Why are Wands of CLW such a problem?


Prerelease Discussion

301 to 350 of 743 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Has anyone considered that perhaps the real issue is the 'number of encounters per day' mechanic?

I mean at 4 'encounters per day' I'm leveling up by the rules every 4 days, - or 5 levels every 19 days. I mean - if you want to talk verisimilitude - a character going from schlub to world ender in 95 days (3 months!) does that.

That's playing it safe btw - throw in APL+anything and you shorten that curve.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Building on ideas:
Restores PC to X hp max or full full hp if less. Casting the spell a second time may or may not give you more hit points depending on if you roll better.

Cure slight (orison) -> restore character to 0 hp.
Cure light -> restores PC to 2d8 + 1 x CL hp max. avg 10 at Cl 1
Cure mod -> restores PC to 2d8 + 3 x CL hp max. avg 19 at Cl 3
Cure serious ->restores PC to 2d8 + 5 x CL hp max. avg 34 at CL 5
Cure critical -> restores PC to 2d8 + 7 x CL hp max. avg 58 at Cl 7
Cure 5th level -> restores PC to 2d8 + 9 x CL hp max. avg 90 at CL 9
Heal -> As printed now. 10 x CL. avg 110 at CL 11


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:

Has anyone considered that perhaps the real issue is the 'number of encounters per day' mechanic?

I mean at 4 'encounters per day' I'm leveling up by the rules every 4 days, - or 5 levels every 19 days. I mean - if you want to talk verisimilitude - a character going from schlub to world ender in 95 days (3 months!) does that.

That's playing it safe btw - throw in APL+anything and you shorten that curve.

Be interesting to see what downtime blog has in store for the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

CLW -> CL x 10 ceiling of up to 20 HP total
CMW -> CL x 10 ceiling of up to 40 HP total
CSW -> CL x 10 ceiling of up to 60 HP total
CCW -> CL x 10 ceiling of up to 80 HP total
C5W -> CL x 10 ceiling of up to 100 HP total
HEAL -> CL x 10 no ceiling. + status removals as printed

This method also makes abilities like channel energy MUCH more relevant.


15 people marked this as a favorite.

A couple of thoughts before I fade back into the woodwork:

1. D&D and derivatives do not emulate any fantasy stories ever written EXCEPT those that are directly based on D&D. D&D is wholly its own genre, based on a kludge of ideas cobbled together in harlequin motley from a wide variety of different sources, none of which were in sync with the others. You cannot emulate Conan, Aragorn, Kvothe, Fafhrd, Rhialto, Elric, Roland Deschain, Ali Baba, Jon Snow, Morgan le Fay, Duny, or the Deryni with D&D because, guess what, they and the worlds they inhabit don't work anything like D&D characters or worlds. You can't take expectations from one genre and cram them onto another and expect them to fit.

2. Comparing games to fiction is wildly misleading and wholly irrelevant. In fiction, the author and the director *dictate* what will happen, whereas in games it's dictated by dice or chits or Jenga towers or whatever you crazy kids are using these days for conflict resolution. In the whole history of everything, no character in fiction has ever been injured that an author or director didn't want to be injured, no magic item worked or failed to work in any way that the author or director didn't dictate, and no quest failed or succeeded but that the author or director dictated that it would be so. There is *no* randomness to fiction. So for the love of Jebus please stop demanding that your games should emulate your fiction, because doing so just makes it clear you don't understand how either fiction or games actually work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:

Has anyone considered that perhaps the real issue is the 'number of encounters per day' mechanic?

I mean at 4 'encounters per day' I'm leveling up by the rules every 4 days, - or 5 levels every 19 days. I mean - if you want to talk verisimilitude - a character going from schlub to world ender in 95 days (3 months!) does that.

That's playing it safe btw - throw in APL+anything and you shorten that curve.

An interesting sidenote to keep in mind is that while Frodo hardly went from level 1 to level 20, his tale of leaving the Shire to destroying the One Ring was only six months long, and Lord of the Rings was one of the greatest influences on original D&D. It's not unbelievable for a character's entire development to be completed in a matter of months.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

Given the choice of 'easy and optimal' and 'inconvenient and inefficient', most people will choose the former...

I hope whatever healing system they use doesn't feel spammy. Imagine two YouTube/podcast RPG sessions. (This sort of thing is going to be increasingly important publicity from now on.) In one, after a high level battle, the players heal up in d8+1 chunks, crossing off wand charges as they go. In the other, the players say, "We use our once-a-day ten minute rest," and they regain 50% of max HP.

The latter makes the game seem more entertaining, because it improves the ratio of fun to tedious bookkeeping.

This might be a long one. I do believe I get what you're saying but there's a few things I want to unpack here.

1) Easy and Optimal vs inconvenient and inefficient - Is this for healing or for not having shopkeeps be vending machines? If it's the former, then well I don't see the complaints going away just transferring to the new easiest and most optimal thing going forward in 2e. If it's the latter, Roleplay opinions. My group wasted an hour talking to a merchant by themselves. Heck they wasted about 30 minutes arguing over coffin vs sarcophagus.

2) Get out with that streaming session. I'll admit they're a new thing to watch/listen and the DnD one is still going strong. But pretty sure no one watches for the actual mechanics.At least at first maybe and if they do they probably don't know the system that well to agree on Wand Spam. They watch for the personalities. And if they can make Wand spam funny, the viewers probably won't care. Add the fact that anyone that records a game session might actually agree with you on Wand Spam, well, I don't see this as THAT big of a problem. Never mind your example doesn't show what happens after the next fight.

3) And speaking of "tedious bookkeeping" for the beloved streaming(or in gneral), I haven't caught one of Paizos for the new system but doesn't it seem like there's should be more spam and bookkeping?
DM: So how do you guys heal?
Players: We use CLW wand, 2 heal checks, 2 healing class powers and some odd healing thing left over we have.
DM: ....Okay.

4) Player brought this optional rule up to me that seems to fix the slowness of CLW usage but not the "I can't kill them" problem. Max out of battle healing. I'm testing it but rather than roll you just take the max heal and mark off maybe 4 charges for an average party. Or can house rule they heal average if you want them to spend more.

