Why is healing so much harder than doing damage?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

By the way I do not think that the comparision of a dmage dealer specialist vs a non specialist healer is a unfair.

There are a lot of ways to make damage dealers. ALmost every class can do it, with several build. Healer are considerably more restricted. SO yes, healing is harder than doing damage.


TarkXT wrote:
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.

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.

Certainly the Primary role of what some call "the Healer" is Buffing, not healing. FIRST you buff. Rarely do you need to heal R1 or 2.

Mind you, races, magic items, bloodlines, oracle lines and what not all can come with elemental resitance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

That a very poorly worded poll that shows the OP's bias. Like I said:" I think your bias here, OP, made you to word the poll so that it skews towards your personal viewpoint.

You worded # 2 poorly. Our group apparently plays a lot like JJ's plays. Combats are rather long and in combat healing is just part of the many services a divine caster offers. They buff, do battlefield control, blast or smash, and heal when it's the best option.

Thus they do NOT "will heal primarily but not exclusively" nor "normally perform other actions in combat but will save a comrade from dying if it comes to that". Because saving a comrade from DROPPING is just as important. When the tank DROPS, for a round or more he no longer takes hits or deals damage (nor does his player get to do much). Then, when he is healed he usually has to provoke a AoO while getting up.

The RIGHT tactic is use healing during combat just enough to keep your fellow PC's from DROPPING, not DYING. Buffing is likely the best use of a divine caster, as it often will prevent damage. And of course "healing" includes condition removal.

So, your poll questions are poorly worded, and the results are skewed.

Ryngin, for example voted 2, but his answer ("unless a character is close to being downed") indicates an actual preference for 2.5.

Counting the wordings of the posts, the VAST majority (about 12 votes out of 17 posters) prefers option 2.5= "Other options first, heal when needed to prevent a fellow PC from dropping".
Which is what JJ basically sez.

Mind you, I have heard some groups play super-charged glass cannons where the combat is over by round 3, then wands are used. In those odd circumstances, letting your tank be dropped on R2 doesn't mean much as the combat is over next round. But for most of us combats last 5-8 rounds, and thus having the tank dropping r2 means for well over have the battle 1/4 of the team is out, and that likely means another member of the team will go down.

Also of course, none of these option include one of the better tactics- having your tank be a Paladin who can heal himself as a Swift. For him, healing in COMBAT is an excellent tactic and also wastes no resources.

So, why not try again. Include another option "Other options are often a better use of resources, but in combat healing should be used to prevent a fellow PC from being dropped".


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.

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.

And see, your post is full of misdirection, bad assertions, personal attacks, etc.

You compare CSW vs Fireball, but Fireball has a Save, ER, SR and even possibly evasion. Even without that the CSW spell cures MORE that the Fireball does @5th.

And you pick 5th level. Why not first level where a CLW does 1D8+1 vs MM doing 1d4+1?

Your nasty little personal jabs are rude and uncalled for.


if loving an oradin is wrong
then I do not want to be right

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DrDeth wrote:
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.

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.

And see, your post is full of misdirection, bad assertions, personal attacks, etc.

You compare CSW vs Fireball, but Fireball has a Save, ER, SR and even possibly evasion. Even without that the CSW spell cures MORE that the Fireball does @5th.

And you pick 5th level. Why not first level where a CLW does 1D8+1 vs MM doing 1d4+1?

Those are legitimate points.

Those points are not what I was protesting.

Do you see your original quote that I was replying to? I left it in the quote tunnel for you. See how it has nothing to do with the conclusion reached?

I don't care if you come to the conclusion that saves/ER/SR/whatever tilt things in your favor.

What I care about is that part of establishing your position involved lying about other people.

See how your quote is about people comparing a tricked-out damage dealer versus a plain-jane out-of-the-box cure spell?

That is the lie I was calling you out on.

Nothing else.


DrDeth wrote:
You compare CSW vs Fireball, but Fireball has a Save, ER, SR and even possibly evasion. Even without that the CSW spell cures MORE that the Fireball does @5th.

Keep in mind that if they make a save against all the damage you don't have to heal in the first place, and if they fail against all you need to heal it all back to actually say that your curing more than the damage done. Overhealing of course, does nothing.


Matthew Downie wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I'm still waiting for any of the folks who think "healer" is a necessary role to thoughtfully acknowledge and respond to this large pool of data.

Since nobody has said this, you will wait a long time.

DrDeth has said a healer is necessary at this table. For all we know this is true. Maybe his GM keeps throwing more monsters at the group until he thinks they've been dealt a satisfactory amount of damage and then stops.

James Jacobs has said in combat healing is necessary at HIS table.

Mind you, to us the "Healer" role is a Buffer first, then healing. It's a Cleric or Oracle (or even Paladin) that has made direct offensive abilities a secondary role, and have taken feats, traits, archetypes which enhance the Buffer/healer niche. Of course casting a battlefield control spell early in the combat is a nice idea too.

Healing is reactive. But if the main tank damage dealer drops, you then lose massive damage output.

Digital Products Assistant

Note, since this discussion is getting a bit heated: Let's drop the personal insults and back and forth please. Also, please flag and move on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:

The thing is you can only heal damage taken and overhealing does nothing, so including averages that drop it by a quarter aren't the best way to handle it..

