Replacing Wands: Thoughts?

[wayfare]

Hey All:

Wands have always been one of those annoying game artifacts for me. They give you a huge number of spells, are some of the cheapest forms of healing and buffing you can find, and generally outstrip caster ability until you reach the point where you can cast higher level spells (Note: My group only plays 1-10)

Add to this all the wondrous items that are effectively 3x per day eternal wands (plus some other effect), and the fact that wands out-potion potions in terms of craftability, and you have this strange uber-item that duplicates the effect of other items, just with more efficiency.

In my next game, I am considering transforming wands into magic weapons for casters. To use a wand, you would give up one of your daily spells, the level of the spell would determine the damage inflicted by your wand for the rest of the day. When using a wand to attack, you would use your caster level as your attack bonus, but you could only make 1 attack per round, per wand you wield (to allow for dual wand wielders). Wands inflict physical damage (slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing, chosen when the wand is created) and can be enchanted normally, so it is very possible to have a +2 Ghost Touch, Flaming Wand.

Any suggestions on how to proceed with this idea? Advice, suggestions on how wand damage should scale, etc are all appreciated!

[watchwood]

You could just not give out wands to the players, or only give wands with a few charges left in them each?

[wayfare]

You could just not give out wands to the players, or only give wands with a few charges left in them each?

I had considered limiting charges to 5, or just using eternal wands, but MiC is just full of items that are effectively eternal wands, so I started wondering why we really need wand or eternal wands.

Also, crafters could still make their own gear with full charges

[purpenflurb]

Speaking as someone playing an artificer at low levels with a lot of gold, wands are good, but I don't think they replace casters. The main issue I have with wands is that they cast the spell at minimum DC, and unless you pay considerably more all CL dependent effects are stuck at minimum. This is great for some spells, like lesser vigor. But something like grease cast by a caster tends to be much more effective than the DC 11 1 round duration the 750 gold wand gives.

[Nettlekid]

Just to be clear, when you say "replace" wands, you basically mean completely get rid of wands as they are, and then introduce a new item called a wand which functions totally differently than wands now, right? From what you've described, I'm basically imagining some kind of minor version of the Archmage's Arcane Fire ability. Expend a spell slot, deal spell leveld6 damage or something like that. If you don't nerf the spellcaster's regular casting as well, then I promise they will pretty much never use that. Most damaging spells deal better than spell leveld6 damage (Fireball, Orb of X, Cone of Cold) hitting either more than one person or attacking in a way equal to or better than your wand blast. The other spells they have prepared will be utility spells, buffs, crowd control, etc, and since they've prepared those for that purpose they won't want to expend it for a little damage, since those spells can do things better than damage.

I don't have much experience with wands because I'm a packrat and I hate using up any charged item like wands and staves. However, I am aware of some factors which make wands undesirable.

Firstly, the low save DC. The DC is 10+spell level+modifier of the minimum ability score required to cast the spell in the wand. So a 1st level spell has a DC of 11, a 2nd has DC 13, a 3rd has DC 14, and a 4th has DC 16. Those are never going to match the DCs that are actually being used by a proper caster, which (combined with the low CL) means that blasting with wands is pretty ineffective (barring Blastificer shenanigans and the like, but that's a niche case) and relegates wands to being merely utility objects.

Which is what they're perfect for! A Sorcerer doesn't want to waste spells known on Knock and Glitterdust, useful though they may be, and even a Wizard probably doesn't want to have to prepare them every day in case today is the one day in like a month that they really need those spells. Having wands to cover those utilities is easier on the casters who can devote themselves more fully to their own style instead of covering bases, and it also gives a modicum of magical ability to a Rogue or anyone with UMD, making them even better at what they do. You say you don't like that wands are cheap sources of healing or buffs. Why don't you like that? Would you prefer that one player in the group be forced to play a healbot Cleric to patch everyone's wounds, instead of using a Wand of Lesser Vigor to do the job?

Second of course is the cost/charge issue. This is pretty straightforward, but if your party relies on wands all the time then it's going to start costing a lot. At low levels when wands would be strongest they probably won't be able to afford more than one or two low level wands, and at higher levels when it's almost feasible (but still a resource drain) then the casters can cast better anyway, as I described above.

Don't think of the X/day magic items as Eternal Wands, think of Eternal Wands as a 2/day magic items. They use the same pricing guidelines as a "custom item of spell, castable 2/day" from the DMG. If you're okay with magic items like an Anklet of Translocation and a Belt of Battle, then these 2/day low-level spells shouldn't be too jarring. If you don't like items as most wondrous items are, then do stick to low levels, because high levels should be full of them (most encounters assume seriously geared up characters.)

If you don't like the aspect of wands that allows casters to just churn out spell after spell if they're not concerned about using up all the charges, might I instead recommend Runestaves from the MIC? They're a bit like regular staves in that they have many spells keyed to them, but instead of having charges and being able to produce the effect on their own, they require you to expend a spell slot of equal level to the effect you want, and each effect can only be called on a maximum of 3/day (maybe less if you want a cheaper runestaff.) Perhaps you can change wands to be like that, and have them keyed to only one spell? A Wand of Knock would last forever, but require a caster to expend a 2nd level spell every time they wanted it (as though they were casting Knock) and could only do so 3/day. This does take wand capabilities away from Rogues, though.

In short, wands are best thought of as utility for casters, not as a replacement for casters. I don't see your wand-weapon idea going too far I'm afraid, unless you were to make it so unbalanced and overpowered as to invalidate any melee characters (because casters definitely don't already do that.)

[Invader]

I think you're can't over estimating the value of wands. While theyre not prohibitively expensive they do cost enough that you cant walk around with vast assortment of wands with a high enough caster level to be very effective.

I'd also agree that if you make a caster give up a spell to cast a spell it seems kind of counter intuitiv. How do you plan on working it for non casting classes that have UMD (the classes that benefit the most from wands).

[sleepyphoenixx]

During the time where wands equal/outstrip inherent casting ability it is highly unlikely that a character can afford more than one or two of them.
If they're causing such massive problems in your campaign you should probably look at WBL directly instead of fighting the symptoms.
Otherwise your players will just buy other stuff and break your game unless you adjust challenges accordingly.

[wayfare]

Yeah, but heres the thing -- those utility spells that allow you to replace entire classes, they shoudl have a resouce limit. Otherwise why have classes that pick locks, invest in climb, etc.

[Uncle Pine]

I think you're quite overstimating wands. Think about it: how having access to multiple casting of a single (or a couple of) spell(s) using your own actions supersede the help of a friendly Wizard who can cast those spells (among others) with his own actions? Moreover, wands are expensive: you can't just carelessly burn all the charges because usually you don't have access to a whole load of them or to areas when you can grind gp to buy them.

Anyway, since you're resorting to homebrew, why don't you have a look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5867363#post5867363)? It might meet your taste.

EDIT:

Yeah, but heres the thing -- those utility spells that allow you to replace entire classes, they shoudl have a resouce limit. Otherwise why have classes that pick locks, invest in climb, etc.
This is indeed less of "wands outstrip casters"'s and more of "casters outstrip mundanes"'s kind of problem, you see. A smart caster would still prepare those utility spells while leaving the "beat the blinded/enervated/grappled by tentacles enemies" to the beatsticks.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Yeah, but heres the thing -- those utility spells that allow you to replace entire classes, they shoudl have a resouce limit. Otherwise why have classes that pick locks, invest in climb, etc.

Picking locks, climbing, disable device and similar tricks are not class roles. The belief that the weakness of the Rogue and similar classes is justified because they "have a different role to fill" is one of D&Ds major design screwups imo. If your whole class can be replaced by a single level level dip and Able Learner (or a couple of spells) the problem is not in the spells but in the design of the class in question imo.

[wayfare]

Picking locks, climbing, disable device and similar tricks are not class roles. The belief that the weakness of the Rogue and similar classes is justified because they "have a different role to fill" is one of D&Ds major design screwups imo. If your whole class can be replaced by a single level level dip and Able Learner (or a couple of spells) the problem is not in the spells but in the design of the class in question imo.

Alternative hypothesis:

Perhaps allowing other classes to effortlessly cover these tasks is the mistake :smallsmile:

What would you consider roles in a D&D game, then?

[wayfare]

I think you're quite overstimating wands. Think about it: how having access to multiple casting of a single (or a couple of) spell(s) using your own actions supersede the help of a friendly Wizard who can cast those spells (among others) with his own actions? Moreover, wands are expensive: you can't just carelessly burn all the charges because usually you don't have access to a whole load of them or to areas when you can grind gp to buy them.

Anyway, since you're resorting to homebrew, why don't you have a look at this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5867363#post5867363)? It might meet your taste.

EDIT:

This is indeed less of "wands outstrip casters"'s and more of "casters outstrip mundanes"'s kind of problem, you see. A smart caster would still prepare those utility spells while leaving the "beat the blinded/enervated/grappled by tentacles enemies" to the beatsticks.

Wands are by far more efficient than potions or scrolls in terms of cost. AFB right now, but i think they are more efficient than paying a hireling to cast spells. Obviously this doesnt hold at higher levels, because wands have spell level caps. But a lower levels, the ability to pop 50 spells is considerable.

All that aside, what is wrong with the idea of a weapon arcane casters can use?

[Nettlekid]

All that aside, what is wrong with the idea of a weapon arcane casters can use?

Any arcane caster can already grab a simple weapon, enchant it like crazy, and the feat Arcane Strike to make it like what you're suggesting. They don't. Why? Because well-chosen spells are better than anything you'd want to sacrifice spell slots for. How inflated must this wand-weapon damage be if sacrificing a 4th level spell to power it is preferable to launching out an Orb of Force, Wings of Flurry, or Doom Scarabs? And that's just for direct damage, because most casters would prefer to use that 4th level slot for Celerity or Enervation or Ruin Delver's Fortune. Defense, utility, support, crowd control, flexible offense, any spell slot can be geared to cover one or more of these. How could getting some weapon damage be preferable to that? There are plenty of classes that would like the damage boost, but they're melee already. You want a caster to become akin to spell-fueled BSFs, and your players will quickly realize that they can do better being a caster. (Not to mention that casters can ALREADY become spell-fueled BSFs at less cost than a spell slot per attack.)

[Invader]

Alternative hypothesis: perhaps allowing other classes to effortlessly cover thes tasks is the mistake :smallsmile:

What would you consider roles in a D&D game, then?

If there's a rogue in the party why is someone wasting money on utility wants to begin with. It feels like you're creating a problem to prove your point.

If you have a rogue and your wizard is blowing money on find trap wands the problem is the wizard sucks not that there are wands that can replicate class abilities.

[wayfare]

Well, spells eventually run out, so the weapon I am proposing just keeps on going. It is more like an arcane blast that you sacrifice one spell to power for the rest of the day.

[Deophaun]

Wands inflict physical damage (slashing, bludgeoning, or piercing, chosen when the wand is created) and can be enchanted normally, so it is very possible to have a +2 Ghost Touch, Flaming Wand.

Any suggestions on how to proceed with this idea? Advice, suggestions on how wand damage should scale, etc are all appreciated!
Either no* wizard/full caster would use these, or they would do enough damage to greatly replace the Evocation school. If they were more like baby runestaves (maybe use your CL but not your DC), they would see use.

*Because there's always someone.

[Nettlekid]

Well, spells eventually run out, so the weapon I am proposing just keeps on going. It is more like an arcane blast that you sacrifice one spell to power for the rest of the day.

Oh sorry, I thought you said it was one spell per attack rather than one spell to fuel it for the day. Still, my point stands. If it's a low level slot that the caster won't mind losing, then it does little good for the wand. If it's a high level slot, it would probably do better being used as a spell rather than for melee. I mean, there's no reason for a caster not to have one on hand just in case, but they probably won't use it.

[Coidzor]

You could always just say yes to affordable magical healing. That'd address at least one significant component of the issue you seem to be having.

[wayfare]

Ok, so here is what I am thinking in terms of how these weapons would work.

To activate a Wand, you must give up a single memorized spell or spell slot of 0th level or higher. The Wand can then be used for a full day without need to recharge.

Activating a Wand is a standard action. When making an attack with a wand, use your (caster level + primary casting attribute) to target your opponents AC.

Wands are ranged weapons with a maximum range of 50 feet. They inflict 1d4/19-20/x2 damage. If you give up a spell of 1st level or higher, increase the damage inflicted by your wand by one size category per spell level and increase the range increment by 10 feet.

[wayfare]

You could always just say yes to affordable magical healing. That'd address at least one significant component of the issue you seem to be having.

Confused? I don't see why thats an issue.

[eggynack]

Well, spells eventually run out, so the weapon I am proposing just keeps on going. It is more like an arcane blast that you sacrifice one spell to power for the rest of the day.
This sounds a whole lot like reserve feats from complete mage. I'd advise just using those, cause they're cool. It's a feat rather than an item, but for the damaging variety of reserve feat you pretty much end up with a magical based weapon.

[Seerow]

Ok, so here is what I am thinking in terms of how these weapons would work.

To activate a Wand, you must give up a single memorized spell or spell slot of 0th level or higher. The Wand can then be used for a full day without need to recharge.

Activating a Wand is a standard action. When making an attack with a wand, use your (caster level + primary casting attribute) to target your opponents AC.

Wands are ranged weapons with a maximum range of 50 feet. They inflict 1d4/19-20/x2 damage. If you give up a spell of 1st level or higher, increase the damage inflicted by your wand by one size category per spell level and increase the range increment by 10 feet.

so...
Cantrip: 1d4
1st level: 1d6
2nd level: 1d8
3rd level: 2d6
4th level: 3d6
5th level: 4d6
6th level: 6d6
7th level: 8d6
8th level: 12d6
9th level: 16d6

I dunno. It seems really weak at first level (weaker than a reserve feat between 2nd level spells until 6th, which is more than half the game), past that it seems pretty decent for an at-will ability, but still most likely weaker than whatever spell you invested.

But make it too much stronger, and as noted by someone else, you invalidate basically all blasting spells. Though if that's the goal, it's an admirable one.

[wayfare]

This sounds a whole lot like reserve feats from complete mage. I'd advise just using those, cause they're cool. It's a feat rather than an item, but for the damaging variety of reserve feat you pretty much end up with a magical based weapon.

Thats sort of the idea, just without the feat part. Casters are feat starved to begin with, and my players typically use their feats in flavorful (if suboptimal) ways.

[wayfare]

so...
Cantrip: 1d4
1st level: 1d6
2nd level: 1d8
3rd level: 2d6
4th level: 3d6
5th level: 4d6
6th level: 6d6
7th level: 8d6
8th level: 12d6
9th level: 16d6

I dunno. It seems really weak at first level (weaker than a reserve feat between 2nd level spells until 6th, which is more than half the game), past that it seems pretty decent for an at-will ability, but still most likely weaker than whatever spell you invested.

But make it too much stronger, and as noted by someone else, you invalidate basically all blasting spells. Though if that's the goal, it's an admirable one.

I figured it would cap at 3d6, did i misread the table?

[eggynack]

Thats sort of the idea, just without the feat part. Casters are feat starved to begin with, and my players typically use their feats in flavorful (if suboptimal) ways.
I wouldn't call hitting up casters for feats if they want do something cool a bad thing. Reserve feats are neat.

[Nettlekid]

I figured it would cap at 3d6, did i misread the table?

Well, sort of. You said each spell level increases the damage as if the weapon was one size larger, but didn't say "This caps as when the weapon counts as Colossal." So really, the way to implement it is each level makes it count one size bigger, count that as Medium, and the next level makes it one size larger than that, which is what Seerow did.

You seem to have a really poor sense of what constitutes "big" damage, as well as what a caster wants to do with their spells. You're suggesting giving up a 4th level spell slot for a standard action, one attack, 3d6 blast. If you had a 4th level Fire/Cold/Electricity/Acid/Sonic spell prepared, the reserve feats Fiery Burst/Winter's Blast/Storm Bolt/Acidic Splatter/Clap of Thunder do better than that with additional effects, and they don't even use up the spell slot. If you actually cast that 4th level spell, you could have a 10d6 Orb of Force with better range and damage type than your wand. The Wizard isn't going to want to waste standard actions on a 3d6 blast (which is why those reserve feats aren't used that much) when they've got all these other options.

Basically, with these wands, you want to make every caster into a Warlock with a worse Eldritch Blast. It doesn't actually fix your problem with wands, because now the casters will just prepare Knock and Invisibility and all the utility spells they would have done, reluctantly putting aside Chain of Eyes and Heroics and the spells they would have preferred to cast for fun instead of the dungeon-necessary utility spells they normally would have had wands for. If you put the wand damage cap at 3d6, they will never use the wands, because a Fireball from a 10th level caster does much more to many more. If you let the damage scale to the aforementioned 16d6, then if they decide to give up a spell slot (and they very well might not) then how can non-Ubercharging melee like a Rogue catch up? If the Wizard doesn't just use that 9th level slot to end the battle anyway.

[Coidzor]

Confused? I don't see why thats an issue.

You don't? :smallconfused:

Trying to force clerics to be boring healbots because you don't like wand-based healing would definitely be an issue for some. I'd certainly ask my DM what he was thinking if he announced that he intended to do such a thing.

[wayfare]

I wouldn't call hitting up casters for feats if they want do something cool a bad thing. Reserve feats are neat.

I love them, despite claims that they are not optimal :)

Personally, when I think of a wizard, I imagine a guy who is tossing around wee fireballs with no effort.

My primary caster is an Archivist who wants to make it his goal to just be THE GUY who can identify monsters. So he is loading up on dark knowledge feats. I wanted to give him a way to contribute to teh fight that was distinctly casterish, without compromising on his "i am a divination healbot info guy"

[wayfare]

You don't? :smallconfused:

Trying to force clerics to be boring healbots because you don't like wand-based healing would definitely be an issue for some. I'd certainly ask my DM what he was thinking if he announced that he intended to do such a thing.

I'd say that if you were bored saving peoples lives, you probably have not watched enough ER :smallbiggrin:

This "healing is boring/is not contributing" thing really needs to go away. It is an important role, especially if you want to be teh party that can go through 4 or 5 encounters a day with limbs intact. Surviving that much combat is superhuman in itself, so send the healbot some love.

[Nettlekid]

I'd say that if you were bored saving peoples lives, you probably have not watched enough ER :smallbiggrin:

This "healing is boring/is not contributing" thing really needs to go away. It is an important role, especially if you want to be teh party that can go through 4 or 5 encounters a day with limbs intact. Surviving that much combat is superhuman in itself, so send the healbot some love.

