No, but you only need 1 hit point to fight at full strength.
Yeah, that's one of my biggest problems with this combat system. One of the things I liked about the Hârnmaster system is that combat tires you out - and fatigue reduces your fighting ability. There aren't any hit points, as such - the injuries you take are, well, graphic. Even if you live you can end up with scars, or minus an eye or a hand. HM PCs will fight when they have to, but they tend to avoid fighting when possible. For some, that makes the game less interesting. Which is, I suppose, part of why HM is a niche game.
News from the front lines: Healers vs Killer DM
In a 15th level game we're stuck in what's probably at least an APL+9 if not APL+10 or higher encounter. Our Mystic Theurge has cast Heal 3 times, twice from scrolls. Actually, one of the scrolls was used by his faerie dragon familiar. The Barbarian15 has taken over 500 damage so far, and the Barbarian2/Summoner13 was down to -3 hit points last round. My Monk1/Summoner14 is the only PC who hasn't been unconscious, and he's used Greater Rejuvenate Eidolon 3 times for probably close to 90 healing on his eidolon. We've even had to resort to wands of CMW to bring the MT and his dragon back from negative hit points...twice...
The idea of killing the enemy first sounds great, but it is tough to execute when most of the party is unconscious and only the Barbarian has a decent shot of hitting the BBEG who is guarded by what appear to be advanced giant giant shield guardian iron golems with true seeing. Those guys have +36 to hit, and the DM has been rolling well, so it generally costs about 70 hit points just to get within range to attack. It is probably worth pointing out that summoning and teleportation aren't possible/allowed in the room we're fighting in (I guess the DM didn't want us using our typical tricks)
DR15 only one of us can beat and immunity to anything with SR don't seem like "terrible defenses" to us. We're inside in a room where the golems can reach floor to ceiling. I'm not sure if our MT carries Wall of Force, but since the golems are adjacent to the BBEG it could be tough to place effectively. The enemies also had an 18th level Wizard who might be able to deal with such stuff.
Anyhow, my point wasn't really to start a debate on how our party screwed up (that can be its own thread) but to show an example from play where healing was very useful. If people agree that Heal is a good spell I wonder why they'd feel that "healers" aren't a good idea since they're generally the ones who get Heal. Most parties don't pop into play at 11th level, and most of them need some way to restore HP in or between battles well before then.
Perhaps some of those who caution that healing in combat is only useful in corner cases just don't visit as many corners as I do. I can barely recall the last time I enjoyed a leisurely CR = APL battle. Even the supposedly "easy" Kingmaker AP has recently pitted us against a string of at least 7 straight CR > APL fights with more to come and no time to rest. Our 2.5 level PCs (1 level in an NPC class) in another game are doing pretty well against CR4-5 encounters, but we often have to leave the dungeon because HP are low and the Bard is out of CLW. Channel Energy would change our world. I'm hoping we can buy a wand of CLW when we split treasure.
Maybe we're suckers. I'm sure there are other suckers out there though. We need your healing!
DR15 only one of us can beat and immunity to anything with SR don't seem like "terrible defenses" to us. We're inside in a room where the golems can reach floor to ceiling. I'm not sure if our MT carries Wall of Force, but since the golems are adjacent to the BBEG it could be tough to place effectively. The enemies also had an 18th level Wizard who might be able to deal with such stuff.
Anyhow, my point wasn't really to start a debate on how our party screwed up (that can be its own thread) but to show an example from play where healing was very useful. If people agree that Heal is a good spell I wonder why they'd feel that "healers" aren't a good idea since they're generally the ones who get Heal. Most parties don't pop into play at 11th level, and most of them need some way to restore HP in or between battles well before then.
Perhaps some of those who caution that healing in combat is only useful in corner cases just don't visit as many corners as I do. I can barely recall the last time I enjoyed a leisurely CR = APL battle. Even the supposedly "easy" Kingmaker AP has recently pitted us against a string of at least 7 straight CR > APL fights with more to come and no time to rest. Our 2.5 level PCs (1 level in an NPC class) in another game are doing pretty well against CR4-5 encounters, but we often have to leave the dungeon because HP are low and the Bard is out of CLW. Channel Energy would change our world. I'm hoping we can buy a wand of CLW when we split treasure.