Meet Mister Life Oracle:Spirit Boost (Su): Whenever your healing spells heal a target up to its maximum hit points, any excess points persist for 1 round per level as temporary hit points (up to a maximum number of temporary hit points equal to your oracle level).


DrDeth wrote:
MrSin wrote:

The thing is you can only heal damage taken and overhealing does nothing, so including averages that drop it by a quarter aren't the best way to handle it..

Meet Mister Life Oracle:Spirit Boost (Su): Whenever your healing spells heal a target up to its maximum hit points, any excess points persist for 1 round per level as temporary hit points (up to a maximum number of temporary hit points equal to your oracle level).

Which is an exception and not the rule. Wonder what happened to Mr Cleric. I remember when that guy was the healbot. Apparently you don't want a priest these days, you want some random guy the gods cursed in some fashion.


DrDeth wrote:


Mind you, to us the "Healer" role is a Buffer first, then healing.

I think this is a very important distinction that you're blurring.

"Healing" is largely a poor use of resources. "Support casting" is much more general and usually much more effective, in part because there are a lot of various buffs that are much more effective use of resources than healing.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Mind you, to us the "Healer" role is a Buffer first, then healing.

I think this is a very important distinction that you're blurring.

"Healing" is largely a poor use of resources. "Support casting" is much more general and usually much more effective, in part because there are a lot of various buffs that are much more effective use of resources than healing.

Not all all. Let's take a arcane caster. Few are just "fireball chuckers' . Having a divine caster that does NOTHING but cure spells is as silly as a arcane caster that does nothing but cast fire damage spells.

Absolutely Buffing is better in the early rounds than healing as it decreases the need for healing. Healing is done only when the next hit will drop a party member, or after combat. It's absolutely a waste of time to cast a cure spell to "top off" a party member during combat.

Still, ever since OD&D, the "healer" has Buffing as a primary role, with condition removal and healing as reactive tasks when needed.

Let me ask this important question: Your party's Tank has just taken a lucky crit and the next regular hit by the monster with drop him to below zero. The combat clearly has at least a couple rounds to go. Do you:

A. Cure the Fighter so he can keep on dealing and absorbing damage (and since he has the best armor class- he also defect damage from the squishes at times)

B. Cast some damage spell or hit with mace that might just possibly drop the monster. Or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
True - about two-thirds of forum-users feel that way.
That a very poorly worded poll that shows the OP's bias. Like I said:" I think your bias here, OP, made you to word the poll so that it skews towards your personal viewpoint.

I agree, even though the poll wording was 50% mine (but not originally intended as a poll).

Quote:

Option 3: Healing in combat is a perfectly effective way to reduce risk to your party.

This option means that you will heal primarily but not exclusively.

I wrote the first sentence of that (as a brief summary of my own view) but not the part defining healing as a 'primary' activity, whatever that means.

If I was summarising my attitude to in-combat healing in slightly more depth:
* It's unlikely to be needed if your group is optimized for defeating enemies unless your GM finds a way to make it necessary.
* Healing in combat is a perfectly effective way to reduce risk to your party (as in, a character with high hit points is much less likely to be killed by a critical hit or all the enemies attacking them at once). Even more so if you're actually optimized for healing.
* There are offensive / battlefield control tactics that are more optimal than in-combat healing for keeping your allies standing...
* ...but you don't have to play the most optimal possible character all the time. There are character builds that can defeat whole encounters in a single action, but that's boring to me.
* In-combat healing is unlikely to be SO sub-optimal that it will get your party killed, which is the only measure of 'bad strategy' that matters to me. So if you want to play as an in-combat healer, don't let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong.


DrDeth wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I'm still waiting for any of the folks who think "healer" is a necessary role to thoughtfully acknowledge and respond to this large pool of data.

Since nobody has said this, you will wait a long time.

DrDeth has said a healer is necessary at this table. For all we know this is true. Maybe his GM keeps throwing more monsters at the group until he thinks they've been dealt a satisfactory amount of damage and then stops.

[bJames Jacobs[/b] has said in combat healing is necessary at [i]his[i/] table.

Mind you, to us the "Healer" role is a Buffer first, then healing. It's a Cleric or Oracle (or even Paladin) that has made direct offensive abilities a secondary role, and have taken feats, traits, archetypes which enhance the Buffer/healer niche. Of course casting a battlefield control spell early in the combat is a nice idea too.

Healing is reactive. But if the main tank damage dealer drops, you then lose massive damage output.

Raise your hands if you actually care how James Jacobs run things at his table in terms of how you run thing at your own... I personally don't give a rodents behind about how the creative director runs his games. His game is his game and our games are our games.

Dr Deth, can you please tell me where in gods green earth are you seeing the "tank" class, or barring that any mechanic that is inherently built into the game for aggro management? There Is No Trinity In Pathfinder.

If the GM wants to artificially run the "mobs" with a simulated buggy AI that only attacks the guy they are least likely to hurt, then maybe it might work out for a trinity style of game. The healer/tank/dps archetype of gaming exists in other games, like 4th ed or MMOs (and even GW2 abandoned it because its stale and boring, just look at the lines for instances in other games waiting for healers and tanks, more people want to play dps, not the tank/healer duo). Just keep in mind that this is how the GM is running his game, not actual rules.

