Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 5898462" data-attributes="member: 95493">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.This is just a placeholder for your comments below..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. 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.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.(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. 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.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.(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?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.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.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".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.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.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..".</blockquote>

Verification