| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that my Potion of Healing (and all other useful consumables) compete for daily resources with my armor, cloak, rings, amulets (and all other useful equipment) is just plain distasteful. It encourages an un-fun style of play where everything you do magically has to be weighed
against the very real possibility of dying due to Resonance Depletion Syndrome (what will threaten to kill more PF2E adventurers than any sword ever could).
Since no use of a consumable is likely to be better than dying, I'm encouraged to only use consumables that prevent myself from dying that round, or when I'm already overspent (and therefore basically a walking corpse anyway).
The original purpose of potions was to be weak scrolls that anybody could use (in-case you needed to heal the cleric), and the original point of scrolls was just to allow wizards to conserve their unused (but highly valuable) daily resources for another day (or convert them into a source of wealth in retirement to justify to commonality of such items in the world)...
As loot, consumable items are intended to supply the group with specific effects they lack (quick healing to a party lacking a cleric for example), and to allow them to convert excess wealth into additional daily resources (and vice-versa)*. It wasn't a bug, it was a feature!
* To be spent during encounters which are designed to expend more than just all of your daily resources, such as a real boss fight.
If the problem were really just that low-level potions were too cheap compared to high-level potions, that could have been solved much more easily at an economic level by making all potions cost about the same in terms of GP to HP ratio (but have generally similar weight regardless of potency). Decades of play have shown that the relative value of 1 HP doesn't really change much as you get more of them. A Power-gamer only needs the slightest encouragement to do the most efficient thing possible over what they actually want to do, so having to "pay more" for weaker potions in the form of them costing the same amount per HP, but taking more actions and encumbrance to use is encouragement enough to buy a better potion or wand as soon as you run out of the old ones.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, Wands of Infernal Healing were even better. :pIf you were an Evil party or didn't have Alignments to hold up.
It otherwise came with a nagging GM that wanted to take over your character sheet if you used it too much, which is a whole other headache.
Two things.
1) Using Wands isn't an evil act.
2) casting Good spells is a good act and would counteract actually casting an evil spell.
Bonus) Paizo didn't even care about it until Horror Adventures came out and were letting people cast evil spells in PFS games willy-nilly without alignment issues. I'm not even sure this changed after HA came out....
I want mundane (or at least non-spell) solutions to be viable for most problems, including healing.
I would say "all problems" but I suppose "win the wizarding competition" is a thing that should require spells.
We still don't know how "I have healing as a signature skill, I'm going to rank it up whenever I can, and I'm going to take good healing skill feats when they are available" manages the problem.
I don't - I prefer to think that monsters with 12 inch fangs and razor claws actually slice pieces of me off, and break bones. I like to think the only reason we keep going is because healing is magical.
I think the heal skill needs to be better, but not too much - frankly it's stupid if someone can patch you up with some dandelion herb paste and make you feel better. People try that in the real world - it doesn't work, and based on the martial/caster threads - I can guarantee that spamming healing is more palatable to a large group of people than making mundane act like magic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Resource management, along with neat mechanical combinations, has always been an important part of Pathfinder's design.
Disagree, it's legacy that the rules is light on, is the least expanded part of the game, and has the least effort made to make it more interesting.
In fact over the history of Pathfinder v1.0 - the only effort made for resource management that aren't feats/magic items, has been the systematic addition of items and ways to remove that management.
Durable arrows - I'm looking at you - there are dozens more examples if you pay even scant attention to the rules.
Perhaps you don't have *every* book put out - I do. Perhaps you don't have a searchable database of items. I do. You may not see it - because you enjoy the existing systems, but no - mundane resource management has been pretty much ignored and left to die.
The way Resonance is currently, it is neither unobtrusive nor low effort, and I would hope that will change, but just arguing that HP loss not even being a concern isn't a problem is simply not true for many people. It's not an issue for you, but that's not quite the same thing.
It's not an issue in PF 1.0 - at all - by design. The fact that it was for you, was a personal choice and certainly not playing 'by the rules'. The fact stated dev comments indicate that it's still 'not an issue' means that it supposedly still isn't an issue. So no - apparently hit points - by design - aren't supposed to be whittled down over time.
This last bolded part, I emphasize because you keep saying you want the opposite - when nothing about the system is going to deliver this to you. The only changes made (by dev comment, as they've yet to show us anything about how it will work) is that cure light wounds spam is replaced by something else that is just as effective.
To re-iterate. Cure light wounds spam - by any other name - still smells as sweet dear Romeo.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Resource management, along with neat mechanical combinations, has always been an important part of Pathfinder's design.
Disagree, it's legacy that the rules is light on, is the least expanded part of the game, and has the least effort made to make it more interesting.
In fact over the history of Pathfinder v1.0 - the only effort made for resource management that aren't feats/magic items, has been the systematic addition of items and ways to remove that management.
Durable arrows - I'm looking at you - there are dozens more examples if you pay even scant attention to the rules.
Mundane arrows aren't an example of a meaningful resource worth tracking. It makes perfect sense to have durable arrows to reduce fiddly tracking and let players focus on managing their magical arrows. How many +1 dragonbane arrows will you need?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arrows are totally a perfect example of mundane resource tracking being left to die in pathfinder!
I've played Arcane Archers that could go through hundreds of mundane arrows before he'd have a chance to go back to town. In pathfinder there is never a reason for that to be a problem thanks to spells and items that replicate ammunition, or ammunition that is never consumed (legacy arrows for example).
In a classic fantasy adventure crap like weight of arrows and potions (and distance to a place you can replace them), and the durability of your arms and armor were the resources you had to manage in lieu of the spell-slots/point and scroll/wand charges that spellcasters had to manage. Rust Monsters and their ilk (includimg the spell Disintegrate) existed to act as a wealth-control measure to keep melee fighters from effectively having fewer resources to worry about.
But there isn't much point in all that extra work if the GM doesn't bother to track even the truly basic stuff like food, water, or encumbrance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want mundane (or at least non-spell) solutions to be viable for most problems, including healing.
I would say "all problems" but I suppose "win the wizarding competition" is a thing that should require spells.
We still don't know how "I have healing as a signature skill, I'm going to rank it up whenever I can, and I'm going to take good healing skill feats when they are available" manages the problem.
I don't - I prefer to think that monsters with 12 inch fangs and razor claws actually slice pieces of me off, and break bones. I like to think the only reason we keep going is because healing is magical.
I think the heal skill needs to be better, but not too much - frankly it's stupid if someone can patch you up with some dandelion herb paste and make you feel better. People try that in the real world - it doesn't work, and based on the martial/caster threads - I can guarantee that spamming healing is more palatable to a large group of people than making mundane act like magic.
Well, considering that Pathfinder is high fantasy enough that all sorts of things are magical on some level. Based on the cube/square thing there's no way giants should be able to stand up, let alone Kaiju; and no reason Strix should be able to fly let alone dragons. Unless of course the missing property is "their biology can take advantage of ambient magic allowing them to do otherwise impossible things." So if a bunch of kinds of things are able to harness ambient magic, why can't flowers? I can handwave "Golarion has many plants which were initially from the First World but were brought here by Fae; they don't thrive here to the same extent, but they can be found and have exceptional properties" more readily than I can handwave how giants can stand up.
Plus, a lot of skills are sufficiently abstracted to enable gameplay, allowing previously impossible things, like one can craft a suit of platemail in 3 days (which would have taken earth artisans months to create, since every piece of articulation needs to be designed for the specific user so they can move in it, whereas in Pathfinder you can just take the plate armor off a dead Dwarf and put it on an Elf.) So why shouldn't healing be the same? HP is largely an abstraction which involves "morale" anyway, unless you want to play it straight that our high level characters can have a picnic on molten lava despite being pierced by a dozen spears, which is essentially farcical.