As for "massive damage output loss" perhaps if everybody contributed their share it wouldn't be a big deal if he got knocked out? Go ahead and defend the pocket cleric/healer all you want. All I see is a pocket anchor not doing enough. Nothing in the classes says that the "buffer/healer" can't also be the primary or secondary damage source. Clerics and oracles are deep classes, playing as just buffer/healer is like playing half of the class.

About half the time when my cleric is used in PFS I end up being primary dps and primary buffing. She has broad shoulders, but its annoying when I adventure with people asking "where is the tank" or "who do I need to follow to heal" I usually handle it in character the first time one of them tries to touch my character in combat with a heal: "stop jostling my elbows, its just a scratch", "wait till the tavern if you want to hanky panky", "I have a stick I use to scratch my back, I don't need your help" If she gets into trouble I say something to the other clerics like "Don't be as useless as your god, get in here and FIGHT!" Yeah, Clerics of Gorum are jerks, but I think its a funny way to play it.


DrDeth wrote:


Let me ask this important question: Your party's Tank has just taken a lucky crit and the next regular hit by the monster with drop him to below zero. The combat clearly has at least a couple rounds to go. Do you:

A. Cure the Fighter so he can keep on dealing and absorbing damage (and since he has the best armor class- he also defect damage from the squishes at times)

B. Cast some damage spell or hit with mace that might just possibly drop the monster. Or not.

Neither, and that's a key point. Until you've got the Heal spell, you're not going to be able to cure enough damage to allow him to stay up -- most of the monsters do substantially more damage per round than your cure spells. At 5th level, for example, your cure serious wounds will cure 3d8+5, or about 20 points on average. A CR 7 monster (any monster that's likely to do serious damage to your tank is probably higher CR than your level) does 22-30 points per round After one round, you'll be exactly where you were before, with the tank still at death's door.

A better choice is C. Cast a spell that will prevent the fighter from taking more damage. Protection from Energy, for example, will prevent up to 60 points of appropriate damage from affecting the tank at all, buying you between 2 and 3 rounds.


DrDeth wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Mind you, to us the "Healer" role is a Buffer first, then healing.

I think this is a very important distinction that you're blurring.

"Healing" is largely a poor use of resources. "Support casting" is much more general and usually much more effective, in part because there are a lot of various buffs that are much more effective use of resources than healing.

Not all all. Let's take a arcane caster. Few are just "fireball chuckers' . Having a divine caster that does NOTHING but cure spells is as silly as a arcane caster that does nothing but cast fire damage spells.

Er,...

To some extent, you're right -- that's why people don't talk about "fireball chuckers", they talk about "blasters," recognizing that there are a lot of blast spells out there that are better, or at least different, from fireball.

To some extent you're wrong, because there are a few blast spells that are good enough that casters can and do focus on those spells (and use appropriate feats that make them continue to be useful up in to high levels) -- the shocking grasp magus is one such example. He really does focus on just one spell.

Quote:


Still, ever since OD&D, the "healer" has Buffing as a primary role, with condition removal and healing as reactive tasks when needed.

I'm sorry, but this is simply untrue. "Healer" is different than "support caster," and most of the guides, for example, are very clear on this point.

For example, here's a quote from Tark's guide:

Quote:


1. THOU ART NOT A BANDAID: Right if you’ve read any of treantmonk’s guides than you are aware that the role of a party healer is a wasted one. Sure, you can be decent at it but a dead enemy is an enemy that deals no damage. That’s why this guide refers to “Support” clerics rather than “Healers”. Clerics make great supporters, buffers, secondary tanks and strikers when need be but they are not healers.

Further to above: here's a quote from [url=https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WdtrZCESRmVfljXY196wMrMLTnS8Uzk4DEk3oQdVZok/edit?hl=en_US]FitzSimon's guide to the Oracle[/utl] that says roughly the same thing:

Quote:


The out of combat roles for an oracle are as follows:

[snip]

Medic: Combat brings about its fair share of scrapes and bruises, and you’re here to mend the pieces. Healing is generally best done outside of combat, and may include repairing hitpoint damage, curing poisons and diseases, and removing ability damage. Every oracle who chooses the “cure wounds” option will fill this role to some degree, but this particular listing is for characters who truly choose to pursue this. Invest in the heal skill- it’ll save you a lot of grief early on.

The relevant in-combat role from that guide is:

Quote:
Enabler: This character puts a strong emphasis on making sure her allies are as powerful as they can be. She’ll spend her time in combat applying buffs and boons appropriate to the situation, negating enemy attacks with abjurations, and summoning allies to assist her companions.

Again, healing is different from support casting.

And here's the quote from one of the Witch guides:

Quote:


Hedge Witch - If your party lacks a half-competent healer, you yourself can be that half-competent healer. Usually you’ll want to still be ruining your enemies’ day, but being able to spontaneously cast Cure spells in addition to using Healing Hex is useful.
NOTE: I don’t really condone dedicated healers, but if that’s your bag, so be it.

and here's from the Paladin guide:

Quote:

[Paladins] have Lay on Hands, a power that has converted into the only combat healing that should ever be done.