Maybe we're suckers. I'm sure there are other suckers out there though. We need your healing!
Only one of you can beat DR 15? At level 15? Also given your description, I'm pretty certain your GM is fudging numbers. Which is sort why I've been asking for examples. If your frontliner who presumably has better AC then your healer has taken 500 damage against an intelligent opponent who has seen the frontliner get healed, quite frankly, I can't see any reason the healer would still be alive outside of GM fudging.
@anzyr - There are a lot of details which could be discussed. I'll start a separate thread so as to not clutter this one too much.
Anyhow, I believe you'll agree that Heal is a pretty good spell. I think other healing options can fill a similar role during lower level play. They're not as good, but they're better than nothing.
Lay on Hands or familiars with wands are more my favored style of healing, but Quick Channel could work too. Even just casting a Cure spell can sometimes save the day if the PC doing it can stand the boredom.
One of our last fights in one game would have been lost without healing.
Our 4th level group was fighting 5 trolls (we were trying to sneak up to a house where we'd seen one troll and were heard).
The kobold barbarian did most of the damage, the melee oracle of flame and the dragon sorc kept the trolls from regenerating, the rogue more or less kited one on the trolls and the nature oracle alternated between dealing damage and healing. She brought back the flame oracle twice and kept the barb from going down.
In the end the barb was running on burrowed hp (below 0 without rage) and every one else was far from fit but we won.
Sue this party is not optimised at all and very much lacking in the damage department but that's the way most of the group like to build their PCs.
Edit: What really won the day is that both the flame oracle and the barb have the escape routes teamwork feat. That way the two could engage the trolls without constantly provoking.
5 gs 5 (GS 9+) against a level 4 suboptimal party
Seems a bit odd that you didn't lose at least one party member. The nature Oracle could heal for 2d8+4 (average 13 point), with the trolls doing an average of 9.5 dmg on the bite and 8.5 per claw, with rend (10.5 dmg bonus) and 9 on intimidate (they could just demoralize everyone in your party on round 1)
I may be missing something
I can totally see how an heaven oracle could have won that fight on his own, stunning 1 to 3 trolls every round with colorspry (6HD - at least 4 of CHA = 2 HD or less: The creature is unconscious, blinded, and stunned for 2d4 rounds, then blinded and stunned for 1d4 rounds, and then stunned for 1 round.)
I think what gets missed a lot is that even though the monsters do more damage with a full attack than you can heal they probably won't hit with all of their attacks (or maybe even any in a particular round).
5 trolls does sound like a tough assignment for a 4th level party. Maybe terrain prevented the trolls from bringing their full offensive might to bear on any single PC though...or maybe they just got lucky...
I think what gets missed a lot is that even though the monsters do more damage with a full attack than you can heal they probably won't hit with all of their attacks (or maybe even any in a particular round).
5 trolls does sound like a tough assignment for a 4th level party. Maybe terrain prevented the trolls from bringing their full offensive might to bear on any single PC though...or maybe they just got lucky...
They were in the house and only heard us after we put a bear trap at the front door.
First round troll 1 emerged through the back door.Second round troll 2 emerged through the back door
Third round troll 3 came through the back door and trolls 4 and 5 tried to exit through the front door, with troll 4 being caught in the bear trap.
fourth round troll 4 freed himself and troll 5 moved back to the backdoor.
So we never had to fight all 5 at once. Things got a bit hairy when troll 4 arrived after having freed himself but the rogue attacked him and lured him away (the module stated that the trolls always attack the nearest opponent, or so the GM told us).
I think what gets missed a lot is that even though the monsters do more damage with a full attack than you can heal they probably won't hit with all of their attacks (or maybe even any in a particular round).
What is meant is that even hitting as expected the damage will outpace healing normally.