I think you're putting words in players' mouths here. There are definitely some players who would enjoy playing an amazing healer, all about saving people. Curing diseases, breaking curses, healing hit points and ability damage/drain, raising the dead, all that. It can be very entertaining, and is as viable a playstyle as being a charging berserker or a septuple-sneak-attacking thief.

HOWEVER, as is true with any class or playstyle, no one should HAVE to play it because the party needs it even if no one in the group wants to play it. And the party, while it doesn't need a healer per se, does need healing. Because they'll get hurt. Without wands or other items to heal them up, you are indeed forcing someone to play a role they might make the best of, but didn't actually want to play. Much the same goes for a character being forced to be a skillmonkey with Open Lock because the party has no wand of Knock, but that's less of an issue than the healbot thing.

I'm going to ask again, because I'm starting to lose the general gist of what I thought you said. Exactly WHY don't you like wands? Like, if there's a character who loves healing, and the party's like "Let's get a Wand of Lesser Vigor," the healbot can say "Hey dudes I can totally patch you up, we don't need a wand. Let's buy other cool stuff instead." And the party will say "Oh yeah, you're good at that, okay let's get this awesome magic jewel instead." What's the problem?

[Perseus]

My 2 cents on the how popular wands should be in high populace settings.

Wands should be cheaper and more popular/easier to use without UMD.

In any sort of setting where there is a huge population (Eberron or Waterdeep in Faerun) you would think that wands would be in high demand. Think of it like any technology we have in the real world, like computers. At first they were these hard to operate, clunky, expensive items. Now you can have a computer for super cheap that fits in your pocket (cell phone)!

People eventually would improve upon the wands and lower the price so that they can go into MASS production.

Think about a group of Wizard Warforged starting a wand creation business... That sort of Mass Production. (this becomes easier with Paizo's no XP to create rules).

These wands would be used for a variety of things from self defense (magic missile) to making sure food always taste perfect (prestidigitation).

So taking into the fact that creating the wands would be cheaper, sold in mass, and easy to use. It makes no sense that they wouldn't be mass produced...

[wayfare]

I think you're putting words in players' mouths here. There are definitely some players who would enjoy playing an amazing healer, all about saving people. Curing diseases, breaking curses, healing hit points and ability damage/drain, raising the dead, all that. It can be very entertaining, and is as viable a playstyle as being a charging berserker or a septuple-sneak-attacking thief.

HOWEVER, as is true with any class or playstyle, no one should HAVE to play it because the party needs it even if no one in the group wants to play it. And the party, while it doesn't need a healer per se, does need healing. Because they'll get hurt. Without wands or other items to heal them up, you are indeed forcing someone to play a role they might make the best of, but didn't actually want to play. Much the same goes for a character being forced to be a skillmonkey with Open Lock because the party has no wand of Knock, but that's less of an issue than the healbot thing.

I'm going to ask again, because I'm starting to lose the general gist of what I thought you said. Exactly WHY don't you like wands? Like, if there's a character who loves healing, and the party's like "Let's get a Wand of Lesser Vigor," the healbot can say "Hey dudes I can totally patch you up, we don't need a wand. Let's buy other cool stuff instead." And the party will say "Oh yeah, you're good at that, okay let's get this awesome magic jewel instead." What's the problem?

I get your gameplay point, I really do. But I think that if magical healing or even "dedicated mundane healing" isnt in your playbook, then "headlong assault" or even "combat at regular intervals" shouldn't be in your playbook either. If sneaking is your thing, find a way to be sneaky. If chaming people is your thing, find a way to diplomance or cast domination. I mean, this is why battle are bad things -- because people go into them knowing that they are going to die.

I don't like wands because they give you more bang for your buck than potions and lower level scrolls. I don't like wands because they give you easy access to buffing and healing that should be used more strategically. I am not saying buffing and healing shouldnt exist, I am just saying that it it is not an "every encounter" kind of thing.

[eggynack]

I don't understand why wands wouldn't cost less than scrolls or potions. You're effectively buying charges in bulk, so you're a lot more tied down to a single spell with a wand. Potions especially should be more expensive, because they're available to anyone. As for healing as a party role, it's a really uninteresting one in my opinion. Casting cure spells in combat is generally suboptimal, primarily due to the action cost, so you're stuck just tossing the appropriate spells onto characters after combat, which has little to no tactical input. The status effect curing part is a bit more of a role, but I see no issue in replacing healing with a fancy wand.

[Nettlekid]

I get your gameplay point, I really do. But I think that if magical healing or even "dedicated mundane healing" isnt in your playbook, then "headlong assault" or even "combat at regular intervals" shouldn't be in your playbook either. If sneaking is your thing, find a way to be sneaky. If chaming people is your thing, find a way to diplomance or cast domination. I mean, this is why battle are bad things -- because people go into them knowing that they are going to die.

I don't like wands because they give you more bang for your buck than potions and lower level scrolls. I don't like wands because they give you easy access to buffing and healing that should be used more strategically. I am not saying buffing and healing shouldnt exist, I am just saying that it it is not an "every encounter" kind of thing.

But what you're doing there is limiting a player's enjoyment based on circumstance. Why should you tell a player that they can't do the "rush into battle all day err' day" thing because their team doesn't actively boost that playstyle, even if the rest of the team is fine with them doing that? That would be like saying that a party could never go on a dungeon crawl without a Rogue in case they find a locked door, or could never try to infiltrate a social gathering if no one was a Cha-based party face.

Why do you feel that way? Also, why do you care that wands are more cost-effective than potions? They represent a long-term investment into the well-being of the party. I'd say that potions are underpowered, sure, but wands are right where they should be. The strategic element that you say wands lack is actually right there in the purchase of the wand! If they had a healbot with them, they WOULD be healing after every encounter. This does the same thing. The use of wands allows party roles to be filled without detracting from each player's enjoyment of their character. What's not to like?

[wayfare]

But what you're doing there is limiting a player's enjoyment based on circumstance. Why should you tell a player that they can't do the "rush into battle all day err' day" thing because their team doesn't actively boost that playstyle, even if the rest of the team is fine with them doing that? That would be like saying that a party could never go on a dungeon crawl without a Rogue in case they find a locked door, or could never try to infiltrate a social gathering if no one was a Cha-based party face.

Why do you feel that way? Also, why do you care that wands are more cost-effective than potions? They represent a long-term investment into the well-being of the party. I'd say that potions are underpowered, sure, but wands are right where they should be. The strategic element that you say wands lack is actually right there in the purchase of the wand! If they had a healbot with them, they WOULD be healing after every encounter. This does the same thing. The use of wands allows party roles to be filled without detracting from each player's enjoyment of their character. What's not to like?

The way I see it, your d10 hit die, heavy armor (or exceptional dexterity and light armor, or wis modifier or whatnot) is what allows you to rush in and derring-do. That kind of character is built to survive that kind of encounter, maybe multiples of that kind of encounter. Bringing a d6 or d4 to the table says to me that you shoudl be approaching situations in a different way. Not that you are combat incapable, per-se, simply that you have different strategies that are your strength. Like blitzkrieg super fast two weapon backstab and run away. Or summoning creatures to fight for you.

[Rubik]

What if you use the alternate-wand-as-weapon idea, but instead of flat damage, you use scaling low-level utility effects? Healing or summoning or Knock all day long in exchange for one spell slot? I'd bet people would actually take that. Muahahaha.


The way I see it, your d10 hit die, heavy armor (or exceptional dexterity and light armor, or wis modifier or whatnot) is what allows you to rush in and derring-do. That kind of character is built to survive that kind of encounter, maybe multiples of that kind of encounter.Except mundane combatants are extremely fragile without healing. Two solid hits can kill one during lower levels, and at higher levels, it's really easy to take one down using higher level effects. There needs to be easily acquired (and very cheap) healing available, or mundanes die because they can't reasonably defend themselves, despite their numbers (unless they're absolutely insanely high, which you don't get with full BAB and a d12).

[Nettlekid]

The way I see it, your d10 hit die, heavy armor (or exceptional dexterity and light armor, or wis modifier or whatnot) is what allows you to rush in and derring-do. That kind of character is built to survive that kind of encounter, maybe multiples of that kind of encounter. Bringing a d6 or d4 to the table says to me that you shoudl be approaching situations in a different way. Not that you are combat incapable, per-se, simply that you have different strategies that are your strength. Like blitzkrieg super fast two weapon backstab and run away. Or summoning creatures to fight for you.

Yeah, the d6 and d4 HD types do things differently, absolutely right. Doesn't invalidate the need that the d10 and d12 types have for healing. Hang on, are you imagining that it's ONLY the Wizard or whoever who's using the wand? That d10 HD and heavy armor doesn't STOP damage, and after an average battle you'll still be heavily damaged. A CR appropriate encounter is meant to take 1/4 of your party's daily resources, so you'll have lost at least 1/4 your HP, but probably more. Definitely more if 1/4 of your daily resources includes 1/4 of your healbot's healing spells, bringing the fighter back to 1/4 from full. They'll need the healing too, and having a caster use the wand on their behalf is expected after any battle, not just all per day.

Do you want your PCs to fight one big fight, then go home and recoup for a day or two before moving to the next room of a dungeon? The phrase "15 minute adventuring day" is a joke, but stems from the truth of adventurers (mainly casters) expending their day's resources in a single encounter. Without the wands, a Cleric will need to spend many healing spells on each teammate, using up lots of spells, which means that even though the party is ready to go the Cleric is like "Hey I'm running low, I won't be able to help you guys again today" and they'll say "Oh we need your help, let's rest the day so you can be helpful again later." Are you saying that's preferable and more realistic than having a patch-up-wand?

[Drachasor]

Yes, wands are cheaper than Scrolls and Potions.

Guess what? They are all overpriced for what they do except for a few VERY select spells. Paying a spellcaster to cast a spell is also overpriced in the books. Staves are overpriced too, btw. Scrolls are only worth it for a few utility spells you'll hardly ever need. Wands don't see much use outside of CLW (and potentially Haste, which is a pretty OP spell). Potions? They are pretty much garbage, but if you find one then it might be worth using.

It's kind of funny you think these things are "too good" when they are unused by most players. Make wands more expensive and you won't see this other stuff get used more, you'll just see more 5 minute workdays.

Personally all these items would probably be fine if potions cost as much as scrolls, and then you halved the price on everything. Then everything scaled with the level of the person using the item as though it were the CL. You'd probably actually see a wand of magic missiles used then.

If you're worried about casters having something to do given their low spell amounts, I think you have a few options. Either have a new type of wand that really just gives you access to a reserve feat. Or let every casting class pick up reserve feats regularly as bonus feats.


I get your gameplay point, I really do. But I think that if magical healing or even "dedicated mundane healing" isnt in your playbook, then "headlong assault" or even "combat at regular intervals" shouldn't be in your playbook either. If sneaking is your thing, find a way to be sneaky. If chaming people is your thing, find a way to diplomance or cast domination. I mean, this is why battle are bad things -- because people go into them knowing that they are going to die.

I don't like wands because they give you more bang for your buck than potions and lower level scrolls. I don't like wands because they give you easy access to buffing and healing that should be used more strategically. I am not saying buffing and healing shouldnt exist, I am just saying that it it is not an "every encounter" kind of thing.

The game isn't really designed to handle healing being rare, despite the fact the devs didn't think of wands of CLW when 3.0 was rolled out. Lessening the amount of healing generally just slows the game down....A LOT. It's not very fun.

And just because an element of combat is important doesn't mean it is a good idea to make someone's whole role in the party to revolve around that one thing. Generally people do not like it when they have to play someone that largely just heals. It is not fun. Lots of things are like this. A guy that is stealthy and ONLY stealthy isn't going to have much fun either. A guy that provides tactical intel before combat and nothing else is the same. There are lots of important jobs to do, but that doesn't mean you need to have one character who does that and nothing else. It's bad game design.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yeah, but heres the thing -- those utility spells that allow you to replace entire classes, they shoudl have a resouce limit. Otherwise why have classes that pick locks, invest in climb, etc.

Those spells, assuredly, do -not- replace the classes that have the skills they supposedly substitute. They only appear to because people have an unfortunate tendency to overlook the limitations of those spells.

The only exception to this, front-line warrior, can't be done from a wand alone. It requires one of: a high level feat or a class feature exclusive to a single class and one of two specific metamagic feats to do it by wand or a build that can be described as a metamagic specialist to do it directly. Either way it's not the wand that's the core of the problem.


Alternative hypothesis:

Perhaps allowing other classes to effortlessly cover these tasks is the mistake :smallsmile:

Alternative to the alternative: there are too many roles for any one of them to be limited to a single method.


What would you consider roles in a D&D game, then?

Buffer, healer, tactical fighter, headlong fighter, skillful fighter, blaster, summoner, necro-minion master, debuffer, magical fighter, trap-killer, mage-hunter, face, enchanter, leader, scout, battlefield controller, magical crafter, ranged fighter, tank

I still feel like I'm missing some.

In any case, I think that this adequately showcases my previous comment. None of these are strictly necessary to get by, wands can act as partial substitutes for some of these in a pinch but "good enough sometimes" is not the same as "dedicated to the role."


Wands are by far more efficient than potions or scrolls in terms of cost. AFB right now, but i think they are more efficient than paying a hireling to cast spells. Obviously this doesnt hold at higher levels, because wands have spell level caps. But a lower levels, the ability to pop 50 spells is considerable.

Only casters and those who're willing to invest in UMD can actually use wands and for the former those wands have to be of spells from their class list. Knock is a useful spell to have on a wand but it's a useless device if there's no bard or wizard to activate it. If a rogue uses it by UMD, who cares? You want him opening locks and he's opening locks; no problem there. Find traps is a cleric spell, detect snares and pits is a druid/ranger spell and detect secret doors goes back to wiz/bard. The only guy that can use them all (rogue with UMD) is the guy you're trying to replace with all of these spells. Where's the problem?


All that aside, what is wrong with the idea of a weapon arcane casters can use?

Nothing. It just kinda feels like you're trying to reinvent the wheel. Pick up a reserve feat or buy a custom feat item that gives you a reserve feat (arms and equipment guide).


I'd say that if you were bored saving peoples lives, you probably have not watched enough ER :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, not the same thing. Those guys have to do a -lot- of stuff to save their patients. A cleric just twiddles his fingers, invokes the name of his god, and, boom!, patient's good.


This "healing is boring/is not contributing" thing really needs to go away. It is an important role, especially if you want to be teh party that can go through 4 or 5 encounters a day with limbs intact. Surviving that much combat is superhuman in itself, so send the healbot some love.

The boring thing is subjective. Different people are going to find different levels of enjoyment in providing that sort of support and there's nothing you, me, or anyone else can do about it.

The not contributing thing isn't a thing. The problem was never that healing isn't contributing but that it's not contributing as much as other options. Killing the foe faster reduces the damage you take in the first place and healing can be done afterward unless the foe is hitting hard. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," "treat the problem, not the symptoms," etc. In-combat healing is a self reinforcing tactic. The more you do it, the longer the fight goes, the more you need it. Hitting the enemy hard and fast is just more efficient; simple as that.


I get your gameplay point, I really do. But I think that if magical healing or even "dedicated mundane healing" isnt in your playbook, then "headlong assault" or even "combat at regular intervals" shouldn't be in your playbook either. If sneaking is your thing, find a way to be sneaky. If chaming people is your thing, find a way to diplomance or cast domination. I mean, this is why battle are bad things -- because people go into them knowing that they are going to die.

Of course healing is necessary. What's unnecessary is having a member of the party dedicated to the healer role. By taking away healing wands or some similar item you're forcing someone into this role and -that- is a problem. As you noted, potions are woefully inefficient; too much so to be a viable means of regular healing without hurting the party's ability to afford other things.


I don't like wands because they give you more bang for your buck than potions and lower level scrolls. I don't like wands because they give you easy access to buffing and healing that should be used more strategically. I am not saying buffing and healing shouldnt exist, I am just saying that it it is not an "every encounter" kind of thing.

On scrolls; at low levels they're actually affordable, whereas wands are less so, and they can be used to supplement the caster's daily allotment which allows him to go longer without rest. At mid and higher levels they allow the caster to keep a few corner-case spells on hand; spells that you normally don't need but, when you do, you need them now.

Potions have the advantage of being useable by anyone. It takes the action burden off of the caster. Note that while the default rules limit potions to 3rd level, there are two prestige classes that, between them, allow potions for nearly all spells to be created; everything but personal spells and spells with a casting time over 1 minute.

Wands are, in fact, limited to 4th level and lower spells (5th with a bit of trickery), they're limited in use to casters and UMD skillful types, and the selection of spells that are both spammable and useful at minimum CL and save DC is fairly small, all told.

Frankly, I don't see a problem.

[Dalebert]

Guess what? They are all overpriced for what they do except for a few VERY select spells.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. All of the items with charges seem over-priced to me. In particular, the exponentially-growing price model seems a little ridiculous (SL x CL x base). About the only wands that seem worth the money are the 1st level ones for spells that are useful at CL 1. It's hard to imagine finding any of those items that we wouldn't sell for the cash over using.

[Drachasor]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. All of the items with charges seem over-priced to me. In particular, the exponentially-growing price model seems a little ridiculous (SL x CL x base). About the only wands that seem worth the money are the 1st level ones for spells that are useful at CL 1. It's hard to imagine finding any of those items that we wouldn't sell for the cash over using.

Yes, the scaling is potentially problematic. On the other hand, linear scaling isn't good, as a 2nd level spell is definitely more than twice as good as a 1st, and a 4th level spell is far, far more than twice as good as a second.

So automatic scaling based on the user or perhaps the Square Root CL scaling would be better. Or one could go with a triangular number system for pricing. Hmm, square root would have the relative pricing be (1, 3.4, 6.7, 10.1, 15, 19.9, 25.2, 30.1, 37.1) for wizards/clerics, whereas triangular numbers would give (1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28, 36, 45) -- caster level plays no role with the triangular number system. The current system is (1, 6, 15, 28, 45, 66, 91, 120, 153).

[wayfare]

Kelb_Panthera said: Many Things

I actually agree with a lot of the points you are making, though I think you are understating the ability of magic to bypass barriers that skillcraft would normally cover. I particularly like your list of party roles.

