. I find it tends to make the party more durable. YMMV.
I neither enjoy nor dislike the use of CLW wands in Pathfinder. I consider it easy enough to simply gloss over- it doesn't require much effort on the part of the players.
That being said, I wouldn't mind a game that used house rules to make them unnecessary. There's plenty of things I'd like to see changed, but I try not to get to worked up about it. For instance, I really dislike magic item dependency, and the way WBL tends to make people pick over corpses like vultures that eat gold, but hey... it's just part of the game. I enjoy it despite it's flaws- or to put it another way, I think the benefits outweigh the flaws.
I agree, in my next game I am taking a big step towards eliminating the existing wealth system from my game entirely. Maybe then 'loot the bodies' wont be the most common phrase at the table. I am internalizing magic items and providing some additional benefits to my players so hopefully magic items wont be a neccessity, and thus your character's power wont be a function of his or her wealth.
I agree, in my next game I am taking a big step towards eliminating the existing wealth system from my game entirely. Maybe then 'loot the bodies' wont be the most common phrase at the table. I am internalizing magic items and providing some additional benefits to my players so hopefully magic items wont be a neccessity, and thus your character's power wont be a function of his or her wealth.
Consider replacing it with the Fame/Prestige system for Schools and Organizations in the new campaign setting books. That's my plan.
Actually, adding Cure Minor Wounds back as a cantrip would do a lot to eliminate the need for wands of CLW.
The wailing and gnashing of teeth for the "Infinite cantrips are ruining the game!" people would be audible for miles.
The same people who despise anyone using wands because they want to not be dead for the next combat will flip their lid if a mechanic is introduced where a single healer can move everyone up to full health for free.
Nah, I think that would add thematic and actual value to the healer classes.
These classes already have value! Its in the cool things they do other than acting as bandaids between fights.
Therefore my use of "add" instead of "give".
In fact, you said it would add 'actual' value. That implies the value they currently have is not really value.
The same people who despise anyone using wands because they want to not be dead for the next combat will flip their lid if a mechanic is introduced where a single healer can move everyone up to full health for free.
I'll do you one better and let every character move up to full health for free, irrespective of the presence of a healer.
But I'll keep some wounds around as memorable (that failed save vs lightning bolt is body-spanning burns, that critical hit to your gut is not getting better without magic or surgery) — those need healing or treatment, not just a short nap. These things come up often enough that the presence of a healer will be noticed — the treat deadly wounds application of the Heal skill will never be quite as good as an old-fashioned miracle.
Hit points are not broken, healing is broken. The game defines HP as partly abstract, then goes on treat every lost HP as a lethal physical wound for the purpose of healing. Changing the way HP are recovered, including the elimination of the CLW wand ritual, goes a long way to enhancing my enjoyment of Hit Points as a game rule.
|
|
Therefore my use of "add" instead of "give".In fact, you said it would add 'actual' value. That implies the value they currently have is not really value.OR Actual was intended to contrast with Thematic.
Thus adding both more thematic and more actual value to the existing thematic and actual value of healing classes.Don't always assume the worst meaning.
This is, in fact, precisely what I meant.
|
Pathfinder RPG, like many iterations of our game before it, can be played any way the GM likes. Using or not using wands is all up to you.
I've run plenty of Red Box, and AD&D where only the Cleric has healing ability.
These days, the classic tropes are are too infrequent at gametables. For example, in a recent game of OSRIC (basically AD&D), an earthquake started a fire in the church, and a beam fell, hitting one of the characters due to a terrible roll. That character required a week's worth of rest to recoup hp.
As Chenault says, in issue 8 of the Crusader, the thing many forget is TIME in fantasy games, unlike RL, is limitless. Have the characters return to town and rest for a week, a month, a year, a decade.
In modern games, post 3.0, most players are obsessed with doing something every second of the day, which amounts to an episode of TVs 24. Campaigns take a few weeks of intense in-game hourly play. But using time, to the advantage of setting/story allows the GM to fully make kingdoms rise and fall, and provide the milieu to take shape - as rome wasn't built in a day.
As for healing... sudden bursts of self-healing hold a particularly rediculous effect upon any suspension of disbelief, probably because in RL there isn't any parallel to draw from. People don't just sprout a new arm, and Red Bull really doesn't restore THAT much energy.
My opinions of course, but a world without healing wands can heighten the overall prestige and power of clerics, the church, or political organizations that involve the clergy, as well as boost the importance of the class.
Good luck, have fun, whichever you choose. Lacking wands isn't any kind of gamebreaker. Your party, should they continue forward without a cleric, may have a number of other semi-divine casters who can compliment the healing, such as a bard.
To be clear... in some campaigns I've said "no scrying, no flying" it just doesn't exist in any magical form. In other campaigns I've introduced elemental airships and high fantasy magic.