See, like Treatmonk, I agree that the WAY overplayed healer is a total waste of the party resources. While the rare combat healing might be necessary, it's not going to outdo the damage that monsters are made to dish out. So everyone needs to be able to contribute their fair share.

And from Tark's tactics guide:

Quote:


A dedicated healer does nothing to quickly end an encounter but may do more to prolong it and even drain further resources as others will be forced to use their own resources to [defeat encounters].

[snip]

The Arm represents the support center of the group. He allows the hammer to hit harder, the anvil to hold the enemy better and keeps them working before the enemy can break either. Through buffs, heals, or other forms of support an arm allows the rest of the group to perform better than normal and overcome encounters very quickly without an extra drain on resources.

Shadow Lodge

Castarr4 wrote:
Edit: Also, NPCs get no traits, last I checked. And NPC loot (unless you raise their CR by 1)

You should really learn not to make assumptions about a type of game that can vary so radically from table to table.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Castarr4 wrote:
Edit: Also, NPCs get no traits, last I checked. And NPC loot (unless you raise their CR by 1)
You should really learn not to make assumptions about a type of game that can vary so radically from table to table.
Sorry? I was going by the official rules, which state
Quote:
Character traits are only for player characters. If you want an NPC to have traits, that NPC must “buy” them with the Additional Traits feat. Player characters are special; they’re the stars of the game, after all, and it makes sense that they have an advantage over the NPCs of the world in this way.

The official rules also state that NPCs get NPC level gear as outlined in the table called NPC Gear in the CRB.

My assumptions are the baseline of the game. If you give all your NPCs traits and PC loot, then you're the exception and NOT the rule. If we are having a discussion about how an element of Pathfinder works, we should discuss it under the framework of the official Pathfinder rules.

Am I entirely missing the mark here? It's possible I'm misreading what you're saying here. What assumption am I making that you disagree with? I'm okay with being wrong, so I'd like to know what you think I'm wrong about here so I can correct myself in the future.


notabot wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
I'm still waiting for any of the folks who think "healer" is a necessary role to thoughtfully acknowledge and respond to this large pool of data.

Since nobody has said this, you will wait a long time.

DrDeth has said a healer is necessary at this table. For all we know this is true. Maybe his GM keeps throwing more monsters at the group until he thinks they've been dealt a satisfactory amount of damage and then stops.

[bJames Jacobs[/b] has said in combat healing is necessary at [i]his[i/] table.

Mind you, to us the "Healer" role is a Buffer first, then healing. It's a Cleric or Oracle (or even Paladin) that has made direct offensive abilities a secondary role, and have taken feats, traits, archetypes which enhance the Buffer/healer niche. Of course casting a battlefield control spell early in the combat is a nice idea too.

Healing is reactive. But if the main tank damage dealer drops, you then lose massive damage output.

Raise your hands if you actually care how James Jacobs run things at his table in terms of how you run thing at your own... I personally don't give a rodents behind about how the creative director runs his games. His game is his game and our games are our games.

Dr Deth, can you please tell me where in gods green earth are you seeing the "tank" class, or barring that any mechanic that is inherently built into the game for aggro management?

Raises hand. And you see- that's how we play also. So the Creative Head of the game plays it that way and three groups I am in play that way. In fact - I have never really seen it played any other way except one game at a shop once.

Well, you see- many monsters have low int and why would they run past a target to get to other targets, esp if those other targets are getting out of the way, flying etc?

Next- if there's a choke point they have to come past the tank. And, any decent caster can use battlefield control to MAKE a choke point.

Note- I have no idea what some of those terms mean, maybe something with online gaming?


Orfamay Quest wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Mind you, to us the "Healer" role is a Buffer first, then healing.

I think this is a very important distinction that you're blurring.

"Healing" is largely a poor use of resources. "Support casting" is much more general and usually much more effective, in part because there are a lot of various buffs that are much more effective use of resources than healing.

Not all all. Let's take a arcane caster. Few are just "fireball chuckers' . Having a divine caster that does NOTHING but cure spells is as silly as a arcane caster that does nothing but cast fire damage spells.
Quote:


Still, ever since OD&D, the "healer" has Buffing as a primary role, with condition removal and healing as reactive tasks when needed.

I'm sorry, but this is simply untrue. "Healer" is different than "support caster," and most of the guides, for example, are very clear on this point. here's a quote from Tark's guide

.

1. I understand that being around since 1974 and even being a Dev back then doesn't mean I understand how Pathfinder plays any more that any other experienced player. But it sure as HELL means I know the History of D&D, esp as I am part of it. And- "ever since OD&D, the "healer" has Buffing as a primary role, with condition removal and healing as reactive tasks when needed" is an absolute truth, since I was playing and designing back then.

2. Who the heck is "Tark"? And why should I give a rodents rear end what he thinks? What dev credits does this "Tark" have?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like James Jacobs, from what I know of him. But to be honest, I don't really care what he does at his table. And him being the creative director of Paizo doesn't really change that one iota.


DrDeth wrote:


2. Who the heck is "Tark"? And why should I give a rodents rear end what he thinks? What dev credits does this "Tark" have?