I do not understand what is controversial about the idea that parties that lack dedicated healing probably shouldn't get into as many fights. You lake dedicated healing. I assume you are not charging dragon hordes. Cops lack dedicated healing, and they are cautious because of this -- in fact, the try to avoid armed conflict, or try to arrange armed conflicts such that they are the ones armed and not their targets.

Partially, I think the issue here is that I tend to run rather "mundane" games with fewer supernatural enemies. Thats not to say those enemies are absent, just that running into street gangs, wolf packs, cultists, etc is more likely in the games I run. Furthermore, there are simply not too many enemies that match the PC in terms of CR, especially after level 5. Given that chimeras are not spilling out of every dark cave and shadowy closet, the game is more like a party of John McClanes taking on a bunch of mook cultists and two CR appropriate necromamcers.

Finally, given that there is a bunch of gear that allow you to cast spells 3x per days, I see it as fairly plausible that everybody in the party could have "healing gloves" or a healing belt to provide small amounts of thier own healing.

[wayfare]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way. All of the items with charges seem over-priced to me. In particular, the exponentially-growing price model seems a little ridiculous (SL x CL x base). About the only wands that seem worth the money are the 1st level ones for spells that are useful at CL 1. It's hard to imagine finding any of those items that we wouldn't sell for the cash over using.

Well, so a level 1 wand of Cure Light Wounds heals an average of 1 hp per gp of value (5.5x50/750).

A wand of Cure Critical Wounds cures (25 x 50/21000) so 0.06 hp per gp.

So yeah, the cost is pretty badly scaling. But 1st level wands are a really good investment for healing.

[eggynack]

Well, so a level 1 wand of Cure Light Wounds heals an average of 1 hp per gp of value (5.5x50/750).
I think you mean about .37 HP per GP. 5.5*50 is 275, after all. Lesser vigor is twice as good outside of combat, healing 550 for about .73 HP per GP.

[wayfare]

I think you mean about .37 HP per GP. 5.5*50 is 275, after all. Lesser vigor is twice as good outside of combat, healing 550 for about .73 HP per GP.

Nah, i was just have the wrong info written down in my notes.

Yeah, the vigor line is pretty sweet :smallbiggrin:

[Seerow]

I do not understand what is controversial about the idea that parties that lack dedicated healing probably shouldn't get into as many fights. You lake dedicated healing. I assume you are not charging dragon hordes. Cops lack dedicated healing, and they are cautious because of this -- in fact, the try to avoid armed conflict, or try to arrange armed conflicts such that they are the ones armed and not their targets.


The reason is because we are discussing D&D. The game you are trying to describe with this gritty down to earth environment where your heroes are like Cops and do everything possible to avoid getting into combat because getting shot hurts and takes a long time to heal goes against everything that D&D is about.

Not having magical healing is simply a non-choice for the vast majority of players, because taking away that magical healing pushes D&D into a game they aren't interested in playing. So if you take away wands of cure light wounds, you aren't encouraging a gritty realistic game, you're forcing players to adopt class choices they would normally avoid to be able to fill that role. And they are hating you for it every second they are stuck playing something they don't like so the group as a whole can actually enjoy the game. Your change helps nothing, fixes nothing, just removes options from the players. That's why you're getting a negative reaction.

[wayfare]

The reason is because we are discussing D&D. The game you are trying to describe with this gritty down to earth environment where your heroes are like Cops and do everything possible to avoid getting into combat because getting shot hurts and takes a long time to heal goes against everything that D&D is about.

Not having magical healing is simply a non-choice for the vast majority of players, because taking away that magical healing pushes D&D into a game they aren't interested in playing. So if you take away wands of cure light wounds, you aren't encouraging a gritty realistic game, you're forcing players to adopt class choices they would normally avoid to be able to fill that role. And they are hating you for it every second they are stuck playing something they don't like so the group as a whole can actually enjoy the game. Your change helps nothing, fixes nothing, just removes options from the players. That's why you're getting a negative reaction.

Actually, the game seems to be going pretty well. Healbot archivist is happy identifying creatures and curing the party, warblade is squishing things, homebrewed ranger has a cool bird and is a great dps sniper. I'd say it is going swimmingly with nary a wand to be found.

Idk, it seems to me that any system is just a toolkit. You might need some parts for the whole system to work, but you dont need every part to still tell a good story, have fun, and accomplish goals. You might not be able to accomplish as much, but I hardly think tanking a greatsword to the innards or surviving an exploding fireball with relative ease counts as "grim and gritty". maybe not "heroic fantasy", but certainly functional, playable, and heroically fantastic (like castor and pollux as opposed to hercules and theseus)

[Seerow]

Actually, the game seems to be going pretty well. Healbot archivist is happy identifying creatures and curing the party, warblade is squishing things, homebrewed ranger has a cool bird and is a great dps sniper. I'd say it is going swimmingly with nary a wand to be found.

In other words, it's working because you have someone in the party actively healing to replace the wands you took away.

Now, if it weren't for removing those wands, would that player still be playing a healbot?

I'd be willing to bet no. It's possible that he would. Some people enjoy that style. But the fact is that removing easy healing does nothing except force someone to step up and fill that role with class abilities. Nobody is going to accept sitting back and resting up for a week to recover hit points after your first encounter of the session. That's dumb, and that's what you get if you play this straight.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I actually agree with a lot of the points you are making, though I think you are understating the ability of magic to bypass barriers that skillcraft would normally cover. I particularly like your list of party roles.

It only seems like I'm understating it because of how often and how drastically it's usually overstated.

I gave a pretty clear show of how much it takes to outright replace a trap-killer rogue; 4 wands containing spells from three lists. Even then there were gaps. Without at least one more spell the wielder(s) of those wands couldn't reliably find magical traps unless they invested in the search skill. They'd burn through charges -very- quickly on the knock wand because of its limitation of 2 locks per casting and they couldn't use it on portals of sufficient size at all. They have no way to disable the traps they do find other than by destroying them outright; a rather unsubtle option. It's just not as good as having a skilled trap-killer rogue on hand.

If such a rogue was handy and if he invested in UMD he could use all of those wands himself to supplement his existing skill instead of trying to simply replace it or he could use the wands to do the trap-killer role and his actual skills to do the face role or something else.


I do not understand what is controversial about the idea that parties that lack dedicated healing probably shouldn't get into as many fights. You lake dedicated healing. I assume you are not charging dragon hordes. Cops lack dedicated healing, and they are cautious because of this -- in fact, the try to avoid armed conflict, or try to arrange armed conflicts such that they are the ones armed and not their targets.

You don't seem to be wrapping your head around this quite right.

No one's saying healing shouldn't be available. Of course it should. The thing is it's only necessary to have an entire character dedicated to it if you're intending to use it during combat.

As I explained, healing during combat causes the combat to drag on longer than it otherwise might. The healer is using his actions to keep the party up and fighting instead of using them to get the enemy down faster.

Because the foe is getting one or more turns than it would if the healer was, instead, killing it, that foe deals one or more turns worth of extra damage to the party. This creates -more- healing for the healer to do.

If the party can reliably expect to drop their foes without losing any of their own number, while the would-be healer is helping to kill them, then in-combat healing is unnecessary.

Out of combat healing does not require dedication and, in fact, using spell slots or other daily resources is dramatically inferior to simply keeping a wand of cure light wounds or lesser vigor on hand because it limits the party's ability to continue without taking a full rest instead of just burning a couple minutes to replenish HP's.


Partially, I think the issue here is that I tend to run rather "mundane" games with fewer supernatural enemies. Thats not to say those enemies are absent, just that running into street gangs, wolf packs, cultists, etc is more likely in the games I run. Furthermore, there are simply not too many enemies that match the PC in terms of CR, especially after level 5. Given that chimeras are not spilling out of every dark cave and shadowy closet, the game is more like a party of John McClanes taking on a bunch of mook cultists and two CR appropriate necromamcers.

You may be using the wrong system. 3e D&D is capable of running those types of games but it's not ideal for it. Mooks and minor beasties just don't add up to much after about level 7 or so, regardless of what the encounter level calculation table suggests. You have to start using more and more supernatural creatures as the party levels to pose any kind of realistic challenge unless your players tend to steer clear of playing casters altogether.

If you really want to stick to D&D then perhaps you should consider the E6 variant.


Finally, given that there is a bunch of gear that allow you to cast spells 3x per days, I see it as fairly plausible that everybody in the party could have "healing gloves" or a healing belt to provide small amounts of thier own healing.

Healing magic needs to be applied a -lot- more than just a couple times a day unless you're talking about at -least- cure serious wounds; 16,200gp for a 3/day item. Over 16k for 56hp (average) worth of healing. That's close to the cost of a +3 weapon; what the MiC considers an 11th level item.


Well, so a level 1 wand of Cure Light Wounds heals an average of 1 hp per gp of value (5.5x50/750).

A wand of Cure Critical Wounds cures (25 x 50/21000) so 0.06 hp per gp.

So yeah, the cost is pretty badly scaling. But 1st level wands are a really good investment for healing.

Okay this is just me being pedantic.

CLW
5.5*50=275hp of healing. 750gp divided by 275hp equals 2.73gp per HP.

Lesser vigor
11*50=550hp of healing. 750gp divided by 550hp equals 1.36gp per HP.

Cure Critical

25*50=1250hp of healing. 2100gp divided by 1250 equals 16.8gp per HP.


Now consider these figures, if you will:


Aforementioned Cure serious wounds item

16,200gp divided by 16.8 makes 964.29; 964.29 divided by 55.5 equals 17.37 days of full use to make the 3/day item match the value of the cure critical wounds wand.

16,200gp divided by 1.36 equals 11911.76; 1191176 divided by 55.5 equals 214.63 days of use to match the wand of lesser vigor.

Then consider this; 13.3 encounters per level over 19 level ups pre-epic makes 253 encounters, divided by 4 per day makes 63.25 days of adventuring to make epic.

4 characters could go from level 1 to epic in the time it takes for that 3/day device to match the value of a single wand of lesser vigor.

Sorry for the number dump. I just got to feeling a little mathematical.

[Coidzor]

I'd say that if you were bored saving peoples lives, you probably have not watched enough ER :smallbiggrin:

This "healing is boring/is not contributing" thing really needs to go away. It is an important role, especially if you want to be teh party that can go through 4 or 5 encounters a day with limbs intact. Surviving that much combat is superhuman in itself, so send the healbot some love.

:smallsigh: Well, at the risk of just making the situation even worse for your players, I think I'm obligated to share this (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2710)with you.

[wayfare]

Many Things

But actually, the calcs at the end I found really amusing. "You too can become an epic hero in less than 1 year if you follow our exacting training regimen!" Not saying you are wrong in your numbers, simply saying that the calcs put the path to being a legendary hero in rather stark relief.

@Seerow: Nobody has mentioned buying a wand. The Healbot Archivist is an alchemist (not the PF kind), and it is kind of central to his character concept. Look, if we are going to argue efficiency, we are not going to end up arguing. Wands are more efficient. That is part of my issue with them.

As for resting up a week after the first (few) encounters being dumb, allow me to ask this: why? Do the X-Men not rest up when they duel Apocalypse? Do samurai not seek succor after a long battle? Do our modern soldiers not build bases in enemy territory so our soldiers can have a place to shelter themselves and seek treatment for their wounds? How is any of this dumb? pa

Also, why does it even matter? It is not like you are using actual time to wait for those days of treatment. Admittedly, if you need treatment in the middle of a dungeon, you are kind of hosed (but so is every soldier on every battlefield ever, including those in fantasy literature). But thats more on the GM to reevaluate what constitutes an appropriate threat in a dungeon than it is a player responsibility.

[wayfare]

:smallsigh: Well, at the risk of just making the situation even worse for your players, I think I'm obligated to share this (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2710)with you.

Optimisation is not in my player's nature. Otherwise my Archivist would be tanking entire encounters instead of getting stabbed by footpads when his warblade buddy goes to mash something :smallsmile:

[eggynack]

Also, why does it even matter? It is not like you are using actual time to wait for those days of treatment.
If your campaign has so little urgency in its quests that characters can spend days healing naturally whenever they want, then why ban healing wands? Based on your logic, they should have minimal impact on the game, thus making them rather underpowered.

[Nettlekid]

As for resting up a week after the first (few) encounters being dumb, allow me to ask this: why? Do the X-Men not rest up when they duel Apocalypse? Do samurai not seek succor after a long battle? Do our modern soldiers not build bases in enemy territory so our soldiers can have a place to shelter themselves and seek treatment for their wounds? How is any of this dumb?


You're still looking at it from a point of view that doesn't really translate to D&D. You're trying to say "Hey I want this to be realistic in terms of how damage should actually be like as compared to the real world." In a world where people teleport. D&D is not made to be realistic. It seems that you like a higher risk in battle, but as a DM you really shouldn't force that mentality on everyone playing your game. If you're a player, then when people are passing out wands and saying "Here, heal up," you can perfectly well say "I don't believe in using artificially stimulated divine magic to replicate the vigor the good gods above will nourish me with. I will heal my wounds as Pelor intended," or something like that. But in your examples, if the samurai or the modern soldiers had access to a stick that sets broken bones and closes gashes and relieves pain, do you not think they'd use it every chance they got? And they aren't fighting things as ferocious as dragons.

One thing that still stands out: Why are you okay with a Cleric being a human-sized wand, but not okay with using a wand? You're okay with someone saying "Yeah I'll be a healbot because our DM won't let us use wands but we're going to want to have more than one encounter every day" and then spending their turns doing exactly what a wand would be doing. And thus the gritty extreme "damage matters" thing disappears again. But you're okay with that? But not letting that player be the Dragonfire Adept they want to be and letting them UMD a wand when the party needs it? Why the difference?

[ahenobarbi]

If your campaign has so little urgency in its quests that characters can spend days healing naturally whenever they want, then why ban healing wands? Based on your logic, they should have minimal impact on the game, thus making them rather underpowered.

Basically they're waste of money in such setting.

[wayfare]

You're still looking at it from a point of view that doesn't really translate to D&D. You're trying to say "Hey I want this to be realistic in terms of how damage should actually be like as compared to the real world." In a world where people teleport. D&D is not made to be realistic. It seems that you like a higher risk in battle, but as a DM you really shouldn't force that mentality on everyone playing your game. If you're a player, then when people are passing out wands and saying "Here, heal up," you can perfectly well say "I don't believe in using artificially stimulated divine magic to replicate the vigor the good gods above will nourish me with. I will heal my wounds as Pelor intended," or something like that. But in your examples, if the samurai or the modern soldiers had access to a stick that sets broken bones and closes gashes and relieves pain, do you not think they'd use it every chance they got? And they aren't fighting things as ferocious as dragons.

One thing that still stands out: Why are you okay with a Cleric being a human-sized wand, but not okay with using a wand? You're okay with someone saying "Yeah I'll be a healbot because our DM won't let us use wands but we're going to want to have more than one encounter every day" and then spending their turns doing exactly what a wand would be doing. And thus the gritty extreme "damage matters" thing disappears again. But you're okay with that? But not letting that player be the Dragonfire Adept they want to be and letting them UMD a wand when the party needs it? Why the difference?

I think healing is a really awesome power, and I like the idea of that power coming from a character. I don't like it being commonplace, because it really is an Awesome power -- the stuff legends are made of. The same idea when it comes to buffing. You are calling on the power of the gods to give your ally strength, agaility, whatever. It kind of cheapens it to me if you you can put that in a stick and say "I can buff all I want and still cast my encounter enders."

One encounter every day is plenty if you ask me, as long as it is punctuated by an attack on a base or dungeon that crams a few encpounters together. Naturally, an assault type situation is going to be more dangerous than a single encounter (barring an ambush) and you may risk death in the doing. So have soldiers from Gimli and Legolas to Jack Reacher and Modern Marines.

[wayfare]

If your campaign has so little urgency in its quests that characters can spend days healing naturally whenever they want, then why ban healing wands? Based on your logic, they should have minimal impact on the game, thus making them rather underpowered.

So, is a footrace through the streets to capture the rogue that stole the tincture that can save the watch commander's life not urgent? Is calming a rioting mob not urgent? Is negotiating peach between armies not urgent? Is allowing teh high cleric to perform thebinding ritual to imprison teh avatar of Shar not urgent?

Just sayin, not every encounter -- indeed, probably most encounters dont have to involve drwan swords.

[eggynack]

So, is a footrace through the streets to capture the rogue that stole the tincture that can save the watch commander's life not urgent? Is calming a rioting mob not urgent? Is negotiating peach between armies not urgent? Is allowing teh high cleric to perform thebinding ritual to imprison teh avatar of Shar not urgent?

Just sayin, not every encounter -- indeed, probably most encounters dont have to involve drwan swords.
This doesn't appear to be a refutation of my argument at all. You argued that wands aren't important because natural healing is sufficient for most or all purposes. My rebuttal was that if wands aren't important, then why ban them? One of the key aspects of your original post was that wands are in some fashion overpowered, but if there's no urgent healing requirement then healing wands are clearly not overpowered, verging on underpowered.

[ahenobarbi]

I think healing is a really awesome power, and I like the idea of that power coming from a character. I don't like it being commonplace, because it really is an Awesome power -- the stuff legends are made of. The same idea when it comes to buffing. You are calling on the power of the gods to give your ally strength, agaility, whatever. It kind of cheapens it to me if you you can put that in a stick and say "I can buff all I want and still cast my encounter enders."

You might want to look at other systems. Mid- and high- level d&d characters leave vast majority of fiction charters in the dust. Level 9 wizard can solve "Lord of the Rings" in 24 hours, without risking anything(teleport) (or Cleric 7 with pannar ally).


One encounter every day is plenty if you ask me, as long as it is punctuated by an attack on a base or dungeon that crams a few encpounters together. Naturally, an assault type situation is going to be more dangerous than a single encounter (barring an ambush) and you may risk death in the doing. So have soldiers from Gimli and Legolas to Jack Reacher and Modern Marines.

And with wands of cure lesser wounds (or lesser vigor) character still risk death. Nothing really changes. Except they have fewer resources (some gold spent on healing, with more encounters a day they will face encounters with fewer spells). And they don't need to take breaks so often (which (to me) gets boring pretty quick).

[Coidzor]

So, is a footrace through the streets to capture the rogue that stole the tincture that can save the watch commander's life not urgent? Is calming a rioting mob not urgent? Is negotiating peach between armies not urgent? Is allowing teh high cleric to perform thebinding ritual to imprison teh avatar of Shar not urgent?

