D&D 5E How has 5e solved the Wand of CLW problem?

[CapnZapp]

The primary objective of most characters is to live. You cannot be captured by an enemy that would be incapable of defeating you in a fight-to-the-death, unless you choose to be.

Exceptions to this may exist, but are highly circumstantial.

In D&D your objective is to win.

Except for low level play, death really is the most trivial of speed bumps, just like what was said.

My players are much more frightened of losing than dying.

 

[CapnZapp]

The PCs are mostly going into combat while at less than full HP. That's kind of the point of the attrition model.

I wouldn't say that the fights are un-interesting, though. The players know that resting may be limited, and that goblins are dangerous over the course of multiple encounters. If they lose half of their HP during the first encounter, then that's them losing. They may have to cut the day short, because that rate is clearly unsustainable. Or maybe they'll do really well in the next encounter, and make it through untouched, so they can still win the day.

Not every battle has to risk death in order for it to be interesting, but every battle should matter.

But how do you accomplish this in any modern edition of D&D?

 

[CapnZapp]

One possible aspect of it. Spell resources are really the main point of the attrition model. As long as you have plenty of healing spells, you don't need to worry about hps - even if it may not be worth it to use them to heal up to full. Hps matter mainly in each combat - they keep you alive. Taking hp damage is an issue because it forces you to use up spells, which are what really matters.

3.5 made that much /more/ true than other editions with the WoCLW by making between-combat healing a trivially cheap resource. Even in 4e & 5e, when you can heal between combats for 'free,' the resources you use to do so are actually limited.

Actually I prefer it if all characters can be the one running out of steam, not just spellcasters.

In 3e, you often pressed on until the party wizard or sorcerer said "okay, that's it, I'm out of high level slots".

This made fighters (and even clerics) second rate heroes.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I don't think that there was anything inherently wrong with 3E approach to wands in theory, they just missed the xp cost to create and gp cost to buy by several orders of magnitude. Maybe each charge should have been 25xp or 750 gp to buy. So, yes, if you are lucky you might find a cure of light wounds at 1st level in a treasure chest, but at that level it is only going to have one charge in it so use it wisely.

 

[Aribar]

But how do you accomplish this in any modern edition of D&D?

What 4E did, and 5E attempts to do, is not give you all your HP at once. the exact math escapes me first thing in the morning, but the typical 4E character had about three times as much HP in healing surges as they actually had. (Monsters also weren't as rocket-taggy and, maybe this is just a personal anecdote, had super high "offense CR" compared to "defensive CR") This allows them to wear down that resources instead of having a gigantic pool of HP. Outside of a few rare exceptions, all healing forced someone to use a healing surge. Got a million wands of CLW? Meh, you can still only benefit from so much magic to hold you together. If a party's going through a dungeon and each character only has like 0-2 surges left, they could all still be close to full HP (so still capable of performing in combat), but have very little ability to bounce back/persevere/recover from damage and would like to take a break or return to civilization.

 

[delericho]

Actually I prefer it if all characters can be the one running out of steam, not just spellcasters.

In 3e, you often pressed on until the party wizard or sorcerer said "okay, that's it, I'm out of high level slots".

Agreed. Though for us it was the Wizard and Cleric, and sometimes Druid. Nobody ever played a Sorcerer except in one-shots.

I don't think that there was anything inherently wrong with 3E approach to wands in theory...

The problem was that their assumptions about how the game would be played didn't match the reality of how the game would be played. They very cleverly and very carefully built the wrong thing.

they just missed the xp cost to create and gp cost to buy by several orders of magnitude.

It's not even as simple as that, because not all wands (scrolls, potions) are created equal. I think they were most concerned with things like a wand of fireballs, and so they put in the "caster level" as a key component of the cost formula, which was fine. But, in fact, it is actually the "utility" spells that cause the problems with these items, because by and large the caster level isn't a huge balancing factor here - you get virtually all of the effect simply by casting the spell.