Just some jerk who spends way too much time on these boards and occasionally publishes something 3rd party. Nevermind him.

In truth you have much the right idea, but using the bad old terminology. Healer and Tank are misleading. That's why I've all but tried to expunge them from my vocabulary and worked to try and steer people away from the terms.

From my point of view you're on the same page but your trying to use old terms on people for whom they've taken on different meanings.


Kthulhu wrote:
I like James Jacobs, from what I know of him. But to be honest, I don't really care what he does at his table. And him being the creative director of Paizo doesn't really change that one iota.

Indeed, as JJ has said himself a number of times, it shouldn't matter how anyone else plays the game, it's there for us to use and modify any way we see fit.

When Pathfinder doesn't play out the way I feel it should, I don't change how I play, I change Pathfinder.


DrDeth wrote:


Let me ask this important question: Your party's Tank has just taken a lucky crit and the next regular hit by the monster with drop him to below zero. The combat clearly has at least a couple rounds to go. Do you:

A. Cure the Fighter so he can keep on dealing and absorbing damage (and since he has the best armor class- he also defect damage from the squishes at times)

B. Cast some damage spell or hit with mace that might just possibly drop the monster. Or not.

More information is required here.

What spells do I have available?

What's the terrain like?

Just what are the hard chances of the monster even landing the regular hit?

Just what is "the tank" exactly?

What's the rest of my group doing? Scratching themselves?

Scenarios like this are useless. Real game data is helpful. You claim your game is like this. Why not just post some real situations that support yourself from that game?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am somewhat annoyed by the ongoing presumption that unless the healing gives back every single hit point from a hit, its useless. If a hit, say, takes you down fifty p doing average damage, and the heal takes you up to any number over fifty, then you have quite likely bought that person another round of action.


Matthew Donnie wrote:


* It's unlikely to be needed if your group is optimized for defeating enemies unless your GM finds a way to make it necessary.
* Healing in combat is a perfectly effective way to reduce risk to your party (as in, a character with high hit points is much less likely to be killed by a critical hit or all the enemies attacking them at once). Even more so if you're actually optimized for healing.
* There are offensive / battlefield control tactics that are more optimal than in-combat healing for keeping your allies standing...
* ...but you don't have to play the most optimal possible character all the time. There are character builds that can defeat whole encounters in a single action, but that's boring to me.
* In-combat healing is unlikely to be SO sub-optimal that it will get your party killed, which is the only measure of 'bad strategy' that matters to me. So if you want to play as an in-combat healer, don't let anyone tell you you're doing it wrong.

I share your view about this.

A character that puts a bit of effort into healing abilities can be a very useful healer, and in some combats, healing can actually win the fight nearly by it's own. That's not to say nothing else can win the fight by it's own nor that it is "the most optimal thing you could ever do", but when the party's up against martial/damage-focused enemies and you have numerical advantage, healing even half of the damage they deal can be enough by far to easily win by attrition. It also reduces the risk of one-round kills of a party member, which is a risk (especially at lower levels).

At first level, channel energy can often be a very valid choice of action, especially from an oracle. Once you get Shield Other, it can turn targeted damage into area damage that severely increases the usefulness of channel.

That said, it is a circumstantial ability. It is not something to build a character around, in general - sure, a superoptimized healer can be very good at healing (10th level aasimar oracle of life with quick channel and seductive healing can heal something like 16d6 to all her friends as a full-round action 3 times per day, and 8 bonus hit points once per day (or; with shield other that can be very powerful) but it's a high price for something that often won't be very useful.


TarkXT wrote:
Why not just post some real situations that support yourself from that game?

I think regardless of what anecdotes DrDeth would post, the answer would be "well this class/build could have solved it by doing this thing instead" or similar, or "well that's just an anecdote and doesn't really mean anything". For DrDeth, I think it'd be just a waste of time.

I may not agree with DrDeth's claims very much, and I think his obnoxious hangup on "dev credit" is just annoying and unfounded, but I do think that no matter what proof except some harsh theorycraft that he might post, he'll get shut down by others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an addendum to that post ... The other theorem is ... Its only worth NOT doing healing on someone who is able to be taken out in one round if you think you can end the combat THAT ROUND via your non healing action. If you are sure that the combat is going to continue extra rounds, then keeping the other person on their feet becomes important.

Of course, if you CAN end the whole thing through your action, or your action plus the others, that round, then of course do it.


RDM42 wrote:

As an addendum to that post ... The other theorem is ... Its only worth NOT doing healing on someone who is able to be taken out in one round if you think you can end the combat THAT ROUND via your non healing action. If you are sure that the combat is going to continue extra rounds, then keeping the other person on their feet becomes important.

Of course, if you CAN end the whole thing through your action, or your action plus the others, that round, then of course do it.

At the very least, I'd change that to "likely to be taken out in one round". I've played plenty of characters who could be taken out in one round by some opponents at full hps. At least with some combination of multiple opponents, critical hits and the like.


Ilja wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Why not just post some real situations that support yourself from that game?