What is meant is that even hitting as expected the damage will outpace healing normally.I think what gets missed a lot is that even though the monsters do more damage with a full attack than you can heal they probably won't hit with all of their attacks (or maybe even any in a particular round).
In some games at some tables. AND it depends on how optimized the damage dealer is as opposed to the healer.
What is meant is that even hitting as expected the damage will outpace healing normally.I think what gets missed a lot is that even though the monsters do more damage with a full attack than you can heal they probably won't hit with all of their attacks (or maybe even any in a particular round).
In some games at some tables. AND it depends on how optimized the damage dealer is as opposed to the healer.
<Sighs>
Do I really have to say unless someone gives special attention to healing or is a life oracle .....etc etc etc/other options that boost healing and also list every possible damage dealer?Come on now. You know that the average cleric/oracle/etc is not going to heal more than some giant can dish out.
What is meant is that even hitting as expected the damage will outpace healing normally.I think what gets missed a lot is that even though the monsters do more damage with a full attack than you can heal they probably won't hit with all of their attacks (or maybe even any in a particular round).
In some games at some tables. AND it depends on how optimized the damage dealer is as opposed to the healer.
<Sighs>
Do I really have to say unless someone gives special attention to healing or is a life oracle .....etc etc etc/other options that boost healing and also list every possible damage dealer?Come on now. You know that the average cleric/oracle/etc is not going to heal more than some giant can dish out.
Sorry, no, I know no such thing. Since attacks have to go against AC, DR, ER, SR, miss chances, etc and cure spells rarely do, I find a normal Cure can often keep pace with a normal attack. Of course, luck of the dice can change this radically.
Of course, at your table- maybe not.
What is meant is that even hitting as expected the damage will outpace healing normally.I think what gets missed a lot is that even though the monsters do more damage with a full attack than you can heal they probably won't hit with all of their attacks (or maybe even any in a particular round).
In some games at some tables. AND it depends on how optimized the damage dealer is as opposed to the healer.
<Sighs>
Do I really have to say unless someone gives special attention to healing or is a life oracle .....etc etc etc/other options that boost healing and also list every possible damage dealer?Come on now. You know that the average cleric/oracle/etc is not going to heal more than some giant can dish out.
Sorry, no, I know no such thing. Since attacks have to go against AC, DR, ER, SR, miss chances, etc and cure spells rarely do, I find a normal Cure can often keep pace with a normal attack. Of course, luck of the dice can change this radically.
Of course, at your table- maybe not.
So you are saying I do need very specific examples?
Since attacks have to go against [SR] and cure spells rarely do...
I don't mind you playing with houserules, but please don't bring it into the discussion forum without being upfront about it when making claims about play.
Unless you meant to say nobody actually goes for SR because lowering it takes a standard action you can't use when unconscious.
Since attacks have to go against [SR] and cure spells rarely do...I don't mind you playing with houserules, but please don't bring it into the discussion forum without being upfront about it when making claims about play.
Unless you meant to say nobody actually goes for SR because lowering it takes a standard action you can't use when unconscious.
PC's don't often have SR. But yes, if you do, you have to lower it or go opposed. However that still leave ER, DR, AC, and Saves.
PC's don't often have SR.
Then your enemy doesn't have to deal with it either.
However that still leave ER, DR, AC, and Saves.
That's true.
Healing in combat is not always a bad idea. Sometimes, it can save the whole party, so it's something players should keep in mind. However, generally speaking, it's usually more effective to do something else. A simple standard action attack can be enough to outpace cure spells, and a full attack can downright one shot your character, healing won't change that.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
PC's don't often have SR.Then your enemy doesn't have to deal with it either.
However that still leave ER, DR, AC, and Saves.That's true.
Healing in combat is not always a bad idea. Sometimes, it can save the whole party, so it's something players should keep in mind. However, generally speaking, it's usually more effective to do something else. A simple standard action attack can be enough to outpace cure spells, and a full attack can downright one shot your character, healing won't change that.
That bolded portion seems to get overlooked no matter how many times it is stated.
Sure, but "generally speaking" to me is in the context of any given round. Round 1? Of course you'd buff. Maybe R2, or even R3. So "generally" is such a weasel-word here.
