Why is healing so much harder than doing damage?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There have been many threads regarding coup de gras, and if you use it on PCs, you're a bad GM, and should be ashamed of yourself.

I unashamedly use CdG, when appropriate, and tell my players this before campaigns start.

The reasons for this are:

PCs do it all the time. Every group I've ever known will go round the wounded, and if you're not valuable alive, you're dead meat.
They will also make sure of wounded NPCs to prevent them being healed mid-combat.
NPCs are 'PCs whose player couldn't make it to the table', so the GM has to play them as ruthlessly as any PC would be played.
Any player who squeals about being on the receiving end of behaviour they routinely and unthinkingly take part in, needs to reflect on what kind of PCs they play.

Ranged healing and area healing exists in game, and this fact should be common knowledge to all sentient beings. When a group of outclassed NPCs* finally get a lucky crit in, and stop one of the psychotic murderers, who broke into their home and began slaughtering them, they are going to want to ensure this villain stays down. And that means, if there is no-one actively engaging them, they will be sticking a dagger in the unconscious guy's eye, before the healing mojo flows in, and the murderhobo begins his vile slaughter again.

I got sick, a long time ago, of seeing players behaving in moronic fashion, when it came to exploring enemy territory, as if it were a stroll in the park. Let's unroll our blankets in the middle of the hallway. Let's leave our unconscious buddy on a table in another room, while we carry on without him. Let's use zero tactics in combat, just keep on doing the same thing every round, regardless of what is happening around us. Oh, look, our buddy just went down. No need for us to go over there, we'll just plod on, doing our thing, and the enemy will come over here, to their inevitable death, right?
No, two run off and raise the alarm. the third cuts off the PC's head, and prepares his speech for promotion to tribal hero.

Lastly, you can be killed by accident, even without the GM trying to deliberately CdG you. If the shaman has a fireball, and he has several points he can centre it, some of which catch only the standing PCs, others catch the standing PCs, and the guy in negative hp, why would he not? To have him centre an area attack to specifically miss the downed PC? I can't fathom such an action, unless there's a very compelling reason they need these superpowered murderers alive.

*(and any encounter of less than APL+4 is one in which the PCs are stabbing staked-down prey, or shooting fish in a barrel, by definition)


Snorter wrote:
*(and any encounter of less than APL+4 is one in which the PCs are stabbing staked-down prey, or shooting fish in a barrel, by definition)

Not exactly true. I've killed PCs with CR=APL-1 encounter before.

It all depends on what time of the adventuring day it is, how prepared the players are, if they are prepared for "that" encounter (like at low levels as swarm or magic required enemy can murder an otherwise prepared party).

Those same players have 2 rounded CR=APL+5 encounters before. But that was when they were ready, worked for setting up a devastating surprise round, and unloaded all of their highest level abilities in one go.

As for sacred bond, its a decent enough spell but I personally don't like the fact that it takes up a 3rd level spell slot and has such a short range. That and it still doesn't solve the "heal for 25, take 100" problem.


He specifically mentioned the range problem. That spell eliminates the range problem. QED.

And 75 is still less than 100, especially if you have, say, 90 hp.


notabot wrote:
Actually its not particularly hard to build a cleric for melee damage and still be a primary caster...

My last cleric was not optimized for combat. Her character concept required good Dex, Int and Cha, and not dying required good Con. That meant mediocre Wisdom and dumping strength - which in turn meant that a lot of the usual offensive options were weak for her.

Nevertheless, she was still useful in combat. Generally our martials were tougher than the martial enemies from the adventure path, so removing status effects and topping up hit-points to reduce the risk of sudden death was usually sufficient and allowed her to conserve her big spells for emergencies.

notabot wrote:
The real problem with healing is range until you get metamagic.

Rod of reach was my favorite option. Also, sacred bond, channelled energy, mass cure, standing a bit closer...

notabot wrote:
At 9th level you should be fighting CR11-12 monsters as a solo which do 50 damage per round, or if you are fighting multiple level 8-9s you are looking at 35-40 per monster per round.

Your fighter needs a better Armor Class. The example works for the 50 damage per round high CR boss monster or a group of weaker monsters who miss quite a lot.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

A quick and easy fix to scale healing magic is just multiply the dice and caster level by the level of the spell.

So, a CLW is 1d8 + 1/level (max 5th). Max Avg is 9.5
MDW is 2d8+2/level (max10th). Max Avg is 29
CSW is 3d8+3/level(max15). Max Avg is 58.5
CCrW is 4d8+4/level(max20th). max Avg is 98. A free Maximize at 20th gets you 112, just slightly less then a minimum Heal.

Heal starts at 6th level with 110, so it scales much better, and renders the cost of healing 1 hp somewhat better.

Also, as an amusing aside...would Wands as Staves and a UMD check for wands of healing dovetail? Because that would definitely help.

==Aelryinth


Matthew Downie wrote:
notabot wrote:
Actually its not particularly hard to build a cleric for melee damage and still be a primary caster...

My last cleric was not optimized for combat. Her character concept required good Dex, Int and Cha, and not dying required good Con. That meant mediocre Wisdom and dumping strength - which in turn meant that a lot of the usual offensive options were weak for her.