I think regardless of what anecdotes DrDeth would post, the answer would be "well this class/build could have solved it by doing this thing instead" or similar, or "well that's just an anecdote and doesn't really mean anything". For DrDeth, I think it'd be just a waste of time.

I may not agree with DrDeth's claims very much, and I think his obnoxious hangup on "dev credit" is just annoying and unfounded, but I do think that no matter what proof except some harsh theorycraft that he might post, he'll get shut down by others.

I don't disagree. But, real gameply experience is real experience. Of course their are other experiences that are counter to this. But, for me at least, actual gameplay is more credible than theory craft. Theorycraft is derived from the gameplay, not usually the other way around.


TarkXT wrote:
I don't disagree. But, real gameply experience is real experience. Of course their are other experiences that are counter to this. But, for me at least, actual gameplay is more credible than theory craft. Theorycraft is derived from the gameplay, not usually the other way around.

Agreed. I just think it's kind of obnoxious that despite many groups reporting - and this is groups that have plenty of experience with the game - that healing has been used to great effect in their games, some people seem to need to come in and shout down that "well if they had this specific build instead they'd have a 75% chance of performing better in this scenario".

I'm not saying there's no gameplay experience that healing doesn't work - there's plenty - but far too often I see a very high reliance on theorycraft, and bad theorycraft for that matter in that it calculates averages, where the averages aren't usually the interesting thing - it's guarding against the times it goes bad that is.

I see this often; healing debates is one case, and one extremely clear and obvious example of this is how Color Spray is hailed "if you optimize for it, it'll have a 85% chance to knock out most monsters at level 1!!!". Well, the issue is, 15% of the time you'll end up standing next to an unscathed melee opponent that has a decent chance of _killing_ you in one blow, and which might be right after you in initiative.

It's less obvious in a case like healing, but some of the same tendencies apply. Healing always has an effect, but when discussing cases, it seems like "avg dpr 15 and the enemy has 10 hp" means it's better to attack the monster, since on average it'll die. Issue is, the cost for rolling low is higher than the cost of wasting a heal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
I don't disagree. But, real gameply experience is real experience. Of course their are other experiences that are counter to this. But, for me at least, actual gameplay is more credible than theory craft. Theorycraft is derived from the gameplay, not usually the other way around.
Agreed. I just think it's kind of obnoxious that despite many groups reporting - and this is groups that have plenty of experience with the game - that healing has been used to great effect in their games, some people seem to need to come in and shout down that "well if they had this specific build instead they'd have a 75% chance of performing better in this scenario".

If it matters, theorycrafting using numbers is great as seeing how useful something is, but isn't so great at more abstract things and variables. Just the same, experience can be incredibly biased and doesn't look at the chance you succeed but instead the fact you are succeeding or failing and usually doesn't look at the whole picture.

The fact that healing scales slower and has a lower average than damage is a fact that doesn't change. The fact that it can be useful is much more abstract. In the same vein, theorycrafting with numbers is going to show you that taking down your threats mitigates more damage than healing the damage taken.


thejeff wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

As an addendum to that post ... The other theorem is ... Its only worth NOT doing healing on someone who is able to be taken out in one round if you think you can end the combat THAT ROUND via your non healing action. If you are sure that the combat is going to continue extra rounds, then keeping the other person on their feet becomes important.

Of course, if you CAN end the whole thing through your action, or your action plus the others, that round, then of course do it.

At the very least, I'd change that to "likely to be taken out in one round". I've played plenty of characters who could be taken out in one round by some opponents at full hps. At least with some combination of multiple opponents, critical hits and the like.

Yeah. Its more what i meant anyway.


MrSin wrote:
Ilja wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
I don't disagree. But, real gameply experience is real experience. Of course their are other experiences that are counter to this. But, for me at least, actual gameplay is more credible than theory craft. Theorycraft is derived from the gameplay, not usually the other way around.
Agreed. I just think it's kind of obnoxious that despite many groups reporting - and this is groups that have plenty of experience with the game - that healing has been used to great effect in their games, some people seem to need to come in and shout down that "well if they had this specific build instead they'd have a 75% chance of performing better in this scenario".

If it matters, theorycrafting using numbers is great as seeing how useful something is, but isn't so great at more abstract things and variables. Just the same, experience can be incredibly biased and doesn't look at the chance you succeed but instead the fact you are succeeding or failing and usually doesn't look at the whole picture.

The fact that healing scales slower and has a lower average than damage is a fact that doesn't change. The fact that it can be useful is much more abstract. In the same vein, theorycrafting with numbers is going to show you that taking down your threats mitigates more damage than healing the damage taken.

Both are ultimately what to look for.

Theorycraft and al the stuff that goes into it are useful to determine what the math supports, all the easily defined variables and common situations and math you'll come across.

Yes, it's an 85% chance that said color spray will affect an opponent. That's a great chance from a theory craft standpoint.

And I've discovered it's also great froma gameplay standpoint.

In the several forum games I've run low level for many enemies the chances are much higher than 85% chance for foes to fail that save.

Plus, given that said wizard will often knock out one, but two and soemtimes even three out at a time the spell becomes quite a great follow up to a spell like sleep.

CAn the wizard be one shot? Sure. But so could the main melee guy if surrounded by two to three foes. Plus,just as using excessive healing is cited as teamwork, so too is the idea of having the melee guy going right after the wizard to smash down the people who made their saves.