Now again, I'm not saying they aren't a problem. If everything was fine and dandy, we probably wouldn't be on page 7 of this? But I just feel this is overblown(I tend to take forum stuff with salt, no offense), and fixable with some tinkering on the DM's part.

And I don't think the complaints will be fixed under the upcoming system. That's a guess mind you, much like I have a guess that a lot of substandard wand/spells are going to be left out in the cold under the new system even more than they are now.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kerrilyn wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Die Hard would be a very boring movie it John McClane had a wand of Cure Light Wounds.

"Glass? Who gives a **** about glass?"

>.<

He must have had like three hit points left at the end of that movie.

The hubby insists we watch that every Christmas since it's a "Christmas Movie"....somehow?

it's not Christmas until you watch it. This is known.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gregg Helmberger wrote:
In the whole history of everything, no character in fiction has ever been injured that an author or director didn't want to be injured, ...

Actor Mark Hamill was injured in a car accident shortly before the shooting of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. The movie added an opening scene of character Luke Skywalker being attacked by a snow monster to explain the wounds on Mark Hamill's face.

Gregg Helmberger wrote:
2. Comparing games to fiction is wildly misleading and wholly irrelevant.

The players gain ideas from fiction that they want to use on their characters. The designers know this and try to accommodate them. The monk class lets them play Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan characters, the paladin class lets them play a Knight of the Round Table, etc. We experienced players have grown to like Golarion peoples and histoy, but for new players the designers have to develop that interest. Maybe they read a great R.A. Salvatore book about Drizzt Do'Urden, but most of the time Paizo has to offer them something from other settings: Aragorn (ranger), Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser (figher and rogue), Elric of Melniboné (blackbound magus), any Bruce Lee character (monk), and other figures from mythology such as holy knights and wizards. They don't fit the Pathfinder setting well, but they fit well enough to tempt players to try them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:
The monk class lets them play Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan characters,

Jackie Chan is chaotic - he can't be a monk... (wakka wakka wakka!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
The monk class lets them play Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan characters,
Jackie Chan is chaotic - he can't be a monk... (wakka wakka wakka!)

Martial artist archetype.


Rob Godfrey wrote:
Kerrilyn wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Die Hard would be a very boring movie it John McClane had a wand of Cure Light Wounds.

"Glass? Who gives a **** about glass?"

>.<

He must have had like three hit points left at the end of that movie.

The hubby insists we watch that every Christmas since it's a "Christmas Movie"....somehow?

it's not Christmas until you watch it. This is known.

Nah. It's not a real Christmas until you've watched the original version of The Lion in Winter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

Given the choice of 'easy and optimal' and 'inconvenient and inefficient', most people will choose the former...

I hope whatever healing system they use doesn't feel spammy. Imagine two YouTube/podcast RPG sessions. (This sort of thing is going to be increasingly important publicity from now on.) In one, after a high level battle, the players heal up in d8+1 chunks, crossing off wand charges as they go. In the other, the players say, "We use our once-a-day ten minute rest," and they regain 50% of max HP.

The latter makes the game seem more entertaining, because it improves the ratio of fun to tedious bookkeeping.

Well one thing that's really easy is to say that wands heal X amount. Like wands heal 11 = 2(1d8+1) HP and use 2 charges out of combat. So then after a high level battle the players heal up and say, "I need 100 HP so that's 18 charges for 99 and I'm good enough" BOOM, game is improved and bookkeeping removed by accepting averages instead of the "more fun die rolling!" Like even saying it only heals 9 or 10 making it a little inefficient to get consistent healing makes it still worth to use wands.

(seriously, in the weapon thread people are so happy that weapons let them roll more saying that rolling = fun and here when being able to roll for healing people are upset cause you have to roll so many times)

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gregg Helmberger wrote:

A couple of thoughts before I fade back into the woodwork:

1. D&D and derivatives do not emulate any fantasy stories ever written EXCEPT those that are directly based on D&D. D&D is wholly its own genre, based on a kludge of ideas cobbled together in harlequin motley from a wide variety of different sources, none of which were in sync with the others. You cannot emulate Conan, Aragorn, Kvothe, Fafhrd, Rhialto, Elric, Roland Deschain, Ali Baba, Jon Snow, Morgan le Fay, Duny, or the Deryni with D&D because, guess what, they and the worlds they inhabit don't work anything like D&D characters or worlds. You can't take expectations from one genre and cram them onto another and expect them to fit.

2. Comparing games to fiction is wildly misleading and wholly irrelevant. In fiction, the author and the director *dictate* what will happen, whereas in games it's dictated by dice or chits or Jenga towers or whatever you crazy kids are using these days for conflict resolution. In the whole history of everything, no character in fiction has ever been injured that an author or director didn't want to be injured, no magic item worked or failed to work in any way that the author or director didn't dictate, and no quest failed or succeeded but that the author or director dictated that it would be so. There is *no* randomness to fiction. So for the love of Jebus please stop demanding that your games should emulate your fiction, because doing so just makes it clear you don't understand how either fiction or games actually work.

Looks at Powered by The Apocalypse games which are excellent at emulating the fiction upon which they’re based. Such as Masks: A New Generation for teen superheroes, Monsterhearts for supernatural romance, Monster of the Week for modern action-horror.

Looks at Blades in the Dark for pitch perfect heist games.

I think maybe you’ve given up on Fantasy Genre emulation because most fantasy RPGs aren’t really roleplaying games so much as fantasy skinned tactical combat games where people play roles out of a sense of politeness I suppose?

Anyway, genre emulation is not an unreasonable goal or expectation, and asking for it doesn’t not mean people aren’t cognisant of how fiction and games work. Rather it’s the opposite, and the vast majority of GMs who houserule their games do it either to better model the fiction, better model reality or to better model their view of how the game works.

You’re right that Pathfinder and it’s predecessors are historically poor at emulating the pulp fantasy genres upon which they were inspired. However there are gameable ways in which to better emulate the genre. Whether Pathfinder 2 does so remains to be seen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:

Given the choice of 'easy and optimal' and 'inconvenient and inefficient', most people will choose the former...