Nevertheless, she was still useful in combat. Generally our martials were tougher than the martial enemies from the adventure path, so removing status effects and topping up hit-points to reduce the risk of sudden death was usually sufficient and allowed her to conserve her big spells for emergencies.

Rod of reach was my favorite option. Also, sacred bond, channelled energy, mass cure, standing a bit closer...

Your fighter needs a better Armor Class. The example works for the 50 damage per round high CR boss monster or a group of weaker monsters who miss quite a lot.

Well if you build your concepts to do things a class is not naturally good at of course you are going to have issues with doing basic things like buff and bash.

Rod of reach is one of my first choices for rods as well, but they are rather pricey (but worth it). Channelled energy requires too much opportunity cost to be good at it (feats and a high CHA) for too little reward (minor healing which can be done with a stick) Mass cures aren't worth the spell slot in my experience.

A CR 8 monster has a +15 to hit with its primary attacks. A fighter in fullplate might have an AC that makes about half the attacks miss (+1 fullplate=10, +dex bonus and whatever deflection you might have). Barbarians and other primary dpr characters won't always have decent ACs, and this is against generic monsters, NPCs with PC classes (or even just warriors) can have higher dpr and to hit (some of the stuff built for modules and PFS greatly exceed the guidelines in monster creation tables).

Also on the Fighter needs better AC: Well you are a cleric, you can fix that, and even provide miss chance.


notabot wrote:
Channelled energy requires too much opportunity cost to be good at it (feats and a high CHA) for too little reward (minor healing which can be done with a stick)

Quickened Channels are pretty good if you have a move action to spare.

notabot wrote:
Mass cures aren't worth the spell slot in my experience.

Usually true but there was an occasion where someone called for healing when I was out of range, and fortunately I remembered the option of sacrificing a level 5 spell. It was enough.

Also not bad when fighting undead since you can heal allies and hurt enemies simultaneously.


Quote:
Why is healing so much harder than doing damage?

For the same reason it's easier to destroy than to create.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
Quickened Channels are pretty good if you have a move action to spare.

Even with Quick Channel, my 9th level Life Oracle only managed 40 points with two channels. And while that did help the NPCs, it wasn't very impressive otherwise.


Healing, say, 4 people a total of 160 damage sounds pretty effective to me.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Not when the enemy is doing 40-80 damage a round to individual targets without a resource limit on them. My Oracle only has so many channels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
Healing, say, 4 people a total of 160 damage sounds pretty effective to me.

Its efficient after combat is over, mostly a waste of actions in combat.

I liken combat healing to using a spoon to bail out a canoe with a hole in it.

Yeah, you are doing something, but you probably aren't making much progress and your time would be better spent rowing to shore or fixing that hole.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Not when the enemy is doing 40-80 damage a round to individual targets without a resource limit on them. My Oracle only has so many channels.

Might be worth it in cases where the enemy isn't concentrating fire. Laying down area effect damage for example.

Normally it's not 40 points to each of 4 people = 160 points, because they're not all down 40. One has taken 80 and the others have taken a few hits each.


thejeff wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Not when the enemy is doing 40-80 damage a round to individual targets without a resource limit on them. My Oracle only has so many channels.

Might be worth it in cases where the enemy isn't concentrating fire. Laying down area effect damage for example.

Normally it's not 40 points to each of 4 people = 160 points, because they're not all down 40. One has taken 80 and the others have taken a few hits each.

A full round action and 3 uses of your channel is not good resource or action use.

I like quick channel pretty much only when its an alt channel ability. Buffing up AC for a critical round while sacrificing a little healing seems to be better IMHO.

During my Shattered Star Campaign the party cleric was an Evangelist. She would do whatever her STD action was (cast a buff or control spell if it was first round), move action quick channel, swift action perform. Having blessing of fervor, +AC for a round, and +to hit and damage was pretty powerful once she got swift action perform. With those buffs going the party just demolished encounters and didn't really need to heal damage. A couple of nights she wasn't able to make it, in addition to the party never making a DC 10 diplomacy roll (true story) they lost a good chunk of their offense: her normal offense + 15 percent or more of rest of party damage + other buffs + however much a player who would have been locked out of a fight contributes after she brought him back into it. Loss of offense + no divine caster + bad arcane caster (party load)= 4 deaths in one night (they got better, always pack enough scrolls). Its not just from being a man down, the party was still 5 strong in an AP (when I get all 6 players I buff the monsters a little, quick templates and/or max HP). Its not from lack of healing (she didn't heal due to her archetype other than hit people with sticks). It was lack of support and condition removal.


Like many things on the message boards, it really boils down to personal preference and how the GM runs the game.

There are kind of two opposing ideas about combat tactics:
The best offense is a devastating offense! The healing sux crowd falls into this group, and views combat as a race to knock the other guy out. Often they will say things like armor class doesn't matter, healing is a waste, and damage only maters if it knocks the creature below 0 hp. Initiative is super important, rocket launcher tag is the cold reality, and if combat lasts more then a 2-3 rounds, you're doing it wrong.

The second concept is the Slow and steady wins the Combat concept. Here the idea is to be ready for anything. Defense is very important, and offensive tactics generally involve debuffing the monsters, buffing the PCs and planning for the encounter to keep going even after the monster gets dropped. Combats often last 5 or more rounds, and there is a lot or defensive fighting, maneuvering, and ready/delaying of initiative.