That's what usually happened. Damage may or may not have happened to the party but ultimately it turned out to be meaningless since by that point the action advantage was skewed so much towards the pc's that the actual numbers were meaningless.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Damn the boards for eating the bigger follow-up post.

Long story short, theorycraft proves the math, but gameplay tells us what variable changed to make the math different. Understanding the differences teaches us what groups in what situations where healing becomes a requirement rather than a necessary maintenance tool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
I like James Jacobs, from what I know of him. But to be honest, I don't really care what he does at his table. And him being the creative director of Paizo doesn't really change that one iota.

Of course, his way of playing is by no means the One True Way. Nor is ours. But I brought him up- and our table- to dispel the myth that healing during combat is something that only newbs and naifs do. That's not true at all. Healing during combat is a excellent and much needed tactic in a rather common and normal game play style. That doesn't mean that way of playing is the only RIGHT way by any means- it just means exactly what I said- it's commonly used by a significant portion of the most experienced players and DMs. Of course other tables with experienced players & DMs certainly can & do have a different style.

But that's my point- healing during combat is a great tactic in certain tables with a certain game style. So, saying it's useless and a waste of time just means that at YOUR table with YOUR game style it may well be. Don't try and tell everyone else they are not playing the Right Way just because they play different that you.

Tark, I appreciate your comments and guides- they seem well thought out. But your opinion is exactly that- your opinion of what works at YOUR games. It may well lead to complete disaster at other tables.

Ilja- you make some excellent points on Theorycraft. Altho Theorycraft is a valuable TOOL, it's not always the right tool for the job. What works in theory doesn't always work in reality.


DrDeth wrote:
I brought him up- and our table- to dispel the myth that healing during combat is something that only newbs and naifs do.

Did someone say that? I ran a search on this thread and only you said the word newb or naïf.

DrDeth wrote:
Ilja- you make some excellent points on Theorycraft. Altho Theorycraft is a valuable TOOL, it's not always the right tool for the job. What works in theory doesn't always work in reality.

Mind you in a game of numbers it is the right tool, and in fixing numbers it is the right tool.


MrSin wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
I brought him up- and our table- to dispel the myth that healing during combat is something that only newbs and naifs do.

Did someone say that? I ran a search on this thread and only you said the word newb or naïf.

DrDeth wrote:
Ilja- you make some excellent points on Theorycraft. Altho Theorycraft is a valuable TOOL, it's not always the right tool for the job. What works in theory doesn't always work in reality.
Mind you in a game of numbers it is the right tool, and in fixing numbers it is the right tool.

Oh, maybe not those words exactly but how about "Healing in combat is a colossal waste of time" or "mostly a waste of actions in combat." or "the role of a party healer is a wasted one" and so forth.

Maybe that's our disconnect. You play PF as a "Game of numbers", we play it as a "Roleplaying game where we use numbers to aid us in our play- not tell us what or how to play".


DrDeth wrote:


Tark, I appreciate your comments and guides- they seem well thought out. But your opinion is exactly that- your opinion of what works at YOUR games. It may well lead to complete disaster at other tables.

Except, if that were entirely true, I wouldn't have bothered to make the guide. A great number of what I write is a mix of observations not just from my games, but reading others, observing others, seeing how official games play out, reading the boards, seeing how others have done it.

And I pay attention to how others react and use what I put down too. For the vast majority most people are helped by what I've given rather than hurt. I support those ideas, even if they're contradictory to what I've done in the past, that actually work. I also ruthlessly fight against or outright ignore those ideas which are harmful.

So no, it's not just MY games. My experience is broader then that. We live in an age where a simple youtube (listening to a german, 2 brits, and one american play Paranoia is comedy gold) or twitch.tv search let's me listen, watch and laugh at other games. I can look at the PbP boards and go through and read entire playthroughs of AP's, homebrews, modules, conversions, and PFS scenarios. I do this because it makes me write better for it because I know too well that the stuff I write won't show up just at my table. This goes both for guides and freelancing.

So yes, it is an opinion, and no it won't work for every game. But it's stuff that works at fundamental levels. It's up to the player to determine what works at their particular table.

What I think you fail to see is that we see pretty much the same. The difference is merely degree and terminology.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Maybe that's our disconnect. You play PF as a "Game of numbers", we play it as a "Roleplaying game where we use numbers to aid us in our play- not tell us what or how to play".

Thank you for telling me how I play person I've never met? Secretly we all play it as a game of numbers, that's what the mechanics are. Most, if not all, of us roleplay, as do two five-year-olds in daycare. What we choose to look at, study, understand, etc. might vary pretty greatly though.

I do use this as a tool for roleplay and a game, and I like the roleplay far more than I do the game, and I study the numbers and mechanics so I can do both better.


MrSin wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Maybe that's our disconnect. You play PF as a "Game of numbers", we play it as a "Roleplaying game where we use numbers to aid us in our play- not tell us what or how to play".
Thank you for telling me how I play person I've never met?

Your exact words "Mind you in a game of numbers" thus I could only assume you treat PF as a game of numbers. It's very true I have never met or played with you, thus i can only work on what you post. If your posts don;t match how you play, I am sorry for jumping to conclusions.