I hope whatever healing system they use doesn't feel spammy. Imagine two YouTube/podcast RPG sessions. (This sort of thing is going to be increasingly important publicity from now on.) In one, after a high level battle, the players heal up in d8+1 chunks, crossing off wand charges as they go. In the other, the players say, "We use our once-a-day ten minute rest," and they regain 50% of max HP.

The latter makes the game seem more entertaining, because it improves the ratio of fun to tedious bookkeeping.

Well one thing that's really easy is to say that wands heal X amount. Like wands heal 11 = 2(1d8+1) HP and use 2 charges out of combat. So then after a high level battle the players heal up and say, "I need 100 HP so that's 18 charges for 99 and I'm good enough" BOOM, game is improved and bookkeeping removed by accepting averages instead of the "more fun die rolling!" Like even saying it only heals 9 or 10 making it a little inefficient to get consistent healing makes it still worth to use wands.

(seriously, in the weapon thread people are so happy that weapons let them roll more saying that rolling = fun and here when being able to roll for healing people are upset cause you have to roll so many times)

My GM just said "out of combat, CLW wands heal 5 HP."

So instead of rolling 9x(1d8+1), then realizing you're still 9 HP down so rolling another 2x(1d8+1)... you just say "I need 11 charges from the wand" and you're done.


graystone wrote:
Kerrilyn: In pathfinder, it's possible to detect someone's level, hp's, class, feats, ki pool, grit pool, ect... It's not meta when you can get an in game source for it. Add to that the fact that people with IQ's FAR outstripping 'real life' are wandering around and I really don't see an argument for the game's characters to be ignorant of the basic facts of pathfinder life. SOMEONE has to have figured out that a 9' fall is safe while a 10' one isn't, even if that experiment requires a few orphan peasants to figure out. I just don't see pathfinder characters as 'dumb' as you seem to think they are.

The simplified mechanics of the PF world aren't supposed to be it's underlying reality btw. They're just abstractions that players can handle, so the game runs simply and swiftly.

I think neither of us are making any progress here so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

RumpinRufus wrote:

My GM just said "out of combat, CLW wands heal 5 HP."

So instead of rolling 9x(1d8+1), then realizing you're still 9 HP down so rolling another 2x(1d8+1)... you just say "I need 11 charges from the wand" and you're done.

Yah, that's what I would assume people do. But it's still book-keepy, why not just assume you get healed to full always if you find this acceptable, and have the DM award like ten percent less treasure? That auto-scales with level, and is very non-book-keepy and super-fast for the players (they just erase the damage).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
GM Glyn wrote:

Currently there is a point at which characters will not waste healing wands to cure the last 1-4 hit points as it being not cost effective even with wands.

First option system would be that there is a effective healing of spells based on characters percent hit points.

Another way to change the effective cost point break is to reduce the effective healing received from healing.

For example if you are more than 50% injured all healing from items would be fully effective, but if you are less than 50% injured all healing from items is less effective by half.

low level with 20 hit points max would receive 1d8+1 healing for each use until they exceed there 10 hit total, after that it would be half per healing. They might get luckily and go from 9hps to 18pt on one charge or unlucky 9hp to 11hp. (The effective healing drops from 5.5 per charge to 2.25 per charge.)

A high level with 100 Hit points would have a halfway point of 50hp.
using a wand of clw would take about 10 charges to get to 55hp. it would take 20 charges to heal fully.

A second option system would be that there is a max hp limit to the cure spell level.

CLW would heal at 100% effectiveness up to 10 hp, then 50% effectiveness to 20hp, zero healing over that.

CmW would heal at 100% effectiveness up to 20 hp, then 50% effectiveness to 40hp, zero healing over that.

CSW would heal at 100% effectiveness up to 30 hp, then 50% effectiveness to 60hp, zero healing over that.

CCW would heal at 100% effectiveness up to 40 hp, then 50% effectiveness to 80hp, zero healing over that.

Heal would heal 100% rate no limit.

(Another option instead of spell level the effective rates are tied to caster level CL x 10hp for 100% rate, CL x 20hp for 50% rate. a clw wand is CL 1, potion CMW is CL3 ...)

Wait, that is pretty brilliant.

Cure slight (orison) -> restore character to 0 hp.
Cure light -> full hp restoration up to 10 hp.
Cure mod ->...

That is a serioulsy clever idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
(seriously, in the weapon thread people are so happy that weapons let them roll more saying that rolling = fun and here when being able to roll for healing people are upset cause you have to roll so many times)

Rolling dice to see if you kill the enemy = exciting.

Rolling dice to see if it will take five wand charges or six to get you back to full health = not exciting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
(seriously, in the weapon thread people are so happy that weapons let them roll more saying that rolling = fun and here when being able to roll for healing people are upset cause you have to roll so many times)

Rolling dice to see if you kill the enemy = exciting.

Rolling dice to see if it will take five wand charges or six to get you back to full health = not exciting.

The resource management is exciting to me, fwiw.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
It’s fictionally unsatisfying, it’s just not part of any fantasy story ever.

Most heroes don't even get hurt unless they're really hurt so you can't really use a storybased comparison.

For the times they do get hurt, It fits the same trope as a hero being healed by magic after almost being killed or taking time to heal up. In stories the time is bypassed until the hero is better. In the game you could rest for a few days until you healed, but that would be unsatisfying despite it being a real thing in fantasy stories.

If the players steamroll all of the enemies the game is boring.
If you go the other way and have them actually get hurt they need the healing, and if someone is hurt it makes sense to want to get back to full health.

Sorry, but the comparison to fantasy stories falls flat because you can't really make the fights play out like a story. There is going to be some aspect of gaming involved that no story has to deal with.

I understand that Paizo is trying to find a middle ground, but this is a terrible way to do it.

This would be an easier fix if there was a wound based health system, but that would make a lot of people unhappy, including myself.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
GM Glyn wrote:

Currently there is a point at which characters will not waste healing wands to cure the last 1-4 hit points as it being not cost effective even with wands.

First option system would be that there is a effective healing of spells based on characters percent hit points.

Another way to change the effective cost point break is to reduce the effective healing received from healing.

For example if you are more than 50% injured all healing from items would be fully effective, but if you are less than 50% injured all healing from items is less effective by half.

low level with 20 hit points max would receive 1d8+1 healing for each use until they exceed there 10 hit total, after that it would be half per healing. They might get luckily and go from 9hps to 18pt on one charge or unlucky 9hp to 11hp. (The effective healing drops from 5.5 per charge to 2.25 per charge.)