Which is better? Depends on the players, characters, and GM.

But I will say that healing works fairly well in combat. All you need is the healing domain, and you can generally keep the other PCs alive and doing their thing with minimal effort, and still have a strong non-healing role as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because to heal you must alter the very fabric of the universe, injury in constant, it happens every moment of every day, our cells weaken and die, even as new ones are born, but healing, healing is so much more, to heal magically, you are retroactively returning the injured and dead cells to the state they were in before the injury, it is harder, because you are working outside the natural order.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think some of the disconnect between the two perspectives of healing comes from different perspectives of how combat tests characters:

Call one the MMO perspective or attrition based fights: Combat tests whether the player's defenses last long enough for their offenses to wear through the enemy's health pool. Combat is long, heroic, with two sides bashing each others brains out until one side finally capitulates. Strategy is focused on changing the rate of attrition such as reducing incoming damage, using a widget to increase healing or outgoing damage, and making sure that your enemy doesn't get a an advantage over you. Think of a boxing match.

The other would be the FPS perspective or advantage based fights: Combat tests whether the players can create or leverage an advantage over the enemy and kill it before it kills them. Combat is short, brutal and decisive where any combatant can kill another if it gets one or two clean attacks in. Tactics are based on gaining an advantage over the enemy such as controlling the timing or location of the engagement or denying the enemy resources. Think of a real life gunfight.

Looking at the numbers, I think Pathfinder, D&D from the start really, follows the FPS paradigm instead of the MMO paradigm. Comparing the iconics' damage numbers to appropriately CR'd monsters and vice versa, it looks like the CR system is designed for fights to last 2-3 rounds on average. Control spells and condition removal try to shift the odds in favor of your team's side by shaping the battlefield or limiting opponents' options. Healing is strong compared to damage at low levels but _very_ quickly falls behind. More importantly, healing is a tremendously limited resource compared to damage options. With healing spells limited by slots, healing would need to be significantly stronger than damage, and damage relative to health pools would need to be much lower for this to be an attrition game.

I think a lot of the frustration and arguments about how combat goes, from both GMs and players point of view, comes from expecting MMO style attrition combat from a system designed around FPS style advantage combat. Complaints about BBEGs dying before they can act, how healing is underpowered, min-maxers ruining the game and rocket tag all result, at least in part, from expecting Pathfinder combat to be a war of attrition the way a boxing match or an MMO is. If, instead, you think of combat more like a real world gunfight, then the shorter the better, and the best way to make it short is to gain some advantage over the enemy.

To be most effective, ask yourself "How can I give my team the advantage?" for everything you do in combat. If you're asking "How can I keep my team from becoming disadvantaged?" you're working against the way the game works. It can be done, but at best it will be kludgy and more likely it will be frustrating.

Casting a cure spell is _very_ rarely a way to give your team the advantage, most often it's trying to keep from becoming disadvantaged. Sometimes it's necessary, but it should be low on the list of possible things to do rather than a standard course of action.


Fergie wrote:

Like many things on the message boards, it really boils down to personal preference and how the GM runs the game.

There are kind of two opposing ideas about combat tactics:
The best offense is a devastating offense! The healing sux crowd falls into this group, and views combat as a race to knock the other guy out. Often they will say things like armor class doesn't matter, healing is a waste, and damage only maters if it knocks the creature below 0 hp. Initiative is super important, rocket launcher tag is the cold reality, and if combat lasts more then a 2-3 rounds, you're doing it wrong.

The second concept is the Slow and steady wins the Combat concept. Here the idea is to be ready for anything. Defense is very important, and offensive tactics generally involve debuffing the monsters, buffing the PCs and planning for the encounter to keep going even after the monster gets dropped. Combats often last 5 or more rounds, and there is a lot or defensive fighting, maneuvering, and ready/delaying of initiative.

Which is better? Depends on the players, characters, and GM.

But I will say that healing works fairly well in combat. All you need is the healing domain, and you can generally keep the other PCs alive and doing their thing with minimal effort, and still have a strong non-healing role as well.

Why only two perspectives?


TarkXT wrote:
Fergie wrote:

Like many things on the message boards, it really boils down to personal preference and how the GM runs the game.

There are kind of two opposing ideas about combat tactics:
The best offense is a devastating offense! The healing sux crowd falls into this group, and views combat as a race to knock the other guy out. Often they will say things like armor class doesn't matter, healing is a waste, and damage only maters if it knocks the creature below 0 hp. Initiative is super important, rocket launcher tag is the cold reality, and if combat lasts more then a 2-3 rounds, you're doing it wrong.

The second concept is the Slow and steady wins the Combat concept. Here the idea is to be ready for anything. Defense is very important, and offensive tactics generally involve debuffing the monsters, buffing the PCs and planning for the encounter to keep going even after the monster gets dropped. Combats often last 5 or more rounds, and there is a lot or defensive fighting, maneuvering, and ready/delaying of initiative.

Which is better? Depends on the players, characters, and GM.

But I will say that healing works fairly well in combat. All you need is the healing domain, and you can generally keep the other PCs alive and doing their thing with minimal effort, and still have a strong non-healing role as well.

Why only two perspectives?

can you name a third?


