Why is healing so much harder than doing damage?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 215 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Example 1: 2d8+3 (level 2 cleric cure spell) vs. 4d6 (wizard scorching ray). Averages 10 vs. 14.
Example 2: Level 10 snowball/shocking grasp with a metamagic rod or the equivalent vs. lvl 10 cure light wounds with a metamagic rod or the equivalent. Averages 35 vs. 14.5.

I know you can miss, or have fail chance, but the math is not even close. Also, it is much easier to add damage with bloodline arcana than it is to increase healing. A simple 1d4 health per caster level seems like the answer to me, but what do you think?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

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

A: So the fights end quickly.

Grand Lodge

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

Because healing tends to be large amounts of dice with small static modifiers, while damage tends to be small amounts of dice with large static modifiers.

Damage has a higher minimum value than healing.

Grand Lodge

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's always easier to break things than fix them.


If things healed (subtracted damage) as much as they were hurt (added damage), things wouldn't die.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It just defeats the purpose of being a healer. You can run around all day, and if they were gonna die, they will still die. The best bet is always to add damage and hope that it will die first. : (


Then you cast Breath of Life, maybe Heal...

Scarab Sages

Yes, Heal changes the game. I mean before you can Heal.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bling wrote:
It just defeats the purpose of being a healer. You can run around all day, and if they were gonna die, they will still die.

While my mistress is the ultimate authority, I have some capability to sway my companions fate.

The Exchange

healing is easy, it just tends to be in small amounts that add up.

No attack rolls needed most of the time. You have channel energy which is a level 1 aoe heal that scales for free. arcane casters have infernal healing which is 10 health for a level 1 spell. There is a level 3 spell which gives at will temp hit points (Summon Monster III for Lantern Archon using Aid). Loads of class abilities to empower or ignore the cap on the cure line of spells. Lay on hands is amazing (bonus for halfling paladins), The heal skill heals a decent amount of HP, and you heal just by doing nothing.

I would say the state of healing right now is really good. Just don't do cure x wounds in combat much. So many classes have cure spells it can really add up for newer party compositions.

edit: Druids do suffer as a wizard heals better than they do unless you use 3rd party options. (just saying healing is not a druid's strength)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

It's necessary that healing should be weaker than damage, otherwise you can reach awkward stalemates (if the enemies have a dedicated healer) or just drag combat down to a crawl (if either—or Heaven forbid, both—sides have healers).

Even so, there's still room to amp up the healing without crossing that line. Here's one possible "fix" to the cure spells:

CLW: As a 1st-level spell, the damage "ceiling" it needs to be underneath is 1d4/level (small area) or 1d6/level (touch), each with a cap of 5 dice. Options for CLW, then are 1d3/lvl (max 5), though this makes wands/potions/scrolls really terrible; or maybe 2d4 + 1d4 at 4th/6th/8th (capping at 5d4, but slower than burning hands). Or, you could just leave this one as-is.

CMW: The gold standard for a 2nd-level damage spell is scorching ray; it's built a little funny, but ultimately it comes out to roughly 1d6/level (cap 12) to a single target. So what you might do here is have CMW heal 1d4/level (max 10).

CSW: At 3rd level, spells are generally dealing 1d6/level to a substantial area (fireball, lightning bolt). So you might let CSW (being a single-target touch spell) heal 1d6/level. You can match the damage of a same-level spell, but only to one of the victims.

CCW: This gets a little weird. Most damaging 4th-level spells deal damage like a 3rd-level spell (or less!) and then add an extra effect (ex: ice storm). Even looking ahead to 5th-level spells, all we really have is cone of cold, which does 3rd-level damage, just in a huge area. Alternatively, you could look at 5th-level spells as Empowered 3rd-level spells, in which case damage is more like (1d6+3)/level to an area. Back it up a spell level, and 4th-level spells are looking at what, maybe (1d6+1)/level to an area? So maybe you could have CCW heal (1d6+1)/level. Alternatively, you could use a different format, like Xd6 + 1/level, picking a static value for X. Finally, another option would be to have it heal the same damage as CSW, but also remove certain conditions.