A high level with 100 Hit points would have a halfway point of 50hp.
using a wand of clw would take about 10 charges to get to 55hp. it would take 20 charges to heal fully.

A second option system would be that there is a max hp limit to the cure spell level.

CLW would heal at 100% effectiveness up to 10 hp, then 50% effectiveness to 20hp, zero healing over that.

CmW would heal at 100% effectiveness up to 20 hp, then 50% effectiveness to 40hp, zero healing over that.

CSW would heal at 100% effectiveness up to 30 hp, then 50% effectiveness to 60hp, zero healing over that.

CCW would heal at 100% effectiveness up to 40 hp, then 50% effectiveness to 80hp, zero healing over that.

Heal would heal 100% rate no limit.

(Another option instead of spell level the effective rates are tied to caster level CL x 10hp for 100% rate, CL x 20hp for 50% rate. a clw wand is CL 1, potion CMW is CL3 ...)

Wait, that is pretty brilliant.

Cure slight (orison) -> restore character to 0 hp.
Cure light -> full hp restoration up to 10 hp.
Cure mod -> full hp restoration up to 25 hp.
Cure serious -> full hp restoration up to 40 hp.
Cure critical -> full hp restoration up to 75 hp.
Cure 5th level -> full hp restoration up to 125.
Heal -> As printed now.

I like both of these ideas.

It makes sense that less powerful healing magic would be more limited as to how much it can heal.
It also removes the random dice roll aspect.

Rolling 4d8+7 and only getting 12 hit points back is annoying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

I question why DMs give out 50 charge wands like they are candy. I'm not even talking from a balance but a story side.

Mage makes a wand, goes to sell it. Buyer will want to test it out espically if they don't detect magic or spellcraft it. So it's now 49 charges. Possible repeat until someone buys it or the wizard says no more testing. And if the buyer is a traveler, then said wand is probably going to see some use before their death or the sell of the wand.

This doesn't sound too extreme does it?

They made with 50 charges by default. Also in business repeat customers are you better than new customers because you dont have to convince repeat customers to trust you, so it makes sense to not burn a charge. Additionally with your customers being adventures they are likely powerful enough to kill you, and they could be willing to do it.

On top of all this if trying to cheat people was a common thing in a game world then magic to trick people into paying for an item that didnt work as advertised would also be a common thing. So those people without spellcraft or detect magic are screwed anyway.

Cursed items already have a higher DC to recognize than normal items. It wouldn't be hard to do if someone wanted to do so intentionally. It's just not in the game rules because the rules assume that the merchants aren't trying to trick PC's.

In addition, going back to my statement about trying to trick dangerous customers, most people aren't buying wands above 2nd level, and the cheaper ones are worth risking your like over.

The 4th level wands are really pricey. You could make the argument that they're worth the risk, yet, I've never seen one purchased due to the prices.

That kinda leads us back to the dangerous adventuring group issue because if they can afford a 4th level wand they've done some things dangerous enough to get that much coin, you don't want them to come for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

I question why DMs give out 50 charge wands like they are candy. I'm not even talking from a balance but a story side.

Mage makes a wand, goes to sell it. Buyer will want to test it out espically if they don't detect magic or spellcraft it. So it's now 49 charges. Possible repeat until someone buys it or the wizard says no more testing. And if the buyer is a traveler, then said wand is probably going to see some use before their death or the sell of the wand.

This doesn't sound too extreme does it?

They made with 50 charges by default. Also in business repeat customers are you better than new customers because you dont have to convince repeat customers to trust you, so it makes sense to not burn a charge. Additionally with your customers being adventures they are likely powerful enough to kill you, and they could be willing to do it.

On top of all this if trying to cheat people was a common thing in a game world then magic to trick people into paying for an item that didnt work as advertised would also be a common thing. So those people without spellcraft or detect magic are screwed anyway.

Cursed items already have a higher DC to recognize than normal items. It wouldn't be hard to do if someone wanted to do so intentionally. It's just not in the game rules because the rules assume that the merchants aren't trying to trick PC's.

In addition, going back to my statement about trying to trick dangerous customers, most people aren't buying wands above 2nd level, and the cheaper ones are worth risking your like over.

The 4th level wands are really pricey. You could make the argument that they're worth the risk, yet, I've never seen one purchased due to the prices.

That kinda leads us back to the dangerous adventuring group issue because if they can afford a 4th level wand they've done some things dangerous enough to get that much coin, you don't want them to come for you.

As an interesting aside, this is a good point. People complain about the use of CLW wands because it is cheesy for a high level group to use 1st level spells for primary healing. But it is entirely a price concern.

I too have noticed that picking up higher level wands (or higher CL wands) is pretty rare in my games. Perhaps the elegant solution people are looking for is to simply rebalance the price of wands.

EDIT:

Perhaps instead of SLxCLx750 it was (SL+CL)x750 for the price of a wand?

SL1CL1 wand -> 1500gp
SL2CL3 wand -> 3750gp
SL3CL5 wand -> 6000gp
SL4CL7 wand -> 8250gp

GP/HP:
CLWW -> ~5.5
CMWW -> 6.25
CSWW -> ~6.5
CCWW -> 6.6

So, CLWW is still the best bang for your buck, but it is much tighter curve that way.

Math for those interested:

CLWW
(1+1)x750 = 1,500
((1 x 4.5)+1)x50 = 275
1500/275 = 5.4545

CMWW
(2+3)x750 = 3,750
((2 x 4.5)+3)x50 = 600
3750/600 = 6.25

CSWW
(3+5)x750 = 6,000
((3 x 4.5)+5)x50 = 925
6000/925 = 6.4865

CCWW
(4+7)x750 = 8,250
((4 x 4.5)+7)x50 = 1,250
8250/1250 = 6.6


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What is going to happen to the economy of Golarion when adventurers stop buying cheap wands and other consumables? Are the churches going to get richer or poorer if adventurers are all stopping in to get healed directly from low level clerics since they can no longer count of potions, scrolls and wands to heal them/cure conditions?