Just sayin, not every encounter -- indeed, probably most encounters dont have to involve drwan swords.

Are you sure D&D 3.5 is the game you actually want to be playing?

Because it doesn't *sound* like D&D 3.5 is the kind of game system you want.

Granted, your actual issue with wands if your players aren't imaginative enough to use them in the first place if they had access is also kind of similarly muddied.

[Xintas]

I know this is a crazy solution, but I kind of like it. Any class with casting ability can only use wands that do damage or healing. This frees up Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerers, etc. to prepare utility spells and use wands for offense. True optimizers are essentially not going to care, but I like the idea of putting blasting wands against rogue sneak attack and letting them each have access to the same utility spells, with enough preparation.

Another solution I have found to be rather elegant (and my preference) is not allowing any class to use a wand or item that uses a spell on their class list. Certainly this hurts wizards and sorcerers in terms of wondrous items and gear, but who really cares if they get a slight nerf?

[wayfare]

You might want to look at other systems. Mid- and high- level d&d characters leave vast majority of fiction charters in the dust. Level 9 wizard can solve "Lord of the Rings" in 24 hours, without risking anything(teleport) (or Cleric 7 with pannar ally).



And with wands of cure lesser wounds (or lesser vigor) character still risk death. Nothing really changes. Except they have fewer resources (some gold spent on healing, with more encounters a day they will face encounters with fewer spells). And they don't need to take breaks so often (which (to me) gets boring pretty quick).

I mean, I wouldn't be suggesting this for anything above 10. In my games, level 8-10 characters are fairly epic, and the vast majority of threats are in the 1-3 range. Characters cap at 10, and the highest CR in the world is 15.

I think it is a pretty good aproximation of the fantasy novels I grew up with, which is the kind of story I am interested in tellinfg (LoTR, Shannara, Philosophical Strangler, The Word and Void Series, more recently the Jim Butcher Codex Alera series).

[ahenobarbi]

I mean, I wouldn't be suggesting this for anything above 10. In my games, level 8-10 characters are fairly epic, and the vast majority of threats are in the 1-3 range. Characters cap at 10, and the highest CR in the world is 15.

I think it is a pretty good aproximation of the fantasy novels I grew up with, which is the kind of story I am interested in tellinfg (LoTR, Shannara, Philosophical Strangler, The Word and Void Series, more recently the Jim Butcher Codex Alera series).

Level 5 Wizard could handle LoTR with no help. Extended Alter Self into Avariel to fly long distances, sleep in Rope Trick. Only tricky part would be crossing mountains (can't fly over them because weather, can't really fight orc army) but Gaseous Form should work (halls are high enough to stay out of reach of the Balrog, DR makes orc arrows harmles).

This one needs a little luck but LoTR characters had tons of it.

Mount (1st level spell) would make the whole thing much easier. Cure Minor Wounds (0th level spell) would save Boromir. Tensers Floating Disc (1st level) would make crossing Dead Marshes trivial. Sam & Frodo in Mordor would really love Create Water (0th level), ...

D&D magic is powerful by (most) fiction standards. And it's needed to overcome D&D-style challenges.

But somehow I think we're of the subject ;)

Personally if my DM suggested the kind of game you're describing I'd ask for us to use another system. Because more realistic games can be fun but in my opinion D&D isn't best system for them. Also Wands are not a problem in such games, D&D magic (, Psionics etc.) is. But if you and other players at the table have fun... I guess it's ok.

[wayfare]

Level 5 Wizard could handle LoTR with no help. Extended Alter Self into Avariel to fly long distances, sleep in Rope Trick. Only tricky part would be crossing mountains (can't fly over them because weather, can't really fight orc army) but Gaseous Form should work (halls are high enough to stay out of reach of the Balrog, DR makes orc arrows harmles).

This one needs a little luck but LoTR characters had tons of it.

Mount (1st level spell) would make the whole thing much easier. Cure Minor Wounds (0th level spell) would save Boromir. Tensers Floating Disc (1st level) would make crossing Dead Marshes trivial. Sam & Frodo in Mordor would really love Create Water (0th level), ...

D&D magic is powerful by (most) fiction standards. And it's needed to overcome D&D-style challenges.

But somehow I think we're of the subject ;)

Personally if my DM suggested the kind of game you're describing I'd ask for us to use another system. Because more realistic games can be fun but in my opinion D&D isn't best system for them. Also Wands are not a problem in such games, D&D magic (, Psionics etc.) is. But if you and other players at the table have fun... I guess it's ok.

Balrogs can fly, no? :smallwink:

Let me ask this: why is the d20 system bad for the type of game I am describing?

[HaikenEdge]

Balrogs can fly, no? :smallwink:

Let me ask this: why is the d20 system bad for the type of game I am describing?

As far as I can tell, there's no "Balrog" creature in D&D.

And the reason it's bad, is because D&D is about super powerful characters doing super powerful things. Your typical police officer is probably 1st-3rd level expert with no access to magic who would have to spend several days to solve a crime, whereas a typical 3rd level Wizard or Cleric could conceivably solve any crime a normal detective would be tasked with investigating (Detect Thoughts and Zone of Truth are both 2nd level spells) with little fuss.

You want a gritty realism. D&D blows that out of the water with magic, and people who can get stabbed a lot of times without slowing down a bit, when, in reality, a single knife wound could easily hamper, if not outright incapacitate, even the most experienced soldiers.

[wayfare]

As far as I can tell, there's no "Balrog" creature in D&D.

And the reason it's bad, is because D&D is about super powerful characters doing super powerful things. Your typical police officer is probably 1st-3rd level expert with no access to magic who would have to spend several days to solve a crime, whereas a typical 3rd level Wizard or Cleric could conceivably solve any crime a normal detective would be tasked with investigating (Detect Thoughts and Zone of Truth are both 2nd level spells) with little fuss.

You want a gritty realism. D&D blows that out of the water with magic, and people who can get stabbed a lot of times without slowing down a bit, when, in reality, a single knife wound could easily hamper, if not outright incapacitate, even the most experienced soldiers.

I guess I just see the various magic subsystems as optional.

[ahenobarbi]

Balrogs can fly, no? :smallwink:

Let me ask this: why is the d20 system bad for the type of game I am describing?

D20 may be ok. But d&d is designed around very superhuman heroics.You'd need to get rid of a lot material (most of magic, magic-like abilities, enemies that can't be beaten without magic) to make it work.

You can do this but then (in my opinion) it wouldn't be a very good system. One issue would be that it's way to swingy for my taste (because you tuned base power down die rolls would matter much more).

[HaikenEdge]

I guess I just see the various magic subsystems as optional.

If by "various magic subsystems", you mean "magic" (since magic items and the spell slot systems are not subsystems of magic, whereas psionics, incarnum, etc are), then D&D is definitely the wrong game for what you're trying to achieve, because the Dragons in the name of the game, by their very nature, are magical, meaning you can't really remove the magic from the game without making it something else entirely.

[wayfare]

If by "various magic subsystems", you mean "magic" (since magic items and the spell slot systems are not subsystems of magic, whereas psionics, incarnum, etc are), then D&D is definitely the wrong game for what you're trying to achieve, because the Dragons in the name of the game, by their very nature, are magical, meaning you can't really remove the magic from the game without making it something else entirely.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jcGVvZw1OsY/UR5pnV_udII/AAAAAAAABFI/RKG4hNB4j4c/s1600/Dragon-Komodo-Komodo-Indo-AR-535.jpg

I disagree. Vancian casting is a subsystem. You can tell by how dice will still roll and checks can still be made if you remove it :smallbiggrin:

[Zale]

Magic is the easiest way to make magical weapons.

Without those weapons, how are you going to incapacitate a ghost in combat?

[wayfare]

Magic is the easiest way to make magical weapons.

Without those weapons, how are you going to incapacitate a ghost in combat?

You probably wouldnt. But you could figure out what made the ghost a ghost and fix that situation. Or you might have to resort to alchemical mixtures to generate a weapon that could hurt the ghost. Or try a ritual -- there are rules for ritual magic in 3.5, though I'll confess that they would need to be reworked for lower levels.

[georgie_leech]

When you're removing the bulk of the content and heavily altering what remains (would you really require a sidequest to deal with a random encounter? :smallconfused:), it might be time to consider if there's a better system you could be using.

[wayfare]

When you're removing the bulk of the content and heavily altering what remains (would you really require a sidequest to deal with a random encounter? :smallconfused:), it might be time to consider if there's a better system you could be using.

The d20 system is just a way of rolling dice. Even classes are just a way of determining when you get bonuses. The majority of the remaining system stuff simply determines how various modifiers and effects resolve against eachother.

Everything that is not mechanically necessary to arbitrate success and failure is simply a subsystem that you can add and subtract at will. Sure, you have to adapt things when you take things out, but that accounting is not really all that hard.

I like d20 because it is mathimatically predictable and allows me to easily generate appropriate encounters. Thats more or less all you can ask for in a system.

As for the ghost random encounter thing, not every encounter you meet is immediately answerable. But just because you cant solve it now doesnt mean that you a) have to solve it or b) have to do it right now. You saw a ghost. Note its location, Do some research, try to end its torment. Or not.

[georgie_leech]

Yeah, but you've indicated that you're trying to get a "gritty" feeling with D&D. By insisting on trying to make D&D fit, you have to axe most of the classes (off the top of my head, Fighter, Rogue, and Barbarian are the only classes that don't use a "subsystem" of some sort) and monsters (anything incorporeal, like an allip (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/allip.htm)), and thus most of the printed content. If you ventured outside the system, you could find other games with mechanics that help with "gritty" tones, like HP damage as more than Alive/Dying/Dead (a stab to the arm has consequences beyond -2 hp) or a more predictable Skill System, because as is skills have an incredible range thanks to the d20 (an average Commoner with all 10's can jump anywhere from 1 to 20 feet without anyway of telling in advance which), or indeed just a more flexible skill system that lets character not be locked into certain aspects because of a different feature they want. Like, in core if you want a decent amount of skill points, you need to go either Bard or Rogue, meaning that characters with varied skill sets are also either underhanded or musical, or have spent enough resources pumping INT that their other abilities have been neglected.

[Grod_The_Giant]

"d20 system" and "D&D" are not synonymous. "d20" is just a resolution mechanic. "D&D" is a game, with numerous assumptions and biases built into the rules. One of the biggest is "high magic." Everything about the game ties into that, from the no-drawback caster classes to the hundreds of pages devoted to spells and magic items to the WBL tables that insist that even "mundane" classes weigh themselves down with magic goodies.

Yes, you can cut magic out of D&D. Yes, you can rebuild classes and monsters to compensate. But by the time you're done, you've written half a system. Why struggle through all that, when there are plenty of games out there that have already done that for you?

Look at Conan d20, Iron Heroes, True20, Dragon Age RPG, HarnMaster, the A Song of Ice and Fire RPG, HackMaster... there are dozens more, those are just a few I turned up with a bit of Google searching.

tl;dr: Don't try to make a square peg fit a round hole. There are d20 systems out there better suited to low magic games.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But actually, the calcs at the end I found really amusing. "You too can become an epic hero in less than 1 year if you follow our exacting training regimen!" Not saying you are wrong in your numbers, simply saying that the calcs put the path to being a legendary hero in rather stark relief.

Actually it's only a couple months. Thing is, that's a couple months of risking your life 4 times a day. It makes the fellowship's trials look like a walk in the park. Stretched out over a year that's as little as a 4 encounter day about once a week or even about 4 one encounter days a week. Congratulations, adventuring is now a 9 to 5 with weekends off.


@Seerow: Nobody has mentioned buying a wand. The Healbot Archivist is an alchemist (not the PF kind), and it is kind of central to his character concept. Look, if we are going to argue efficiency, we are not going to end up arguing. Wands are more efficient. That is part of my issue with them.

Even if he's willing and happily playing the healbot, he could still do it better by saving his slots for in-combat healing and buffs then using a wand for after battle top offs. He could even make the wands himself if he picks up the craft feat.


As for resting up a week after the first (few) encounters being dumb, allow me to ask this: why? Do the X-Men not rest up when they duel Apocalypse? Do samurai not seek succor after a long battle? Do our modern soldiers not build bases in enemy territory so our soldiers can have a place to shelter themselves and seek treatment for their wounds? How is any of this dumb?

All those things are true. However, they're true because no easily accessible healing is available in those settings. If it were they'd be running just as hard as D&D adventurers except for the occasional break to prevent psychological breakdowns.


Also, why does it even matter? It is not like you are using actual time to wait for those days of treatment. Admittedly, if you need treatment in the middle of a dungeon, you are kind of hosed (but so is every soldier on every battlefield ever, including those in fantasy literature). But thats more on the GM to reevaluate what constitutes an appropriate threat in a dungeon than it is a player responsibility.

Because if they have to take several days after any combat then it's impossible to give the players a challenge that will entail several combats in only 2 or 3 days because the healer will run out of slots in no time flat, leaving them way behind the power-curve against the boss at the end.

You say you want them doing feats of daring-do but then you force them into being cautious to avoid death. You're sending a bit of a mixed message here.

[HaikenEdge]

Because if they have to take several days after any combat then it's impossible to give the players a challenge that will entail several combats in only 2 or 3 days because the healer will run out of slots in no time flat, leaving them way behind the power-curve against the boss at the end.

To follow up on this, if your players are being forced to rest often, then you cannot send them on a dangerous, time sensitive mission into enemy-filled hostile territory without either enemies who are either incompetent or player characters dropping left and right, because you're either (A) coddling them so they survive, or (B) sending them through a meat grinder.

Basically, you're either forcing players to not become attached to their characters, or you're removing a sense of urgency from the grand scheme of things.

[wayfare]

To follow up on this, if your players are being forced to rest often, then you cannot send them on a dangerous, time sensitive mission into enemy-filled hostile territory without either enemies who are either incompetent or player characters dropping left and right, because you're either (A) coddling them so they survive, or (B) sending them through a meat grinder.

Basically, you're either forcing players to not become attached to their characters, or you're removing a sense of urgency from the grand scheme of things.

Guys, this just isnt true.

A better way of framing it might be " you cannot send them on long missions into enemy territory with cr appropriate enemies", and even then i am pretty certain a t1 class could bypass most of the encounters if they were willing to leave behind the crunchy xp nuggets.

Real marines do this kind of thing. Real snipers do it. It is not impossible, just dangerous.

Urgency doesnt have to mean "an army of demons is descending on the city". A regular army of level 1 warriors and level 2 fighters can be plenty of threat. Stopping that horde can save just as many lives as stopping the sladdi army from sacking the same city.

I am not saying that anybody is wrong for playing a game where you beat back extradimensional hordes and take on flights of dragons. I am just saying that telling folks thast there DnD game HAS to involve it or it is codling/bad DMing implies a very narrow definition of what the game is and allows for.

[eggynack]

I'm just not seeing the upside here. There's a downside, perhaps not a game destroying one still a downside, but there's just not much upside. The role of "dedicated healer" is one that doesn't work very well in this game, primarily because in combat healing is so bad. You create a situation where one of the players has to take on the party role of that wand of cure light wounds, and if you haven't noticed, it doesn't take much in the way of brain power to figure out how to work a wand of cure light wounds. It's just not a very interesting role.

[wayfare]

I'm just not seeing the upside here. There's a downside, perhaps not a game destroying one still a downside, but there's just not much upside. The role of "dedicated healer" is one that doesn't work very well in this game, primarily because in combat healing is so bad. You create a situation where one of the players has to take on the party role of that wand of cure light wounds, and if you haven't noticed, it doesn't take much in the way of brain power to figure out how to work a wand of cure light wounds. It's just not a very interesting role.

I can understandd how its not the corvette of roles. People have been complaining about the need for healbot since the dawn of DnD. I think that issue is part of why 4e healers have attack and heal powers, and definitely why 4e characters have healing surges.

I think that it is pretty culturally interesting that folks dont see the ability to drag people from deaths door as a fulfilling role. Maybe because the emphasis is not on your character, but on others.

The way we are handeking it is just by adding wearable healing items with a 3x per day charge. Gloves, belt, phylactery. Any advicee desiging these would be appreciated :)

[eggynack]

I think that it is pretty culturally interesting that folks dont see the ability to drag people from deaths door as a fulfilling role. Maybe because the emphasis is not on your character, but on others.

I don't think that's really the reason. Healing just doesn't take any brain-juice. In combat, you'd be better off not-healing, and out of combat you are, as I noted, a living wand. Where's the decision making? There's a plentiful quantity of other-focused classes and roles that are perfectly reasonable. It's just healing that is problematic. It doesn't fit in this game.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Guys, this just isnt true.

A better way of framing it might be " you cannot send them on long missions into enemy territory with cr appropriate enemies", and even then i am pretty certain a t1 class could bypass most of the encounters if they were willing to leave behind the crunchy xp nuggets.

Real marines do this kind of thing. Real snipers do it. It is not impossible, just dangerous.

Real marines and snipers have the full weight of a nation's armed forces behind them. They get the very best equipment, insertion as near the target as possible, and a recovery effort if they're caught instead of killed.

Compare this to having to enter and clear* an occupied dungeon in 3 days. How do you expect a party without access to relatively quick and easy healing to get in and out without being murdered except by either low-balling the enemies or leaving the dungeon largely under populated. That or forcing the entire party to burn resources on stealth ability.

*As in, getting to the bottom of the dungeon and back out, recovering whatever macguffin or slaying whatever enemy is there.


Urgency doesn't have to mean "an army of demons is descending on the city". A regular army of level 1 warriors and level 2 fighters can be plenty of threat. Stopping that horde can save just as many lives as stopping the sladdi army from sacking the same city.

Yeah, an army of level 1 and 2 <anything> is a pushover for properly equipped level 10 character of most classes, particularly an arcanist with a few good AoE's. A party of 4 level 10's will demolish them. Even the designers of the game, who had a somewhat loose grasp on game balance, realized this and all but said as much in the Mini's Handbook.


I am not saying that anybody is wrong for playing a game where you beat back extradimensional hordes and take on flights of dragons. I am just saying that telling folks thast there DnD game HAS to involve it or it is codling/bad DMing implies a very narrow definition of what the game is and allows for.

We, or least I, are not saying that you're definitely doing it wrong. if your game is working without wands, by all means continue what you're doing and have a good time. I'm just pointing out the potential pitfalls of the decision.