So I see no reason someone who knows what they are doing shouldn't be able to heal significant HP damage with "non-magical" (i.e. "no spells or magic items") healing. Explicitly magical healing can then be left for times when speed is of the essence (e.g. "in combat") or times when the healer in question doesn't know what they are doing (e.g. "well, I've never seen that disease before").
I mean I see no issue with the healiest healer who ever healed to reach for the bandages and soothing poultices after a fierce combat instead of magical solutions which they have access to. Why not do the job with the less expensive, less limited resources if they are sufficient? Personally I think "so and so is a wonder with tinctures and unguents, because the flowers are slightly intrinsically magical" is more aesthetically satisfying than "break out the heal stick."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, Wands of Infernal Healing were even better. :pIf you were an Evil party or didn't have Alignments to hold up.
It otherwise came with a nagging GM that wanted to take over your character sheet if you used it too much, which is a whole other headache.
Two things.
1) Using Wands isn't an evil act.
2) casting Good spells is a good act and would counteract actually casting an evil spell.Bonus) Paizo didn't even care about it until Horror Adventures came out and were letting people cast evil spells in PFS games willy-nilly without alignment issues. I'm not even sure this changed after HA came out....
No, but using a wand that has an Evil spell isn't much different as casting the Evil spell yourself, meaning you're still performing an Evil act regardless. This is like saying a spellcaster who uses a Staff of Necromancy to cast Animate Dead is not evil because it's just using a Staff, not casting an Evil spell, even though you're using an object to cast an Evil spell to begin with. You'd be hardpressed to find an insane GM who actually agrees with that ruling.
As a P.S., I'm not counting those stupid Horror Adventure alignment rules, since that allows players a way to game the system. I remember coming across this sort of thing similarly in Neverwinter Nights (or some other old-generation fantasy RPG game, I can't 100% remember), and I hated that design, since I could just skirt between doing whatever Evil and Good I wanted to get the desired alignment my character needed. It was just stupid and honestly emulated (and promoted) bipolar murderhoboism, which is just bad design all around in general unless it's just the playstyle a player wants to go (which is fine, it's just not something I want a player to feel like he has to do, more than he wants to do it, or rather not give him an in-game reason to do it).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps you don't have *every* book put out - I do. Perhaps you don't have a searchable database of items. I do. You may not see it - because you enjoy the existing systems, but no - mundane resource management has been pretty much ignored and left to die.
Implying people must know less about the rules than you if they dare to disagree is poor form. Please stop doing it. I'm fully aware of durable arrows and the like. You just appear to have profoundly misunderstood what I was actually saying.
You see, I said nothing about mundane resource management. Indeed, I agree entirely that mundane resource management is ignored almost completely in PF1 (with the aforementioned exception pf Feats).
Magical resource management, however, is not ignored at all, and is indeed vital to the game and the way it works (buying magic items intelligently and managing your spell slots are both pretty essential). And that's precisely what we're talking about here: Magical Resource Management in the form of healing spells (well, and in PF2 if Feats can substitute for this via Medicine Skill Feats).
It's not an issue in PF 1.0 - at all - by design. The fact that it was for you, was a personal choice and certainly not playing 'by the rules'.
It wasn't. My group uses Wands of CLW like everyone else. And I'm the GM so I could stop it if I want. I don't because the system doesn't really work well without it in a few ways, but they're specific to the details of PF1, need not carry over to PF2, and are super counter-thematic. So I'm perfectly happy to see this changed.
The fact stated dev comments indicate that it's still 'not an issue' means that it supposedly still isn't an issue. So no - apparently hit points - by design - aren't supposed to be whittled down over time.
Of course they aren't. And I'm not arguing they should be. Most people seem to agree that you should start most fights at full health barring weird circumstances. I certainly do.
I also think you should start the vast majority of fights without ongoing poison effects, without being blind, and without Ability Damage.
I just don't think that starting at HP should be the only one of those examples that's basically free. It should cost resources to do, the same as all the other examples (albeit, often a bit less in the way of resources, depending on the amount of healing needed).
This last bolded part, I emphasize because you keep saying you want the opposite - when nothing about the system is going to deliver this to you. The only changes made (by dev comment, as they've yet to show us anything about how it will work) is that cure light wounds spam is replaced by something else that is just as effective.
Given that you've completely misstated my position here, I don't really have a response beyond reiterating that I'm not advocating for starting fights at low HP or getting rid of healing.
I'm advocating that healing should have a meaningful cost so that a dedicated healer is a valid concept for those who want it, and so that avoiding damage is actually important. I'd prefer it if you would at least consider which you'd rather have happened, take 95% of your HP in damage or get poisoned with something like Str-damage poison, because in PF1 you'd always pick the damage and that's super weird.
To re-iterate. Cure light wounds spam - by any other name - still smells as sweet dear Romeo.
All evidence is that, from my perspective, what's replacing CLW Spam is profoundly different, because it costs actual resources (Class Abilities, Spell Slots, Resonance, or Feats) rather than being effectively free. And that's what I'm advocating.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters only resource to manage was HP which was cheaply restored each fight by CLW spam which meant fighters entered every battle with full HP while casters got weaker and weaker as they consumed their spells. This made designing encounters difficult because each of them needed to be capable of reducing a fighter from full HP to 0 in a single encounter to be a threat while also considering casters may or may not have any resources left.
If healing is more restricted in PF2 then it can be expected at the end of the day the fighter may be low on HP and the casters are low on spells and a medium level fight could be a good challenge. If we as a playing group can get behind the idea that you don’t need to be at full HP at the start of every combat and the game is balanced around that ideal then we could have more varied encounters and likely a more interesting game.
Everyone call the day quits at the same time sounds ideal. No last holdout arguing for one more room. But really it is a One-Horse Shay, a situation named after a poem by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr..
Have you heard of the wonderful one-hoss-shay,
That was built in such a logical way?
It ran a hundred years to a day,
And then, of a sudden, it—ah, but stay,
I'll tell you what happened without delay. ...
The shay was so well constructed that no part failed early. Instead, all parts failed at the same time and it collapsed into dust. A party that has its resources perfectly balanced could encounter that problem. Instead of retreating with one or two party members still well stocked, the party could retreat with no way of handing even a minor encounter.
WIZARD: I cast my last spell: Magic Missile!
(The Grim Darklord drops.)
FIGHTER: Thank the gods. The only reason I am upright is my Die Hard training.
ROGUE: I had to slip to the shadows when I had only 3 hp left.
CLERIC: Sorry, I am out of healing. And almost out of my own hit points, too.
FIGHTER: I remember the old bard songs about healing wands. I would love one now. Too bad they are only a legend.
WIZARD: Especially Braggo the Bold. We sang that one in wizard school. The wizard out of spells, the cleric dizzy with confusion, the bard's lute strings broken, but Braggo quaffs another potion and wants to fight another dozen bugbears.
ROGUE: I've checked the Darklord's pouches. Some nice gems, and a scary stone idol, but no potions.
CLERIC: Wait, I hear something. Orcs. One of those patrols we slipped past must have returned.
FIGHTER: Ten orcs. No problem. Unless one actually hits me. Then I'm dead.
WIZARD: I guess I am the front line. Can I borrow a dagger? I lost mine when I threw it at that illusion to prove it wasn't real.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So my other thread (which I haven't read since initially creating unfortunately) was meant to define what the problem was with wands of CLW spam. Is it the act of using a 1st level wand for 20 levels? Is it healing to full after every combat? Or is it relying on magic for between combat healing?
Unfortunately I don't think the thread really defined what the problem was. And I don't think this thread is going to do any better. Already in the first two posts we have a disagreement with what the actual problem is. I don't think this conversation will be particularly productive without Paizo confirming what aspect of wands of CLW spam they don't like.