You know, I wasn't going to reply. Not because I don't like talking or even dislike people in the thread or something like that. Mainly because 1) I'm somewhat unsure what more I can say without repeating myself and 2) I can only get through this topic through my history.

But it showed up on the front page for me so I dipped back in. Is this a forum problem, just not updating topic position on the forum or something? Unsure, but let's get started.

wraithstrike wrote:


They made with 50 charges by default. Also in business repeat customers are you better than new customers because you dont have to convince repeat customers to trust you, so it makes sense to not burn a charge. Additionally with your customers being adventures they are likely powerful enough to kill you, and they could be willing to do it.

We have so many changes to Default rules I see no reason not to simply change the default charges on wands in a way that makes sense to me. Granted I would share this info with players before game or before they start getting into enough cash to start picking up wands enmass. So maybe after the first dungeon.

I dunno about the "Willing to kill you" part. I would expect several issues with that line of thinking. I'll get back to that later in post.

wraithstrike wrote:


On top of all this if trying to cheat people was a common thing in a game world then magic to trick people into paying for an item that didnt work as advertised would also be a common thing. So those people without spellcraft or detect magic are screwed anyway.

Given how common it is for spellcasters to pick up Charm spells, I don't see the reason to turn the tables if the DM wishes to do. As for those people without spellcraft or detect magic, well I see other problems than just buying wands for them. Say, ID'ing what they get out of a dungeon? What the expatiation for buying wands enmass is fine but the expatiation of someone on the party that can ID magic items isn't? Though if this is about the normal NPC person in the world..., um how many NPCs do you have running around with a magic item that isn't either rich, an adventurer, or has it as an heirloom?

wraithstrike wrote:


Cursed items already have a higher DC to recognize than normal items. It wouldn't be hard to do if someone wanted to do so intentionally. It's just not in the game rules because the rules assume that the merchants aren't trying to trick PC's.

Cursed items are something I rarely see or have even heard about other than in prebuilt campaigns.

So if your group goes to a seedy merchant or a traveling salesmen, you don't stop to consider the NPC's role beyond "Beep boop, vending"? Okay extreme example, But in what you qouted I didn't say anything about the vendor trying to cheat the PCs. Heck, the PCs might try to cheat the merchant for free heal while making sure it is in fact a CLW wand.

wraithstrike wrote:


In addition, going back to my statement about trying to trick dangerous customers, most people aren't buying wands above 2nd level, and the cheaper ones are worth risking your like over.

The 4th level wands are really pricey. You could make the argument that they're worth the risk, yet, I've never seen one purchased due to the prices.

That kinda leads us back to the dangerous adventuring group issue because if they can afford a 4th level wand they've done some things dangerous enough to get that much coin, you don't want them to come for you.

Clarify? They don't buy above level 4 but if they can afford it they... wont but will kill over a level 1-2 wand? Eh?

And on that subject we return to the playstyle as opposed to any rules. Should the team go back and deal with the cheating merchant, well you have a side plot or even a gateway into a whole plot about underground sellers getting their wares from some seedy criminal merchant guild. And even if they go back to do harm, well I would assume the local guards won't like that one bit if said merchant is in town. Granted your players might get out a sheet and math out that it is entirely worth the risk to go back and kill the merchant then take everything for themselves. What's better than CLW wands enmass? FREE CLW wands enmass.

Again this mainly based on my own experience with players and some testing with the rules on my end. My groups usually pick up 1 and then sit on it for most the game as it's "Just enough" for them. Given that it's never been an issue for me yet, I can only guess it's my changes, my players, or some combo of the two. And since I can't export my players to every table playing, I can only give what I've done to work around the issue though I'm unsure if I'd still have an issue given my players seem to be of the mind set "Let's not cheese this", but that's a general thing than just Wands.

SO yeah, it's a problem but I don't believe it effects every table as much and don't think shaming said tables for not being smart with their buys is a good thing for the community(Not you wraithstrike but pretty sure in a community like this and as big, this is badwrongfun to someone).

I also don't think Pathfinder 2.0 will fix the problem of CLW wands. At least for long. We have math showing it is more than likely if not an actual truth that in 1.0 CLW is the best to buy for healing. I'm sure someone's going to show what is the best healing for usage/gold in 2.0 as well. Then we'll be back here again.


If you wanted a simpler hand-wave without fussing about with percentages of maximum health and all that, you could just replace the wand's d8s with a fixed number, as was already suggested for CLW - say 3 for CLW (4 at CL 1), 4 for CMW (11 at CL 3), 5 for CSW (20 at CL 5) and 6 for CCW (31 at CL 7). That way, you speed up the dice-rolling and make the more expensive wands better to use.

Scarab Sages

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
It’s not that it’s boring or silly but that it breaks the design of the game. The Adventures and encounters aren’t built under the assumption that you are able to heal up completely after every fight without spending significant resources to do so. Stockpiling cheap wands of CLW breaks that assumption and makes non super challenging fights basically meaningless.

I would love to know what PFS scenarios that you think have the final encounters designed for wounded parties. I have not seen any. What I have seen is that if the party isn't fully healed then a TPK is very likely. The game I was in last night had a creature that had 3 attacks at +18 (vs my AC 20) and was doing on average about 20 points of damage each hit. The party was losing hits points way faster than a wand of CLW's 1d8+1 points of healing could unbalance anything. And with every class getting its own healing it makes it sound like 4E D&D. I don't like martial characters all of a sudden being magical. It has too much of a cheezy video game feel.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gazzlesnort wrote:
And with every class getting its own healing it makes it sound like 4E D&D. I don't like martial characters all of a sudden being magical. It has too much of a cheezy video game feel.

Seems to me there were at least a couple of scenes where Rambo healed himself.

Many of us want a non-magical method of healing that is effective. Given some of the comments I've seen, we are likely to get that.

Grand Lodge

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps Subscriber

It seems like this thread is going round and round in circles and we’re retreading arguments now. There are lots of questions that we all have at this point, and few anwers. We haven’t really seen enough of the healing mechanics that they’ve put into PF2 to really judge whether the removal of CLW wands is a good or bad thing.

Let’s summarize some common points here, shall we?