BTW, on the whole different system thing, have you considered D20 modern? The mechanics are almost identical but the system is balanced with neither items nor magic as inherent parts of the system. You can also borrow heavily from D&D if you like, since the systems are so compatible.

[wayfare]

I don't think that's really the reason. Healing just doesn't take any brain-juice. In combat, you'd be better off not-healing, and out of combat you are, as I noted, a living wand. Where's the decision making? There's a plentiful quantity of other-focused classes and roles that are perfectly reasonable. It's just healing that is problematic. It doesn't fit in this game.

I just think that it is odd that healing is at once necessary to have the number of encounters people want, but dull.

How could we fix that?

Maybe some Skill Synergy with the Heal skill?

Something like:

When you cast a spell or use a supernatural ability that restores hit point damage, you may expend a swift action to make a DC 15 heal check. On a success, add your (Wisdom modifier? Half your level?) to the damage restored.

With 5 Ranks in heal, you may attempt a DC 20 heal check to instead remove the following status conditions: Daze, Stun, Slow, (suggestions)

With 10 Ranks in the Heal Skill you may attempt a DC 25 heal check to instead remove the following status conditions: Blindness, Deafness, 2 points of Ability damage due to diseases or poisons (this does not end the disease, merely treats the damage)

With 15 ranks ??? Profit


Just a rough idea. Feel free to trash or expand on it

[eggynack]

I just think that it is odd that healing is at once necessary to have the number of encounters people want, but dull.

How could we fix that?

Wands. Wands of lesser vigor or cure light wounds, to be specific. Seriously, it's exactly that simple.

[wayfare]

Real marines and snipers have the full weight of a nation's armed forces behind them. They get the very best equipment, insertion as near the target as possible, and a recovery effort if they're caught instead of killed.

Compare this to having to enter and clear* an occupied dungeon in 3 days. How do you expect a party without access to relatively quick and easy healing to get in and out without being murdered except by either low-balling the enemies or leaving the dungeon largely under populated. That or forcing the entire party to burn resources on stealth ability.

*As in, getting to the bottom of the dungeon and back out, recovering whatever macguffin or slaying whatever enemy is there.



Yeah, an army of level 1 and 2 <anything> is a pushover for properly equipped level 10 character of most classes, particularly an arcanist with a few good AoE's. A party of 4 level 10's will demolish them. Even the designers of the game, who had a somewhat loose grasp on game balance, realized this and all but said as much in the Mini's Handbook.



We, or least I, are not saying that you're definitely doing it wrong. if your game is working without wands, by all means continue what you're doing and have a good time. I'm just pointing out the potential pitfalls of the decision.

BTW, on the whole different system thing, have you considered D20 modern? The mechanics are almost identical but the system is balanced with neither items nor magic as inherent parts of the system. You can also borrow heavily from D&D if you like, since the systems are so compatible.

I adore d20 modern, even for all its flaws. My party isn't much for multiclassing, though, and they wanted stuff like Warblade shineys, so we went with DnD.

For level 1-3 the party has faced CR appropriate encounters that they have taken with ease, and a few that were over CR that they also defeated pretty easily (Fighting a Few Hags and on a separate occasions a yuan-ti and some dire vipers).

At this point they have not really needed anything other than the heal skill, a few potions, and a few spells from the Archivist. Things have been tight a few times, but they withdraw when it gets dangerous.

Going forward, there are going to be some enemies that scale with level, but 70% of stuff will be between levels 1-3.

[wayfare]

Wands. Wands of lesser vigor or cure light wounds, to be specific. Seriously, it's exactly that simple.

That solution doesnt get at the underlaying "healing is suboptimal/not interesting" issue :smallsmile:

[eggynack]

That solution doesnt get at the underlaying "healing is suboptimal/not interesting" issue :smallsmile:
I guess, but honestly, the game isn't much built for in combat healing on a basic level. Offensive actions are just so much more important and effective than defensive ones, and that remains the case to some extent even if you are healing more than your enemies are dealing. HP is an important defense, but it's not a universally applicable one.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Exciting healing? That's a tough one.

Existing magical healing makes it impossible, so that has to be outright scrapped; not just wands but the actual spells themselves.

Hmm..... perhaps an adjustment to the heal skill. I'd suggest replacing its basic functions with D20 modern's treat injury skill. Doesn't do much for in-combat healing but the chance of failure granted by the roll of a die can certainly put a bit of tension into trying to save a near-death comrade. At least at low levels.

Then add in some magic items or perhaps some alchemy that allows you to use the restore HP's option more than once per character per day or that dramatically reduces the time necessary for field surgery.

Anyway, just reiterating that it -can't- be done with magical healing as-is.

Oh. Treat injury: link (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/modern/smack/skillsorder.html#teatinjury)

[TuggyNE]

I just think that it is odd that healing is at once necessary to have the number of encounters people want, but dull.

It's dull because it's not a way to get things done, but a cost of doing business. As such, just like corporations with cost centers, the usual pattern is to try to minimize and forget about it as much as possible, only giving it the bare minimum of attention and resources needed to keep things running.

Contrast e.g. throwing fireballs, sneak attacking, or even casting haste, all things that make enemies deader faster. The only thing healing does is make you not lose just yet: it can't actually make you win. And in most cases, attrition is a boring, painful, and inefficient way to wage battle, so focusing on not losing tends to be thoroughly suboptimal both in a practical sense and fun-wise.

[Coidzor]

That solution doesnt get at the underlaying "healing is suboptimal/not interesting" issue :smallsmile:

It bypasses it by making it an expenditure of wealth subtracted from the party's earnings as a whole rather than a use of an individual character's personal resources for having an effect on the game world on a per diem basis, for starters.

And it allows for a character to not have all they do be healing because they're using a wand for the healing, outside of combat, and then doing other things in combat.

Trying to make healing interesting is a fool's errand. Trying to make healing in combat optimal is not particularly necessary but a simple matter of boosting the numbers that healing spells bring to the table.

You seem to be deeply confused about the nature of healing and the division between in-combat and out of combat healing.

[wayfare]

It bypasses it by making it an expenditure of wealth subtracted from the party's earnings as a whole rather than a use of an individual character's personal resources for having an effect on the game world on a per diem basis, for starters.

And it allows for a character to not have all they do be healing because they're using a wand for the healing, outside of combat, and then doing other things in combat.

Trying to make healing interesting is a fool's errand. Trying to make healing in combat optimal is not particularly necessary but a simple matter of boosting the numbers that healing spells bring to the table.

You seem to be deeply confused about the nature of healing and the division between in-combat and out of combat healing.

Nope, pretty clear on that. Just think that healing is awesome and rather useful given that it allows you to adventure the way folks want.

[Seerow]

It bypasses it by making it an expenditure of wealth subtracted from the party's earnings as a whole rather than a use of an individual character's personal resources for having an effect on the game world on a per diem basis, for starters.

And it allows for a character to not have all they do be healing because they're using a wand for the healing, outside of combat, and then doing other things in combat.

Trying to make healing interesting is a fool's errand. Trying to make healing in combat optimal is not particularly necessary but a simple matter of boosting the numbers that healing spells bring to the table.

You seem to be deeply confused about the nature of healing and the division between in-combat and out of combat healing.

I don't think making healing interesting is a fool's errand. I just don't think it can be interesting in 3.5 without way more time investment than it's worth.


The big thing to making healing interesting is twofold:
1) One of two things needs to be true:
a) Incoming damage is so high that without a healer people will die. This makes the healer role feel rewarding because you are actually contributing directly to success in the encounter. The problem in 3.x is that damage isn't consistently high enough to be outright life threatening in a single encounter (and in the situations where it is, healing usually isn't high enough to keep up with it), but instead an individual encounter is usually meant to drain resources. If there's not a real risk of dying without healing RIGHT NOW the focus moves to "Why not be all-out offensive to end the encounter faster, and heal the damage up afterwards?"
b) You can do other things while healing. 4e did this by giving swift action heals, abilities that heal when you make an attack, etc. Basically, healing isn't your entire combat role, but it is still a part of your repertoire.

2) Healing should be reactive. The focus should be on swift/immediate actions, especially immediate actions. Being able to react to a big hit and drop a heal before another enemy goes for the kill (or a secondary attack finishes the job) makes the timing all the more important and the role much more rewarding.

[eggynack]

a) Incoming damage is so high that without a healer people will die.
I don't know if this is all that accurate. Pushing even more force behind offensive maneuvers means that offensive actions will become even more important than defensive ones than they are already, and prevention will become even more important than healing than it is already. I mean, if attacking enemies are just going to kill you really quickly, then what's a healer going to do to stop that? Once the party member in question has been felled by a sharp blow to the head, that's pretty much it for your cure spells having any affect.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't know if this is all that accurate. Pushing even more force behind offensive maneuvers means that offensive actions will become even more important than defensive ones than they are already, and prevention will become even more important than healing than it is already. I mean, if attacking enemies are just going to kill you really quickly, then what's a healer going to do to stop that? Once the party member in question has been felled by a sharp blow to the head, that's pretty much it for your cure spells having any affect.
I'd say that if a round's worth of actions spent healing can undo a round's worth of damage, you're not wasting your turn.

[Seerow]

I don't know if this is all that accurate. Pushing even more force behind offensive maneuvers means that offensive actions will become even more important than defensive ones than they are already, and prevention will become even more important than healing than it is already. I mean, if attacking enemies are just going to kill you really quickly, then what's a healer going to do to stop that? Once the party member in question has been felled by a sharp blow to the head, that's pretty much it for your cure spells having any affect.

That's the point. The healer has to be able to react to this heavy incoming damage and keep the party up. You can go without the healer and focus on all offense, but you will lose party members to being outright dead dead. Having a healer in the party makes the difference of keeping people alive through the encounter.

Basically, that possibility is taking the WoW route. Where you will not survive level appropriate content without a healer. Damage output is too intense. But a good healer can keep everyone alive and turn it from nearly impossible to being very doable.


The other alternative, as mentioned, is making it so healing is more of a secondary role. Still used in combat in a reactive sense (as per point 2), but used in addition to doing your normal attacks/battlefield control/buffing/whatever.

[Drachasor]

I can understandd how its not the corvette of roles. People have been complaining about the need for healbot since the dawn of DnD. I think that issue is part of why 4e healers have attack and heal powers, and definitely why 4e characters have healing surges.

I think that it is pretty culturally interesting that folks dont see the ability to drag people from deaths door as a fulfilling role. Maybe because the emphasis is not on your character, but on others.

I really don't think this is a cultural issue. It is just not interesting as you later state. Hence very few people want to do something that's boring and repetitive. There's no dedicated logistics role either, but that doesn't mean it isn't important. Nor is there a dedicated financial planning role. Nor a dedicated transportation role. These things are important too, but just because something is important doesn't mean someone needs to have a character totally devoted to the concept.

Perhaps related to why healing up to full is important is the fact that it is very easy to die in D&D. There's no separate form of injury that is different from the HP pool, so not healing up messes up the entire combat balance. I've toyed around with the idea that people can heal up to full after hitting 0 or below as a free action or the like, but sustain an injury that requires time to heal and gives penalties. Haven't had a chance to try out any system like that though.

Just curious, but how many times have you ran a group of 8th+ level character where 70% of the encounters were level 1-3 enemies? I think I'd find that rather boring, personally. D&D isn't really designed for large level disparities like that either. Four 10th level characters could literally take on and destroy hundreds or even thousands of 1st level enemies if they play smart.

[wayfare]

Ok, how about this:

Vigor type spells (but with an aoe component at lower levels) for out of combat healing.

Damage/leech spells for in combat healing.

[wayfare]

I really don't think this is a cultural issue. It is just not interesting as you later state. Hence very few people want to do something that's boring and repetitive. There's no dedicated logistics role either, but that doesn't mean it isn't important. Nor is there a dedicated financial planning role. Nor a dedicated transportation role. These things are important too, but just because something is important doesn't mean someone needs to have a character totally devoted to the concept.

Perhaps related to why healing up to full is important is the fact that it is very easy to die in D&D. There's no separate form of injury that is different from the HP pool, so not healing up messes up the entire combat balance. I've toyed around with the idea that people can heal up to full after hitting 0 or below as a free action or the like, but sustain an injury that requires time to heal and gives penalties. Haven't had a chance to try out any system like that though.

Just curious, but how many times have you ran a group of 8th+ level character where 70% of the encounters were level 1-3 enemies? I think I'd find that rather boring, personally. D&D isn't really designed for large level disparities like that either. Four 10th level characters could literally take on and destroy hundreds or even thousands of 1st level enemies if they play smart.

Like Dragon Age? Fall to 0 take a penalty, but come back at full?

I think that there is a certain thrill in walking through crowds of mooks unscathed. I see it kind of like Dynasty Warriors at high levels -- you cut through a ton of soldiers to reach an officer (cr appropriate encounter).

I think an elite army of level 3 character can pose some small threat to characters at mid levels, through sheer numbers. It might be a bit different iff my players were optimizers, but they are not.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Ok, how about this:

Vigor type spells (but with an aoe component at lower levels) for out of combat healing.

Damage/leech spells for in combat healing.
That sounds workable.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ok, how about this:

Vigor type spells (but with an aoe component at lower levels) for out of combat healing.

Damage/leech spells for in combat healing.

Any spell that just flat restores HP -cannot- be exciting, ever. Out of combat healing is difficult to make entertaining in any case, if there's a fool-proof way to do it then you can't make it exciting at all. A chance of failure can get you that gamblers' excitement but that's about it.

Spells and effects that let you steal HP's aren't really all that exciting but if they get the numbers right they are at least functional enough to eliminate the need for the caster to waste any more actions in combat. So that's something.

The excitement from healing in other media comes, in part, from the description or imagery associated with the task and, in part, from the in-depth knowledge and skill necessary to perform the task. Ultimately, healing in D&D has neither of those things. Sure, you can get all flowery in your descriptions but that's about it and it can get tiresome very quickly if you're doing it as frequently as you're likely to have to because of how often you'd be casting those spells. All that's left after that is the satisfaction of saving the other characters from the jaws of defeat and/or death. This is the only reason to be a healer in this game and it's just not something people universally feel.

[wayfare]

Any spell that just flat restores HP -cannot- be exciting, ever. Out of combat healing is difficult to make entertaining in any case, if there's a fool-proof way to do it then you can't make it exciting at all. A chance of failure can get you that gamblers' excitement but that's about it.

Spells and effects that let you steal HP's aren't really all that exciting but if they get the numbers right they are at least functional enough to eliminate the need for the caster to waste any more actions in combat. So that's something.

The excitement from healing in other media comes, in part, from the description or imagery associated with the task and, in part, from the in-depth knowledge and skill necessary to perform the task. Ultimately, healing in D&D has neither of those things. Sure, you can get all flowery in your descriptions but that's about it and it can get tiresome very quickly if you're doing it as frequently as you're likely to have to because of how often you'd be casting those spells. All that's left after that is the satisfaction of saving the other characters from the jaws of defeat and/or death. This is the only reason to be a healer in this game and it's just not something people universally feel.

I think we will simply have to disagree on the healing being exciting thing. I think it has a ton of RP opportunities and serves an important function.

As for universal appeal...nothing is universally appealing. I've talked to players on these boards who would never, ever play a combat character -- they would rather play a trunamer than pick up a sword. I have met players who have the opposite opinion. Some folks adore incarnum, others abhor it -- same with ToB.

I once wanted to play a wandering, godless cleric who married people. Just a wandring benevolent who lived to unite people in matrimony. That was my goal. it's not everybody's cup of tea, but it doesnt have to be.

Though, and this is stupidly pedantic, so forgive me, i would say that healers and healing are by definition universally appealing since, as we have established, everybody wants and needs that healing to get through their encounters for the day :smallbiggrin:

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think we will simply have to disagree on the healing being exciting thing. I think it has a ton of RP opportunities and serves an important function.

Except for the appeal of the knowledge that those people would be dead if it weren't for you, I don't see it. That's not really exciting so much as it is satisfying. If that's where you get your satisfaction, more power to you. However, a -lot- of people end up feeling more than a little under-appreciated in the role and being dedicated to it prevents them from doing anything else. This is where the old "we've got to have a healer" thing earned so much enmity.


As for universal appeal...nothing is universally appealing. I've talked to players on these boards who would never, ever play a combat character -- they would rather play a trunamer than pick up a sword. I have met players who have the opposite opinion. Some folks adore incarnum, others abhor it -- same with ToB.

That's not the same thing. One's a matter of taste for the role you'd like to play while the other is a matter of taste for the mechanics you like. Truenamer and healer are not mutually exclusive. Healer and Battlefield controller are.


I once wanted to play a wandering, godless cleric who married people. Just a wandring benevolent who lived to unite people in matrimony. That was my goal. it's not everybody's cup of tea, but it doesnt have to be.

That has absolutely nothing at all to do with mechanics. You could do that as a cleric, an expert, a fighter, whatever. It's a completely non-mechanical decision. The collection of mechanics that is the class called cleric and the social role called cleric don't have to have any interaction at all unless you want them to, though the former's relationship with the divine tends to push it toward also being the latter.


Though, and this is stupidly pedantic, so forgive me, i would say that healers and healing are by definition universally appealing since, as we have established, everybody wants and needs that healing to get through their encounters for the day :smallbiggrin:

There's a difference between something being an appealing thing to be and being an appealing thing to have around. Everyone wants, even sometimes needs, a means of magical healing around. That doesn't make any difference at all to how appealing it is to be that thing. The fact that they could be mostly replaced by a couple "magic sticks" doesn't help; magic sticks being a wand of lesser vigor, a rod of bodily restoration, and a staff that contains the heal spell. Yeah, the cleric/healer can do it better but you don't necessarily need it done better most of the time.

[DarkSonic1337]

I think that there is a certain thrill in walking through crowds of mooks unscathed. I see it kind of like Dynasty Warriors at high levels -- you cut through a ton of soldiers to reach an officer (cr appropriate encounter).


As much as I like this analogy, I think a better analogy would be that the officers (as in plural) are the CR appropriate encounter and the super powered up Lu Bu is the CR+4 encounter (or in some cases, the group of a bunch of officers together, which is not only more challenging but also more appropriate for a D&D encounter).

The mooks are not even a blip on the radar, and frankly MOST SHOULD BE IGNORED. They're there of course, but they're not YOUR concern, your concern (or at least if they are your concern...they should be fairly easy to whittle down enough to then delegate cleaning up to someone more appropriate for a low level job).