If you don't have the time to catch up on the "Why are Wands of CLW such a problem?" thread, Angel Hunter D summarized the discussion in comment #240:
What even is this conversation anymore?a brawl between 4 camps
camp 1 enjoys the game as is, sees it as it's own genre of fantasy.
camp 2 wants to be in middle earth and get hurt and heal as much as frodo did, they see the CLW wand as an affront.
camp 3 thinks the low level item being the best healing by price is weird, and should be "fixed"
camp 4 thinks that the CLW wand is a symptom of a damage/healing system that has fundamental flaws and no good way to make the narrative and game flow in a way that appeals to everyone.
then there are people in each camp that can't agree on whether or not CR assumes you are always healed up (though in PFS I've usually seen not topping off as inviting death, or at least making my job as a team mate harder because your dirt nap is coming early)
every camp seems to be bringing more and weirder examples along as this circles like that thing in Abendengo.
Mekkis listed the answers to the question, why are wands of CLW such a problem?, in comment #421 and I updated the list in comment #465.
- (1) A claim that it breaks immersion and balance by ensuring characters start every fight at full health.
- (2) Lack of opportunity cost due to the low cost of the wands; Allegedly breaks Wealth-by-level due to a lack of expenditure on consumables.
- (3) Breaks the economy of the internal consistency of the universe
- (4) A 'learning problem' where new players don't know of their existence
- (5) They make attrition useless (see claim 1)
- (6) It's a 'mandatory magic item'. 'Mandatory magic items' are bad.
- (7) They are used up and discarded frequently, breaking the folklore of wands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mathmuse, what does "Breaks the economy of the internal consistency of the universe" mean?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can heal between encounters (as stated by the devs - yes) then changing the way you do it but requiring tons of resource tracking to do so (because we went from a single system - cure light wounds wands - to multiple systems - we know this is a fact even if we haven't been given all the other methods of healing yet - because resonance's stated goal as has been gleefully pointed out here and there and everywhere is to limit cure light wounds spam) then it's mundane resource tracking.
I argue that archers that make full attacks every round - tracking normal arrows is meaningful resource management. A 12th level archer is easily putting out 5 or 6 arrows a round depending on haste - and the complaint about archer damage output being they can always full attack? Yeah because no one tracks arrows - 5 arrows a round x 4 rounds = full 20 arrow quiver (as much as a normal human would want to carry around in the real world).
All this talk about 'meaningful choice' and 'breaks the setting' - except these little 'setting breaking things' happen all the time - and even when a resource can make a huge difference on a character (do they devote resources to magical quivers, or spells like abundant ammunition?). Oh yeah - a spell that again - removes resource tracking.
I do - however - love the fact that resource tracking is meaningful unless you don't like the tracker (arrows). It's just a single example. It's a great example though because it's exactly the kind of meaningful resource you are talking about (forcing a character to conserve resources in a dungeon setting vs. go all out) yet you mock it because it's not 'magical' - I struggle in your meaningful resources argument - to find where interesting choices for a character depend on magic for them to make a difference (at least you've never made that claim until now).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(4) A 'learning problem' where new players don't know of their existence
This is a problem?
TO me this is a good thing. Less people that know means the less people spam.
I mean, I didn't know until I came to the forums. But I pick to still not use it.
(4) A 'learning problem' where new players don't know of their existenceThis is a problem?
TO me this is a good thing. Less people that know means the less people spam.
I mean, I didn't know until I came to the forums. But I pick to still not use it.
I would say for homebrew games, it's not a problem at all, and a party willing to ignore it is probably a good thing. But if Paizo is basing things on PFS and APs, keeping the gulf between those in the know of CLW wands and those not in the know, or in the 2e version, keeping the expectations of both areas of players closer in effect, makes it easier to publish those such that they aren't too easy for those who obsessively read the forums, and aren't too hard for people who just pick up the game ready to play. I'd probably choose a different tactic for solving it, but as much as I don't like the immersion factor of CLW spam, I can't deny its ability to make some AP fights more than just (mostly) TPKs.
I would say for homebrew games, it's not a problem at all, and a party willing to ignore it is probably a good thing. But if Paizo is basing things on PFS and APs, keeping the gulf between those in the know of CLW wands and those not in the know, or in the 2e version, keeping the expectations of both areas of players closer in effect, makes it easier to publish those such that they aren't too easy for those who obsessively read the forums, and aren't too hard for people who just pick up the game ready to play. I'd probably choose a different tactic for solving it, but as much as I don't like the immersion factor of CLW spam, I can't deny its ability to make some AP fights more than just (mostly) TPKs.(4) A 'learning problem' where new players don't know of their existenceThis is a problem?
TO me this is a good thing. Less people that know means the less people spam.
I mean, I didn't know until I came to the forums. But I pick to still not use it.
Shrug. My team is at book 3 of Iron Gods and the only CLW we bought is sitting at 40 charges. Most of our actual healing has been from myself(Shaman - Life build first, and then Alchemist), and the DM has let us have 1 Cleric NPC as a helper.
I'd have to see what qualifies as "you will die if you don't have CLW wands" in an AP. Unless it's an all Fighter party. And even then, I'd probably look for things to to replace it. But my tables seem to be the oddities so take that with a grain of salt.
At the same time, I think trying to keep everyone together for balance is a lost cause. They mean well yes but it's a race they aren't going to win. OR more like "Whack the Exploit".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can heal between encounters (as stated by the devs - yes) then changing the way you do it but requiring tons of resource tracking to do so (because we went from a single system - cure light wounds wands - to multiple systems - we know this is a fact even if we haven't been given all the other methods of healing yet - because resonance's stated goal as has been gleefully pointed out here and there and everywhere is to limit cure light wounds spam) then it's mundane resource tracking.
No it isn't. Tracking different kinds of magical resources depending on what you're doing is not suddenly 'mundane resource tracking'. Indeed, every kind of healing except HP (condition recovery, ability damage recovery, all that sort of thing) is already handled with various different resources but remains meaningful and not 'mundane'. I'm deeply unclear why HP should be different.
Things are not mundane because you declare them so.
I argue that archers that make full attacks every round - tracking normal arrows is meaningful resource management. A 12th level archer is easily putting out 5 or 6 arrows a round depending on haste - and the complaint about archer damage output being they can always full attack? Yeah because no one tracks arrows - 5 arrows a round x 4 rounds = full 20 arrow quiver (as much as a normal human would want to carry around in the real world).
It's really not because there are so many ways around that limitation, and because the gold cost is so low. You could make it meaningful, it's true, but that's rather punitive to archers (a classic character concept) over melee fighters, and nobody seems to find it fun.
Contrariwise, many people do find making healing a meaningful resource investment fun, and it enables rather than punishes a classic concept (the healer).
All this talk about 'meaningful choice' and 'breaks the setting' - except these little 'setting breaking things' happen all the time - and even when a resource can make a huge difference on a character (do they devote resources to magical quivers, or spells like abundant ammunition?). Oh yeah - a spell that again - removes resource tracking.
I never said anything about breaking the setting. Or are you not talking to me any more? I honestly can't tell.
I do - however - love the fact that resource tracking is meaningful unless you don't like the tracker (arrows). It's just a single example. It's a great example though because it's exactly the kind of meaningful resource you are talking about (forcing a character to conserve resources in a dungeon setting vs. go all out) yet you mock it because it's not 'magical' -
I didn't mock it. I said people aren't especially interested in tracking it and it creates imbalances between character types rather than fixing them. If a lot of people were interested in it, putting it in (and finding a way to make it balanced) would make sense, but they aren't interested, so it doesn't make sense.
I also wouldn't advocate a lot of different specific resources (which arrows are an example of). Indeed, I've been strongly arguing against too many different fiddly resources in many threads now, while advocating a couple of meaningful ones that are expended for whatever you need (healing, buff spells, greater offense, whatever). I find a few resources that have to be distributed carefully much easier and more fun for most people than eighty different specific pools you each need to keep track of.