And so we have casters buying or crafting large numbers of 'utility' scrolls/wands and then using those to bypass the limits of Vancian casting entirely - and keeping their own spell slots for those spells that do vary significantly based on caster level.

(In the specific case of cure X wounds a very simple fix would have been to rule that you can only benefit from the spells once per hour. That way, cure light wounds does indeed only cure light wounds, and for something more serious you needed a bigger spell. Though that then opens a question: "what happens if the character is then hit with dispel magic?")

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In D&D your objective is to win.

Except for low level play, death really is the most trivial of speed bumps, just like what was said.

My players are much more frightened of losing than dying.

Most D&D is low-level. I usually end my games before they get to level 9, because a world where people can return from the dead can easily get out-of-control silly. Other games may continue to higher levels, after spending time at lower levels, but most D&D is still low-level.

If everyone dies, you lose your objective. Under most circumstances, nobody can make you lose your objective without your consent; if anyone tries, you can always resort to a dominance in arms.

But how do you accomplish this in any modern edition of D&D?

Let's say the party is level 5, and their goal is to rescue the princess from the evil wizard before he sacrifices her at midnight. She's being kept in the Dark Tower of Omens.

Outside of the tower, there are some orc guards. They have enough HP that they won't go down in one hit, but are unlikely to do much damage unless they score a critical hit. When the party defeats them, they are down some small number of HP (or they have spent one of their limited numbers of spells for the day); if they were reckless, or the orcs were lucky, then the party needs to spend more resources. Inside the tower, there are a number or rooms, filled with various amounts of traps and puzzles and enemies and treasures. After any encounter, they have the option of using spells to recover HP, or taking a short rest (which can only be done a limited number of times before the clock runs out, and may or may not be interrupted by a wandering monster).

The only "modern" edition where this doesn't work is 3.x, and even then, only if you make healing as cheap as the magic item and expected wealth tables suggests.

 

[jgsugden]

People are defining the 'problem' differently. Here is how I see this issue: Healing is not expected to take place during combat. It is expected to take place during rests using Hit Dice healing during shorts and full healing during longs.

Certain classes break the general expectation by providing healing. When they do so, it uses their limited resources. Rather than using limited resources for offense, these are defensive, similar to limited resources that negate a hit or remove a negative condition.

How did they solve this problem? Subtly.

There are no cheap alternatives to limited resource healing to allow groups to do what CLW wands did in prior editions. Although the CLW wands in prior editions provided a lot of limited resource healing very cheaply, they were effectively unlimited healing for the cost of a few wands. The magic items in 5E that provide healing over and over are rare and are intended to be providing a benefit that is substantial to high level adventurers - and although they provide a healthy amount of healing, it is not unlimited. They are intended to be objects that alter the game balance and are iconic for the PC - not just an afterthought like in other editions.

If you add a CLW wand to your game for a cheap price, you're breaking the basic structure of the game as established under the core rules. You'll go from expecting 'PCs to be wounded at the start of some battles if they do not have clerics' to expecting 'the party to be healed every time they engage in combats' - and that makes the need for easy and medium battles significantly less (and quite boring for the PCs).

Stick to the core rules for 6 to 12 months before adding in a lot of new stuff. You might find that problems like these have been solved pretty well by the existing rules, just not in a way that is obvious.

 

[Celtavian]

I despised needing CLW wands. I was happy they chose a narrative method for hit point recovery in 5E.

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem is how this doesn't work for all narratives.

For some stories, healing up full just because you got a night's sleep will mess with pacing or challenge.

To this many say "so choose one of the optional DMG rules then"

But this, or any singular suggestion, misses the point.

Which is: you want rules that support different pacing during different times, often within the same campaign!

No matter what the rules say it will be a bad fit for many adventures.

It is the very notion that whatever solution you choose, you should choose only that, and stick with it. And if you're not happy, completely throw it out and exchange it for some other singular rule.