I like feeling like some indestructible force every now and then sure, and that has it's place in D&D. But when I want an actual challenge and a bit of a tactical exercise, an army of mooks isn't going to cut it (this is when I speed run Chaos mode. Btw Dynasty Warriors has been getting easier as the series went on Q_Q)



I really liked the earlier suggestion of IMMEDIATE ACTION heals. See that can actually be kind of interesting tactically, especially on a character that actually does have OTHER uses for swift and immediate actions. That would make in combat healing actually doable since it wouldn't take up your entire turn, but it WOULD still be something to weigh against whatever other options you have for swift/immediate actions, and even have to choose who you're going to save your healing spell for. Couple this with healing numbers that actually matter (like maybe making it scale based on the receiver's max HP? healing 1/4 HP as an immediate action is actually pretty significant for example) and you'll have at least some form of decision making involved in healing.

[Rubik]

There's a difference between something being an appealing thing to be and being an appealing thing to have around. Everyone wants, even sometimes needs, a means of magical healing around.Every hospital wants, even needs, people to clean out bedpans. It's a very important job, and it prevents the spread of disease and whatnot.

That doesn't mean that there's anyone out there who enjoys doing so -- or gods forbid, aspires to do so for a living.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Every hospital wants, even needs, people to clean out bedpans. It's a very important job, and it prevents the spread of disease and whatnot.

That doesn't mean that there's anyone out there who enjoys doing so -- or gods forbid, aspires to do so for a living.

Presuming this is sarcastic, what with the obvious "nurses are a thing" point that it appears to be making, that's not the whole job. It's only one relatively small part of being a nurse. The -rest- of the job requires specialized knowledge, people skills, and, on occasion, that you actually save a few lives either before the doctor arrives or along side him.

The only way you end up -just- emptying bedpans is if you're a volunteer that's not getting paid and even then you're -probably- doing it to pad an application to college or med-school. Pretty much no one just empties bed pans for the love of emptying bedpans.

TL;DR: bad analogy.

[Rubik]

Presuming this is sarcastic, what with the obvious "nurses are a thing" point that it appears to be making, that's not the whole job. It's only one relatively small part of being a nurse. The -rest- of the job requires specialized knowledge, people skills, and, on occasion, that you actually save a few lives either before the doctor arrives or along side him.

The only way you end up -just- emptying bedpans is if you're a volunteer that's not getting paid and even then you're -probably- doing it to pad an application to college or med-school. Pretty much no one just empties bed pans for the love of emptying bedpans.

TL;DR: bad analogy.No no. It's a perfectly good analogy. Healing is fine, so long as you're not a dedicated healer. You have many, many other things you should be doing as an adventurer. Like a nurse with bedpans, healing is a necessary evil that needs to be gotten out of the way before you can get to more important functions.

[plastickle]

I think we will simply have to disagree on the healing being exciting thing. I think it has a ton of RP opportunities and serves an important function.
It is very exciting rushing the disease curing macguffin to the curséd crown prince just in time to stop the vizier from ruining the succession. There is tremendous role playing satisfaction in mending a farmer's broken leg so his family doesn't starve. Offering pro bono publico healing whenever you're in town is a brilliant way of establishing your character and his reputation. These things are just as good as (or better than) the challenge of combat tactics.

But. The healing people are talking about is the "I roll a die. It cures 8 HP." healing that happens after every single combat your party faces during their entire campaign. That healing is repetitive and dull. There is no challenge or decision-making or skill or role playing involved, and therefore very little satisfaction.

In a game where HP is a resource that gets steadily depleted throughout the game, that healing is a basic party necessary, and the burden of it should fall on all members of the party. The ideal way to deal with it (everyone here is arguing) is with a loot tax that goes toward healing wands. It is quick, it is efficient, it is fair, and it doesn't sentence one player to spend half of their character's design to do something boring.

There's a bit of a disclaimer you should probably assume is a default for everyone arguing with you: if your game is going well, and your players are happy (especially the healer), then you are doing a good job, and you should feel free to run the game however you like. But it is good to take on board, even if only for future games, that healing wands really do make the game more fun, without being unbalanced.


I once wanted to play a wandering, godless cleric who married people. Just a wandring benevolent who lived to unite people in matrimony. That was my goal. it's not everybody's cup of tea, but it doesnt have to be.
This sounds like the same sort of motivation built into most of my character ideas, although it does end up having to take a back seat to saving the world considerations, at least for the duration of the campaign.

[Drachasor]

Like Dragon Age? Fall to 0 take a penalty, but come back at full?

Basically something like that. Combat would be balanced the same way as it is now, so basically injuries would act as a large buffer. This could be leveraged into making dying rarer and hence limiting the revolving door of life and death in D&D. It also lets you have long term injuries without really impacting game balance as long as the penalties are small. Though my write-ups limited wounds to 3 or 4...after that was death.


I think that there is a certain thrill in walking through crowds of mooks unscathed. I see it kind of like Dynasty Warriors at high levels -- you cut through a ton of soldiers to reach an officer (cr appropriate encounter).

It can be fun. The problem is that D&D doesn't handle it all that well, imho, since mooks 6+ levels below you really aren't a threat. They can't do much to you even if you let them surround you. 9 guys on all sides aren't even going to hit you on average once a round (unless 8 of them do assists).

It's a scaling problem in the game. I had an idea for this as well, defense essentially being temporary hit points that refresh every round and removing AC and attack rolls (damage would scale will level). But incorporating that would take a lot of work in D&D so I decided to just work on a new system.


I think an elite army of level 3 character can pose some small threat to characters at mid levels, through sheer numbers. It might be a bit different iff my players were optimizers, but they are not.

If by "mid levels" you mean level 10, then it depends on what you mean by an "army". I will grant that 1000 1st level guys can kill four 10th level characters if the characters are played stupidly. You admittedly do have to use smart tactics to handle them. But 1000 3rd level guys aren't that much different. Sure they have three times as many hit points, but their attack rolls actually aren't any better since they'll still need a 20 to hit. Similarly, the PC attacks are going to be killing either group just as easily...there's just a lot less overkill with 3rd levels. This does make a bit of a difference with Warlocks, Dragon Shamans, and casters using Reserve Feats though.

That said, you don't need to be particularly optimized to handle a thousand 3rd level guys at 10th level. Expected optimization levels can do it with smart tactics, though I grant it will take a while.


No no. It's a perfectly good analogy. Healing is fine, so long as you're not a dedicated healer. You have many, many other things you should be doing as an adventurer. Like a nurse with bedpans, healing is a necessary evil that needs to be gotten out of the way before you can get to more important functions.

Indeed. Healing is a required adventuring TASK, like cleaning bedpans, changing sheets, changing bandages, and so forth are required tasks in a hospital. Other adventuring tasks include procuring food, caring for mounts, procuring weapons, looting bodies, being perceptive, disarming traps, and so forth. None of these tasks are good choices for extreme specialization to be assumed. Some players might fine with it, but far too few (rather like dedicated healers in MMOs).

It simply isn't a good way to maximize fun, and can in fact detract from fun. So while healing is an important and necessary tasks, that doesn't mean someone needs to do that above all else. It doesn't even mean that someone needs to focus in it. And, I think, looking at real life armies isn't completely bad here. A medic in a unit does a lot more than just bandage people -- he has a gun that's just as effective as other guns. D&D characters with healing abilities don't need to fit this mold per se, but there's no reason they need to be limited to healing or even need to be expected to heal in combat.*

Healing is an expected component of adventuring. I can see it be ok as an optional focus for a character, if a player likes that, but it is bad to assume it must be THE overriding focus of a character.

*I will say sometimes healing in combat IS a good thing. People sometimes overstate the negatives of healing in combat. On occasion (but not every battle), the best move is a heal.


I once wanted to play a wandering, godless cleric who married people. Just a wandring benevolent who lived to unite people in matrimony. That was my goal. it's not everybody's cup of tea, but it doesnt have to be.

Sure, that can be fine. Assuming it can produce the sort of adventures players want and hopefully the system supports it. If you really wanted a game focusing on marrying people and not have combat then D&D is a really awful choice. If on the other hand you wanted to have that be a MOTIVATION for your character and have the DM work that into the story, then that's something else.

I assume you didn't build your entire character and all his abilities around the concept of performing marriages. For instance, you didn't use all your spell slots for Engage Serious Couple, Marry Engaged Couple, Mass Engagement, Rary's Matrimonial Bond, Reincarnate Spouse, and the like. You probably didn't spend feats and money on buying marriage licenses and being recognized by various states, etc, etc.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No no. It's a perfectly good analogy. Healing is fine, so long as you're not a dedicated healer. You have many, many other things you should be doing as an adventurer. Like a nurse with bedpans, healing is a necessary evil that needs to be gotten out of the way before you can get to more important functions.

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you were using it as an analogy for why being a dedicated healer was a good thing. My bad.

Taken that way it is a fine analogy.

[wayfare]

Working out of a tablet right now, so I wont spend 30 minutes doing a wall of quotes, but a few points (and please pardon my spelling, the keyboard on this thing is TINY.)

To the point that Healing is just rolling dice: so is casting a fireball, turning a person to stone,or using the 500 flying drasgons maneuver. We say those things are exciting or interesting, but ultimately they asctually lack the tactical effects that properly implemented healing gives you -- namely, healibg GIVES YOU MORE FUTURE ASCTIONS.

As to mooks no longer being a threat: yes, thats the idea. But if you want them to be, remember that they are funded by a bbeg with a yon of money who is hsndfing out +2 swirds and gasuntlerts of ogre power, etc.

Ye ghods the spelling is terriblr. Onward!

To healing being the changing bedpand of dnd: this is a perspective jssue largely based on the idea that players are the hero and should succeed at every challenge. I agine if supernaturasl healing didnt exist, period. I thi k folks weould be tripping overthemselves to create that subsystem, becUse it is so damn necessary to get those 5 daily encounters in. We treat this thing like there is no drama in it, but lets be honest, the things that are not dramatic actions, dnd just glosses ovet. Nobody checks to see if your bridle is on right. Nobody checks to see if you put your armkr on right. We do roll dfice and use actions to heal, because life ( that character yuoud be super upset if they eertre killed by a gnoll, even a lleveled one) is one of the better ways to insure there are net actions for the party.

[wayfare]

Sooooo sorry i siubjected you to thast

[Kelb_Panthera]

To the point that Healing is just rolling dice: so is casting a fireball, turning a person to stone,or using the 500 flying drasgons maneuver. We say those things are exciting or interesting, but ultimately they asctually lack the tactical effects that properly implemented healing gives you -- namely, healibg GIVES YOU MORE FUTURE ASCTIONS.

Here's the difference; for healing you just roll the dice to determine how much it heals and even that's a bell curve that will tend toward average while with an attack spell there's a single die being rolled to determine if its going to be a good hit or a glancing blow or, with certain features, a total miss most of the time. It's a certainty vs a gamble.

Healing spells always go exactly the same way except for a relatively small variance in the amount healed; not even that when it's being done well. It's just not that exciting. Satisfying, maybe, if that floats your boat but not exciting.


As to mooks no longer being a threat: yes, thats the idea. But if you want them to be, remember that they are funded by a bbeg with a yon of money who is hsndfing out +2 swirds and gasuntlerts of ogre power, etc.

Mooks are supposed to be easily killed but not completely irrelevant; 4 maybe 5 CR below the party. CR 3's vs a level 10 party isn't even a resource drain anymore; basically just difficult terrain that can move around on its own and be swatted out of the way. One well placed fireball and they're not even that anymore.


To healing being the changing bedpand of dnd: this is a perspective jssue largely based on the idea that players are the hero and should succeed at every challenge.

It has nothing to do with the expectation that the party will overcome most challenges. It's generally thought of as necessary, boring by the estimation of most, and a task that receives little appreciation. Comparing it to cleaning poo is probably a bit of a stretch but it's not the worst analogy either.


Imagine if supernaturasl healing didnt exist, period. I thi k folks weould be tripping overthemselves to create that subsystem, becUse it is so damn necessary to get those 5 daily encounters in.

Conversely, if supernatural healing wasn't part of the system in the first place, then neither would have been the 5 encounters a day. Though it's an odd thing to contemplate; magical healing having been part of the fantasy gaming genre pretty much from go. Borrowing from that self same genre, no one would care at all if a night's rest completely restored all of your HP's like it does in many video games. Go through an encounter, rest 8 hours, move on to the next encounter. It -still- prevents the back-to-back encounters forced by a short timetable option from being a regular thing and it encourages the 15 minute adventuring day more than ever but, meh.


We treat this thing like there is no drama in it, but lets be honest, the things that are not dramatic actions, dnd just glosses ovet. Nobody checks to see if your bridle is on right. Nobody checks to see if you put your armkr on right. We do roll dfice and use actions to heal, because life ( that character yuoud be super upset if they eertre killed by a gnoll, even a lleveled one) is one of the better ways to insure there are net actions for the party.

That's just it. Out of combat healing -does- get glossed over unless something's preventing it from being readily available. The cleric converts his least useful spells into cures, he or the rogue tops everybody off with a wand, the dragon shaman switches to the vigor aura and everyone waits a few minutes while they get back to half, etc. It's just -not- interesting.

In-combat healing is only exciting when it's necessary. If the party would've won anyway, then it's just wasted actions that could've been put to better use. If the enemy is dealing so much damage that healing can't possibly keep up, then damage mitigation buffs come first and -then- healing or, if necessary, fleeing.

Hitting that golden balance point is, at best, difficult and damage mitigation can throw it right back off.

If there were multitarget spells at the current rate from level one and/or single target at CL d6's it'd be a bit more tolerable but, as is, it's just woefully inadequate on top of being boring until heal comes online.

[Coidzor]

That's the point. The healer has to be able to react to this heavy incoming damage and keep the party up. You can go without the healer and focus on all offense, but you will lose party members to being outright dead dead. Having a healer in the party makes the difference of keeping people alive through the encounter.

Basically, that possibility is taking the WoW route. Where you will not survive level appropriate content without a healer. Damage output is too intense. But a good healer can keep everyone alive and turn it from nearly impossible to being very doable.

Then you have to completely rewrite the action economy and basic rules of how combat works just to facilitate that. Or so it would seem from how you're presenting it. You've only got 1 immediate action in a round, after all, but if enemies are that deadly, what're you going to do about the other 2 party members they fell?

[wayfare]

Here's the difference; for healing you just roll the dice to determine how much it heals and even that's a bell curve that will tend toward average while with an attack spell there's a single die being rolled to determine if its going to be a good hit or a glancing blow or, with certain features, a total miss most of the time. It's a certainty vs a gamble.

Healing spells always go exactly the same way except for a relatively small variance in the amount healed; not even that when it's being done well. It's just not that exciting. Satisfying, maybe, if that floats your boat but not exciting.



Mooks are supposed to be easily killed but not completely irrelevant; 4 maybe 5 CR below the party. CR 3's vs a level 10 party isn't even a resource drain anymore; basically just difficult terrain that can move around on its own and be swatted out of the way. One well placed fireball and they're not even that anymore.



It has nothing to do with the expectation that the party will overcome most challenges. It's generally thought of as necessary, boring by the estimation of most, and a task that receives little appreciation. Comparing it to cleaning poo is probably a bit of a stretch but it's not the worst analogy either.



Conversely, if supernatural healing wasn't part of the system in the first place, then neither would have been the 5 encounters a day. Though it's an odd thing to contemplate; magical healing having been part of the fantasy gaming genre pretty much from go. Borrowing from that self same genre, no one would care at all if a night's rest completely restored all of your HP's like it does in many video games. Go through an encounter, rest 8 hours, move on to the next encounter. It -still- prevents the back-to-back encounters forced by a short timetable option from being a regular thing and it encourages the 15 minute adventuring day more than ever but, meh.



That's just it. Out of combat healing -does- get glossed over unless something's preventing it from being readily available. The cleric converts his least useful spells into cures, he or the rogue tops everybody off with a wand, the dragon shaman switches to the vigor aura and everyone waits a few minutes while they get back to half, etc. It's just -not- interesting.

In-combat healing is only exciting when it's necessary. If the party would've won anyway, then it's just wasted actions that could've been put to better use. If the enemy is dealing so much damage that healing can't possibly keep up, then damage mitigation buffs come first and -then- healing or, if necessary, fleeing.

Hitting that golden balance point is, at best, difficult and damage mitigation can throw it right back off.

If there were multitarget spells at the current rate from level one and/or single target at CL d6's it'd be a bit more tolerable but, as is, it's just woefully inadequate on top of being boring until heal comes online.

The point of Save or Suck spells is certainty. You know that something bad will happen to your enemy no matter what, thats why you cast them. To say this is an issue only healing has is disingenuous.

By the same token, weapon combat has the most variables in play that modify how or if you can hit something, it must be the most exciting form of combat. I rarely see anybody make that claim, and nobody claims that it is maximally fun.

The challenge in an army of mooks in not the threat they pose to you. It is the fact that they delay you, cause damage to things or people you care about, and display abominable fashion sense by dressing in horrible matching uniforms.

To your point about healing getting glossed over, again, this is a cultural issue. I guarantee you, if you had a sword hanging out of your guts, you would think that the healer was the best guy ever. The fact that we make healing so plentiful makes this really precious and cool resource less valuable.

As for encounter enders, i think having to choose between being able to end a few encounters quickly and long term combat ability isn't a bug, it is a feature.

All of this doesnt hold at high levels, of course, as you can scry and die to your hearts content and never have to put yourself in serious danger. But at the levels I am running, healing is a needed, and therefore precious thing.

[eggynack]

The point of Save or Suck spells is certainty. You know that something bad will happen to your enemy no matter what, thats why you cast them. To say this is an issue only healing has is disingenuous.

How do ya figure that? Save or suck implicitly has a save determining whether your opponents will suck or not suck. There's always the save or suck/save and suck less, but even then you're unsure of the suckiness levels before casting, which means uncertainty. I think you're thinking of no save just suck, like solid fog and wall of stone, which nevertheless still has massive tactical input related to placement and timing. Healing has very little player input of that variety, just requiring that you press the heal button when your friend is not sufficiently healed. It's the variety of magic that likely has the least tactical input, even if it has a small degree of it.