I struggle in your meaningful resources argument - to find where interesting choices for a character depend on magic for them to make a difference (at least you've never made that claim until now).
My argument is that characters should need to spend some sort of meaningful resources on healing HP damage (just like they already do on healing everything else): Resonance, Gold, Spell Slots, Class Abilities, invested Feats, something. This appears to also be a goal the designers are aiming for, and is a good one from a game balance perspective.
I'm not 100% sure that's what you're asking, but if it isn't I have no idea and you might need to rephrase.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's really not because there are so many ways around that limitation, and because the gold cost is so low. You could make it meaningful, it's true, but that's rather punitive to archers (a classic character concept) over melee fighters, and nobody seems to find it fun.
I do agree it's not fun - however a balance problem in the game has been 'melee can't make full attacks every round thus archers are superior to melee in damage output'.
You could argue that DR makes the arrow less effective - but then we get clustered shot. You could argue that resource management makes the archer less likely to go through all the arrows - but people ignore arrows because unfun. I went further with topic to make a comparison - specific to this last part - which you seem to agree with so it, I think, is a good point to start from.
Arrows are unfun to track. Why? My answer is simple: Anytime you have something in the game that is a requirement for your character to do it's job - then tracking it just creates stress, and becomes non-fun. Does the archer running out of arrows = realisim? Yes - does it sideline the player for the night? Also Yes.
Now move to hit points - any time you go into a fight without full hit point the chance of you dying goes up proportional the amount of hit points missing. New players might miss this concept but anyone who has gone negative in hit points knows that you want to be full or close to full every fight going in - because getting a heal mid fight is very rare.
Now compare that to arrows - is there ever a time that a character will choose to not go into a fight full hit points? Not if they are playing as a team player, not if they have the ability to heal - the only time they won't heal is if they can't (for whatever reason) - and that situation will make the fight stressful, which *can* be fun - but not if it's common.
Meaningful resources are never 'meaningful' if they are required. That's why tracking arrows are unfun - it's why any kind of system that is based around healing as an 'option' is just an illusion. If the system doesn't have the options 'built in' then someone *has* to take them - and so they are no longer 'choices' or 'meaningful' but just another book keeping chore.
There is never meaning in a choice that was never a choice... (and now I feel like a fortune cookie).
Mathmuse, what does "Breaks the economy of the internal consistency of the universe" mean?
According to the Settlements chapter of the Game Mastery Guide, a hamlet of 50 people has a Purchase Limit of 1,000 gp. That means it has a 75% chance of having any particular item worth 1,000 gp or less, such as a 750-gp Wand of Cure Light Wounds. However, 5th-level spellcasters are rare and 5th-level spellcasters who learned Craft Wand are even rare, so not even a village of 200 people or a small town of 2,000 people is likely to have a wand crafter.
That might be that the purchase limit was set too generously. Realistically, the hamlet is unlikely to have a 300-gp trained heavy warhorse, either.
Nevertheless, only adventurers would want a wand of Cure Light Wounds. If they buy lots of wands, then we have to imagine an economy where cities manufacture expensive wands and ship them out to small towns in the hope that some loot-wealthy adventurers will buy them. It is unrealistic.
(4) A 'learning problem' where new players don't know of their existenceThis is a problem?
TO me this is a good thing. Less people that know means the less people spam.
I mean, I didn't know until I came to the forums. But I pick to still not use it.
I had to go back and read the posts on page 5 to understand the problem again. Some commenters, such as gustavo iglesias, pointed out that the math of efficient healing is difficult (I can't judge that myself, because my definition of difficult mathematics starts at graduate level coursework). If the players don't do the difficult math themselves or learn from a more experienced player, they won't realize that 1st-level wands are cheap enough to burn through multiple wands. Rewarding system expertise is fine, but having a heavy-math requirement to gain system expertise is unfair. We want more people than math geeks to excel at Pathfinder.
Wands are better than scrolls and require a higher level to craft, so why are they cheaper per spell than scrolls? That is counterintuitive and therefore easy to overlook.
MerlinCross, keeping the economics of wands secret to avoid exploiting the ecomomics of wands is justified only if the economics of wands are an unwanted exploit. The commenters in the "Why are Wands of CLW such a problem?" thread do not agree whether the exploit is unwanted.
I had to go back and read the posts on page 5 to understand the problem again. Some commenters, such as gustavo iglesias, pointed out that the math of efficient healing is difficult (I can't judge that myself, because my definition of difficult mathematics starts at graduate level coursework). If the players don't do the difficult math themselves or learn from a more experienced player, they won't realize that 1st-level wands are cheap enough to burn through multiple wands. Rewarding system expertise is fine, but having a heavy-math requirement to gain system expertise is unfair. We want more people...(4) A 'learning problem' where new players don't know of their existenceThis is a problem?
TO me this is a good thing. Less people that know means the less people spam.
I mean, I didn't know until I came to the forums. But I pick to still not use it.
I don't really understand why Merlin would want the secrets to hyper optimized play to simply be archaic and unlikely to be arrived at independently (but trivially easy to discover using online communities) instead of simply removing the overly optimized option entirely. *shrug*
I don't want a system where one in 10 players is like 300% more effective than the average player because the system is so dense and hard to understand but easy to exploit when you do. I'd rather have a system where building an effective character isn't so hard to do and where you can't game the system as hard to build OP characters, while still maintaining a really deep variety of characters you can build.
Shrug. My team is at book 3 of Iron Gods and the only CLW we bought is sitting at 40 charges. Most of our actual healing has been from myself(Shaman - Life build first, and then Alchemist), and the DM has let us have 1 Cleric NPC as a helper.
I'd have to see what qualifies as "you will die if you don't have CLW wands" in an AP. Unless it's an all Fighter party. And even then, I'd probably look for things to to replace it. But my tables seem to be the oddities so take that with a grain of salt.
At the same time, I think trying to keep everyone together for balance is a lost cause. They mean well yes but it's a race they aren't going to win. OR more like "Whack the Exploit".
The 8th-level party in my Iron Gods game took a 5th-level NPC with them into the Choking Tower itself. After one close shave, they decided that he had best wait outside. The tower has too many area-of-effect hazards that require lots of Fortitude or hit points to survive. Hence, the nickname "Choking Tower," despite the tower's real name being Smoking Tower.
That is the disadvantage of a healer NPC over a healing wand. NPCs are vulnerable.
Some people in this subforum have already suggested hiring NPCs to provide more resonance for wands. A 1st-level Wis 12, Cha 16 cleric can cast two Cure Light Wounds and activate a resonance-based wand of Cure Light Wounds three times. The wand would make the cleric more than twice as effective.
I feel like these hiring scenarios make a lot of assumptions about both the quality of services available to follow you into dungeons and how much they will cost. It seems weird to make all those assumptions about an economy we know very little about, especially when those assumptions wouldn't have been true in PF1. By RAW and I believe RAI, NPCs casting for you isn't hirelings, it is spellcasting services.
"The indicated amount is how much it costs to get a spellcaster to cast a spell for you. This price assumes that you can go to the spellcaster and have the spell cast at her convenience (generally at least 24 hours later, so that the spellcaster has time to prepare the spell in question, though you may be lucky enough to find someone who has it prepared that day or a spontaneous caster who knows it). If you want to bring the spellcaster somewhere to cast a spell (for example, to cast dispel magic on a magical seal in a dungeon) you need to negotiate with her; the default answer to such requests is typically no, since most people don’t actually like to go on unexpected life-threatening adventures."
I can't imagine a scenario where paying NPCs to follow you around would be more cost effective than just buying a better wand or potion. By the time you can afford the sort of payment to get these clerics out in the field, the field is probably too dangerous for them to survive in anyway and you have better options available to you.