Just some thoughts. :)


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Bling wrote:
It just defeats the purpose of being a healer. You can run around all day, and if they were gonna die, they will still die. The best bet is always to add damage and hope that it will die first. : (

Because healing isnt a role in pathfinder. Divine caster is. Your primary purpose isnt supposed to be undoing damage as it happens. Sure you can do some healing in emergencies, but in general you should be taking an active role in ending encounters, not extending them so combats drag on. If divine casters could match damage outputs with their healing, there would be no threat to encounters until they were out of spells. You want encounters to be dangerous and exciting while everyone is active and doing their thing. Divine casters can buff, debuff, control, all of which contributes more to exciting and dynamic encounters, then a pure numbers game the 'healer' role would provide.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As someone put it another way, it is easier to destroy than to create. What is harder, creating a masterpiece of music or taking 5 seconds to light it on fire and destroy it?

Destruction is relatively easy. And also mechanically what was said. If it isn't lose 5 get 1 back it'd make combat much longer.


So combat is dangerous. Healing makes combat slightly less dangerous but if it negated the danger of combat it would negate the fun in the process.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the healing progression is a holdover from the 1st edition of the "other game." Back when characters had fewer hit points a boost of 2d8+1 at third level wasn't so bad. In PF characters have more hit points than the "old game" and can do more damage, but healing doesn't scale accordingly. I'm guessing that is an intentional design feature on the part of the developers, but that's just my guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regarding the argument "creating is harder than destroying", please bear in mind that this is fantasy - not real life - and that we are talking about magic. Using magic to create things in game is easy once you possess the spells and skills.


Bling wrote:
It just defeats the purpose of being a healer. You can run around all day, and if they were gonna die, they will still die. The best bet is always to add damage and hope that it will die first. : (

That's correct.

Healing in combat is a colossal waste of time; the cleric (or whatever) should be smashing face. I call this 'pre-emptive healing'. If you kill a monster before it gets in another 20 damage attack, you've effectively healed 20 points of damage with little to no resource cost.

This is why you shouldn't play a 'healer'. You should play a SUPPORTER. Buff in combat, smash some face, then do your healing out of combat.

To say nothing of the fact that throwing around healing spells is just plain boring.


A healer's job in the party is not to keep everyone at full health, but to keep them alive, at least while on the road, between adventures, one can easily fix up all wounds incurred


Just because there's magic to create things doesn't mean everyone can do it and doesn't mean it has to change the fundamental idea that manipulating energy is less sophisticated as the divine energy used to create life.

Zhayne wrote:
Bling wrote:
It just defeats the purpose of being a healer. You can run around all day, and if they were gonna die, they will still die. The best bet is always to add damage and hope that it will die first. : (

That's correct.

Healing in combat is a colossal waste of time; the cleric (or whatever) should be smashing face. I call this 'pre-emptive healing'. If you kill a monster before it gets in another 20 damage attack, you've effectively healed 20 points of damage with little to no resource cost.

This is why you shouldn't play a 'healer'. You should play a SUPPORTER. Buff in combat, smash some face, then do your healing out of combat.

To say nothing of the fact that throwing around healing spells is just plain boring.

I hear this theorycraft argument regularly on here and simply don't buy it. Things always go your way and follow DPR with 20-sided dice? You don't encounter crits or an enemy that has an ability/tactic that is especially devastating to your group? Your DM always follows APL+0 so you take just enough damage to finish fights without heals? It just doesn't fly with me.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MattR1986 wrote:
I hear this theorycraft argument regularly on here and simply don't buy it. Things always go your way and follow DPR with 20-sided dice? You don't encounter crits or an enemy that has an ability/tactic that is especially devastating to your group? Your DM always follows APL+0 so you take just enough damage to finish fights without heals? It just doesn't fly with me.

It's not a theorycraft argument.

I've currently got PCs at 12th, 11th, 9th, 6th, and 2nd levels, all of them having started at 1st. These PCs routinely have completely random parties (organized play), and as a result almost never have a dedicated "healer" at the table. I can think of two PCs I've sat with who self-identified as "healers"; one of them was very powerful, the other was definitely "the load" at the table. A total of around 3-4 sessions out of 40 levels worth of gameplay had a "healer".

Interestingly enough, everyone does just fine without a healer. These are real games with 20-sided dice and crits and challenging monster abilities and fights ranging from APL+0 to APL+5.

Furthermore, one of my PCs (the 11th-level one) is in fact a cleric, built to fight. But since he's a (good-aligned) cleric, he's had the option from level 1 of sacrificing spells for spontaneous cures, and I've always been willing to do so if the situation requires it. After all, he's good-aligned; he wants his comrades to be safe. But you know what? In 11 levels of gameplay with this cleric, there has been exactly one fight in which the use of magical healing was the best way I could help ensure my party's safety.

One fight in 11 levels as a cleric. No "healer" necessary.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it theorycraft.


MattR1986 wrote:


I hear this theorycraft argument regularly on here and simply don't buy it. Things always go your way and follow DPR with 20-sided dice? You don't encounter crits or an enemy that has an ability/tactic that is especially devastating to your group? Your DM always follows APL+0 so you take just enough damage to finish fights without heals? It just doesn't fly with me.

It's simple. Every battle has a tipping point, the point at which it's obvious that one side or the other WILL win.

Healing only slows the movement of that point towards their side. Dealing damage/buffing/debuffing the enemy pushes it to your side. Attacking is playing to win; healing is playing to not lose.

Furthermore, if you heal an ally who's in the negatives, and he goes positive and gets back up, the next hit he takes will likely take him straight to dead; you've put him in MORE danger.

In a DIRE EMERGENCY, you might need to heal in-combat. But 99% of the time, you're better off saving that spell and bashing something over the head.

Grand Lodge

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

My Life Oracle is certainly not necessary for the party to survive. She is very useful however, because she does more than just heal.

Bonekeep was only survivable due to healing, but the fault of the party there was that we didn't bring enough damage to the table. So my sword and board paladin and the druid needed those two clerics backing us up with heals to survive. So you need either overwhelming offense or overwhelming support to win a battle.


I end up with divine casters quite a bit. I think they are much more fun now than they were in the past. You do end up healing in combat some, but defensive buffs are cooler than healing anyway and much more effective in this game. I think you can play them much as they were back when, but realize that the cure wounds spells are simply not the best or easiest way to heal people. Wands of CLW change the game because they make out of combat healing dirt cheap after level 3. Your job description changes quite a bit as you level, more than most characters.


Attacking is playing to win; healing is playing not to lose anyone.
Furthermore, if you heal an ally who's in the negatives, it saves them from the coup de grace they were about to suffer.
In a dire emergency, it might not be a good idea to heal in-combat, because there are more powerful spells that will end the battle quicker. But 99% of the time, it's a perfectly valid use of your action.


Matthew Downie wrote:


Furthermore, if you heal an ally who's in the negatives, it saves them from the coup de grace they were about to suffer.

I cannot recall a single time in the last 14 years where a PC was CdG'd. And maybe they won't be CdG'd, but unless you healed them a *lot*, the next hit they take will probably kill them. Same end result.


Zhayne wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:


Furthermore, if you heal an ally who's in the negatives, it saves them from the coup de grace they were about to suffer.
I cannot recall a single time in the last 14 years where a PC was CdG'd. And maybe they won't be CdG'd, but unless you healed them a *lot*, the next hit they take will probably kill them. Same end result.

Ooo I can do that too...

in my 30+ years of gaming I have never seen a character who was healed up from negatives get killed on the next hit. I have seen plenty of CdG flying around though.

point is there is no right answer to this. Each group will be different and what is 'right' for you group ( for instance not healing in combat) will lead to tpks in other groups.


I totally agree that healing should be less effective than damage, for all the above reasons. That said, I have had my butt saved by an in combat CLW at level 13. It healed 9 points of damage directly after which I was taken down to 1. Survived by dimension dooring away with the rest of the party on my next turn. I have also on occasion been desperate enough to start a soothing performance mid combat, but then I've used something like Virtuoso Performance so that I could still keep up my primary purpose of actually buffing everyone.

Zhayne wrote:
I cannot recall a single time in the last 14 years where a PC was CdG'd.

Try playing with Nearyn. In two years he's subjected members of our party to it on at least two occasions and with one of them being fatal. (And no one complained, btw).


Bling wrote:

Example 1: 2d8+3 (level 2 cleric cure spell) vs. 4d6 (wizard scorching ray). Averages 10 vs. 14.

Example 2: Level 10 snowball/shocking grasp with a metamagic rod or the equivalent vs. lvl 10 cure light wounds with a metamagic rod or the equivalent. Averages 35 vs. 14.5.

I know you can miss, or have fail chance, but the math is not even close. Also, it is much easier to add damage with bloodline arcana than it is to increase healing. A simple 1d4 health per caster level seems like the answer to me, but what do you think?

Your example of 2D8 +3 vs 4D6 seem good to me. One hits automatically as you want to be healed and the other you actively try to avoid but if it manages to hit you it does more damage than a healing spell of the same level.

Scarab Sages

voska66 wrote:

Your example of 2D8 +3 vs 4D6 seem good to me. One hits automatically as you want to be healed and the other you actively try to avoid but if it manages to hit you it does more damage than a healing spell of the same level.

IDK. My lvl 5 wizard does 9d4 with burning hands and 9d6 with fireball (the usual caster level buff feats). I was trying to build something that can call itself a healer, but the best I came up with is a level of Battle Shaman to maximize healing. It heals maybe as good as possible, but I can do it 4-5 times a day max. At level 4 we are looking at 21 heath with a level 2 spell. Maybe I haven't gone in the field with it, and it might be good. IDK.

But healing is good because it ultimately negates the actions of the enemy. If only I could get my party to boost their AC for the same reason. Anyway, I just feel that bringing a damage dealer increases the likelihood of success more than a healer.

Oh, and defense is the best offence, whatever that means : )


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

In the game I'm running right now (level 13 now) we have a dedicated life oracle healer who sometimes puts out more healing than the enemies can dish out in damage, assuming that the party plays tactically and doesn't TRY to get hit. Would the party survive without him? Maybe. If we took out the healer and kept the encounters the same, they'd have tons of problems. If we took him out and replaced him with someone who contributes to encounters meaningfully in another way? They'd probably be fine.

He enjoys healing, but he's claimed the "not a divine caster" role for next campaign, for whenever we manage to finish RotRL, to keep things fresh. Just like the wizard wants to play a ninja, and the bard wants to be an oracle. Not because he hates healing.

Scarab Sages

Castarr4 wrote:

In the game I'm running right now (level 13 now) we have a dedicated life oracle healer who sometimes puts out more healing than the enemies can dish out in damage, assuming that the party plays tactically and doesn't TRY to get hit. Would the party survive without him? Maybe. If we took out the healer and kept the encounters the same, they'd have tons of problems. If we took him out and replaced him with someone who contributes to encounters meaningfully in another way? They'd probably be fine.

He enjoys healing, but he's claimed the "not a divine caster" role for next campaign, for whenever we manage to finish RotRL, to keep things fresh. Just like the wizard wants to play a ninja, and the bard wants to be an oracle. Not because he hates healing.

Yes after you get the Heal spell, things change. 110 health is serious. So I guess I would play it for the end game. Thanks.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Regarding the argument "creating is harder than destroying", please bear in mind that this is fantasy - not real life - and that we are talking about magic. Using magic to create things in game is easy once you possess the spells and skills.

Even with magic it still applies. I can strike someone blind and deaf with a 2nd level spell. It will take at least a 4th level spell to correct that.

I can kill someone with a first level spell. They're not coming back with Cure Light Wounds.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Castarr4 wrote:
If we took out the healer and kept the encounters the same, they'd have tons of problems. If we took him out and replaced him with someone who contributes to encounters meaningfully in another way? They'd probably be fine.

THIS. Seems like every time someone reports that their team can do fine without a dedicated in-combat healer, people imagine taking their own existing party, removing the healer without making any meaningful replacement, and predict doom.

Well, duh. The fact that encounters designed for a larger party than is playing would be disastrous has nothing to do with whether there's a healer or not.


IDK if HEAL is even that great a spell in combat. In my experience it negates like 1 round of full dpr of a brute encounter. 110 damage at 11th level? Not really that hard to get to with npcs built like PCs, or even some of the monsters you will be facing. In this case heal just becomes a daze effect with no save. Saves you a round of damage, and that's it. I'm not particularly impressed with 6th spell level daze effects.

The other parts of heal however make it a great spell. Get rid of nearly all that is impeding a party member? Yes please. It gets rid of many a shutdown effect like stuns and blindness. The ability to say no to enemy CC and SoS is critical. THIS sort of healing is what is actually required in combat IMHO. HP healing is for the wands/potions/scrolls after combat is over most of the time. I do like quick channels, but that is more of alt channel effects potentially being amazing as a swift action.

Maybe I'm just playing the game wrong, but in my experience primary damage dealing monsters/npcs 1-2 round most PCs at any level if they get full attacks or whatever boosted damage they get (power attack, pounce, constrict ect). Healing at the very best negates 1 round, and the more likely not even close to 1 round. Same thing goes with what the players do for that matter. If you spend all your CR budget on 1 brute, he gets action economied down in 1-4 rounds. If you spread it out, each individual monster gets 1-2 round KOed. Yeah, "rocket tag" and "use tactics" bs. When you have prepared PCs run by vet players you have to delve into some deep tactics to even get 4 rounds out of any encounter.

Morale of the story is don't bother with non emergency in combat HP healing, do bother with removing conditions and being proactive in solutions. If you need to fix somebody up, it can usually wait till after combat for the healing sicks to come out. Even with being able to toss a prepared spell for a cure, it means that next encounter you won't have a useful spell because you wasted the slot on something that can be replicated with a wand of infernal healing (at 750 gold, 15 gold per charge, and 1.5 gold per HP... its a bargain) or CLW (2.3 gold per HP on average iirc).


The only real reason is that damage has progressively gotten larger while healing has for the past part (barring certain domain abilities, etc) stayed the same. It's kind of a shame, really. It would be nice if the larger healing potions (or potions at all for that matter) actually were somewhat viable.


Shadowdweller wrote:
The only real reason is that damage has progressively gotten larger while healing has for the past part (barring certain domain abilities, etc) stayed the same. It's kind of a shame, really. It would be nice if the larger healing potions (or potions at all for that matter) actually were somewhat viable.

Its really the gold cost of them more than anything. 300 gold for 2d8+3 HP? (2*4.5)+3 is only 12 hp. 25 gold per HP is a rip off. 750 for 3 level works out to be (3*4.5)+5=18.5, ends up being like 40 gold per HP. At the levels you will have that sort of wealth to blow you will be wanting more healing than that. If the cost for the potions were lower you would see them being used at the levels where that amount of healing is viable. Heck, just bring them into line per HP that a CLW potion gets and it wouldn't be so bad: 5.5 for 50 gold, 9.09 gold per HP (not that great, but anybody can use them unlike wands which require class features or skill ranks.


potions are an expensive way to heal, they are an affordable way to get low level buffs in hard fights though. not something to rely on, but nice to have, the key is to buy buffing potions, not healing potions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MattR1986 wrote:


I hear this theorycraft argument regularly on here and simply don't buy it. Things always go your way and follow DPR with 20-sided dice? You don't encounter crits or an enemy that has an ability/tactic that is especially devastating to your group? Your DM always follows APL+0 so you take just enough damage to finish fights without heals? It just doesn't fly with me.

Nobody says people never die or come very close to it. We are saying that it is generally better to prevent the damage than it is to try to recover(heal) the damage. If I drop summon monsters in combat, they will get hit with damage that may have gone to the party. If I use a wall or cloud spell to divide the enemy then that means the party is getting attacked less. Less attacks generally equals less damage. If I buff the party to do more damage then enemies go down faster. That also decrease the amount of damage they can put out.

So just to be clear, nobody is saying NEVER heal in combat. We are saying there are ways to make sure it happens a lot less, and in those cases someone built around healing is not needed.


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?


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. Mind you, I'm not necessarily sure that's a bad thing. It encourages foes to try and disengage/hide while they use multiple items or spells to heal up.


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.


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. Mind you, I'm not necessarily sure that's a bad thing. It encourages foes to try and disengage/hide while they use multiple items or spells to heal up.

It doesn't need to keep pace to be useful.


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.

Option 4: Join in attacking the bad guys and take them down sooner.

Sure, healing is a better option than standing around waiting, but buffing the party, debuffing the bad guys or just piling on damage, whichever you're good at is often better.
And that's what you've left out of your scenario.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And I think few people would say healing is ALWAYS.the in combat answer, but there are some people coming pretty close to saying it NEVER is.

My main decision tree point on healing is "does it ensure character x can perform his function next round". For example, if my fifty something point cure spell leaves the barbarian still on his feet for another attack, and that attack deals, as is often the case with that barbarian, over 100 points of damage, that was a cure spell well worth taking. My "cure point" is when the character could easily go down to one hit. If they have more of a buffer than that. It's not worth healing that round. But sometimes your most useful occupation is making sure that the beat stick stays on his feet.


thejeff wrote:
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.

Option 4: Join in attacking the bad guys and take them down sooner.

Sure, healing is a better option than standing around waiting, but buffing the party, debuffing the bad guys or just piling on damage, whichever you're good at is often better.
And that's what you've left out of your scenario.

Unless I'm just misreading isn't your option four coved by his option three?


thejeff wrote:

Option 4: Join in attacking the bad guys and take them down sooner.

Sure, healing is a better option than standing around waiting, but buffing the party, debuffing the bad guys or just piling on damage, whichever you're good at is often better.

That is covered in option 3. Don't heal at all (and do something else instead, obviously). But unless you're built around it, the average cleric is terrible at melee damage. The best time for buffing is before one of your party is badly injured. A good debuff will help better than healing, but you might not have an appropriate one handy, or it might depend on you passing spell resistance and a saving throw. Healing is a reliable option.

Dark Archive

*edit* forgot opening line:

Healing in combat is generally lower than damage because of legacy issues and speed of combat, among other things.

soap box?:
People will talk as though only certain options or ideas are the answer or are even the best. In some uncommon cases, they will be right. The other rest of the time they are not.

Take monks. The general argument is that the main thing a martial character has to contribute to combat is offense. Tanking via ac, is meaningless because you absolutely need to deal damage to be noticed and worth not ignoring. Because monks have accuracy problems and accuracy is a critical and probably the most important factor in dealing damage, monks make terrible tanks.

But this is a lie and I have (and can) prove it in any number of ways ranging from Str penalty monks with nonexistent Bab and DMG penalties to monks who never attack or deal damage at all but still tank....and do it extremely well.

People will tell you that blasting with a caster is terrible because you are better off debuffing enemies or stopping them cold with hold person, dominates, color sprays, etc. But flat out killing all of them seems to work just as well and I have actually seen this done on a well rolled fireball in a pfs scenario on a boss fight from an unoptimized caster not even built around blasting. They killed all but the boss and one minion (out of several). Had there been fewer minions and tougher foes who made their saves instead of failing them would blasting have been nearly as effective? No...unless optimized for blasting-in which case yes.

You will hear that skill monkeys are horrible and useless and even worse, spells can emulate them, so just play a rogue. But I have yet to play a single home or society game where every single skill was covered and/or someone had prepared a spell for the ones that weren't. And skills, regardless of magic, are still important. How many wizards a lot 10-15-20 of their spell slots to cover various skills? Or buy wands, scrolls, potions, set aside slots, etc, just to cover the skill angle (a limited number of times per day at that)? Not many. Why not just play a rogue? That is a much better question.

My point in all of this is that, regardless of what you are hearing, there are x things that really matter the most:

Do what you do well- be it generalist or specialist, buffer or healer, or even just comic relief with your performance being comedy. If whatever you are trying to do is done well, your party can find a way to benefit from it even in the situations where it is somewhat niche or unoptimal. Want to make a build that skips most encounters entirely through intimidation without ever rolling an intimidate check? You can. Just make sure to do it well so it works as often as possible.

Remember that no particular role is needed but all roles are useful. No one needs a buffer or a healer, or a martial character per say. But they're all appreciated.

Know your role, it's strengths and weaknesses.
Being the best at something is no good if you don't know when and how to be the best in an effective way. typically speaking, in combat healing is bad because the healing amounts are low and the damage received is high. Furthermore the range is generally bad and doing so provokes, costs resources etc. But knowing when and how to heal and keeping these things in mind make you a better healer period. If you figure from this knowledge that in combat healing is bad, you become a more efficient healer because you are doing it out of combat. If you figure from this knowledge that in combat healing is still good, you are a better healer because you learn how to make those heals mean more due to better timing, better in combat positioning, better feat selection, better defensive casting or whatever it takes.

The beauty of role playing in a game as diverse as the 3.x open game license and pathfinder is that you can do so many things in so many ways in a variety of circumstances. If you want to make a character with in combat healing that outshines enemy damage- do it (if it is possible). I am sure there are at least a few ways. I've seen some builds and have ideas of my own.


*edit* added spoiler for rant as well as fixed spelling and stuff.


So a lot of people are saying that destruction is just inherently easier than creation, which makes some sense.

Why do inflict spells suck so much then? Because they have the potential to heal with the undead?


Matthew Downie wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Option 4: Join in attacking the bad guys and take them down sooner.

Sure, healing is a better option than standing around waiting, but buffing the party, debuffing the bad guys or just piling on damage, whichever you're good at is often better.

That is covered in option 3. Don't heal at all (and do something else instead, obviously). But unless you're built around it, the average cleric is terrible at melee damage. The best time for buffing is before one of your party is badly injured. A good debuff will help better than healing, but you might not have an appropriate one handy, or it might depend on you passing spell resistance and a saving throw. Healing is a reliable option.

Actually its not particularly hard to build a cleric for melee damage and still be a primary caster. To many players see cleric and tank their combat stats for being the best possible caster/channeler despite not really needing much in the way of stats for that (like 16 wis and 12-14 CHA is the most I go with before headbands) and the fact that channels are one of the least important class features as you level up. My clerics have a min of 16 STR (usually 18), use a good 2 handed weapon, brings a wand for common combat buffs, and after a round of prep is on par with pre buffed martials. My combat orientred PFS cleric broke 100 damage at level 6, my support PFS cleric broke 50 damage at level 3.

From my experience healing ISN'T a reliable option. Why? You have to deal with SR and saving throws (I jest, but some players have SR or a thing that requires them to resist all magic like superstition, a common rage power). The real problem with healing is range until you get metamagic. How many of you actually prepare reach cure spells on a regular basis? Then you have to deal with highly variable numbers on the healing (at least until you get heal). A d8 has a high degree of variance. If healing was d4 and scaled faster to make up for it (so about the same average, but less high/low numbers) it would be a more reliable option. Still not good because it doesn't scale with damage.

Heck in you scenario, you have a martial with 100 HP, which is around 9th-10th level probably. A cure spell that heals for 25 hp is probably 4th level (4d8+9=27). 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. In your scenario your fighter is taking concentrated attacks from multiple enemies. So 35*4= 140 (CR8x4=CR12). Yup, your fighter is potentially dead in one round, no healing is going to save him. But you know in 4 levels of spells, and perhaps your 5th level spell, you ought to have SOMETHING that will prevent him from being attacked so brutally. A brute at CR 8 often will have around a +7 will save, not very good (4th level spell is at least a DC16=4th level +2 caster mod+10). Drop a holy smite and blind half or more of them (with some minor damage, and doesn't work on non evil, but its just an example, deal with it). Not reliable, but its better than healing 27 when the ally is taking 140 out of 100.


Sacred bond.

Next?

1 to 50 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.