Starbuck_II wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Fergie wrote:

Like many things on the message boards, it really boils down to personal preference and how the GM runs the game.

There are kind of two opposing ideas about combat tactics:
The best offense is a devastating offense! The healing sux crowd falls into this group, and views combat as a race to knock the other guy out. Often they will say things like armor class doesn't matter, healing is a waste, and damage only maters if it knocks the creature below 0 hp. Initiative is super important, rocket launcher tag is the cold reality, and if combat lasts more then a 2-3 rounds, you're doing it wrong.

The second concept is the Slow and steady wins the Combat concept. Here the idea is to be ready for anything. Defense is very important, and offensive tactics generally involve debuffing the monsters, buffing the PCs and planning for the encounter to keep going even after the monster gets dropped. Combats often last 5 or more rounds, and there is a lot or defensive fighting, maneuvering, and ready/delaying of initiative.

Which is better? Depends on the players, characters, and GM.

But I will say that healing works fairly well in combat. All you need is the healing domain, and you can generally keep the other PCs alive and doing their thing with minimal effort, and still have a strong non-healing role as well.

Why only two perspectives?
can you name a third?

Yes.

Be flexible. Do what works. No one strategy works for every encounter if your gm is even half decent. Some fights call for offense, others for patience.

I've been told by a friend that soemoen was running around saying I'm "Anti-healing". I'm not. Not really. Nor do I believe there are many people who fall to either extreme. I simply fall into the belief that healing should be smart and hard and not bothered with if more prudent and intelligent actions are available.

It's important to end an encounter quickly, true. But it's also important to ensure you have resources available for the next encounter so conservation and defense often helps in this. If you are spending resources merely to prolong the encounter with no real gain then it's wasteful. If you expend resources merely to end an encounter quickly than that too is wasteful.

As a militaristic force going into hostile territory that often has to coopt enemy resources resource conservation and efficient tactics take precedent to me over sticking to one philosophy.


Actually, the OPs premise is wrong . Healing can and does outdo damage.

First, damage has to be reduced by to hit, saves, DR, ER, SR, miss chances and what not. Healing does. Period. Well, unless you barbarian has the superstitious trait. So that guy with super Burning Hands? Maybe I have fire resist 10 and make my save. Maybe Evasion. And ya gotta be real close for burning hands.

Next, when it's compared, it's always a false comparison . You take a generic cleric with no special abilities and match them vs a specialized damage dealer with every feat , trait, magic item and ability point dedicated to doing damage.

One can do the same with a healer.

Now sure, some games are played rocket tag style, and there, in combat healing is not as valuable.

Other games are played with Toons, disposable sheets with stats on them. I hesitate to even call them "characters". Since a Toon player doesn't care about that assemblage of numbers, and neither do the other players, if he dies..... Well, there's another toon waiting to step in. Why stress over a Toon dying? He's not a boon companion, one that has saved your life countless times- he's just some numbers.

But in my games, and in James Jacob's games- healing during combat is a must a regular part of tactics.

So, to answer the OP- your premise is false to start out with.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Next, when it's compared, it's always a false comparison . You take a generic cleric with no special abilities and match them vs a specialized damage dealer with every feat , trait, magic item and ability point dedicated to doing damage.

There's also usually the assumption there's one healer trying to undo all the damage inflicted by the other side. Suppose your party consists of a life oracle, a healing domain cleric, a paladin and an alchemist?

DrDeth wrote:
But in my games, and in James Jacob's games- healing during combat is a must

Oof! First person this thread to say that. You're just asking for a debate in which people claim that you'd do just fine if you replaced your in-combat healing with improved offensive capabilities, and you disagree, and neither side can prove a thing.


DrDeth wrote:


First, damage has to be reduced by to hit, saves, DR, ER, SR, miss chances and what not. Healing does. Period. Well, unless you barbarian has the superstitious trait. So that guy with super Burning Hands? Maybe I have fire resist 10 and make my save. Maybe Evasion. And ya gotta be real close for burning hands.

Most of what you described are spells that you would be casting that precludes healing.

Where'd you get that fire resistance 10? Probably the guy who would otherwise be healing.

SR? I wouldn't recommend it honestly. Most of the time you have to spend an action to lower it long enough for a spell.

You describe an array of support abilities which are often the most reference things when talking about defensive tactics. Proactive vs. reactive and all that noise.

Healing is not necessarily either offense or defense. It's a reactionary maintenance tool. In the same way that remove paralysis and remove disease are ways to erase bad conditions off your cahracter.

You are correct though that with the combined abilities above healing is somewhat more viable. However if you are at the point where healing does become viable you are also likely in a situation where an offensive buff, or going on the offensive yourself, is the more efficient route.

EDIT: To add, you are also correct that things like AC and DR necessarily reduce damage. However I feel I must point out this is exactly why DPR formulas include AC in them.

This may not be how it works in your games. But, that's not been my experience. Either in my games, nor in observance of others.


Matthew Downie wrote:


There's also usually the assumption there's one healer trying to undo all the damage inflicted by the other side. Suppose your party consists of a life oracle, a healing domain cleric, a paladin and an alchemist?

Well, if they're all necessarily dedicated to healing then I'd shoot myself. Since long boring attrition fights suck.