I had to go back and read the posts on page 5 to understand the problem again. Some commenters, such as gustavo iglesias, pointed out that the math of efficient healing is difficult (I can't judge that myself, because my definition of difficult mathematics starts at graduate level coursework). If the players don't do the difficult math themselves or learn from a more experienced player, they won't realize that 1st-level wands are cheap enough to burn through multiple wands. Rewarding system expertise is fine, but having a heavy-math requirement to gain system expertise is unfair. We want more people than math geeks to excel at Pathfinder.
Wands are better than scrolls and require a higher level to craft, so why are they cheaper per spell than scrolls? That is counterintuitive and therefore easy to overlook.
MerlinCross, keeping the economics of wands secret to avoid exploiting the ecomomics of wands is justified only if the economics of wands are an unwanted exploit. The commenters in the "Why are Wands of CLW such a problem?" thread do not agree whether the exploit is unwanted.
Okay.
Do they wreck your game? Do they remove any danger you might place in front of players? Do they make a mockery of the Economy(A lot of stuff does but stay with me here)? Is it a problem to the point you can't run games anymore without having to bring a barrel of them? Is it a problem to the point the Devs have introduced something that will target it(Among other things) in the next edition, in hopes of NOT having it happen again?
Mathmuse, I don't know what to tell you or the people in this thread. It sounds like an exploit to some level. And it sounds like some people can't help but use it.
The 8th-level party in my Iron Gods game took a 5th-level NPC with them into the Choking Tower itself. After one close shave, they decided that he had best wait outside. The tower has too many area-of-effect hazards that require lots of Fortitude or hit points to survive. Hence, the nickname "Choking Tower," despite the tower's real name being Smoking Tower.
That is the disadvantage of a healer NPC over a healing wand. NPCs are vulnerable.
1) How many wands does your party have?
2) How can your NPC die, it's JUST HP damage which people have established means nothing if you're playing it 'right'.I don't really understand why Merlin would want the secrets to hyper optimized play to simply be archaic and unlikely to be arrived at independently (but trivially easy to discover using online communities) instead of simply removing the overly optimized option entirely. *shrug*
I don't want a system where one in 10 players is like 300% more effective than the average player because the system is so dense and hard to understand but easy to exploit when you do. I'd rather have a system where building an effective character isn't so hard to do and where you can't game the system as hard to build OP characters, while still maintaining a really deep variety of characters you can build.
I still don't see why it's a bad thing.
I mean if you aren't going to fix it, if you aren't going to remove it, if you aren't going to do do ANYTHING with it; Um... what else do you have left open to you? Ignore it or play with it. And well if people seem like they can't stop themselves from playing it even though they don't seem like they want to(Are Wands addicting, news at 11), Ignoring it seems to be the only way left. If people don't realize "I can break this game this way" then they won't break the game that way. I mean most new players I've seen shy away from Wizard and community agrees that class can completely break the game. I'm not saying we go all cloak and dagger and "Nothing to see here", all MIB style forget you saw this. But if we just don't push the wand usage so much in front of new players, maybe they'll just skip bringing the barrel of wands with them. It's the only thing I can think of when it comes to a CLW 'solution' in PF1 because everything else is apparently wrong anyway. I shouldn't be surprised if this is also wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mathmuse, what does "Breaks the economy of the internal consistency of the universe" mean?According to the Settlements chapter of the Game Mastery Guide, a hamlet of 50 people has a Purchase Limit of 1,000 gp. That means it has a 75% chance of having any particular item worth 1,000 gp or less, such as a 750-gp Wand of Cure Light Wounds. However, 5th-level spellcasters are rare and 5th-level spellcasters who learned Craft Wand are even rare, so not even a village of 200 people or a small town of 2,000 people is likely to have a wand crafter.
That might be that the purchase limit was set too generously. Realistically, the hamlet is unlikely to have a 300-gp trained heavy warhorse, either.
Nevertheless, only adventurers would want a wand of Cure Light Wounds. If they buy lots of wands, then we have to imagine an economy where cities manufacture expensive wands and ship them out to small towns in the hope that some loot-wealthy adventurers will buy them. It is unrealistic.
Thanks for the explanation! But where does the fact that the wand is of CLW come into play? Any 1st-level wand will tend to be available in the hamlet even though it's unlikely anyone there can make one. I think you just illustrated a general weak point in PF economics, not a problem with wands of CLW in particular.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like these hiring scenarios make a lot of assumptions about both the quality of services available to follow you into dungeons and how much they will cost. It seems weird to make all those assumptions about an economy we know very little about, especially when those assumptions wouldn't have been true in PF1. By RAW and I believe RAI, NPCs casting for you isn't hirelings, it is spellcasting services.
"The indicated amount is how much it costs to get a spellcaster to cast a spell for you. This price assumes that you can go to the spellcaster and have the spell cast at her convenience (generally at least 24 hours later, so that the spellcaster has time to prepare the spell in question, though you may be lucky enough to find someone who has it prepared that day or a spontaneous caster who knows it). If you want to bring the spellcaster somewhere to cast a spell (for example, to cast dispel magic on a magical seal in a dungeon) you need to negotiate with her; the default answer to such requests is typically no, since most people don’t actually like to go on unexpected life-threatening adventures."
I can't imagine a scenario where paying NPCs to follow you around would be more cost effective than just buying a better wand or potion. By the time you can afford the sort of payment to get these clerics out in the field, the field is probably too dangerous for them to survive in anyway and you have better options available to you.
All we really know about wealth is how quickly it increases. If you can feed a 500 person city for a year without it making a dent in your gold, I bet one or two of them would come with you to use wands, feed your horses, probably even have your babies. Unless adventurer money isn't legal tender for non adventuring services, you'll be able to hire someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had to go back and read the posts on page 5 to understand the problem again. Some commenters, such as gustavo iglesias, pointed out that the math of efficient healing is difficult (I can't judge that myself, because my definition of difficult mathematics starts at graduate level coursework). If the players don't do the difficult math themselves or learn from a more experienced player, they won't realize that 1st-level wands are cheap enough to burn through multiple wands. Rewarding system expertise is fine, but having a heavy-math requirement to gain system expertise is unfair. We want more people than math geeks to excel at Pathfinder.
Wands are better than scrolls and require a higher level to craft, so why are they cheaper per spell than scrolls? That is counterintuitive and therefore easy to overlook.
MerlinCross, keeping the economics of wands secret to avoid exploiting the ecomomics of wands is justified only if the economics of wands are an unwanted exploit. The commenters in the "Why are Wands of CLW such a problem?" thread do not agree whether the exploit is unwanted.
Okay.
Do they wreck your game? Do they remove any danger you might place in front of players? Do they make a mockery of the Economy(A lot of stuff does but stay with me here)? Is it a problem to the point you can't run games anymore without having to bring a barrel of them? Is it a problem to the point the Devs have introduced something that will target it(Among other things) in the next edition, in hopes of NOT having it happen again?
Mathmuse, I don't know what to tell you or the people in this thread. It sounds like an exploit to some level. And it sounds like some people can't help but use it.
The award-winning German game designer Reiner Knizia said, "Reward the behavior you want to see in your games." Pathfinder 1st Edition rewards using wands of Cure Light Wounds.
In my Iron Gods game, Iron Gods among Scientists, the strix skald learned Cure Light Wounds as one of her first spells. In addition, Mylan Radli, 3rd-level cleric of Pharasma, gave them a few potions of Cure Light Wounds in exchange for recovering bodies of previous adventurers. At the end of 1st level, they had significant winnings at the local gambling hall, so they pooled their money and purchased a wand of Cure Light Wounds.
