D&D 4E 4E tidbits from WotC blogs (Updated:David Noonan on Social Interactions)

[Grog]

Well, call me crazy, but I think that by the time you're taking that kind of damage, you might have decided to trade in your old CLW wand for one that heals more damage in one pop.

There are several problems with this. First, not all campaigns have Magic Marts where you can just "trade in" your old wand for a better model. Second, this assumes that the party can resupply whenever they want to - which isn't always the case. Extended dungeon and/or wilderness treks are common staples in D&D. Third, if the character using the wand fails the UMD check (which can easily happen at low levels, or even mid-high levels if it's a cross-class skill for the one using it), that means no healing at all that round, and if it happens just a couple of times, it probably means a dead front-line warrior pretty quickly. Fourth, the second an intelligent enemy decides to sunder that wand (which is trivially easy at all but the lowest levels), you're really screwed.

Other wands, potions, scrolls, staves, and wondrous items. I really thought this was sort of elementary. I see it happen all the time in games. You carry an inexpensive wand for your between-encounter heals, a better wand for emergency healing during combat, some scrolls of restoration, a couple scrolls of a higher-level healing spell for serious emergencies, and distribute some potions. All this comes out of a pool that the party contributes to because they don't like to die. If you've got a paladin, dragon shaman, or anyone else with some class-based healing ability, it's icing on the cake.

Are you actually completely unfamiliar with this sort of strategy, or are you just trying to be contrary?

No, I understand the strategy just fine, thanks. It's just not a particularly effective substitute for having a primary healer in your party. Not only is it less effective from a pure numbers standpoint, it also offers much less flexibility (if you're fighting a lot of monsters which inflict disease, for example, a party with a cleric can keep going, while your party will have to make a long trek back to town to buy more potions after the first day - assuming they even can).

And also, while the rogue in your party is just fine outside of combat, in combat he's basically just a poor man's cleric - which doesn't sound like a particularly fun role to play.

 

[Agamon]

Actually, the word "genius" long predates AD&D. But, you know, thanks for comin' out 'n all.

But "genius level intelligence" is what I was referring to. Can't say I've heard that term outside AD&D.

 

[Glyfair]

Lot's of stuff added from Rodney Thompson's blog.

Sounds like they are going with the 1 spell level per character level that was discussed for 3E (he states that wizards will be able to cast 25th level spells).

 

[Glyfair]

I didn't add this because it's minor, but Jennifer Wilkes posted this:

I do spend quite a bit of time with an ENWorld contributor and (I presume) spouse who are pretty excited about 4E, but who have concerns and good suggestions about fee structures and the division between free and subscription content. I feel the same way in most regards, and I've been hearing similar comments over the weekend. I'll be pushing for this when I get back to the office, even if I am a lowly goblin.

and in a "it makes me ashamed to be a gamer" moment:

My very last customer interaction before I left the booth ended up spoiling my mood for a while. I understand frustration, even anger, about the new edition--but in the end, it is still just a game. Being told to "Die die die" hurts. We aren't robots here in the booth (Gleemax notwithstanding) but real people with feelings.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

There are several problems with this. First, not all campaigns have Magic Marts where you can just "trade in" your old wand for a better model. Second, this assumes that the party can resupply whenever they want to - which isn't always the case. Extended dungeon and/or wilderness treks are common staples in D&D. Third, if the character using the wand fails the UMD check (which can easily happen at low levels, or even mid-high levels if it's a cross-class skill for the one using it), that means no healing at all that round, and if it happens just a couple of times, it probably means a dead front-line warrior pretty quickly. Fourth, the second an intelligent enemy decides to sunder that wand (which is trivially easy at all but the lowest levels), you're really screwed.

Interestingly, I've never really noticed any of these becoming real problems in my games. Every once in a while someone fails a UMD check, something which tends to stop happening right around the same time that the spellcasters stop failing their Concentration checks. But that's life. You can go with the sure thing--the cleric--or you can take your (pretty good) chances with the guy with the wand. Also, potions do not require UMD. As I've also pointed out, neither does a guy with the spell on his class list. A paladin can use plenty of wands just fine.

And I do agree that if your DM decrees that wands of curing are not available, this strategy has less to speak for it. But it's also the case that in general, you can't make an argument against a strategy based on the RAW that goes, "in my game, we house rule it this way, so your strategy doesn't work." There are standard assumptions about the availability of magic items and character wealth by level, and if you follow those, the strategy works just fine. If you change those assumptions, obviously you're changing the playing field and so the strategy is going to have to change. But that's something that is particular to a given campaign and can't be generalized to the majority of D&D games. There have been threads about exactly this over in the Rules forum.