Very few of us want to go back to a game design where clerics were forced into healing people all the time. Dedicated healers like Omar Senay or Lyric the Singing Paladin are great — when they want to be healers. In PFS, I’ve enjoyed that people can play what they want and that players can be self-reliant by purchasing wands so that they can continue on with the mission. Because players have a choice whether to be healers or not, in PFS I have noticed that those who ARE healers are happier about it. Their parties appreciate them for their very rarity, and they can decide how to handle themselves.

It sounds like the designers don’t want that either, and that makes me breathe a sigh of relief.

Are CLW wands a boring thing to track? Sure, healing wands aren’t in stories. But neither are many other necessary regular tasks like going to the bathroom or attending to personal hygiene... I honesty don’t think that wand tracking takes that much time — mentally or physically. In PFS, pretty much everyone owns a healing wand, and they track the charges themselves, usually doing quick tick marks that only take seconds out of the game.

Many of us are worried that a world without CLW wands means a tradeoff from short boring moments of wand charge tracking to long boring times waiting to recover. I’m also worried about simply being unable to continue with missions. One of the things that I would love to see is what happens when PF2 characters go through a multi-table special. Let’s see them do Blood Under Absalom or Race for the Runecarved Key. If PF2 healing can keep up, I’ll stop worrying.

But does cheap healing unbalance the game? Man, that is hard to say, since it seems like every adventure that I have participated in PF1 has required cheap healing In order for parties to continue. I think all of PF1 adventure design was balanced around that concept. Will PF2 be balanced differently, or will in game non-magical healing fill the gap? These are unknowns at this point, but these unknowns are causing us some anxiety.

Cheap healing is unheroic. Heroes are meant to struggle. That can be cool in limited instances, where one is doing an adventure that is meant to test your resolve when you have few resources. But quite frankly, I don’t want that kind of struggle. Seriously, I don’t. Being sick or injured is not fun, and not my idea of being heroic.

There are so many other resources that I am willing to try to keep track of... When doing a special or other time-pressured adventures with many encounters in a single day, one to pace oneself. You have to consider when you use your best abilities and spells, and husband them. I don’t mind this kind of resource management, because it is a player choice.

However, getting injured is not a player choice most of the time. Once the battle is over, I want to get better so that I can persevere and keep going. That’s what’s fun for me. So... Tell me that I’ll be able to keep going, and that my players will be able to keep going, with the new healing options, and my worries here will evaporate.

Without CLW, lower level monsters are more scary and epic. That is true. But if the game tilts that way, PF2 adventures and their adversaries will have to be scaled way down from what we are used to in PF1. Adapting PF1 adventures on the fly for PF2 might not be a common thing at all.

Will every class having healing options be cool and interesting, or will it consist of dumb renamings of the same general mechanic? That’s an aesthetic question for which we have no real answer yet. I will say that as a fan of characters that are prepared to adventure, I don’t mind the idea of every class being able to potentially help heal people — especially if this helps open up other roles and actions for clerics. We all should have first aid, if we’re going to do dangerous and exciting things.

I think that the biggest fear that we have with this change is that it is so very, very different from what we’ve done before. We don’t have full information. We have only seen a playtest example where the Glass Cannon Podcast party was completely stopped by an injury. Is one playtest example significant? Who knows?

So, what can we do? Breathe. August will come around soon enough. We’ll soon all be able to download the playtest, and try it for ourselves. If we hate the new healing, we can tell the designers so in no uncertain terms. We know that Mark, Jason and Logan are cool people, and that they are listening to us and reading just about every post on this forum.

For the moment, I’m going to withhold judgment until I can see the whole Playtest package.

Hmm


BretI wrote:
Gazzlesnort wrote:
And with every class getting its own healing it makes it sound like 4E D&D. I don't like martial characters all of a sudden being magical. It has too much of a cheezy video game feel.

Seems to me there were at least a couple of scenes where Rambo healed himself.

Many of us want a non-magical method of healing that is effective. Given some of the comments I've seen, we are likely to get that.

And besides an Immersion problem, this will solve what?

If the non magic heals are entirely spammable or able to be used enough times per day, then we're back to the "I have to toss big numbers/monsters at them each fight otherwise there's no threat" problem that seems to happen with CLW.

From what I've seen, we have a good number of different ways to heal now. Class abilities, the heal skill, CLW wand still, some sort of Healing stone(Did that take Resonance?) and of course normal heal spells and channels.

Until we know just how many times we can use them, I think we're back at some of the same problems as before. And never mind when the math gets cracked.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So uh, probably someone pointed these out already, but wanted to give my own grievances with cure light wound wands:

Its more cost effective to buy cure light wounds wands than moderate/serious/critical wounds wands, so there is no reason to buy latter ones.

It lessens the importance of actually having character capable of healing in the party. Though I suppose some might consider that to be a good thing.

It is annoying to have to be like "Okay, I now cast cure light wounds ten times after combat, let's roll them one by one. Ah I rolled badly, okay, ten more times" in live games :P Especially after each combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
It lessens the importance of actually having character capable of healing in the party. Though I suppose some might consider that to be a good thing.

Most people do. If you like being the healer then that's great, but it's fairly common to get a group together where no one wants to play a healing character.

CorvusMask wrote:
It is annoying to have to be like "Okay, I now cast cure light wounds ten times after combat, let's roll them one by one. Ah I rolled badly, okay, ten more times" in live games :P Especially after each combat.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with an attempt to solve this issue. Resonance doesn't do anything to solve that problem, though.

Dark Archive

It does solve one thing though: Because of Resonance, CLW wands at higher levels aren't cost effective anymore, so party would rather upgrade to cure critical wand as soon as possible so instead of doing bunch of 1d8+1 heals, it'd be 4d8+7 heals. In other words, it encourages players to use methods of healing that heal more per one use rather than tons of tiny heals which is the annoying part I find with CLW wand.


MerlinCross wrote:
BretI wrote:
Gazzlesnort wrote:
And with every class getting its own healing it makes it sound like 4E D&D. I don't like martial characters all of a sudden being magical. It has too much of a cheezy video game feel.

Seems to me there were at least a couple of scenes where Rambo healed himself.

Many of us want a non-magical method of healing that is effective. Given some of the comments I've seen, we are likely to get that.