If not, that makes it more interesting since all 4 can be rather nasty combatants with pretty long adventure days. This has to due with having an abundance of a resource that happens to prolong adventuring days quite a bit. MAke the cleric an evangelist in and I'm sold.

EDIT: It also helps that three of the 4 mentioned characters are exceedingly versatile all on their own.


TarkXT wrote:

Healing is not necessarily either offense or defense. It's a reactionary maintenance tool. In the same way that remove paralysis and remove disease are ways to erase bad conditions off your cahracter.

You are correct though that with the combined abilities above healing is somewhat more viable. However if you are at the point where healing does become viable you are also likely in a situation where an offensive buff, or going on the offensive yourself, is the more efficient route.

In the same line of thought, straight healing doesn't usually provide recovery for debilitating effects such as riders with spells(burning, dazing, dazzles, etc.), and status recovery doesn't come with a healing effect usually. Inversely, spells will often carry riders, or at least be capable of carrying one through the use of class features, metamagic, etc. Not to say channel can't heal an effect, but that your probably more likely to get smacked with a spell with a painful debilitating effect.

Personal Opinion:
In an ideal world the support role would probably have healing as a rider with his ability to buff, damage, and recover so they would have a more active role while healing.


TarkXT wrote:
Well, if they're all necessarily dedicated to healing then I'd shoot myself. Since long boring attrition fights suck.

Obligatory Order of the Stick link.

Obligatory diametrically opposed viewpoint: "No, rocket-tag battles suck! If your battle lasts less than four rounds how can you even find the time to debate your opponent's philosophy?"

Sovereign Court

In my experience, terrain obstacles often prolong fights, until we can actually get the heavy hitters near the enemy. Then it's over in a few rounds. But to get them there, we may need some healing just so they don't get worn down by archery or suchlike while on the way.

I very much like the idea of tactical flexibility; don't try to win every combat with a lighting offensive, or expect every fight to be won with attrition. But it's hard to use more sophisticated tactics in for example PFS, where you can't really "train" as a team because the player set keeps changing.


Vitalists grant quite a bit of support, but also are as good as it gets for combat-healing, starting with being able to transfer overflow at range. Other options range from life-draining enemies (to spread the love amongst your friends) to sending whatever the bard caught in the last city straight into those charging orcs.

If one does wish to play a healer proper, they're rather amazing, and no slouch at other duties.


Matthew Downie wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
If I drop summon monsters in combat, they will get hit with damage that may have gone to the party.

"Should my cleric summon a monster, or cast a healing spell?"

If I'm asking the question, someone is injured and presumably still under attack. If I start summoning, even if my concentration isn't interrupted, the monster won't arrive until next round, and there's no reason to assume that whoever is attacking the injured guy will stop and turn his attention to the summoned creature.

wraithstrike wrote:
So just to be clear, nobody is saying NEVER heal in combat.

Some people are implying it:

Zhayne wrote:
Healing in combat is a colossal waste of time
Is anyone here arguing that every group needs in-combat healing, or is that just a strawman that people feel the need to prove wrong?

The summon should be brought in at the beginning of combat and many of them are on par with the mooks you are fighting so they shoudl get some attention. They should also be placed in a position so they have to be dealt with. In other words the monster should be in place before anyone takes damage if possible. Yes, I know that is not always possible, but summons are not the only damage mitigating spell.

It sounds like they are saying "never" heal due to the negative talk, but that is not the case.

Saying it is a waste of time is not the same as never heal. The idea is that unless someone is about to die you should be doing things to kill the enemy, reduce their damage output against the party, or buffing your team members so they can kill faster.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Shadowdweller wrote:
Above and beyond the tactical issues, the sad truth is that in the majority of cases healing can't even keep pace with a single round's average damage. Making healing literally worse than doing much of anything else.

Not really.

Let's say you have three allies, all attacking - a couple of optimized martial damage dealers and an arcane caster. The enemies are focusing their attacks and trying to kill one of the martials. The martial character has 100HP but is taking 40-50 damage per round. You can heal, say, 25 damage per round with ordinary healing spells. Let's also say this is a fairly tough battle and if you just stood around doing ntohing, the martial character would die before the battle was won.
Options:
1 Be a healbot and heal the fighter every round.
2 Wait for it to become an emergency and then start healing.
3 Don't heal at all.

Option 1 usually works if your allies are any good. Sure, you can't keep up with the damage being dealt, but you negate about half the damage each time, meaning he lasts twice as long before going down. That buys your allies and extra action or two each, which is almost always enough to win a battle. This has the disadvantage of using up more party resources.
Option 2 sometimes works but if it does become an emergency the small amount of healing you do may not be enough to make any difference at that point. The fighter goes from -10 hit points and unconscious to 15 hit points and prone; he's still one round away from death.
Option 3 will normally work if you have optimized your character for battle and prepared appropriate spells.

Number 2 can include any number of tactics that I mentioned and in those cases the emergency does not take place. If for some reason you are counter spelled, the bad guys ALL make their save, and so on then you might have to heal, but generally you can find a way to reduce damage that is more effective than healing.


Matthew Downie wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Next, when it's compared, it's always a false comparison . You take a generic cleric with no special abilities and match them vs a specialized damage dealer with every feat , trait, magic item and ability point dedicated to doing damage.