In classic AD&D, you didn't "stop by the general store" to buy magic, and the clergy didn't dole out CLW wands like holy wafers. There were no "arcane shopps" except for MAJOR cities in which there was a small percent chance, based on really good networking, that you'd find such aid prevalent and affordable.
Now, on the contrary, I play Pathfinder RPG weekly, and also monthly in a second campaign. In these games, RAW provide ample sources of healing, both craftable and purchasable. Just to be clear, the opposite is also true - - having bunches of healing twigs doesn't break any game, nor detract from it, provided this is consistent with the magic setting the GM establishes. The thing to keep in mind that it is TIME that governs the balance, and you can only shoot 1 charge per round, which means even as supplemenatary healing, it takes a few seconds, and these are precious and all too slow in healing a higher level party in the midst of combat.
All of that said, I would find it "odd" to see six PCs all cast wand healing same round like a group of synchronized swimmers. The oddness comes from lack of basis in any fantasy trope, and kind of feels a bit too gamist, even for me. So the GM should be judicious in how many healing twigs available, and how potent they are. If this routine becomes too commonplace, and the monsters don't do the same, then you've steered a bit too far from traditional games, which is fine, as long as you are having fun.
Pax
As Chenault says, in issue 8 of the Crusader, the thing many forget is TIME in fantasy games, unlike RL, is limitless. Have the characters return to town and rest for a week, a month, a year, a decade.
Except many people play APs or their own stories where time isn't ANYWHERE near limitless. A month ofa bed rest is likely to end up with the world destroyed and it being your fault because you were the designated hero.
I've never seen a Wand of Cure Light Wounds in the 3.5e games I've played in or DM'd. I've never seen one in the Pathfinder experiences I've had either.
The only game I was in where the characters could afford a wand of Cure Light Wounds, half the party were divine spellcasters of one flavor or another so disposable healing items weren't a priority. The barbarian carried potions of Cure Light Wounds, but that was it. He only used them very rarely as most healing came from allies.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm adding my 'me too' to the never seen them used lot. Like some others here, my PCs don't have access to the magic shop. Magic items are found things, and are valuable beyond the amount of gp listed. I realize this isn't RAW, but it used to be, and I liked that theme better than I like the new one.
So this means that any end boss encounter will absolutely mean that the PCs are going in partially depleted. That, after all, is what I see as the ENTIRE POINT of having encounters beforehand. I whittle them down a bit at a time and make them try and predict what they'll need later, which modifies their choices. I find those kinds of games the most rewarding for all involved.
Now, that being said, I'm going to wind up pulling punches on them. I'm only going to hit them as hard as I think they can withstand. I usually aim for enough firepower to kill only one of them, knowing that they'll surprise me and prevent that single death. But it runs things at a razor's edge, and it works.
Should I have 37 CLW wands floating in my player's packs, I'd design encounters something like three or four times harder to compensate.
So that, in a nutshell, is why I think I've never seen any. We're telling a story together, rather than trying to 'win' some kind of rule-r-riffic contest.
Now there are those, many in fact, in these discussions who absolutely THRIVE on mechanical expertise. They'd simply never enjoy a game where their own play wasn't at the absolute limit for what the system can provide. I'm not one of them, and they wouldn't be happy at my table.
:)
The only cure wands I've ever seen are in my present party that has only a bard and a multiclassed ranger as sources of healing. And those were either found off a defeated enemy (mostly-depleted wand of clw)or provided by NPC allies. It would never have occurred to my players to buy one; they'd rather spend their money on stat boosts or magic weapons.
I like the game of resource management; most of the time the PCs in my group will only cure themselves before the end of the day if they're really in desperate trouble of falling should they meet another encounter. And, yes, that's the point of all the BBEG's who set themselves up in the middle of a dungeon so the PCs have to fight their way in. If I were to have to let them heal themselves up to full after every encounter, I'd have to make the BBEG much tougher. How is that any different from letting a caster regain all his spells after every encounter so he can always have his highest-level ones available?
I first learned the value of the CLW wand in Shackled City. It was then that I looked at the idea of buying potions vs a wand. I convinced the other players to pool our money together to get one. I was never really a cure potion fan before then, and after that I don't think I ever purchase anything over a cure light.
I have considered lowering the price on the cure line of potions. They are just not economically efficient. If a GM banned the wands I would just buy scrolls.
I'm adding my 'me too' to the never seen them used lot. Like some others here, my PCs don't have access to the magic shop. Magic items are found things, and are valuable beyond the amount of gp listed. I realize this isn't RAW, but it used to be, and I liked that theme better than I like the new one.