And besides an Immersion problem, this will solve what?

Let's say it only solves the immersion problem.

Well... progress?


MerlinCross wrote:

You know, I wasn't going to reply. Not because I don't like talking or even dislike people in the thread or something like that. Mainly because 1) I'm somewhat unsure what more I can say without repeating myself and 2) I can only get through this topic through my history.

But it showed up on the front page for me so I dipped back in. Is this a forum problem, just not updating topic position on the forum or something? Unsure, but let's get started.

wraithstrike wrote:


They made with 50 charges by default. Also in business repeat customers are you better than new customers because you dont have to convince repeat customers to trust you, so it makes sense to not burn a charge. Additionally with your customers being adventures they are likely powerful enough to kill you, and they could be willing to do it.

We have so many changes to Default rules I see no reason not to simply change the default charges on wands in a way that makes sense to me. Granted I would share this info with players before game or before they start getting into enough cash to start picking up wands enmass. So maybe after the first dungeon.

I dunno about the "Willing to kill you" part. I would expect several issues with that line of thinking. I'll get back to that later in post.

wraithstrike wrote:


On top of all this if trying to cheat people was a common thing in a game world then magic to trick people into paying for an item that didnt work as advertised would also be a common thing. So those people without spellcraft or detect magic are screwed anyway.
Given how common it is for spellcasters to pick up Charm spells, I don't see the reason to turn the tables if the DM wishes to do. As for those people without spellcraft or detect magic, well I see other problems than just buying wands for them. Say, ID'ing what they get out of a dungeon? What the expatiation for buying wands enmass is fine but the expatiation of someone on the party that can ID magic items isn't? Though if this is about the normal...

As for the last portion I was pointing how the high price of 4th level wands and that if someone can actually afford one they're too dangerous for a shopkeeper to bother risking a fight with. Basically saying wands only have 49 charges because of possible fraud is a terrible idea when you consider the people they are selling the wands too.

Even if you want to say it might be a real problem, if someone wants to trick a buyer who doesnt have detect magic they can trick them into thinking it does something that it really doesn't. That is where I was going with the cursed item comparison. I wasn't saying to actually make cursed items. I'm saying that in a game world where this type of trickery is common it would make sense for similar trick items to be created.
In addition I'm not saying nothing that is default cant be changed. I'm just saying why it happens. It's also better for ease of play. It also doesn't screw over parties who dont have a caster in the party.

Basically the extra potential drama isn't adding more to the game than it's taking away.


BretI wrote:
Gazzlesnort wrote:
And with every class getting its own healing it makes it sound like 4E D&D. I don't like martial characters all of a sudden being magical. It has too much of a cheezy video game feel.

Seems to me there were at least a couple of scenes where Rambo healed himself.

Many of us want a non-magical method of healing that is effective. Given some of the comments I've seen, we are likely to get that.

I'm sure that didn't happen. I've seen movies have continuity errors, but he never actually "healed" himself. Patching himself up is not the same as healing either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gazzlesnort wrote:
And with every class getting its own healing it makes it sound like 4E D&D. I don't like martial characters all of a sudden being magical. It has too much of a cheezy video game feel.

Healing only needs to be 'magical' if you think of hit point damage as representing severe injuries. (Severe injuries that somehow don't reduce your ability to fight until you hit zero, and don't cause Bleed.)

If you think of hit points as mostly representing loss of stamina, lucky dodges reducing a hit to a glancing blow, and so on, then healing significant HP through resting / applying a few bandages doesn't need to be magical.


wraithstrike wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

You know, I wasn't going to reply. Not because I don't like talking or even dislike people in the thread or something like that. Mainly because 1) I'm somewhat unsure what more I can say without repeating myself and 2) I can only get through this topic through my history.

But it showed up on the front page for me so I dipped back in. Is this a forum problem, just not updating topic position on the forum or something? Unsure, but let's get started.

wraithstrike wrote:


They made with 50 charges by default. Also in business repeat customers are you better than new customers because you dont have to convince repeat customers to trust you, so it makes sense to not burn a charge. Additionally with your customers being adventures they are likely powerful enough to kill you, and they could be willing to do it.

We have so many changes to Default rules I see no reason not to simply change the default charges on wands in a way that makes sense to me. Granted I would share this info with players before game or before they start getting into enough cash to start picking up wands enmass. So maybe after the first dungeon.

I dunno about the "Willing to kill you" part. I would expect several issues with that line of thinking. I'll get back to that later in post.

wraithstrike wrote:


On top of all this if trying to cheat people was a common thing in a game world then magic to trick people into paying for an item that didnt work as advertised would also be a common thing. So those people without spellcraft or detect magic are screwed anyway.
Given how common it is for spellcasters to pick up Charm spells, I don't see the reason to turn the tables if the DM wishes to do. As for those people without spellcraft or detect magic, well I see other problems than just buying wands for them. Say, ID'ing what they get out of a dungeon? What the expatiation for buying wands enmass is fine but the expatiation of someone on the party that can ID magic items isn't? Though
...

Again, if they get that bent out of shape to double back and do terrible things over a 49 wand, I expect you have far bigger problems. In the short term it's starting up the local guards. You also made the jump to Fraud again. I explained in universe why it might not have the charges and if the merchant is up front about it, what fraud are you jumping at?

Oh is this the logic? Every merchant is suddenly out to cheat the party! That's not what I said, though if they are buying at an underground shop maybe don't be surprised to run into one. Or the pathfinder version of a used car salesman. But not every single one.

And heck in universe a team would want to see if it's a CLW wand if they can't detect it. So figure out how to check first or actually have some trust.

This seems like a problem DMs could have fixed if they take some steps without instantly shifting to Ban or Vs the players mind set. Or Paizeo just nerfing wand healing. I see too much being lost for what we're going to get in the new sytem. And we'll be right back here when the math comes around and we see the best healing again expected on every team


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
Mathmuse wrote:
The monk class lets them play Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan characters,
Jackie Chan is chaotic - he can't be a monk... (wakka wakka wakka!)

He started off as a Monk, but changed his alignment so can no longer advance in that direction. He thus changed his class to Bard.