At 5th level, the skald learned Craft Wand. This was not for wands of Cure Light Wounds, though she did make another two--three wands of Cure Light Wounds lasted the entire campaign. Instead, it was for the wand of Snowball at caster level 5 and the wand of Lightning Bolt for the party magus. He could not cast spells while accepting the skald's raging song, but he could use wands. The players wanted a way for their characters to work together and wands provided the medium. Thus, the economics of wands became irrelevant. All wands beyond that first one were made by the skald.
As my wife says, when a party makes their own magic items, the items feel like a class ability rather than spending cash to buy power, so she is okay with that. My wife played a gadgeteer gunslinger who forged adamantine weapons for the party. The fighter learned a 3rd-party feat to gain Craft Magic Arms and Armor to enchant them.
At 11th level, the skald learned Greater Skald's Vigor, so her raging song gave everyone fast healing 4. That changed the dynamics of party healing.
As for wrecking economics in my game, ha ha ha ha ha. My players are far from typical. They are not greedy at all. They loot for interesting gear and for clues rather than for wealth, and they give a lot of their wealth to the needy. They owned three businesses in their hometown Torch, because they were community minded. At the end of the 1st module, when the town council of Torch paid the party their reward, their friend Emelia Otterbie was collecting donations to raise her fiance, one of the dead adventurers whose body the party recovered. The reward money was donated.
Because I can trust them to follow the adventure rather than powergame with wealth, I give them opportunities that I would have to deny to a greedy party. They needed adamantine weapons, so I let the party gadgeteer learn how to extract adamantine from glaucite using salvaged alien technology. She could have made 500 gp a day with that process, but she didn't. And I let them salvage a small spaceship at the end of the 2nd module and fly around with it as a mobile base.
The 8th-level party in my Iron Gods game took a 5th-level NPC with them into the Choking Tower itself. After one close shave, they decided that he had best wait outside. The tower has too many area-of-effect hazards that require lots of Fortitude or hit points to survive. Hence, the nickname "Choking Tower," despite the tower's real name being Smoking Tower.
That is the disadvantage of a healer NPC over a healing wand. NPCs are vulnerable.
1) How many wands does your party have?
2) How can your NPC die, it's JUST HP damage which people have established means nothing if you're playing it 'right'.
I answered the first question above. I need a spoiler tag here, since answering the second question gives away the hazards in the Choking Tower.
The reason 5th-level NPC Dewey survived the first Cloudkill was because he stood 10 feet behind the rest of the party and the cloud missed him. Then Xoud disappeared. The party asked Dewey to wait outside. For the second Cloudkill, Furkas Xoud trapped the party in his bedroom with a Wall of Force and then cast Cloudkill when they could not escape. One party member hid underwater in the bathtub in the connecting bathroom to avoid the cloud. Two others found a niche that the cloud bypassed. The fighter endured one round of cloudkill to run to the clear side as the cloud moved. The 8th-level bloodrager NPC toughed it out in a bloodrage and fought Xoud.
As others mentioned in other CLW threads, at higher levels condition removal is as important as healing hit point damage.
Since wands of CLW do not wreck my games, I will probably instate house rules to remove the PF2 awkwardness whose sole purpose is to prevent abuse of wands of CLW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the explanation! But where does the fact that the wand is of CLW come into play? Any 1st-level wand will tend to be available in the hamlet even though it's unlikely anyone there can make one. I think you just illustrated a general weak point in PF economics, not a problem with wands of CLW in particular.Mathmuse, what does "Breaks the economy of the internal consistency of the universe" mean?According to the Settlements chapter of the Game Mastery Guide, a hamlet of 50 people has a Purchase Limit of 1,000 gp. That means it has a 75% chance of having any particular item worth 1,000 gp or less, such as a 750-gp Wand of Cure Light Wounds. However, 5th-level spellcasters are rare and 5th-level spellcasters who learned Craft Wand are even rare, so not even a village of 200 people or a small town of 2,000 people is likely to have a wand crafter.
That might be that the purchase limit was set too generously. Realistically, the hamlet is unlikely to have a 300-gp trained heavy warhorse, either.
Nevertheless, only adventurers would want a wand of Cure Light Wounds. If they buy lots of wands, then we have to imagine an economy where cities manufacture expensive wands and ship them out to small towns in the hope that some loot-wealthy adventurers will buy them. It is unrealistic.
Pathfinder is not meant to be an economic simulation game, which is why every merchant sells at the same price and buys at half price. However, a few cases are more extreme than others.
A wand of Cure Light Wounds and a wand of Mage Armor are about the only wands a 2nd- or 3rd-level party buys.
1) Most spells are close to useless at caster level 1, the default caster level for 1st-level wands. For example, Summon Monster I lasts only one round. Burning Hands and Snowball deal one die of damage per level, so they are as harmless as a dagger at caster level 1. Cure Light Wounds starts at 1d8+1 healing at caster level 1. Mage Armor lasts an hour at caster level 1.
2) Cure Light Wounds is used several times during a dungeon delve. Mage Armor would be used once an hour. Most other utility spells would be used once, so a scroll is enough.
3) A wand of Cure Light Wounds benefits the entire party, so a wise party pools their resouces to afford one. Likewise, a wand of Mage Armor can be shared among two players who want its protection, such as a wizard and a monk.
4) Most parties can go without a particular spell if they lack a spellcaster who knows it. But we have no good alternative for the Cure spells. Treat Deadly Wounds can be used once per character per day. Resting for the night stops the dungeon delve and is very risky if done on site.
A party above 3rd level can travel to the city for their purchases, where the availability of wands is unremarkable. The wand of Cure Light Wounds ceases to be an economic paradox until a high-level party starts buying them by the bushel. By then the wizard who used to use Mage Armor wands has purchased bracers of armor and no longer uses the wands.
Mathmuse I'm not sure what I'm supposed to walk away from with your example.
This is the kind of party/group I like and my table does similar things. Maybe with some homebrewing but within the ballpark anwyay.
You didn't need or want to spam wands even though they where there. My group is the same. But the community tells us it's wrong because... math?
I return to the earlier claim of "If players don't know about it, it's a good thing". I still don't. Players that don't know could come up with other ways much like what you showed, even though your group knew about the wands. They might also make said choices if they do know about the wands or figure it out. Who can say, though seeing everyone else ahead of them pick up the wands might cause a reaction. I'm reminded of that story/myth, of someone standing in front of a door and slowly people started to line up behind him. It was just a random door that didn't lead anywhere but someone though it lead somewhere. After all why would a person be waiting in front of it? I feel that can be transferred to the wands at times.
I actually didn't see the reason to pick them up even though I saw everyone else or a majority of players do. Until I saw some PFS play that went beyond 1-2 encounters and some online play. I chalked it up to cheese and moved on. Others see this, see how easy it is, and the problem gets a new player.
Again I'll return to the "If they don't know it's a good thing". I'll reword that.
A 'learning problem' where new players don't know of their existence
"Well. I don't see this as a bad thing, considering they can see other examples to heal and recover. What is the downside of them never realizing 'I can break the game with this'? You're still allowed to try fixing it before they notice, I'm not saying you need to keep it as is. And you can tell them later about the issue. Or tell them up front. I don't see why not realizing this is a thing is an actual problem."
As a side note Mathmuse, I'm not looking at your Choking Tower example though I'll trust you. I am currently in that book right now and don't want to be spoiled.
|
|
I do agree it's not fun - however a balance problem in the game has been 'melee can't make full attacks every round thus archers are superior to melee in damage output'.
Opinions differ on that one, but fair enough, some people definitely do feel that way.
You could argue that DR makes the arrow less effective - but then we get clustered shot. You could argue that resource management makes the archer less likely to go through all the arrows - but people ignore arrows because unfun. I went further with topic to make a comparison - specific to this last part - which you seem to agree with so it, I think, is a good point to start from.
Okay, let's start from there.
