Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 3713087" data-attributes="member: 18549">Interestingly, I've never really noticed any of these becoming real problems in my games.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; But that's life.&nbsp; You can go with the sure thing--the cleric--or you can take your (pretty good) chances with the guy with the wand.&nbsp; Also, potions do not require UMD.&nbsp; As I've also pointed out, neither does a guy with the spell on his class list.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; But it's also the case that in general, you can't make an argument against a strategy based on the RAW that goes, &quot;in my game, we house rule it this way, so your strategy doesn't work.&quot;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; If you change those assumptions, obviously you're changing the playing field and so the strategy is going to have to change.&nbsp; But that's something that is particular to a given campaign and can't be generalized to the majority of D&amp;D games.&nbsp; There have been threads about exactly this over in the Rules forum.&nbsp; &quot;Hmm.&nbsp; Maybe next time we should buy more than a day's worth of potions.&quot;&quot;Good idea!&quot;&quot;Maybe we could even buy a wand.&quot;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.&nbsp; Or are you saying that the rogue sucks in combat?&nbsp; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lonely Tylenol, post: 3713087, member: 18549"] 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. "Hmm. Maybe next time we should buy more than a day's worth of potions." "Good idea!" "Maybe we could even buy a wand." 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification