Schroedinger's Wounding (Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e)

[Obryn]

It would appear, like SteveC, your experience is less than universal.

I don't think he said universal? I know I didn't.

Default, sure. Extremely common, also true. Universal? No, that's a strawman.

EDIT: Also, Raven Crowking's original point involved magical clerical healing, as well. Which you say is used frequently in your games, so at least part of our experiences agree.

-O

 

[Psion]

I don't think he said universal? I know I didn't.

Default, sure. Extremely common, also true. Universal? No, that's a strawman.

And you're splitting hairs. I was being hyperbolic; "not universal" was an understatement.

I don't think the "CLW in every pot" paradigm is merely not universal, which would be a trivial observation. I believe that my experience is broad enough that I can say with a good amount of comfort that it is GREATLY less than universal. I think it could be a common sign of a troubled game with lax DM control and exploitative players. I won't venture what percentage of games that actually constitutes, but it's wouldn't surprise me to learn they were the minority.

Also, Raven Crowking's original point involved magical clerical healing, as well.

If at any point you got the impression I defend and stand by everything RC says, you don't have a good memory of our track record. ("Sense of wonder" my posterior...) I only choose to intervene WRT a point I disagreed with. To wit, regarding SteveC's overstated statement and related perceptions.

 

[Obryn]

And you're splitting hairs. I was being hyperbolic; "not universal" was an understatement.

I don't think the "CLW in every pot" paradigm is merely not universal, which would be a trivial observation. I believe that my experience is broad enough that I can say with a good amount of comfort that it is GREATLY less than universal. I think it could be a common sign of a troubled game with lax DM control and exploitative players. I won't venture what percentage of games that actually constitutes, but it's wouldn't surprise me to learn they were the minority.

I wouldn't split your strawman's hairs if he weren't wearing a wig!

Anyway, that's pretty different from my 3.x experience and the published settings. I don't think magical item availability - at least for the cheap ones - was ever a sign of a lax or exploited DM... The game's various settings assume magic item shops of various kinds (from FR's Red Wizards to Eberron's Artificers, even to Monte Cook's Ptolus) and I'd think those are pretty representative of how many people play the game.

It's not really a stretch to think that the published settings mirror many peoples' play experiences.

If at any point you got the impression I defend and stand by everything RC says, you don't have a good memory of our track record. ("Sense of wonder" my posterior...) I only choose to intervene WRT a point I disagreed with. To wit, regarding SteveC's overstated statement and related perceptions.

My apologies.

-O

 

[SteveC]

And you're splitting hairs. I was being hyperbolic; "not universal" was an understatement.

If at any point you got the impression I defend and stand by everything RC says, you don't have a good memory of our track record. ("Sense of wonder" my posterior...) I only choose to intervene WRT a point I disagreed with. To wit, regarding SteveC's overstated statement and related perceptions.

Well I suppose if you go on long enough, you're bound to disagree with everyone, even people you're with 99% of the time. I never said that everyone played with Cure Light Wound wands (and similar items) what I said was:

If you've actually played a significant amount of 3E D&D and have never seen a Cure Light Wounds wand, you're playing D&D very differently than most people. I fully expect to hear from everyone else about how they never use wands of cure light, but that isn't really how the game is played. Seriously. You can play a D20 game with little or no healing at all, but we're talking about D&D. Ready access to healing is how the vast majority of people who play D&D play the game.

The words that I chose were very specific, and I chose them deliberately. I stand by them 100%. Let me ask if you've never seen a wand of cure light wounds in a game of D&D. Can you say that you haven't? I would be surprised in extreme if that was the case. I never said anything about it being universal, since I've run a game like that myself.

When I did I had to deal with the assumptions of how combat and healing work and change the game from its default assumptions. Without that, the game would not have worked, just as changing other fundamental assumptions about how the game works without compensating for it has huge consequences.

--Steve

 

[Delta]

Let me ask if you've never seen a wand of cure light wounds in a game of D&D. Can you say that you haven't? I would be surprised in extreme if that was the case.

I've actually never seen a wand of CLW in-game (having played every week for 5+ years, as I said before; and RPGA tournaments at Gen Con '04). Available, sure. Desirable, sure. Just never reached the point of spending a feat or seeking out a craftsman just for that. I've got a cleric with a mess of spell slots to spontaneously cure, that always seemed enough.

This could admittedly be a case of old-timers bringing 1E sensibilities to the table. It already looked like healing ran abundant like a river in 3E, so we never reached the point where we prioritized getting more.

 

[WayneLigon]

After the first year or so of playing 3E, I have yet to see a party that did not make buying CLW wands the very first prioirity once they had the money and contact to do so. All you have to do is hear about it once to go 'why did we never think of this before?'.

The CLW wand goes a long, long way to eliminating the '15-minute-adventuring day' problem, and in most adventures I've been in, is a necessary tool in case the cleric dies or runs out of spells. Our cleric almost always is out of spells at some point, so spontaneous healing isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's not unusual for the party barbarian at 6-7th level to be taking in 40-60 damage in a combat, and the rest of us usually wind up in the 25% to 50% damaged range per combat. That's a heck of a lot of Cure Moderate and Cure Light.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I would expect a lot of groups to have learned the "Wand of Cure Light Wound" trick by now. But:

My original thought was: Most groups do not rely on mundane/natural healing to recover their parties injuries.

How many of you disagree? I already saw Psion and Delta remarking that they had Clerics in the game, and Delta specifically notes that he never searched for Wands of CLW because his Cleric seemed sufficient.

So did anyone rely on mundane healing because it seemed sufficient? Or the alternatives were unattainable or not desirable enough?

 

[Baron Opal]

My groups were allways willing to shell out cash to either improve the efficency of the caster or outright buy healing from an allied temple in town. My groups never made a wand of CLW, but there were many potions and a couple jade lenses.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, it never happened, because nobody waited on natural healing. The game was not played with people taking long rests to recover via mundane/natural healing.

If you look at the 3E situation, you will notice that a lot of groups will be loaded with Wands of Cure Light Wounds and similar items (at higher levels, Staffs of Healing also became popular) and use their Cleric to cover the rest.
Nobody relied on natural healing after the 1st level and their first 750 gp.

Please note that the assertation being made here is very clear, to which I responded:

I have never played in a game with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds. Ever.

Moreover, I have played in many games, over several editions, where the PC group didn't include a cleric.

Please note that, while I said "I have played in many games, over several editions, where the PC group didn't include a cleric" I most emphatically did not say that I have not played or run D&D for PC groups with a cleric, or that magical healing is not available. Indeed, I go on to say:

I've played with clerics and without clerics. The more you play the game as a combat engine, the more damaged you get, the more you need a healer. That isn't the only way to approach problems, though.

RCFG includes magical healing, certainly, and I don't find it problematical within reason. I am a fan of the potion of healing, for instance, but not the cure light wounds wand.

At which point the assertation is made that, somehow, the "crux of the matter" re: my complaint about Schroedinger's Wounding is revealed:

I just have to say that we've finally gotten to the crux of the matter, after how long exactly?

To which I responded

We were at the crux of the matter at the begining. It would be highly unlikely both that my experiences in this regard differ from the "vast majority of D&D players" and that others would have the same experience re: Schroedinger's Wounding (and post to that effect) if this was "the crux of the matter". Do we all, somehow, happen to fall into the same minority? Or do we ignore that I have run/played in games with clerics, too, because doing so helps you compartmentalize and ignore the actual issues raised?
​

and

Your experiences in this regard differ from the vast majority of D&D players.

to which I responded

I am not at all certain that you have the authority to say what the experiences of the "vast majority of D&D players" is.​

SteveC then claims to have the authority to make this statement, and that not using CLW wands is "playing D&D very differently than most people". Note that this is not access to magical potions of healing, or clerics, or any other class with magical healing abilities. If you aren't using CLW wands, you're not doing it the way most people do it.

Yes, in this case, I actually am. If you've actually played a significant amount of 3E D&D and have never seen a Cure Light Wounds wand, you're playing D&D very differently than most people.

Indeed, CLW wands are apparently the default.

I don't have to prove that playing D&D by the default rules is the default.

Then SteveC made an attempt to conflate my assertion that CLW are not necessarily the norm with an assertion that no type of magical healing was ever the norm....a rather far cry from my actual statement, to wit: "I've played with clerics and without clerics....RCFG includes magical healing, certainly, and I don't find it problematical within reason. I am a fan of the potion of healing, for instance, but not the cure light wounds wand."

So, I am certainly making two assertions here:

(1) Mustrum_Ridcully is wrong in saying "nobody waited on natural healing", and

(2) SteveC does not, and cannot, know that CLW wands are the norm across the majority of D&D players.

One assertion I am definitely not making is the one SteveC ascribes to me: "that one of the default roles for the game is not, a default." CLW wands are not a default role, AFAICT.

And I make sure that I am clear about this:

No; the assertion that I am making is that your assertion is not evidence.

IME, few of the D&D players I know go to conventions. Few of them are reliant on WotC or Paizo for their fun. Few of them are on EN World.

You made the assertation that the "crux" of my problem with Schroedinger's Wounding is that I tend to run lower-magic (and hence, lower-healing) games. It is not. It is that what is called "mundane" healing is, by any sane measure, so far beyond the threshold of our world that it seems like magic to me.

As mentioned upthread, RCFG uses a "shrugging it off" mechanic. I have no problem with access to healing. I don't shaft players for choosing to play clerics. I don't make clw wands appear in treasure hoards, though.

There is a real difference between questioning your assertation that using CLW wands is "how the game is played" and saying "Healing in D&D? Why would you need that..."

Pretending they are the same thing? I just don't have the words.

IME, games that differ signifiantly from the baseline assumptions for D&D are not at all uncommon.

"No CLW Wands" differs from the baseline assumptions of D&D no more, IMHO, than a game with no ravids. Just because something is possible, it doesn't follow that the majority use it.

(Especially given the number of folks who have complained in the past about how CLW wands break the encounter balance guidelines, and have been advised to ban them by other DMs who have done the same, here and elsewhere, in the past.)

EDIT: Also, Raven Crowking's original point involved magical clerical healing, as well. Which you say is used frequently in your games, so at least part of our experiences agree.

Now, Obryn, please go back and tell me where my original point involved magical clerical healing as well.......?

Indeed, Psion (in this case) has the right of it, IMHO:

I don't think the "CLW in every pot" paradigm is merely not universal, which would be a trivial observation. I believe that my experience is broad enough that I can say with a good amount of comfort that it is GREATLY less than universal. I think it could be a common sign of a troubled game with lax DM control and exploitative players. I won't venture what percentage of games that actually constitutes, but it's wouldn't surprise me to learn they were the minority.

RC

 

[Hussar]

Not automatic != virtually impossible.

FWIW, I don't make it automatic, either. Nothing about the DMG states that magic items are automatically available. Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks so.

It's a bit beyond that though. He states that it is flat out impossible to buy magic items. Which right there, takes it out of the realm of baseline assumptions.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. But, if you are moving beyond baseline assumptions (which buying magic items IS part and parcel to) then your campaign is already outside the norm. Heck, most of my campaigns have also been outside the norm. It isn't until my current campaign that I would say that we are playing anywhere near what is typical. But, I do admit that freely. My World's Largest Dungeon campaign was not baseline and was an outlier. My high RP Scarred Lands campaign with almost zero combat was an outlier. My naval based campaign was an outlier.

There's nothing wrong with that. But, it is playing outside the base assumptions of the game. The game certainly assumes that magic items are easily available. That you or I choose not to play that way is fine, but, let's be honest enough to admit that we are moving beyond what's standard.

RC's apparently trying to claim that a "No cleric" campaign is any sort of normal for play now. Are you going to stand with that one too?

(shrug) My players rarely take craft feats. Some players are a bit "old school" in that they rely on the DM to provide magic items.

It would appear, like SteveC, your experience is less than universal.

Note, I never stated universal.