Wow this one is going to be long. If you quoted me I tried to respond. If I miss anyone let me know. Oh, Tony, I'm quoting both of your posts in this one - as opposed to one in two.
As Wiseblood keeps saying, but I'll put another way. As Wiseblood DOES say, they are not a good example - they are a Strawman.
A. CLW wands were not free. They weren't expensive by higher levels but they weren't FREE.
B. CLW wands didn't heal 1/4 HP. They healed 1d8+1 (iirc). If you are higher level, they still heal 1d8+1.
C. Not everyone can use CLW wands - clerics certainly can, but UMD users required a roll which they may fail.
D. CLW wands are AT BEST an out of combat solution only.
E. You still had to buy and ensure you had the wand available, not just simply "feel better".
F. Removing CLW (or increasing the price) fixes the problem. No more CLW wands and the "free healing" arugment against 3e goes away. As others have pointed out, you can't remove HS and Second Wind so easily.
G. Also, this is clearly a strawman example. Yes CLW wands can be done, but it isn't the norm, it is the exception. Power-gamers or those looking to exploit the system can grab the wand but the average group doesn't or at least doesn't acquire them in the quantities which seems to be necessary for the myth to arise around these boards.
H. I can easily remove clerics (or normal, traditional healers) from a group and replace them with other things. It is certainly not the issue that is thought to be fixed exclusively by 4e. Yes having a cleric helps but no group I have played with has ever felt FORCED to play the cleric.
This is just a placeholder for your comments below..
It's a problem with hit points and damage more than healing surges, then. If you're at 1 hit point, you're still fighting at full strength.
Indeed. This is an issue with any edition. However the narrative control needed to balance out HS with HP goes up. In 3e if you hit 0HP you were dying. In 4e if you hit 0HP you are dying... but you pop a HS and you are able to go back into the fray. You do so without any assistance, you do it just because you want to and can. By definition there is no explicit reason needed to be able to do this. The rules tell you to do it and then you do. It is a major flaw (IMHO) that 4e requires you to fill in the gaps. Instead of instituting that you do hear the voice of your mentor and get up, you get up because you hear the voice of your mentor. This is the critical distinction that I was talking about that you missed.
Taking the epicness out of healing surges is as simple as reducing how many you have and how quickly you recover them. Pretty easily fine-tuned. There could be a Fuzion-style 'dial' for it.
I am not familiar enough with the 4e mechanics to be able to cover this specifically but it seems that if I want no HS in my game that that isn't really an option. Yes I can tweak how they happen, or stop the party from resting or reduce the number of HS they get then that is fine. But if I want to abolish the concept entirely I cannot. There are far too many mechanics that rely on them. The "Balance", which 4e seems to prize so heavily, only exists when all aspects are working in harmony. Removing HS means the expectations of the encounter change drastically.
It also does nothing to solve my original comment - which you had quoted here - that if you don't want epic and heroic characters right out of the box that you can't do it. It is an assumption of 4e that exists in its very being. It is like if you played 3e and wanted to remove skills. Not going to happen easily or organically.
Yes, it takes more taps with a CLW wand to heal a scratch on a 17th level character than on a 7th level one. Wonderfully un-realistic, that. But the cost of a charge of CLW charge is utterly trivial to the 17th level character, he can afford to have a bag of holding filled to bursting with them. The only possible inconvenience is how long the guy activating the wand has to sit there repeating the command word at six-second intervals.
You discussed A and B here... CLW not being free and CLW not healing 1/4 okay.
Now, even if you exclude all my other points when talking about the 17th level characters, you still don't address my comments. As I also said, they are inexpensive (for a 17th level) but they aren't FREE. They are an extra precaution that you have to account for. They are money and time you have to invest. They are AT LEAST an extra cost that can't be spent on another weapon or what have you. If you are carrying around a big bang (of holding?) bursting with them then that is 750gp per wand that you aren't spending on something else. Tell any character that you don't want them to have an extra 3750 (for 5) or 7500 (for 10) wands. See what happens.
And I'm glad you brought up that other comment (I bolded it). I hadn't thought of that, but that is certainly another freebie you get with 4e. Not having to spend the time at 6 second intervals to get back up to full. 1/4 HP in 6 seconds or 1d8+1 in 6 seconds, and you have to pay for the 1d8.
No one fails a 3.x skill check unless they don't want to succeed at it. They're just too easy to optimize. And, at higher levels
(You replied to C). Did I say they failed? I said they MAY fail. If you have a party cleric and a CLW you don't have to roll, but if you have anyone else then there is at least a chance of failure. Most characters who don't have CLW in their spell list can't use the wand at all. If you need the party rogue to sit between fights and heal the group there is a chance of failure. Either way this is a cost that is afforded in 3e that doesn't exist in 4e.
Absolutely. Much like the surges spent at the end of a short rest. Only surges aren't a trivial resource at any level, of course.
I cut myself being quoted, hope that's alright. You did quote D.
Neither are CLW. The healing received is trivial, but the cost never goes away. See A and B.
You can resolve the 'problem' with HS and
Second Wind even more easily: by not being a jerk.
First, by not being a jerk?? I don't even know what you mean or what you are referring to.
Now, E which was not addressed, you didn't even attempt to discuss how you still needed CLW and if you are 17th level and using a whole wand to heal yourself between fights well you are going to run out as surely as you are going to run out of HS.
As far as F, which was also not addressed, increasing the price (say doubling it for example) or removing the availability, access or existence of CLW wands in the game also removes the entire argument being used against 3e. It is a solution that can be done without the same problems as HS in 4e. Removing CLW in 3e doesn't change the expectations of encounters, enemies aren't assumed to have the CLW wands either. I don't see how this is comparable to HS at all.