Arrows are unfun to track. Why? My answer is simple: Anytime you have something in the game that is a requirement for your character to do it's job - then tracking it just creates stress, and becomes non-fun. Does the archer running out of arrows = realisim? Yes - does it sideline the player for the night? Also Yes.
That's not why arrows are unfun to track. Arrows are unfun to track because it's a weird, fiddly little thing, that interacts with no other system in any way, and are not usually a choice of any sort. It's just bookkeeping, with no element of strategy or synchronization with any other rules. You carry as many arrows as you can arrange and are then unhappy when they run out. Period. No tactics, specific methods of resource management, or interesting elements of any kind.
A lot of things that are absolutely necessary are fun to track for many people. Spells, for instance, are often quite fun to track with the choices you make on what spells to use on what foes being tactically relevant and interesting. It's a set of options rather than mere bookkeeping and interacts with the rest of the game in meaningful ways.
Now move to hit points - any time you go into a fight without full hit point the chance of you dying goes up proportional the amount of hit points missing. New players might miss this concept but anyone who has gone negative in hit points knows that you want to be full or close to full every fight going in - because getting a heal mid fight is very rare.
Yes, I agree you want to go into any fight at maximum HP.
Now compare that to arrows - is there ever a time that a character will choose to not go into a fight full hit points? Not if they are playing as a team player, not if they have the ability to heal - the only time they won't heal is if they can't (for whatever reason) - and that situation will make the fight stressful, which *can* be fun - but not if it's common.
My goal is not to have people go into fights at low HP, it's to have the tactical choice of what you do to avoid having to do that be interesting and relevant, as well as fairly well integrated with the rest of the game.
Meaningful resources are never 'meaningful' if they are required. That's why tracking arrows are unfun - it's why any kind of system that is based around healing as an 'option' is just an illusion. If the system doesn't have the options 'built in' then someone *has* to take them - and so they are no longer 'choices' or 'meaningful' but just another book keeping chore.
I disagree. Many things are fundamental tactical necessities in Pathfinder while remaining interesting, because there are different ways to achieve them with different strengths and weaknesses. A party needs to have ways to handle flying enemies and swarms for example. There are several default options for both, and which the party goes with has interesting repercussions. I'd like styles and methods of healing to work similarly.
There is never meaning in a choice that was never a choice... (and now I feel like a fortune cookie).
I'm trying to argue for a system where there is a choice, not between healing and not healing (which is a non-choice, as you say), but between different methods of healing. With each having strengths and weaknesses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All it would take is for a dev to come out and say the Medicine skill, in the hands of someone trained in the skill and possessing a healers kit, can heal hit points and is not limited to doing so once per day. And that this doesn't require more than one feat tax.
That's it. That's all they have to say. Then there is a viable alternative option and while it's still not settled for PFS, where you can't count on even that, at least that means everyone else has a good alternative to CLW.
But they seem quite resistant to saying that. I know there's this mythical barbarian healer but if they had to burn almost every skill feat they had over many levels on medicine skill feats to make it work, well, that's not so much of a best alternative.
All it would take is for a dev to come out and say the Medicine skill, in the hands of someone trained in the skill and possessing a healers kit, can heal hit points and is not limited to doing so once per day. And that this doesn't require more than one feat tax.
That's it. That's all they have to say. Then there is a viable alternative option and while it's still not settled for PFS, where you can't count on even that, at least that means everyone else has a good alternative to CLW.
But they seem quite resistant to saying that. I know there's this mythical barbarian healer but if they had to burn almost every skill feat they had over many levels on medicine skill feats to make it work, well, that's not so much of a best alternative.
Oh you don't think someone will come out and find something to complain about that too? People will find something to argue about no matter what you do.
|
|
All it would take is for a dev to come out and say the Medicine skill, in the hands of someone trained in the skill and possessing a healers kit, can heal hit points and is not limited to doing so once per day. And that this doesn't require more than one feat tax.
That's it. That's all they have to say. Then there is a viable alternative option and while it's still not settled for PFS, where you can't count on even that, at least that means everyone else has a good alternative to CLW.
But they seem quite resistant to saying that. I know there's this mythical barbarian healer but if they had to burn almost every skill feat they had over many levels on medicine skill feats to make it work, well, that's not so much of a best alternative.
They've been 'quite resistant' to saying anything about how specific Skill Feats work. Any specific Skill Feats, not just this one.
I wouldn't assume it's anything more than that, honestly.
Also, Wand healing may well very much still be workable, you'll just need to upgrade the quality of Wand you buy periodically rather than stick with the lowest level version. This will cost more GP, but we have no evidence it's an unworkable amount more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh you don't think someone will come out and find something to complain about that too? People will find something to argue about no matter what you do.All it would take is for a dev to come out and say the Medicine skill, in the hands of someone trained in the skill and possessing a healers kit, can heal hit points and is not limited to doing so once per day. And that this doesn't require more than one feat tax.
That's it. That's all they have to say. Then there is a viable alternative option and while it's still not settled for PFS, where you can't count on even that, at least that means everyone else has a good alternative to CLW.
But they seem quite resistant to saying that. I know there's this mythical barbarian healer but if they had to burn almost every skill feat they had over many levels on medicine skill feats to make it work, well, that's not so much of a best alternative.
Indeed they will, I've already seen one person state somewhere that as far as they're concerned non-magical healing makes no sense because the level of injuries you'd be dealing with would require magic to heal quickly.
All it would take is for a dev to come out and say the Medicine skill, in the hands of someone trained in the skill and possessing a healers kit, can heal hit points and is not limited to doing so once per day. And that this doesn't require more than one feat tax.
That's it. That's all they have to say. Then there is a viable alternative option and while it's still not settled for PFS, where you can't count on even that, at least that means everyone else has a good alternative to CLW.
But they seem quite resistant to saying that. I know there's this mythical barbarian healer but if they had to burn almost every skill feat they had over many levels on medicine skill feats to make it work, well, that's not so much of a best alternative.
They've been 'quite resistant' to saying anything about how specific Skill Feats work. Any specific Skill Feats, not just this one.
I wouldn't assume it's anything more than that, honestly.
Also, Wand healing may well very much still be workable, you'll just need to upgrade the quality of Wand you buy periodically rather than stick with the lowest level version. This will cost more GP, but we have no evidence it's an unworkable amount more.
I have plenty of evidence based on scaling of other magic items.
Cloak of Elvenkind Lesser costs 1,000 GP (10K PF1 cash). The Greater version costs 24,000 GP (240K PF1 cash, which is in Artifact+ level territory).
The Potion of Healing scales from 250 GP at the second highest to 1,200 GP at the highest, which is almost a 1,000 GP difference. The lower tiers don't have as much of a scaling peak, but in comparison to the previous tier, they are still substantial increases in price, going from three times as much, to twice as much, to a 50% increase, and so on and so forth.
Fortification Armor properties go from 2,000 GP to the base effect, to 24,000 GP at a greater version (again, artifact level territory in PF1 terms), a price multiplier of twelve. It costs 12 base Fortification armor properties to get a single Greater Fortification armor property.
A Disrupting Weapon property goes from 150 GP to 6,200 GP for the Greater version, which is approximately FORTY-ONE TIMES the original value.
There are others (basically, every magic item previewed thus far) whose math is just as bad, or counterintuitive to what we've experienced thus far. (I'm of the opinion the prices are merely placeholders, and we'll get the real numbers come the playtest period, but if they're anything like what we have now, I'm genuinely concerned about the PF2 financial economy rules, since apparently a 20th level PC has like 20 times the gold value of a 19th level PC, and they have 10 times the gold value of an 18th level PC, and so on and so forth.
Yes, we don't know how gold acquisition will work in PF2, but the math here seems way too wonky, especially for some of these items that only have slightly different scaling effects, such as the Fortification armors, and the Cloak of Elvenkind. I mean come on, we're hitting artifact-level territory with these "basic" items in terms of raw pricing, whereas an item like "The Gauntlet" gives so much more, and is actually cheaper than these effects. I mean, WTF is going on here?!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have plenty of evidence based on scaling of other magic items.