There's also usually the assumption there's one healer trying to undo all the damage inflicted by the other side. Suppose your party consists of a life oracle, a healing domain cleric, a paladin and an alchemist?

DrDeth wrote:
But in my games, and in James Jacob's games- healing during combat is a must
Oof! First person this thread to say that. You're just asking for a debate in which people claim that you'd do just fine if you replaced your in-combat healing with improved offensive capabilities, and you disagree, and neither side can prove a thing.

I can't prove how it works at your table but I have made healbots bored because myself and another player made sure to not take damage. I mean we took damage, but he basically stood there bored in combat because we did not need the heals. Now of course if a GM runs tougher than normal encounters in combat healing will be more likely, but that is not the norm. As for your "team heal" they will still waste resources if they focus on healing and not killing. That would be a bad idea under a game I ran, but due to table variation it might work at yours. I can assure you that barring harder than normal encounters a party only needs decent builds and decent playing skills to avoid constant in combat healing.


wraithstrike wrote:
Saying it is a waste of time is not the same as never heal.

"It's a colossal waste of time" is a pretty blanket statement. I've never heard anyone say, "It's a colossal waste of time so you should only do it occasionally."


Matthew Downie wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Saying it is a waste of time is not the same as never heal.
"It's a colossal waste of time" is a pretty blanket statement. I've never heard anyone say, "It's a colossal waste of time so you should only do it occasionally."

I know that they said, but the point is that compared to other things healing is the low man on the totem pole for the purpose of primary combat strategies.

I am sure the poster will be in to speak for themselves later, but in any event the majority of us think like me. Use tactics to avoid healing, and then heal when things go bad. Other than the one poster who else do you think said "never heal"? As hard as I am against healing, I know the dice gods sometimes hate the players and healing is a requirement.


wraithstrike wrote:
I am sure the poster will be in to speak for themselves later, but in any event the majority of us think like me. Use tactics to avoid healing, and then heal when things go bad.

True - about two-thirds of forum-users feel that way.


As said earlier, my trigger point is when it looks like one round of average attacks or one lucky hit is liable to take someone down. Then I will expend healing to make sure they stay up for their next attack(especially on the barbarian. Usually the paladin can perform self maintenance as needed, although usually the oracle has sacred bond up for emergencies.


Because it amuses me to do so, I'm going to re-post an illustrative example of how competent healing can compensate for an incompetent group.

The situation: A party of four newly created level 9 characters are hunting down the lich who killed the previous party. The cleric is expecting to face undead, and has memorized spells like Death Ward, Restoration, Remove Paralysis, etc.