Common practice in the groups around here by 3.5, common enough that they're mentioned in guidelines at conventions. And, yes, the Pathfinder guidelines say "/do/ have a Wand of CLW."
(G)
And as we all know, RPG forums are the best indicators of all RPG players - right?
I also wouldn't know about conventions but maybe that has to do with WotC's mindset (or whomever is running the event) as opposed to the rules, assumptions and application of the game itself.
As for the part in bold - what Pathfinder guidelines? Do you mean the conversion document or do you mean that Pathfinder also has CLW wands?
The 'last player is stuck with the cleric' thing was classic. Stereotypes like that don't arise because no one ever does it. It was a D&D/early-AD&D thing though. 2e reduced it by making some speciality clerics more interesting and overpowered. 3e solved it by making the Cleric wildly overpowered. 4e solved it with alternate leaders that were the Clerics equal in that role, and balanced with other classes.
<snipped rest of post>
I didn't say the stereotype didn't exist. But that ties more into G.
I did say that no one in our group ever felt they got stuck with the role. Many would play it because they wanted to play that character or looking for a certain set of powers. I suppose some may have played the class for the "overpower" you talk about but that would have again been the exception as opposed the rule.
However that isn't the point. The point is that if someone didn't want to play a cleric we never forced them. In our games everyone was able to play the character they want. A group without a cleric would rely on other methods of healing, that is what I said.
That's a reasonable interpretation. The implementation of healing surges is modestly complex, you could like the idea, but have quibbles and vote that way. If you dislike it, your only option in the poll is to dislike.
It's actually a bias in the poll that will under-report those who approve, since any quibble may get them to go for the more 'moderate' positive response.
What is clear is 44% "dislike" that is a large minority, but it's also not very informative, because there are many possible reasons for and degrees of dislike.
That's just cooking the numbers. A trick like that could get a data analyst fired.
First paragraph, you Could like the idea and have quibbles. But you could also dislike the idea and have quibbles. That is what makes this group neutral and invaluable as far as measuring how much an idea is liked.
Second paragraph, it does equally well at under-reporting those who dislike it. It is a neutral, grey and ambiguous response and should be treated as such. It should not be used as a vote in the like column anymore than it should be recorded in the dislike column. OR as, in response the original post that I quoted, it should not be counted as vote against dislike. I tried to say that if the survey had only 2 options (or a 3rd being "don't care") then we would get a much clearer idea of who likes and who dislikes.
Third paragraph, I agree that the poll as is is not very informative.
Fourth paragraph, Good thing I'm not a data analyst then, also I highly doubt they would get fired as I was illustrating a point only, not trying to provide data. I wasn't saying 60% say one thing and 40% another and excluding all other options. I was comparing the percentages - which I had provided first.
3: You are flat wrong here. First in 3.X, being reduced to 0 hit points is literally 10hp away from death. Unless you're a real killer DM this is a nasty margin. In 4e being reduced to 0hp is still your bloodied value from death. So there's no real reason to not pull your blows against someone still standing. Second in 3.X 0hp is someone just about out of the fight - they don't even have dice to roll. The 4e healing means they can come back in the same fight - thus not disengaging the player (this goes doubly when there are powers that only trigger when someone hits 0hp). And thirdly they can come back much better after the fight unless you've completely gone the sensible wand of CLW (or Wand of Lesser Vigour) method - which makes HP attrition not matter at all.
The argument isn't about which edition tries to get you to 0 faster, or even about what happens when you get there. It is about the fact that in 3e death is achievable barring magic. It is about 4e's expectations that it takes getting with by an army on steamrollers in order to kill you.
HS are an example of this, as they are a method for anyone and everyone to heal up without help of a cleric, or leader, or magic, or "healing".
Dislike. Despise. Loathe.
And everyone knows CLW wands are a terrible investment. Wands of Lesser Vigor is the way to go. (1d8+1 (max 9) vs Fast Healing 1 for 11 rounds(always 11))
ALmost every 3.5 party I've been in has 1. *1*, not a backpack full. Just 1.
It's used for emergencies, or when the cleric needs to save some specific spells. It is, however, a limited resource, and as such is used sparingly.
In one of the two current campaigns, the cleric has a wand of lesser vigor that he got at level 3, we are currently at level 8 and there are 32 charges left. So it's been used 18 times in 5 levels. (maximum healing 157hps, or 31hps per level, or 7.5 pts per character)
I would rather have this every day of my life than worry about another resource like healing surges, or even things like second wind.
This.
What is more, if Janaxstrus's party has only used half of one in 5 levels then I think that is about right. No one is saying CLW wands aren't readily available. What I am saying is that CLW wands aren't the issue.
This is a critical issue for me and why I don't want to see very many of 4E's default assumptions as the core mechanics of 5E. I hope 5E's core mechanics will enable all playstyles by starting from a base to which you add the mechanical modules to fit your playstyle. I hope its not a game where the core mechanics are refluffed 4E that you have to house rule stuff out of to get to your playstyle if 4E assumptions aren't your cup of tea.
Me too. And if it is then I'm not going to invest. I have higher hopes that this isn't true but if it is then I won't buy.
Don't we have enough "excluded middle" around here from bad logic, accidents of quick thoughts thrown out for discussion, and other such issues? Are we so short of "excluded middle" that we need to do it with statistics, too? There is a reason why when pollsters throw out parts of results, they look for "outliers" ...
Not excluding the middle. I embrace the middle. I'm reading, commenting and listening because the middle is what keeps this thread going.
What I said is that we need to exclude the middle from issues of X side is losing arguments. I highlighted that the dislikes weren't losing just because they were less than 50%. The neutral group cannot be counted in the Like numbers when looking for a "winner" because for many if it was a matter of taking the HS as they are wholesale or leaving them wholesale then the answer certainly changes from one of "it is okay but..".