So this means that any end boss encounter will absolutely mean that the PCs are going in partially depleted. That, after all, is what I see as the ENTIRE POINT of having encounters beforehand. I whittle them down a bit at a time and make them try and predict what they'll need later, which modifies their choices. I find those kinds of games the most rewarding for all involved.
Now, that being said, I'm going to wind up pulling punches on them. I'm only going to hit them as hard as I think they can withstand. I usually aim for enough firepower to kill only one of them, knowing that they'll surprise me and prevent that single death. But it runs things at a razor's edge, and it works.
Should I have 37 CLW wands floating in my player's packs, I'd design encounters something like three or four times harder to compensate.
So that, in a nutshell, is why I think I've never seen any. We're telling a story together, rather than trying to 'win' some kind of rule-r-riffic contest.
Now there are those, many in fact, in these discussions who absolutely THRIVE on mechanical expertise. They'd simply never enjoy a game where their own play wasn't at the absolute limit for what the system can provide. I'm not one of them, and they wouldn't be happy at my table.
:)
It not about trying to win anything. It is about staying alive. Myself and GM don't pull punches either, past low levels so in your games the wands may not be needed as much.
If we were to exchange players for a while their view on wands would probably change. My players would not care about them as much, and yours would start to buy them.
The only cure wands I've ever seen are in my present party that has only a bard and a multiclassed ranger as sources of healing. And those were either found off a defeated enemy (mostly-depleted wand of clw)or provided by NPC allies. It would never have occurred to my players to buy one; they'd rather spend their money on stat boosts or magic weapons.
I like the game of resource management; most of the time the PCs in my group will only cure themselves before the end of the day if they're really in desperate trouble of falling should they meet another encounter. And, yes, that's the point of all the BBEG's who set themselves up in the middle of a dungeon so the PCs have to fight their way in. If I were to have to let them heal themselves up to full after every encounter, I'd have to make the BBEG much tougher. How is that any different from letting a caster regain all his spells after every encounter so he can always have his highest-level ones available?
My players can have their full hp, not that they do because they have to conserve that want. They will still be less than 100% on spells, and other resources.
|
Actually, adding Cure Minor Wounds back as a cantrip would do a lot to eliminate the need for wands of CLW. You could heal everyone up between combats, but one point a round isn't an effective use of an action in combat.
That is a good way to handle it in my opinion, you give the power back to the player. Arcane cantrips can do damage, divine orisions should be able to do some healing.
Actually, adding Cure Minor Wounds back as a cantrip would do a lot to eliminate the need for wands of CLW. You could heal everyone up between combats, but one point a round isn't an effective use of an action in combat.That is a good way to handle it in my opinion, you give the power back to the player. Arcane cantrips can do damage, divine orisions should be able to do some healing.
Ironically (?), the reason behind the change from cure minor wounds to stabilize was so parties couldn't automatically get back up to full HP between fights, if they had enough time.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think part of the problem with 'happy sticks' is that they're more efficient than wands of moderate/serious/critical wounds, in a GP to HP ratio. no one is going to buy a wand of cure moderate if a wand of cure light is available.
Does anyone know how the wound/vitality mechanic changes this?
If it was a cantrip the players have limitless healing, and save money that is expected to go to such healing.
The wand does not give limitless healing, and most low level parties can't afford more than one. Even at high levels they are not likely to spend more money on a wand than they have to since that money could go to a permanent item.
This thread is interesting though. I never thought to pay attention to them past low levels. I now want to see if they are practical in my game at higher levels(above 7)
I think part of the problem with 'happy sticks' is that they're more efficient than wands of moderate/serious/critical wounds, in a GP to HP ratio. no one is going to buy a wand of cure moderate if a wand of cure light is available.
Does anyone know how the wound/vitality mechanic changes this?
I think the cure wands and potions should have been an exception to the rule for pricing. I am too lazy to do the math to figure out a fair amount though.
|
|
If we were to exchange players for a while their view on wands would probably change. My players would not care about them as much, and yours would start to buy them.
Yes, agreed. The style of the table is everything.
I wonder if that applies to the OP's premise? Is the majority of Pathfinder play of the non-pull-punches type?
I think part of the problem with 'happy sticks' is that they're more efficient than wands of moderate/serious/critical wounds, in a GP to HP ratio. no one is going to buy a wand of cure moderate if a wand of cure light is available.
Does anyone know how the wound/vitality mechanic changes this?
I've run the first two sessions of my newest campaign using VP/WP and so far it seems that the players are frustrated with the way WP heal, versus healing VP. They are far more concerned with watching their wound threshold, which is understandable. Since a wand of CLW would heal the regular amount of VP, but only 1 WP, I could see them blowing through the wand pretty quickly. Maybe this is a good thing, as it becomes financially difficult to maintain WP this way (at least at lower levels, where the wand is going to be the most useful). I don't know. They're only level 1 and don't have the cash for the wand anyway.