No, I understand the strategy just fine, thanks. It's just not a particularly effective substitute for having a primary healer in your party. Not only is it less effective from a pure numbers standpoint, it also offers much less flexibility (if you're fighting a lot of monsters which inflict disease, for example, a party with a cleric can keep going, while your party will have to make a long trek back to town to buy more potions after the first day - assuming they even can).

"Hmm. Maybe next time we should buy more than a day's worth of potions."
"Good idea!"
"Maybe we could even buy a wand."

And also, while the rogue in your party is just fine outside of combat, in combat he's basically just a poor man's cleric - which doesn't sound like a particularly fun role to play.

I'm not sure how carrying a wand of curing prevents the rogue from doing whatever he would be doing if he were not carrying it. Or are you saying that the rogue sucks in combat? He certainly isn't going to have to lay out healing every round (clerics don't), so he could do some sneak attacking, set up some flanks, or maybe put his UMD to good use and whip out that wand of Haste that he found last session.

 

[Andor]

Lot's of stuff added from Rodney Thompson's blog.

Sounds like they are going with the 1 spell level per character level that was discussed for 3E (he states that wizards will be able to cast 25th level spells).

And you thought it took a while to pick out spells now! I wonder what level wish is?

 

[Grog]

And I do agree that if your DM decrees that wands of curing are not available, this strategy has less to speak for it. But it's also the case that in general, you can't make an argument against a strategy based on the RAW that goes, "in my game, we house rule it this way, so your strategy doesn't work." There are standard assumptions about the availability of magic items and character wealth by level, and if you follow those, the strategy works just fine. If you change those assumptions, obviously you're changing the playing field and so the strategy is going to have to change. But that's something that is particular to a given campaign and can't be generalized to the majority of D&D games. There have been threads about exactly this over in the Rules forum.

Neither does the RAW provide for a magical Wal-Mart that the PCs can visit whenever they want to. If they're on an extended wilderness trek (which, again, is a fairly standard staple of many D&D adventures), or even just away from a town with a big GP limit, they're going to have major problems.

The RAW provides for wealth and magic item guidelines by level. Nowhere does it say that these items have to be healing items.

And like I said, if the BBEG decides to sunder their wand, they're screwed. A wand in the hands of a rogue is probably going to have an AC somewhere in the 16-20 range. One hit, and your 20k GP wand of CCW is kindling.

Hell, it doesn't even have to be the BBEG. The party could be fighting a group of ogres, the lead ogre tells one of his soldiers "Go break their healing stick," and bam, no more healing.

There are lots of reasons why wands aren't a substitute for having a primary healer in the party. (And also, the cleric doesn't have to make a Concentration check every time he casts a spell, but the rogue does have to make a UMD check every time he uses a wand).

"Hmm. Maybe next time we should buy more than a day's worth of potions."
"Good idea!"
"Maybe we could even buy a wand."

You realize that you're talking about sinking a sizable chunk of the party's wealth into healing items, right? Buying a wand for every occasion is going to get really pricey really fast - and that's always assuming that you're in a place where you can do so.

I'm not sure how carrying a wand of curing prevents the rogue from doing whatever he would be doing if he were not carrying it. Or are you saying that the rogue sucks in combat? He certainly isn't going to have to lay out healing every round (clerics don't), so he could do some sneak attacking, set up some flanks, or maybe put his UMD to good use and whip out that wand of Haste that he found last session.

No, I'm saying that with no primary healer in the party, exchanges like this are going to become commonplace:

Rogue: Okay, I'm going to tumble around the giant and try to get in a sneak attack.
Fighter: Like hell you're going for a sneak attack. I'm at half hit points already. Get that wand out and get over here or I'm going down.

 

[Victim]

If the party lacks effective means of in combat healing, then they need to adjust somehow. Use more defensive buffs, do battlefield control spells to manage the number of enemies, or simply more offense - depending on what class they have instead of a cleric. I've had groups work fine with no dedicated healer. Sure, you do need healing items for between combats and a few 'in case of emergency' potions, but altering tactics to fit the different group make-up can be effective.

 

[Glyfair]

It's interesting that there are only two blank blogs and one of them is Rob Heinsoo's. I definitely want to read his comments.

 

[SSquirrel]

That is ... not so cool. A major mistake, IMO. Another sign, I think, that they're targeting the younger crowd, and not the older VW-driving, Mac/Linux-using folks. Too bad, too.

Yeah cuz we all know that targeting 95% of the computing world is a bad idea They haven't said they won't have it eventually working on all systems, but in the beginning, they are supporting the most widespread platform. As easy as dual-booting current Macs and Linux OSes are, it's not that huge a deal I don't think.