GM: And as you're travelling along, a Huge creature bursts out from behind a rock. Any of you got Knowledge: Local?
Sorcerer: No.
Cleric: No.
Fighter: No.
Bard: Why are you all looking at me?
GM: Fine. It's a big humanoid with one big eye and a big club. Roll initiative...
Cleric: Looks like I'm first. I cast Prayer and move up to within 25 feet.
Fighter: Let me show you what I can do! I charge with my scythe! Does 25 hit?
GM: No.
Fighter: Oh.
Bard: I start singing my inspiring song as a move action, and fire an arrow at it. Rolled a 17! Does 31 hit?
GM: Well, you've got -4 for firing into melee, and -4 for cover... So, no.
Bard: -4 for cover? It's huge!
GM: I'm pretty sure that's how cover works. The creature takes a full round attack on the fighter. Does a 33 hit?
Fighter: ...yes.
GM: A 25?
Fighter: Yes.
GM: A 23?
Fighter: No. Wait, I charged, so... Yes.
Cleric: What are you wearing?
Fighter: +1 breastplate. (I have my reasons.)
GM: You take 69 damage.
Fighter: That's two-thirds of my HP! I need healing!
Sorcerer: I cast fly and move up out of its reach.
Fighter: Thanks. Big help.
Cleric: I delay.
Fighter: What?
Cleric: He must have a 15 foot reach. I'm hoping you'll move away from adjacent.
Fighter: I go into a rage.
Sorcerer: I thought you were a fighter?
Fighter: I'm multiclass. Full-round attack, power attacking. 25's still a miss. 30?
GM: Hit.
Fighter: Damn. Minimum damage... But with my two-handed fighter specialty, that's still 29 points.
Cleric: And?
Fighter: Oh yes. And I do a five foot step backwards.
Cleric: I stop delaying, cast Cure Critical Wounds, run up to fifteen feet from the creature, and touch the fighter. That's (rolls pathetically) 20. Increased to 30 by my healing domain.
Bard: I cast Good Hope.
GM: Me smash squishy healer!
Cleric: Is that the giant saying that, or you?
GM: Both. What's your AC?
Cleric: 29.
Fighter: What are you wearing?
Cleric: +1 full plate, +1 tower shield.
Fighter: You took the proficiency feats for that?
Cleric: Oh, I'm not proficient in them. They're currently giving me minus 14 on all attack rolls.
GM: He steps forwards, rolls well and gets two hits. Take 48 damage.
Cleric: Not too serious, thanks to my Con of 20...
Sorcerer: I cast Haste on you guys and move further up into the air.
Bard: Cool! Now I can miss three times in a round!
Fighter: Full-round attack. Does 26 hit?
GM: That's what you needed.
Fighter: 65 damage. Is he nearly dead?
GM: Not even close.
Cleric: I cast Grace as a swift, and move twenty feet back. Then I channel energy, excluding the creature. With my Phylactery of Positive Channeling, we get... 22 healing.
Fighter: With my rage hit points, I'm now at above my normal maximum!
Bard: I cast mirror image on myself. Six images.
GM: The giant cyclops thing decides against provoking an attack for the sake of one attack on the non-squishy healer, and full-attacks the fighter. Does a 24 hit?
Fighter: No, because of haste. ...I mean, yes. I forgot the penalty for raging.
GM: You take 63 damage.
Fighter: Help! I need healing!
Sorcerer: I cast Glitterdust to blind it. Will save?
GM: Does a 31 pass?
Sorcerer: Ugh. High Will saves, guys.
Cleric: I never use save-negates spells. I'm a pessimist. Also, my wisdom isn't that great.
Fighter: I do a full attack.
Cleric: You know, if you hit him once and ran away, you'd take two hits a round at most. That would be easier for me to keep up with.
Fighter: One attack? I'm the only one hurting it! I get two hits, for 63 damage.
GM: He looks fairly bloodied now.
Cleric: Well, I'm staying back here. I use my lesser rod of reach to cast Cure Serious Wounds from a distance, and I use a feat to channel energy as a move action. You heal 51, and I heal 20.
Bard: I'd run up and heal with a wand, but it hardly seems necessary. I move round to the side and fire my bow. Does a 29 hit?
GM: With the penalty for firing into melee, no.
Bard: I knew I should have gone inquisitor.
GM: The giant attacks the fighter. Still on 23 AC?
Fighter: Yes.
GM: That's a crit and two hits... 88 damage.
Fighter: I'm still standing! ...barely. Just so you guys know, if I fall below zero, I lose my rage bonus HP and die.
Sorcerer: I cast fireball. Reflex save?
GM: Does a 9 pass?
Sorcerer: Ha! Take 37 damage.
Fighter: I get my scythe, which I just remembered is an intelligent item, to cast cure light wounds on me. I gain nine hit points. I also use my wand of mirror image on myself.
Sorcerer: You can't use UMD while raging.
Fighter: I'm not. I have a level of wizard.
GM: Eh, I'll allow it.
Fighter: I gain three images.
Cleric: I channel, and channel again as a move action. You heal... 53. I've got one channel left.
Bard: I cast cure moderate wounds, and run up and touch the fighter.
GM: You provoke, but the cyclops hits an image. But now you can't tell which of the fighter's images is the real one. Roll a d4.
Bard: 2.
GM: You destroy one of the fighter's images.
Fighter: Yay, teamwork!
GM: And now it's the turn of the cyclops. He's going to keep attacking the fighter. He hits and destroys an image... hits you for 39 damage... And he misses you, but by less than five, so he destroys your last image.
Sorcerer: I begin summoning.
Fighter: Death or glory! I attack! Three hits, for... 99 damage!
GM: Yeah, that fireball had brought it down to one hit point. You overkill it by a mile.
Sorcerer: We suck.
GM: Eh, it was a CR 12 random encounter with no loot. I'm amazed you didn't just run away.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow. A bard who wants to fight as an archer but without precise shot, a fighter who multiclassed into wizard to use wands and who uses a scythe...

Is it me or is their teamwork really bad? If the fighter had delayed in the first round, he'd have gotten bardic performance to his first attack. In addition, the cyclops would've charged the fighter and the fighter would've gotten full attack, instead of the other way around.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Not unless he got enlarged or has lunge. 15 foot reach, remember? A 5 foot step wouldn't get him into range, since he wasn't using a reach weapon.

The cleric didn't have to worry about provoking an AoO, you can't take AoO's on people with cover, and moving up behind the fighter would have been using soft cover.

Other then that...just a severely unoptimized bunch of characters.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Well, if they're all necessarily dedicated to healing then I'd shoot myself. Since long boring attrition fights suck.

Obligatory Order of the Stick link.

Obligatory diametrically opposed viewpoint: "No, rocket-tag battles suck! If your battle lasts less than four rounds how can you even find the time to debate your opponent's philosophy?"

I don't care for rocket tag either. I don't believe most people do either.

I look at it more from a practical view. Why the hell do I want to spend an entire gaming session on one fight?

I want to roleplay, I want fights to be interesting things where players make decisions other than to roll dice at it.


Since the party had access to move action perform, they are at least 7th level. My battle cleric at that level averages 40ish damage with a single hit. I would hope that the fighter type would be able to deal more damage than 99 with 3 swings. Hell in my finished RoW campaign the cavalier broke the 100 damage mark in the first book.

I think this debate reminds me of Guild Wars 2 debates over healing. In GW2, unlike in other MMOs, there is no "trinity" everybody can handle their own healing/dps/support. Aggro mechanics aren't very predictable so tanking isn't a role either. It ends up being that the most optimal way to play is pure berserker mode with using your own active damage mitigation to survive and bursting the enemy down before it becomes an attrition fight. However, if one or more of the party isn't very good, or is badly geared/traited, the burst style becomes harder to make work. Then healing/support/tanking builds technically become viable. It makes the fights take 4 times longer, but it lets less proficient groups complete the content. Some people don't like the berserker style of play, and actually choose to play in clerics gear (there is no "healer class", anybody can be a party healer, gear and traits define roles). When a "cleric" player joins a berserker group, there is a clash of playstyles, players argue, failed fights, party votes, and the hurt feelings of the cleric players devolve into "stupid zerk elitists, without me being there they would be kissing the ground, why did they kick?".