No you don't, because we have absolutely no data on WBL.
Also, who says you need the highest possible level to be workable?
The third highest healing potion is only 60 GP a pop and, at 5d8+12 heals an average of 34.5 HP. A 12th level character could be completely healed by maybe five or six of those.
Assuming a cost break for an equivalent Wand (say, 50 GP per charge for a 4th level Wand of Heal, which might be 7d8+5 or so and the same single target healing), then you can heal 185 HP from each PC for only 10 charges by using the area healing option. That's 500 GP. 5000 GP in PF1 terms. For 740 HP healed assuming a four person party. That's higher than the price via a Wand of CLW in PF1...but it's just under 7 GP (7 SP in PF2) per HP, as opposed to the Wand of CLW's north of 3 GP per HP healed. Or a bit more than twice as expensive. And that assumes a much smaller cost break than Wands gave in PF1.
Assuming equivalent WBL, that sounds perfectly workable. It's a bit Resonance heavy as an option, but given that the party as a whole in unlikely to need 185 HP each in a single day, I don't think it's an unworkable Resonance cost by 12th level.
Now all those numbers (except the healing potion cost) are entirely speculative, but they're quite plausible and would fit the design goals, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if I'm in the right ballpark, and you shouldn't be either.
Frankly, it seems likely that by using items a few levels lower and making use of the area healing effect, Wands of Heal are very likely an entirely valid out-of-combat healing methodology...if one with a high Resonance cost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the Devs forgot the economy was Silver-based as soon as they got to writing magic items. Their habitual impulse to make to them expensive because "It's Magic!" kicked in.
Wasn't avoiding arbitrary prices the entire reason items have levels? That is what I remember from the Starfinder Blogs, when they told us Starfinder wasn't just a testing ground for all these mechanics now croppimg up in PF2E.
I don't like that relatively minor improvements, ones that might be hard to even notice in-world, cost multiple times what the next level down does. I certainly don't like that my adventurer's first set of magical equipment costs more than having a palace built for myself. Keeping a single Wand in stock costs a merchant more than every non-magic possession they own combined, including their house/store; I wouldn't accept that liability if I were living in Saltmarsh or Sandpoint, where only Knee-Biting, Puppy-Kicking, Murder-Hobos will ever buy it (assuming they don't steal it, or kill me for it, or I die of old age before an adventurer passes through town that needs that particular wand).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, it seems likely that by using items a few levels lower and making use of the area healing effect, Wands of Heal are very likely an entirely valid out-of-combat healing methodology...if one with a high Resonance cost.
I am going to be severely disappointed if we're going to all this effort and implementing an entire system just to force people to buy more expensive wands to do the exact same thing they use to do with cheaper wands.
|
|
I am going to be severely disappointed if we're going to all this effort and implementing an entire system just to force people to buy more expensive wands to do the exact same thing they use to do with cheaper wands.
It's a very resource intensive strategy this edition due to Resonance, plus escalating costs. It's likely workable, but by no means optimal. Certainly not compared to someone who's actually good at healing (a Cha 16 Cleric at 12th level heals for 155 HP to each party member with Channel Energy alone, saving up to 9 charges and thus up to 450 GP and 9 Resonance per day, just for example).
I think that's all anyone is looking for thematically here. Not for nobody to ever use Wands like this, but for it to not be the norm. For it to be the exception rather than the rule.
And this specific issue, while clearly one reason, is hardly the only reason for Resonance being implemented (the Item Slot thing leaps to mind, for example).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The item slot thing had two or three problematic slots at best. Nothing at all to justify the entire resonance system as it currently stands. We'll see if it's somehow much more intuitive when we see the full rules.
Having wands and rings compete for usage slots (with every other magical item, and a fair few feats too I'm sure we will discover) is a really severe side effect for a rule intended to encourage linear equipment progression (I.E. actually buying "better" wands as you gain levels, rather than using the wand that is actually better more times)...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The item slot thing had two or three problematic slots at best. Nothing at all to justify the entire resonance system as it currently stands. We'll see if it's somehow much more intuitive when we see the full rules.
For the record I'm actually deeply displeased with the Resonance system as it currently stands. It's fiddly and unintuitive in several ways, and makes things more complex rather than less.
But I don't think it's an inherently bad idea, nor do I buy that it somehow makes the game not function. I just have issues with the current implementation (or what we know of the current implementation, anyway).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mathmuse I'm not sure what I'm supposed to walk away from with your example.
This is the kind of party/group I like and my table does similar things. Maybe with some homebrewing but within the ballpark anwyay.
You didn't need or want to spam wands even though they where there. My group is the same. But the community tells us it's wrong because... math?
Examples from my campaigns are not clear because real life is not clear. But as a statistician, I love real data. It tells me when the math is wrong.
My Iron Gods party had no expert healer. They started with three PCs, including a skald who could cast Cure Light Wounds twice a day. As the GM, I helped reduce the tension caused by that shortage of healing by providing a source of potions of Cure Light Wounds. They were the kind of party that would benefit from a wand of Cure Light Wounds, and they obtained such a wand as soon as they could afford it.
My players were also highly skilled at Pathfinder. Their characters mastered teamwork and functioned as well as a standard party two levels above their level. I routinely increased the CR of the encounters in the module, which created a weird dynamic. The players knew that I increased the CR to match them; therefore, if they became stronger then the challenges would become equally stronger. They were already at the maximum power relative to the challenges that I would allow. Getting more gear, such as spamming wands of Cure Light Wounds, would not improve their chances at combat. They did need gear and tactics to protect against bad dice rolls. That was the math in my campaign.
What they could control was which battles they fought. They would try to skip the boring combat designed to wear the party down. They liked to roleplay the information gathering that told them of these guards and incidental adversaries. I liked it, too, because it made the campaign a balanced mixture of social encounters, investigation, and combat. Since they avoided frequently losing hp to mere minions, they did not need to top off their hp with wands of Cure Light Wounds as much as the parties that spam a basketful of wands. The skald usually handled that healing with her 1st-level spells.
That last sentence reveals a double standard. A spellcaster, such as an oracle or bard, healing a high-level party with multiple castings of Cure Light Wounds is fine. Purchasing a wand of Cure Light Wounds for a high-level party, in contrast, is plebeian.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only the exact number and nature of Must Have items has changed. They just couldn't get rid of it. "Best In Slot" isn't a bug or exploit, it is just the nature of any game system that uses mathematical opportunity costs.
A party that has its resources perfectly balanced could encounter Instead of retreating with one or two party members still well stocked, the party could retreat with no way of handing even a minor encounter.
WIZARD: I cast my last spell: Magic Missile!
(The Grim Darklord drops.)
FIGHTER: Thank the gods. The only reason I am upright is my Die Hard training.
ROGUE: I had to slip to the shadows when I had only 3 hp left.
CLERIC: Sorry, I am out of healing. And almost out of my own hit...
I’ve DMed that party before in a 3.5 game. :-) In the end, the depleted wizard won a fist-fight with a disarmed orc, and dragged the party back to safety one by one....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I don't think it's an inherently bad idea, nor do I buy that it somehow makes the game not function.
The game functions perfectly fine for some groups that do not use wands of healing at all. The game functions perfectly fine for some groups that use wands of CLW after every encounter. "makes the game not function" is a pretty low bar given PF1e can function just fine with widely different playstyles. I agree that resonance will not cause the game to "not function" for some groups. It could introduce a drastically different platystyle for other groups, but even then I'm sure it will "function".
Whether or not resonance enables more enjoyment from the game is the bar I set. I look forward to seeing resonance in full to see if it actually achieves that goal.