TarkXT wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Tark, I appreciate your comments and guides- they seem well thought out. But your opinion is exactly that- your opinion of what works at YOUR games. It may well lead to complete disaster at other tables.

Except, if that were entirely true, I wouldn't have bothered to make the guide. A great number of what I write is a mix of observations not just from my games, but reading others, observing others, seeing how official games play out, reading the boards, seeing how others have done it.

Why is it then that your observations don't seem to match how we play our games and how the Paizo staff themselves play the game they designed? Perhaps maybe you don't have a large enough sample size?


DrDeth wrote:


Why is it then that your observations don't seem to match how we play our games and how the Paizo staff themselves play the game they designed? Perhaps maybe you don't have a large enough sample size?

How much bigger would it have to be to make my opinion any different?

EDIT: By the way SKR has flat out said the game favors offense over defense in favor of the PC's. This was in a minor rant against power gaming as he is want to do. Also, much of the Paizo staff that work on the game are freelancers that post on these boards. Try asking Cheapy or Owen "based" K.C. Stephens how their games run.

EDIT: English is ahrd ;-_-


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
MrSin wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Maybe that's our disconnect. You play PF as a "Game of numbers", we play it as a "Roleplaying game where we use numbers to aid us in our play- not tell us what or how to play".
Thank you for telling me how I play person I've never met?
Your exact words "Mind you in a game of numbers" thus I could only assume you treat PF as a game of numbers. It's very true I have never met or played with you, thus i can only work on what you post. If your posts don;t match how you play, I am sorry for jumping to conclusions.

It is curious. You always get angered and leave the thread when people try to conclude things from your posts but you show no remorse of doing the same thing to MrSin.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


Let me ask this important question: Your party's Tank has just taken a lucky crit and the next regular hit by the monster with drop him to below zero. The combat clearly has at least a couple rounds to go. Do you:

A. Cure the Fighter so he can keep on dealing and absorbing damage (and since he has the best armor class- he also defect damage from the squishes at times)

B. Cast some damage spell or hit with mace that might just possibly drop the monster. Or not.

Neither, and that's a key point. Until you've got the Heal spell, you're not going to be able to cure enough damage to allow him to stay up -- most of the monsters do substantially more damage per round than your cure spells. At 5th level, for example, your cure serious wounds will cure 3d8+5, or about 20 points on average. A CR 7 monster (any monster that's likely to do serious damage to your tank is probably higher CR than your level) does 22-30 points per round After one round, you'll be exactly where you were before, with the tank still at death's door.

A better choice is C. Cast a spell that will prevent the fighter from taking more damage. Protection from Energy, for example, will prevent up to 60 points of appropriate damage from affecting the tank at all, buying you between 2 and 3 rounds.

There are plenty of contexts where healing may be the best option available though. Perhaps Protection from Energy wasn't prepared today. Perhaps you don't have any combat relevant spells left at this moment-- your best bet may very well be spontaneously converting that Communal Tongues spell into a Cure.

Or maybe there it is reasonable to believe that the massive damage your fighter just took won't be repeated again next turn. Maybe the caster just unleashed his most powerful blast before getting sniped and dropped by the ranger. Perhaps the big bad guy is on the verge of death but just rendered the fighter the same, and the fighter needs one more full attack too finish it, but the initiative order has goes you, mook 1, mook 2, fighter, rogue, boss villain. Your heal spell could keep the fighter alive through the attacks of the mook to finish the boss.

I think shifting the focus from being a "healer" to an "enabler" is a good thing, because I've seen players get bored and frustrated as healers. It's not a super effective go-to thing. But one of the things about healing is that you can pretty much always do it spontaneously if you are a divine, and if you didn't choose the right spells that day to nerf the bad guy somehow your allies will rarely object to a quick heal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
I like James Jacobs, from what I know of him. But to be honest, I don't really care what he does at his table. And him being the creative director of Paizo doesn't really change that one iota.
Of course, his way of playing is by no means the One True Way.

You say that, and yet every time someone mentions having a different gameplay experience you start shrieking that it doesn't work that way in James Jacobs' games, so they're obviously eeevil rollplaying scum who don't play the game properly.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

At least he hasn't mentioned that one time he suggested to Arneson and Gygax how fun it would be to make their miniature wargame characters fight a bunch of Munsters in the dungeons under a castle.

Yet.


It strikes me that perhaps people who are still playing like it's 1980 and con and strength bonuses are dinky or nonexistent are coming up with different answers because they're still playing like it's 1980.

Scaling save DCs, large HP totals, and large weapon damage completely change the game, but only if the GM or players know how to apply them.


RDM42 wrote:

As an addendum to that post ... The other theorem is ... Its only worth NOT doing healing on someone who is able to be taken out in one round if you think you can end the combat THAT ROUND via your non healing action.

That's not correct, and the reason it's not correct is key.

If I can take a non-healing action that will keep someone on their feat for three rounds, or a healing action that will do it for one, which should I take?

A spell, for example, may not end the combat, but may reduce the opposition's ability to inflict damage by two thirds or more.

151 to 200 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.