Martial artist archetype let you be of any alignment., I think


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Martial artist archetype let you be of any alignment., I think

Off topic: Really? Have a player that wants to do Monk/barbarian so that sounds like it can be possible now.

On topic; I just had a random thought that built off I was trying to get across before. Now I like wands. Good way to get some spells for Martials or save spell slots for casters. And some spell's might see more use on a wand that spell slot(Consider, Bless). So I really like wands.

On that note WHO needs 50 casts of ANY Spell? Heck I'm not even entirely sure you can cast [Insert Key Spell Here] 50 times over the course of a campaign with spell slots, why do we need it on a wand?

Personally 25 seems like a decent place to start from and then maybe select X changes based on each spell or school than just the same across the board(maybe more book keeping but hey CLW nerf)

Liberty's Edge

MerlinCross wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Martial artist archetype let you be of any alignment., I think
Off topic: Really? Have a player that wants to do Monk/barbarian so that sounds like it can be possible now.

There's also a Trait that lets you be N or NG as a Monk of any sort. It's technically an Aasimar one, but you could've just been adopted by an aasimar and still have it.


Not too much to add to this topic, but I just wanted to voice my opinion that I've never had a problem with wands of CLW. As a GM, I'm fine with players paying or creating resources for themselves to stay alive. It never really broke immersion to me either because I had already accepted their existence and place in the context of my campaign world. Healing up after a fight was reduced to a quick process, and keeping track of wand charges was on the same level of keeping track of ammunition.

I don't think Resonance to be an innovative or fun idea, so I don't see it solving anything. Then again, I'm also the GM that implemented the Recharge Magic rules from 3.5 Unearthed Arcana into the campaign, so my tastes veer toward magic-popular campaign.


Oh one last thing before I shut up cause I am getting annoying probably, I'll admit this.

To those that say it gets boring watching people roll dice for CLW, I do have a question about that. Do you roll for each CHARGE used on a person or do you just group up them all up and roll together. Like if the wand is 1d8+1 and you heal someone 5 times do you go; 5d8+5 or 1d8+1 rolled 5 times?


We started taking average, 5.5hp per charge


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Hmm wrote:

But does cheap healing unbalance the game? Man, that is hard to say, since it seems like every adventure that I have participated in PF1 has required cheap healing In order for parties to continue. I think all of PF1 adventure design was balanced around that concept. Will PF2 be balanced differently, or will in game non-magical healing fill the gap? These are unknowns at this point, but these unknowns are causing us some anxiety.

Cheap healing is unheroic. Heroes are meant to struggle. That can be cool in limited instances, where one is doing an adventure that is meant to test your resolve when you have few resources. But quite frankly, I don’t want that kind of struggle. Seriously, I don’t. Being sick or injured is not fun, and not my idea of being heroic.

This whole "balanced" question is strictly a function of play style. Some folks play PF (or DDx) with optimised characters against optimised adversaries, and rightly feel that if they aren't at 100% hit points at the start of each combat, they are toast.

Other folks play PF as a game of attrition. They head out on their dungeon crawl, or on their winderness adventure, or enter the lair of the evil genius and work their way through a series of challenges, shepherding their resources, be it spell slots, hit points or what have you. Maybe they enter some fights at 90%, or 75%, 50% or even less. But not all their fights are right on the edge of survivability either. Not all their adversaries are optimised, and maybe the PCs aren't either. And maybe they have to run away, bargain or otherwise avoid some fights because they don't have enough resources left, or they are too wounded.

I don't mean to say that one or the other play style is "right" or "better". But they will require different sorts of access to cheap and easy healing.

On a side note, several previous posters have spoken about healing and linked the results to caster level. However we have already learned that most if not all spells will not have a scaling caster level mechanic in them at all, they will be fixed.

As far as available healing resources in PF2, only time will tell. But as I've said before, I suspect we will get a blend of solutions, from skill-based options (like a beefed up Heal skill) to alchemical options (which, not being magical, ought not to cost resonance) to magic items like potions (we know that there will be new and different crafting options, but that using these items will cost resonance) to spells (from clerics, druids and bards, at least).


MerlinCross wrote:
To those that say it gets boring watching people roll dice for CLW, I do have a question about that. Do you roll for each CHARGE used on a person or do you just group up them all up and roll together. Like if the wand is 1d8+1 and you heal someone 5 times do you go; 5d8+5 or 1d8+1 rolled 5 times?

Depends on how many d8s they have, and how close they are to full health. If you've taken 30 points of damage, you probably want five charges, but you might want to use as few as three (which could heal 27). And calculating how many charges you're likely to need is often more effort than just doing it one charge at a time.


Matthew Downie wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
To those that say it gets boring watching people roll dice for CLW, I do have a question about that. Do you roll for each CHARGE used on a person or do you just group up them all up and roll together. Like if the wand is 1d8+1 and you heal someone 5 times do you go; 5d8+5 or 1d8+1 rolled 5 times?
Depends on how many d8s they have, and how close they are to full health. If you've taken 30 points of damage, you probably want five charges, but you might want to use as few as three (which could heal 27). And calculating how many charges you're likely to need is often more effort than just doing it one charge at a time.

I said I'd stop, but hello this seems overkill to me. I brought up the "how you roll" question because that's what someone did in my game at time of posting(wrapping up, no I don't post during play). Just rolled a bunch of D8s.

And again, 50 charges. Pretty sure you can blow a few charges. I know there math about it being the best healing for gold but just how long is it expected to last?

Gah, I'll be back after I calm down or something. Just the full optimal healing idea makes me want to eat my hat in frustration. Flipping it around, I'd probably make a couple people do the same with my own play.


Charges cost 15gp. My rule of thumb is that 1gp is roughly the equivalent $100 in real-world money. So wasting a wand charge is like the character throwing away $1500 for no reason.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Charges cost 15gp. My rule of thumb is that 1gp is roughly the equivalent $100 in real-world money. So wasting a wand charge is like the character throwing away $1500 for no reason.

I question how your rule effects your in game buying practices as a whole then. God what goes unused or sold off? God a sub par wand is probably vendor trash under this outlook.

I also ask just what people are using their newly saved gold to buy thanks to saving gold with CLW wands.

301 to 350 of 743 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Why are Wands of CLW such a problem? All Messageboards