Edit:

To your point about healing getting glossed over, again, this is a cultural issue. I guarantee you, if you had a sword hanging out of your guts, you would think that the healer was the best guy ever. The fact that we make healing so plentiful makes this really precious and cool resource less valuable.

As I keep mentioning, it's largely a function of the system. Enemies deal equal or greater damage than healers can heal, an ally at low HP and an ally at high HP can fight equally well, and it's usually nearly impossible for an enemy to have protection from the full suite of killing or disabling effects, many of whom are highly efficient, which tends the game towards offense over defense. The only heal spell I consider worth casting is cure minor wounds, because stabilizing a dying ally is worthwhile despite the action cost.

[Drachasor]

To the point that Healing is just rolling dice: so is casting a fireball, turning a person to stone,or using the 500 flying drasgons maneuver. We say those things are exciting or interesting, but ultimately they asctually lack the tactical effects that properly implemented healing gives you -- namely, healibg GIVES YOU MORE FUTURE ASCTIONS.

Here's the thing. If you want to do something directly against the enemy, then you have tons of options. If you want to buff your team, then you have tons of options. If you want to heal, you do NOT have tons of options. Healing has almost no depth. That's why it isn't tactically interesting. The choice of fireball verses other spells is tactically interesting, and choosing where to place it can be interesting.

Healing in and of itself is NOT interesting. It can only be interesting if it is one of many options. That's why dedicated healers are not found to be fun by the vast majority of people.

Often in-combat healing provides worse returns on future actions than in-combat damage, debuffing, or buffing. Killing the bad guy quicker also gives you future actions, you see. Healing can happen off-screen, and rolling for healing is often not very interesting or important to game balance.


To healing being the changing bedpand of dnd: this is a perspective jssue largely based on the idea that players are the hero and should succeed at every challenge.

That's not what ANYONE has said. So your entire argument here is unfortunately a strawman.

People have been saying that healing is important to have in the game, but a DEDICATED healing role is not a good idea as an assumption of the game. A lot of people would prefer to play something else. Healing as an element of the game and an option some characters can exercise is more fun and doesn't mean everything is auto-win or that people think players should succeed at everything.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The point of Save or Suck spells is certainty. You know that something bad will happen to your enemy no matter what, thats why you cast them. To say this is an issue only healing has is disingenuous.

I'm not talking about save or sucks. I'm talking about nearly all directly offensive spells. Fireballs offer a reflex save for half and evasion (a 10k ring) makes it a save for no damage. Even many battlefield control spells offer a save or have only passive benefits.


By the same token, weapon combat has the most variables in play that modify how or if you can hit something, it must be the most exciting form of combat. I rarely see anybody make that claim, and nobody claims that it is maximally fun.

Umm.... What? People are -constantly- asking how to make a fun and powerful martial character. It's one of the three major archetypes; caster, warrior, skill user. Nobody says it explicitly because it's self-evident.


The challenge in an army of mooks in not the threat they pose to you. It is the fact that they delay you, cause damage to things or people you care about, and display abominable fashion sense by dressing in horrible matching uniforms.

Again; fireball, cone of cold, any of a dozen BFC spells. They're nothing at all. They're generally a standard action from being so much ash. Skill users just tumble right past and, after a certain point, everybody just flies right by. Warriors are the only ones really slowed and mooks have to be near your precious things to be a threat to them.

I'll give you the fashion disaster angle though.


To your point about healing getting glossed over, again, this is a cultural issue. I guarantee you, if you had a sword hanging out of your guts, you would think that the healer was the best guy ever. The fact that we make healing so plentiful makes this really precious and cool resource less valuable.

A barbarian can walk around with half a dozen swords sticking out of him from where he cut down their level 1-2 owners without even slowing down by level 5 or so. By level 10 a small army's archery division could make him look like a hedgehog and do little more than annoy him. Fighters and most other martial characters are right behind them in this.

The point at which a sword in your gut actually means anything is when you run out of hit points. Anything less and you're not even a little disabled. It's the system itself, not the culture, that makes healing boring. Fluffing it however brutally you want doesn't change this in the least.


As for encounter enders, i think having to choose between being able to end a few encounters quickly and long term combat ability isn't a bug, it is a feature.

Except that's not the choice being presented. It's a choice between being able to end a few encounters quickly or ending a similar number of encounters slowly and after burning more resources. Quick, cheap healing is what gives you long-term combat abilitiy.


All of this doesnt hold at high levels, of course, as you can scry and die to your hearts content and never have to put yourself in serious danger. But at the levels I am running, healing is a needed, and therefore precious thing.

A good DM can legitimately make scry and die into a fancy magical form of suicide. The game gets more complex at higher levels, it only gets easier if the DM doesn't know how to handle the added complexity.

[eggynack]

By the same token, weapon combat has the most variables in play that modify how or if you can hit something, it must be the most exciting form of combat. I rarely see anybody make that claim, and nobody claims that it is maximally fun.

Missed this point. Weapon combat, in the moment of an encounter, doesn't have that much tactical choice to it. Assuming for a moment that you're a melee fellow with power attack and tripping as focuses, you have to decide who to hit, how much to power attack for, whether to trip, and possibly where to stand when you hit that enemy. That's not that many decisions. It's more than healing gets, which is why melee is more interesting than healing, but it's a pittance compared to the options that, say, a druid gets.

I could literally write paragraph after paragraph after paragraph, detailing nothing but the choices available to a druid in a given round of combat. It seems plausible that I would be capable of filling the maximum character count of a given post, though it would take awhile. Healing has very few tactical options (mostly who should you heal, and for how much), so it's one of the least interesting in combat roles, and melee has few tactical options, though perhaps a few more than healing, so it is also somewhat uninteresting. It gets more interesting when you add in ToB, because ToB adds much more decision making, and whaddya know, folks here tend to love ToB.

[wayfare]

Missed this point. Weapon combat, in the moment of an encounter, doesn't have that much tactical choice to it. Assuming for a moment that you're a melee fellow with power attack and tripping as focuses, you have to decide who to hit, how much to power attack for, whether to trip, and possibly where to stand when you hit that enemy. That's not that many decisions. It's more than healing gets, which is why melee is more interesting than healing, but it's a pittance compared to the options that, say, a druid gets.

I could literally write paragraph after paragraph after paragraph, detailing nothing but the choices available to a druid in a given round of combat. It seems plausible that I would be capable of filling the maximum character count of a given post, though it would take awhile. Healing has very few tactical options (mostly who should you heal, and for how much), so it's one of the least interesting in combat roles, and melee has few tactical options, though perhaps a few more than healing, so it is also somewhat uninteresting. It gets more interesting when you add in ToB, because ToB adds much more decision making, and whaddya know, folks here tend to love ToB.

You are not addressing the core issue here: Healing gives you actions. It gives other people actions. The tactical decision of a caster to heal a person (inside or outside of combat), to dedicate a spell slot to that type of action leads to more actions than any type of action economy spell or effect aside from some cheese (which i have no doubt exists) that gives you infinite actions or some such nonsense.

I prevented you from dying. All of the action you take after this point are because I made that decision. If i don't have healing prepped, and I have to res you later, the party is at a net action loss because you did not get that healing. If the party dies because an encounter really needed your character and we were not ready for it because we lacked your actions, we are at a bigger net action loss.

Healing is one of the most tactical things you can do, and making it a tactical decision of resource management (instead of a "hurr, durr, lets burn through some gp to get better") makes healing more valuable.

Now, as it currently exists, healing is suboptimal at what it does. But that doesnt say anything about healing itself, just that designers never got past the AD&D healing (i might be wrong on this one, because i am playing BG2EE right now and the "AD&D" healing spells they use look exactly the same as the 3.5 ones) and altered it for 3.5. That is a problem that brewing can solve, without whole cloth system revision.

Kelb_Panthera: You are effectively talking about save or sucks, because few people use direct damage spells when melee combat has better damaging option w/o going mailman. But, look at the orb spells.

To clarify on my point of melee being maximally fun -- people often come to these boards to make fun melee characters because they feel that they cannot compete with casters. Fun for them means being able to contribute, which batwizard makes it hard to do. I apologise for making my staement to broad. But, I would add that healer is a big archetype -- every mmo has a healing spec. It is, in fact, a "classic" spec despite not existing in the fantasy literature i am familiar with (I dont have encyclopedic knowledge, so I wont claim something like all fantasy literature).

To your point about mooks -- again, they are not a danger to you! But they are one heck of a danger when they are tearing up town! Or do you like a side of "helpless commoner" served with your "cajun style crispy barbarian" :smallbiggrin:. You are looking at things as if they were a direct conflict -- not every fight -- and indeed most fights are not liek that. this isnt running the gauntlet, unless you go evil you probably want to avoid collateral damage.

There is an OOTS that is actually about this point that is really funny.

The sword hanging out of your guts matters only when you hit negatives, but then IT REALLY MATTERS. Healing is what allows you to keep those guts intact and wade through a dozen battles. Otherwise, you're merely wading though 1 or two tops.

[eggynack]

You are not addressing the core issue here: Healing gives you actions. It gives other people actions. The tactical decision of a caster to heal a person (inside or outside of combat), to dedicate a spell slot to that type of action leads to more actions than any type of action economy spell or effect aside from some cheese (which i have no doubt exists) that gives you infinite actions or some such nonsense.

I prevented you from dying. All of the action you take after this point are because I made that decision. If i don't have healing prepped, and I have to res you later, the party is at a net action loss because you did not get that healing. If the party dies because an encounter really needed your character and we were not ready for it because we lacked your actions, we are at a bigger net action loss.
Most spells give you actions. Fireball gives you actions, and solid fog gives you actions, and wall of stone gives you actions. When you stop an enemy from hitting a friend, you're effectively healing them of the theoretical future damage they would have taken. A solid fog, capturing five enemies in its borders and stopping them from charging the group for several rounds, grants far more actions and effective healing than any cure spell. You're granting healing some sort of action economy breaking power, but that power is available to pretty much any spell you'd cast in combat, and you're not considering that power outside of healing. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and D&D cure spells are far from a pound of cure.


Healing is one of the most tactical things you can do, and making it a tactical decision of resource management (instead of a "hurr, durr, lets burn through some gp to get better") makes healing more valuable.
It's really not. Every spell has a choice associated with either preparing it or something else. It is not a thing unique to healing. The same applies to casting a healing spell versus a summoning spell versus a BFC. The tactical choices you're making here are true across the whole spectrum of vancian casting. However, other spells have other tactical choices associated with them, and those choices are more intricate and complicated than those associated uniquely with healing. Thus, healing is one of the least tactical things you can do, especially for a caster.

[Perseus]

After reading most of the healing discussion it seems like to make healing work in combat all you need to do is allow healing spells (perhaps even from wands) to work better via math and not stop you from taking other actions.

4e did a fantastic job at getting rid of the heal not and yet keeping it around. You can focus on healing and buffing but you can still actively contribute to the battle. If I shoot off a holy word (minor action..at a distance) I can still cast a spell to hit my enemies in the face that does damage or effect (or both) that makes it easier for my allies to hit.

I've adopted this into 3e and it works wonders. Cure spells heal for a bit more, need line of sight within close range, and are swift actions.

I need to try this on wands too.

[wayfare]

Most spells give you actions. Fireball gives you actions, and solid fog gives you actions, and wall of stone gives you actions. When you stop an enemy from hitting a friend, you're effectively healing them of the theoretical future damage they would have taken. A solid fog, capturing five enemies in its borders and stopping them from charging the group for several rounds, grants far more actions and effective healing than any cure spell. You're granting healing some sort of action economy breaking power, but that power is available to pretty much any spell you'd cast in combat, and you're not considering that power outside of healing. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and D&D cure spells are far from a pound of cure.


It's really not. Every spell has a choice associated with either preparing it or something else. It is not a thing unique to healing. The same applies to casting a healing spell versus a summoning spell versus a BFC. The tactical choices you're making here are true across the whole spectrum of vancian casting. However, other spells have other tactical choices associated with them, and those choices are more intricate and complicated than those associated uniquely with healing. Thus, healing is one of the least tactical things you can do, especially for a caster.

BFC for sure gives you actions, but direct damage spells don't provide enough mitigation to obviate healing. Furthermore, BFC assumes that you have at least two effects prepped to deal with an opponent -- one to hamper them, the other to dispatch them.

I've always admitted that a Batwizard or a Clericzilla wont have this kind of problem, though I don't believe that playstyle accounts for the majority of wizard or cleric players.

If the current paradigm could exist w/o healing it would. But even optimizers will run into challenges that require that they regain health, unless they take a break (which I am advocating, but people seem to find controversial).

To clarify, if i sound overly aggressive (and I admit that i may have, for which i apologize), I am not saying the the game doesnt work the way things stand with plentiful healing. I am saying that I think healing should be more precious than it is. I recognize that this will involve differences in play, but I don't think, and I dont think anybody can show that it leads to a less fun, interesting, or creative game. Certainly, it is less efficient, but efficiency isn't my concern -- telling a good and challenging story is.

[eggynack]

There are challenges that require health regaining. There just aren't many challenges that really require in combat health gaining, and healing out of combat requires even less tactical input than out of combat health gaining. As for direct damage not providing mitigation, it provides no mitigation up until the point where it provides all the mitigation, which is why blasting spells are also looked down on. It's not like healing is the only problematic game element.

[Coidzor]

After reading most of the healing discussion it seems like to make healing work in combat all you need to do is allow healing spells (perhaps even from wands) to work better via math and not stop you from taking other actions.

4e did a fantastic job at getting rid of the heal not and yet keeping it around. You can focus on healing and buffing but you can still actively contribute to the battle. If I shoot off a holy word (minor action..at a distance) I can still cast a spell to hit my enemies in the face that does damage or effect (or both) that makes it easier for my allies to hit.

I've adopted this into 3e and it works wonders. Cure spells heal for a bit more, need line of sight within close range, and are swift actions.

I need to try this on wands too.

It definitely helps the situation, and adding options isn't a bad thing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You are not addressing the core issue here: Healing gives you actions. It gives other people actions. The tactical decision of a caster to heal a person (inside or outside of combat), to dedicate a spell slot to that type of action leads to more actions than any type of action economy spell or effect aside from some cheese (which i have no doubt exists) that gives you infinite actions or some such nonsense.

It does not give extra actions, it prevents actions from being lost; big difference. Celerity gives you an extra action (though it also costs you some as well). Shapechange to take the form of a choker or chronotryn gives you extra actions.

There is no tactical decision in healing. There's strategic decision making in preparing spells but the entire tactical overview of healing is; is ally hurt? if yes, heal; if no, do not heal. That's pretty much it. There may be a tactical decision in which healing spell to use but that also speaks more to strategy than tactics, too.

There's no decision making in out of combat healing at all. You do as much as you can and rest if that leaves you with too few slots to continue.


I prevented you from dying. All of the action you take after this point are because I made that decision. If i don't have healing prepped, and I have to res you later, the party is at a net action loss because you did not get that healing. If the party dies because an encounter really needed your character and we were not ready for it because we lacked your actions, we are at a bigger net action loss.

If you had used that same action to drop the foe instead of healing me, I'd still be alive and no longer in danger. The same is true if you stop him from attacking me in any of a number of other ways as well; force him to move away from me, likely giving me an AoO in the process, take away his ability to act by stunning, dazing, nauseating, paralyzing, etc, force move me away from him, place an obstacle between us, etc. Healing is not unique in the ability to prevent action loss.


Healing is one of the most tactical things you can do, and making it a tactical decision of resource management (instead of a "hurr, durr, lets burn through some gp to get better") makes healing more valuable.

That's strategy, not tactics. In any case, the gold cost when derived from a wand of lesser vigor is trivial. Once you're past the point that every combat is a craps shoot (level 4 or 5 or so) it's a huge forward thinking investment that will amount to pocket change in another level or two.

Forcing someone to burn spell slots on it is an artificial inflation of its value by equating it with the ability to actually do something. Healing isn't doing something, it's preventing something from happening.


Now, as it currently exists, healing is suboptimal at what it does. But that doesnt say anything about healing itself, just that designers never got past the AD&D healing (i might be wrong on this one, because i am playing BG2EE right now and the "AD&D" healing spells they use look exactly the same as the 3.5 ones) and altered it for 3.5. That is a problem that brewing can solve, without whole cloth system revision.

If you replace the low level cure spells with their mass versions and create a spell or spells that heal CL d6's would go a good ways in the right direction. It's true that the biggest reason healing gets dumped on is because its a terrible return on investment as it stands. However, we can't really talk about some theoretical version of healing that doesn't exist in an meaningful way.


Kelb_Panthera: You are effectively talking about save or sucks, because few people use direct damage spells when melee combat has better damaging option w/o going mailman. But, look at the orb spells.

I'm not. The orb spells require a successful touch attack; 1d20, plus mods vs the target's mostly static AC. Virtually -any- actively offensive spell requires at least one roll of a d20 plus mods against a static target number. Healing, not so much. Either the ally that needs it is in range and he gets the healing or he's not and he doesn't.


To clarify on my point of melee being maximally fun -- people often come to these boards to make fun melee characters because they feel that they cannot compete with casters. Fun for them means being able to contribute, which batwizard makes it hard to do. I apologise for making my staement to broad. But, I would add that healer is a big archetype -- every mmo has a healing spec. It is, in fact, a "classic" spec despite not existing in the fantasy literature i am familiar with (I dont have encyclopedic knowledge, so I wont claim something like all fantasy literature).

Healer is -not- a big archetype. It's a subset of the caster archetype. Always has been in most media.

While it's probably true that many people looking for warrior build advice are looking for ways to compete with casters it's not true of all of them. Many, in fact, realize before they ask that melee -can't- keep up with casters and simply want help with figuring out how to do some interesting idea they've had for one of the myriad ways of conducting melee combat that exist. That's the crux of it; there are dozens of ways to conduct melee combat, hundreds of ways to alter the battlefield or the combatants in an encounter, and who knows how many ways to handle non-combat encounters. Healing is just spamming cure spells.


To your point about mooks -- again, they are not a danger to you! But they are one heck of a danger when they are tearing up town! Or do you like a side of "helpless commoner" served with your "cajun style crispy barbarian" :smallbiggrin:. You are looking at things as if they were a direct conflict -- not every fight -- and indeed most fights are not liek that. this isnt running the gauntlet, unless you go evil you probably want to avoid collateral damage.