I guess what I'm saying is both styles of play are "viable" but one style is slower and uses up more resources. To some people that makes the "rocket tag" style more viable than "trinity" style. It's really what you define optimal as. Also the play-styles clash and don't work well together in the same party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:

Because it amuses me to do so, I'm going to re-post an illustrative example of how competent healing can compensate for an incompetent group.

Any competent player can make up for an incompetent group. This includes damage dealers, battlefield controllers, or heck even a well built rogue.

This is old news and also irrelevant.


Matthew Downie wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I am sure the poster will be in to speak for themselves later, but in any event the majority of us think like me. Use tactics to avoid healing, and then heal when things go bad.
True - about two-thirds of forum-users feel that way.

I had forgotten about that poll. Yeah I did take option 2.


DrDeth wrote:
First, damage has to be reduced by to hit, saves, DR, ER, SR, miss chances and what not. Healing does. Period.

Just for the sake of piling on information, you can split this reduction into two types. Avoidance, your ability to avoid the damage(AC/SR), and mitigation, your ability to reduce the damage taken(DR/Resistance). Overhealing does nothing, so there's no point in healing someone until they take a hit, so your only healing the mitigated damage. Monsters are more likely to mitigate, and PCs usually don't come with inherent DR or Resistance, or if they do its usually neglible. 3 DR or 5 resistance at level 10 is better than nothing but not much in the long run.

Anyways, even though there is mitigation and avoidance, you'll only heal after the damage is taken.


To hear people talk they must seem to think that offensive spells and buffs aren' resources used up but healing is resources used up.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, it's funny: whenever the "your party needs a healer" crowd talks about the rest of us, it's all "your arguments are (lopsided) theorycraft" and other accusations of living outside reality.

But then when they're met with examples of real gameplay with no dedicated healer needed, they just straight up don't respond at all, and continue to assert that real games don't work that way.


RDM42 wrote:
To hear people talk they must seem to think that offensive spells and buffs aren' resources used up but healing is resources used up.

Why do you say that? What I usually here is that healing is an inefficient use of resources compared to offensive spells, buffs, and damage-prevention spells.


RDM42 wrote:
To hear people talk they must seem to think that offensive spells and buffs aren' resources used up but healing is resources used up.

Not true at all. They just tend to be more efficient resources.

That's why people use wands. They're efficient. The same people will use spell slots when resting is imminent anyway to save cash.

It's just good resource management.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DrDeth wrote:
Next, when it's compared, it's always a false comparison . You take a generic cleric with no special abilities and match them vs a specialized damage dealer with every feat , trait, magic item and ability point dedicated to doing damage.

It's okay to disagree with a conclusion; it's not okay to lie about how people got to their different conclusion.

A cure serious wounds, cast at the level you get it (CL 5th), with no special investment, heals 3d8+5, averaging 18.5 HP healed to a single target.

A fireball (same spell level) cast at the same CL (5th) with no special investment, deals 5d6 damage, averaging 17.5 damage to multiple creatures.

As soon as Mr. Cleric and Mr. Wizard level up—again, with no difference in investment—the healing goes up to 19.5 while the fire goes up to 21.

With no investment on either side, healing from a cure spell of a given spell level goes up by exactly 1 per CL, while a damage spell typically goes up by an average of 3.5 damage per CL, and often affects multiple targets.

The assertion is shown in the math of the unmodified spells, so your claim of a false comparison is itself false, and you should know better than to behave like that.


RDM42 wrote:
To hear people talk they must seem to think that offensive spells and buffs aren' resources used up but healing is resources used up.

No but it is far more efficient to use a single spell to control multiple enemies in an encounter than to have to keep using multiple healing spells round after round to keep up with the damage from uncontrolled enemies.

I would far rather our cleric neutralised several opponents with a Greater Forbid Action than hold those slots to cast Cure Critical Wounds over and over to keep the front liner up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Next, when it's compared, it's always a false comparison . You take a generic cleric with no special abilities and match them vs a specialized damage dealer with every feat , trait, magic item and ability point dedicated to doing damage.

It's okay to disagree with a conclusion; it's not okay to lie about how people got to their different conclusion.

A cure serious wounds, cast at the level you get it (CL 5th), with no special investment, heals 3d8+5, averaging 18.5 HP healed to a single target.

A fireball (same spell level) cast at the same CL (5th) with no special investment, deals 5d6 damage, averaging 17.5 damage to multiple creatures.

To be fair, this is not a reasonable comparison. You don't typically save against healing.

On average, monsters will make their saves half the time, so the average damage goes down (to 75% of the numbers). As the opposition advances in level, the saving throws get better against a static target, so average damage goes down even more. Add energy resistance (which becomes increasingly common) and the comparison gets even harder.

The fact that you're mixing single-target and multi-target spells makes it a difficult comparison as well

51 to 100 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why is healing so much harder than doing damage? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.