If they're not a danger to me, and I'm not in a town that needs defending from them at the moment, they're nothing at all. Ultimately -any- fight is about taking out the enemy. In the grand scheme it's usually more about taking out the enemy's leadership but it's still a question of can you or can't you bring down the foe you need to bring down. Even if I am in a town that needs defending, I'd be -far- better off finding and eliminating the enemy's commanders than wasting any time on individual mooks, even if it means I have to ignore a few peasants getting gutted to do so.


The sword hanging out of your guts matters only when you hit negatives, but then IT REALLY MATTERS. Healing is what allows you to keep those guts intact and wade through a dozen battles. Otherwise, you're merely wading though 1 or two tops.

You seem to have some odd misunderstanding here. Either you survive combat or you don't. It doesn't matter at all how close to -10 you got as long as you didn't actually get there. Without any healing at all you're not going to go through any more battles on the day that you nearly died. With any magical healing, even such that has a greatly inflated cost, you go through as many battles as you have resources to get through whether it's spell slots, wand charges, or some other expendable resource. Forcing the party to use spell slots actually -reduces- the number of encounters they can have in a single day because you're increasing the cost in daily resources even as you reduce the financial cost.

Personally, I like spell vials of cure light wounds for spot healing. 75gp a pop and you just chuck the thing at the ally that's either about to or just got dropped. Keep 'em in a bandolier and have quickdraw to be able to use one for each attack you'd normally get. That's interesting healing, IMO.

[wayfare]

If you had used that same action to drop the foe instead of healing me, I'd still be alive and no longer in danger. The same is true if you stop him from attacking me in any of a number of other ways as well; force him to move away from me, likely giving me an AoO in the process, take away his ability to act by stunning, dazing, nauseating, paralyzing, etc, force move me away from him, place an obstacle between us, etc. Healing is not unique in the ability to prevent action loss.



That's strategy, not tactics. In any case, the gold cost when derived from a wand of lesser vigor is trivial. Once you're past the point that every combat is a craps shoot (level 4 or 5 or so) it's a huge forward thinking investment that will amount to pocket change in another level or two.

Forcing someone to burn spell slots on it is an artificial inflation of its value by equating it with the ability to actually do something. Healing isn't doing something, it's preventing something from happening.



If you replace the low level cure spells with their mass versions and create a spell or spells that heal CL d6's would go a good ways in the right direction. It's true that the biggest reason healing gets dumped on is because its a terrible return on investment as it stands. However, we can't really talk about some theoretical version of healing that doesn't exist in an meaningful way.



I'm not. The orb spells require a successful touch attack; 1d20, plus mods vs the target's mostly static AC. Virtually -any- actively offensive spell requires at least one roll of a d20 plus mods against a static target number. Healing, not so much. Either the ally that needs it is in range and he gets the healing or he's not and he doesn't.



Healer is -not- a big archetype. It's a subset of the caster archetype. Always has been in most media.

While it's probably true that many people looking for warrior build advice are looking for ways to compete with casters it's not true of all of them. Many, in fact, realize before they ask that melee -can't- keep up with casters and simply want help with figuring out how to do some interesting idea they've had for one of the myriad ways of conducting melee combat that exist. That's the crux of it; there are dozens of ways to conduct melee combat, hundreds of ways to alter the battlefield or the combatants in an encounter, and who knows how many ways to handle non-combat encounters. Healing is just spamming cure spells.



If they're not a danger to me, and I'm not in a town that needs defending from them at the moment, they're nothing at all. Ultimately -any- fight is about taking out the enemy. In the grand scheme it's usually more about taking out the enemy's leadership but it's still a question of can you or can't you bring down the foe you need to bring down. Even if I am in a town that needs defending, I'd be -far- better off finding and eliminating the enemy's commanders than wasting any time on individual mooks, even if it means I have to ignore a few peasants getting gutted to do so.



You seem to have some odd misunderstanding here. Either you survive combat or you don't. It doesn't matter at all how close to -10 you got as long as you didn't actually get there. Without any healing at all you're not going to go through any more battles on the day that you nearly died. With any magical healing, even such that has a greatly inflated cost, you go through as many battles as you have resources to get through whether it's spell slots, wand charges, or some other expendable resource. Forcing the party to use spell slots actually -reduces- the number of encounters they can have in a single day because you're increasing the cost in daily resources even as you reduce the financial cost.

Personally, I like spell vials of cure light wounds for spot healing. 75gp a pop and you just chuck the thing at the ally that's either about to or just got dropped. Keep 'em in a bandolier and have quickdraw to be able to use one for each attack you'd normally get. That's interesting healing, IMO.

I think the issue here is that we are talking past eachother.

I am saying the bolded section is a good thing. Less encounters per day is a good thing. Having to use spell slots is a good thing. I am not claiming that it is more efficient -- simply that you should have to pay for the right to fight 5 encounters per day.

We can point all day at what is the artificial construct here, casting or wands, but lets be honest -- it is all artificial. What matters is what you use in your game.

Caster is a huge archetype, so is fighter for that matter, lots of people take lots of different tracks because of teh sheer amount of options you have in most magic systems. Fact remains that rare is teh mmo that will allow you to get through the game with mitigation alone.

As for downing threats before they KO you, that is not always an option. Against a really big opponent that has resisted your spells (via luck or protection), and is just too tough to go down outside of an ubercharger attack, you need healing to survive the encounter and keep contributing.

I am currently working on some leech-like effects for healing, hopefully up in homebrew today. Also some spells that allow you to transfer things like status ailments.

[eggynack]

But the problem is, your plan is effectively forcing boredom on players. Relegating healing to a wand means more room for fun stuff. If a player actually likes healing for some ungodly reason, more power to them, but you can probably just let them make decisions about how to go about that instead of using bans to force them to take a single route.

[wayfare]

But the problem is, your plan is effectively forcing boredom on players. Relegating healing to a wand means more room for fun stuff. If a player actually likes healing for some ungodly reason, more power to them, but you can probably just let them make decisions about how to go about that instead of using bans to force them to take a single route.

Can we stop talking about boredom? Thats really subjective.

I consider baseball the height of boredom. Vast numbers of people disagree with me.

[eggynack]

Can we stop talking about boredom? Thats really subjective.

I consider baseball the height of boredom. Vast numbers of people disagree with me.
My argument for it being boring is a pretty reasonable one. Moreover, it's a position that many agree with. If you want to be a healer, be a healer, and if you don't want to use wands, don't use wands. The same applies to any player with the same opinions as you. You don't have to ban wands just because you like something that many other people don't like.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think the issue here is that we are talking past eachother.

I am saying the bolded section is a good thing. Less encounters per day is a good thing. Having to use spell slots is a good thing. I am not claiming that it is more efficient -- simply that you should have to pay for the right to fight 5 encounters per day.

And the healer has to pay for both their share of the daily resources and a significant part of the rest of the party's? Why? It should cost a -lot- of gold? again, why?

The rate at which the party's arcanist, assuming they have one, burns through his spell slots is completely unchanged. Making the healer go through his at something akin to double or even triple that rate is leaving what's probably the most powerful member of the party with most, or at least half, of his daily resources in tact each day and creating even further discrepancy between the arcanist and the rest of the party. You're just making the god wizard more god-like.

It just seems like a really arbitrary limitation that doesn't serve any purpose except to stroke your ego on how healing -should- work.

[Nettlekid]

Can we stop talking about boredom? Thats really subjective.

I consider baseball the height of boredom. Vast numbers of people disagree with me.

But you're talking about interest, which is on the same scale and is exactly as subjective as boredom. You're saying that healing is super interesting and fun and players should want to be healers and therefore shouldn't be allowed to use wands for healing. But not everyone will agree with you. Not everyone online, nor everyone in your playing group.

To go back to the issue of wands, if your PCs are buying wands which outdo and invalidate the abilities of members that are currently in your party (not party roles that COULD be, but PCs that players are actually playing right now) then that is a bad thing. If they buy wands of Knock, Invisibility, and Silence and let the Wizard go anywhere the Rogue wants to go, that's bad. If they buy wands of Lesser Restoration and Cure Light Wounds and say "No Cleric, you stay at home in case we need you later," that's bad. But if the party is a Wizard, Ranger, Barbarian, and Dread Necromancer, then why shouldn't they be buying wands that allow them to solve the same challenges that a more-well-rounded party would face, instead of either dumbing down your missions or penalizing them for not playing "proper roles"?

[eggynack]

I think one of the biggest problems with healing is cure X wounds. Cure X wounds should never be the default healing option, because that spell is frigging boring. What if the default first level option were heal 1d8+CL in a 30 foot spread, hitting allies and enemies alike? Then there would be placement and enemy hitting issues akin to fireball, except here the goal would be a bunched up party away from the enemies, instead of bunched up enemies away from the party. What if there were some sort of healing anti-BFC, where the terrain simultaneously heals anyone in its boundaries and makes travel easier, perhaps by increasing movement speed. Weird healing options exist now, but they tend to be less potent than the vanilla versions, and there aren't many of them. I suspect that it isn't healing that is boring, but rather this healing.

[wayfare]

I think one of the biggest problems with healing is cure X wounds. Cure X wounds should never be the default healing option, because that spell is frigging boring. What if the default first level option were heal 1d8+CL in a 30 foot spread, hitting allies and enemies alike? Then there would be placement and enemy hitting issues akin to fireball, except here the goal would be a bunched up party away from the enemies, instead of bunched up enemies away from the party. What if there were some sort of healing anti-BFC, where the terrain simultaneously heals anyone in its boundaries and makes travel easier, perhaps by increasing movement speed. Weird healing options exist now, but they tend to be less potent than the vanilla versions, and there aren't many of them. I suspect that it isn't healing that is boring, but rather this healing.

We can agree wholeheartedly on that!

Celebratory mimosas for eveyone!

http://www.inspiredtaste.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Mimosa-Cocktail-Recipe-1.jpg

[eggynack]

Huzzah then. I think there's probably some unexplored design space for healing with upside, or healing with placement issues, or even perhaps healing with wacky downside. Healing solid fog, perhaps? I still don't necessarily think wands should be banned in such a world though, because presumably the designs would be interesting enough to incentivize people to use the spell, even with alternatives available. This would be in combat healing, and a wand of lesser vigor would be out of combat healing, and never the twain shall meet.

[ericgrau]

Skimmed this thread so let me so what I can add.

Wands aren't better than spells as the limiting factor tends to be actions not the number of uses. Staffs OTOH are amazing but they're out of a level 10 character's price range. Buffing isn't that strong either. But your issue seems to be that these things are so common, and for that their weakness may be another drawback in making them that much more ordinary. As long as you supply some kind of easy between combat healing such as, heal checks, at will class features or other items besides wands then you don't really need wands to play D&D. Wands aren't that essential for anything else. If you stop buffing as often it won't change the system much because the buffs are minor and not always expected.

If you want to make wands into weapons I think 1d6 base damage with quadruple damage from magical enchantments would work. Ranged touch attack as a standard action. Makes them a bit behind archers so you won't steal their thunder. Also around the same damage as most spells. So a +1 wand deals 1d6+4 damage and costs 2,000 gp. A +1 frost wand deals 1d6+4+4d6 cold and costs 8,000 gp. Etc.

As for new healing mechanics, I think homebrewing individual items, spells, etc. is awesome. But homebrewing a system's basic mechanics is a bit dangerous without a year of playtesting. I wouldn't risk it. I'd adapt existing stuff. I have had fun as a healer with spells like shield other and close wounds. Something for preventing and redistributing damage might be neat. Ditto for free/swift/immediate actions of similar effectiveness to spells. For an example amount of damage prevention, see false life. Whether you introduce players to these spells or introduce class features that use similar numbers at similar levels, it could be interesting.

[wayfare]

Skimmed this thread so let me so what I can add.

Wands aren't better than spells as the limiting factor tends to be actions not the number of uses. Staffs OTOH are amazing but they're out of a level 10 character's price range. Buffing isn't that strong either. But your issue seems to be that these things are so common, and for that their weakness may be another drawback in making them that much more ordinary. As long as you supply some kind of easy between combat healing such as, heal checks, at will class features or other items besides wands then you don't really need wands to play D&D. Wands aren't that essential for anything else. If you stop buffing as often it won't change the system much because the buffs are minor and not always expected.

If you want to make wands into weapons I think 1d6 base damage with quadruple damage from magical enchantments would work. Ranged touch attack as a standard action. Makes them a bit behind archers so you won't steal their thunder. Also around the same damage as most spells. So a +1 wand deals 1d6+4 damage and costs 2,000 gp. A +1 frost wand deals 1d6+4+4d6 cold and costs 8,000 gp. Etc.

As for new healing mechanics, I think homebrewing individual items, spells, etc. is awesome. But homebrewing a system's basic mechanics is a bit dangerous without a year of playtesting. I wouldn't risk it. I'd adapt existing stuff. I have had fun as a healer with spells like shield other and close wounds. Something for preventing and redistributing damage might be neat. Ditto for free/swift/immediate actions of similar effectiveness to spells. For an example amount of damage prevention, see false life. Whether you introduce players to these spells or introduce class features that use similar numbers at similar levels, it could be interesting.

Current archery is so bad that i wonder if this wouldnt outclass it instantly. Plus, cant you put multiple elemental enhancements on a weapon? Wouldnt that lead to 1d6 + 16d6 damage?

[ericgrau]

Sure but it would cost 50,000 gp. You might not get one until 13th or 14th level at which point everyone and everything including the archer is doing more damage.

Archery works by spamming many arrows. It suffers before magic weapons become affordable so it's hard until level 8 or so. But wands based on magic weapons would face the same issues. Even before magic weapons you can pull off about 1d8+5 strength + 2 weapon specialization, boots of speed, rapid shot and enough attack bonuses that almost all 4 arrows hit. And you always full attack and can get various metal types to bypass DPR. Which is about 40 damage per round, roughly equal to 12d6. Maybe 10d6 for the miss now and then. Add on a +1 frost bow and you effectively get about 4-5d6 more. Meanwhile the +1 frost wand effectively deals about 6d6 (well, 5d6+4) total because you only get 1 attack. I was afraid of under-doing it, really. But I didn't want to outclass damage spells either. More like a backup weapon.

[wayfare]

Sure but it would cost 50,000 gp. You might not get one until 13th or 14th level at which point everyone and everything including the archer is doing more damage.

Archery works by spamming many arrows. It suffers before magic weapons become affordable so it's hard until level 8 or so. But wands based on magic weapons would face the same issues. Even before magic weapons you can pull off about 1d8+5 strength + 2 weapon specialization, boots of speed, rapid shot and enough attack bonuses that almost all 4 arrows hit. And you always full attack and can get various metal types to bypass DPR. Which is about 40 damage per round, roughly equal to 12d6. Maybe 10d6 for the miss now and then. Add on a +1 frost bow and you effectively get about 4-5d6 more. Meanwhile the +1 frost wand effectively deals about 6d6 (well, 5d6+4) total because you only get 1 attack. I was afraid of under-doing it, really. But I didn't want to outclass damage spells either. More like a backup weapon.

All in with feats, around what level are you getting those options for archery, though?

Unrelated: how do you feel about free dext to damage with ranged?

[purpenflurb]

Weighing in a bit on the "make healing interesting", as someone who actually quite enjoys the healer archetype in a lot of games, what makes healing so uninteresting is that the only options are the "cure" line and "heal". There is not even a choice. What would make healing interesting is A: making more diversity of healing spells, with more interesting effects. Area heals, multi round heals (vigor doesn't really count), and make it so they don't have a range of touch. Secondly buffing should be part of the archetype. If you had a real choice of healing or preventing damage, whether you want to heal one person or the entire group, etc., then healing might be an interesting archetype.

This doesn't in my mind change the fact that out of combat healing is a good thing. Nobody likes to waste spell slots on being band-aids between combats, that just isn't interesting in any way. If you want to remove wants, find some other way to allow out of combat healing to happen without expending a resource as limited as spell slots.

[ericgrau]

All in with feats, around what level are you getting those options for archery, though?
You get rapid shot as your 2nd feat though you need precise shot as your 3rd feat to hit reliably. That means human fighter 1 at minimum. You get a composite bow and weapon specialization at level 4. And your second iterative attack doesn't come until 6. If you don't have haste from the party caster you get boots of speed above all else, even dex. So level 6 if allowed but most DMs won't let you blow that much on one item until 9 or so. You're still dealing around 25-30 damage a round whether others are getting single attacks or full attacks. Which is ok at mid level. This doesn't count tricks like special arrow types to bypass DR and a variety of bane arrows later on. And ranged weapon mastery and improved rapid shot can bump that to 40+ damage a round. Once you get more damage later from gear those feats make sure even your -10 attack has an ok chance of hitting so you reliably hit with almost all your attacks. Likewise you pick up improved precise shot to still hit, even then.


Unrelated: how do you feel about free dext to damage with ranged?

I think the tactical advantages of archery balance out the lower damage in core. And there's practically no limit to high optimization melee damage output so you can't really balance against it. I can't give a fixed answer on giving more damage to range. It all depends how much you want the melee to optimize. I played a game once where I accidentally overestimated the group's optimization and overshadowed everyone in damage with an archer. Ranged weapon mastery + improved rapid shot are what did it. Without them I think I would have had good damage, but only par.

Back to topic the feat and level investment an archer puts in is why obviously I would want a wand-weapon to do less damage. And even less damage than spells too. It's a backup option like reserve feats. So the caster probably wouldn't even spend that much on it and he'd only do about 20 damage a round when others are doing 80. But it's better than casting 1st level spells or shooting a crossbow. Even if he invested heavily in it it would still be weaker than spells or archers, so that wouldn't be a good idea. Unless you frequently get into very very long fights and blow your spells on tactical things to open the fight like battlefield control and mass buffs. Hmm, that could be interesting.

[Fitz10019]

Thread TL/DR
I think you've invented a 'rod of poking' and there's no need to hijack the word 'wand.' Introduce your new thing, and tell the party they shouldn't expect to find, to purchase or to craft wands. Don't newspeak your group.

[Rubik]

If you're replacing wands with X/day items of Cure Light Wounds, expect your players to stock up on new ones every level to keep up with increasing hp totals just like they would with wands of Cure Light Wounds, use them just like wands of Cure Light Wounds, and for them to function in any and all ways exactly like wands of Cure Light Wounds, except they'll have to buy even more of them to keep everybody in the group alive. But obviously they're better than wands of Cure Light Wounds, even though they're basically wands of Cure Light Wounds.