The question is what do you do when one of your party got hit hard and one more round or hit like that will take him down?
In my opinion- you heal "generally speaking". Sure if you KNOW your attack WILL drop the bad guy so that that next hit won't happen then you attack, but it's rare to know that or even be more than a 50/50 guesstimate. You don't risk the life of a friend on a 50/50.
Sure- "A simple standard action attack can be enough to outpace cure spells" but the optimal word there is "CAN". I mean if the foe is hitting 95% of the time that's one thing- but if it's 50%? (which is more normal). We can also rephrase that to "A simple cure spell can be enough to outpace a standard action attack". Where the critical word is again "CAN".
Too many people omit the "CAN" and simply state "A simple standard action attack will always outpace cure spells"- which is not true.
Certainly you can optimize for damage and thus outpace non-optimized healing. But you can also optimize for healing.
I consider most of the time the foe has a 50/50 to damage. Thus, even if Cure spells are half what the potential damage is, they keep up.
When is In-combat healing the best option?- when it is the best option . No options are ALWAYS the best options.
Now, we find, in our games, that In-combat healing is commonly needed. James Jacobs and co says the same. However, that doesn't mean that's the One True Way by any means.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
James Jacobs and co says the same. However, that doesn't mean that's the One True Way by any means.
Then please stop saying it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't really have to optimize a lot to outpace Cure spells though... A simple 2-handed weapon with Power Attack will do it almost every time. (And I honestly don't see that as "optimized").
And honestly... Who cares how JJ plays his games?
I mean, I love his work and I really hope to one day see a Pathfinder Tales novel written by him, but his gaming experience has no more weight than that of anyone else.
Stop acting like every PF designer had said they agree with you on everything PF-related. This appeal to authority thing is getting really old, and it doesn't matter to anyone but you.
Sure, but "generally speaking" to me is in the context of any given round. Round 1? Of course you'd buff. Maybe R2, or even R3. So "generally" is such a weasel-word here.
Then you are missing the point. Barring heal focused builds you can normally(better than 50%) do something better than heal hit points.
Now of course if someone gets critted, if the party has a bad dice day, etc then you may need to heal, but bad dice days are not normal and neither are crits.<---This is not an exclusive list.
In my opinion- you heal "generally speaking". Sure if you KNOW your attack WILL drop the bad guy so that that next hit won't happen then you attack, but it's rare to know that or even be more than a 50/50 guesstimate. You don't risk the life of a friend on a 50/50.
Actually healing him and not killing the bad guy may be the greater risk depending on how hard the bad guy hits, and the condition of your friend.
That first attack from a martial NPC is higher than 50% unless someone really pushes their AC.
Now, we find, in our games, that In-combat healing is commonly needed. James Jacobs and co says the same. However, that doesn't mean that's the One True Way by any means.
I never saw James say that and I keep forgetting to search for his comments. I saw him say everyone(devs) runs the game differently. Some games need more optimization to survive than others. I don't see someone who a less difficult GM style needing heals just as much unless everyone holds back for the devs games.
PS: Maybe one of us misunderstood what he said.
|
As a GM, I believe your responsibility is to give your players a good time. Different players need different itches scratched. I have some players who want to just roleplay in an urban setting. I have others, who want a gritty 15-round battle where the entire dungeon has emptied and continuously added to the fight.
When the dust has settled and years have passed, most players don't remember the majority of fights that ended in less than 3 rounds (there's a couple, and it tends to be the TPKs that ended in <3 rounds that get brought up more often than the pack of 6 mundane orcs). Over beers, it's the nail-biting "I can't believe we made it through that!" encounters that are fondly remembered for most of my groups.
If you want to play a cleric, and you want to do certain things with it, work with your GM(s) and explain what you think is fun in your game. Any good GM should work to make sure he accommodates this whether it's through adventure tweaking, adventure selection or just how they run tactics. These things have a massive effect on the variability of the game.
For example, you'll see a big difference playing an adventure written by Jacobs vs Bulmahn. If you like playing a cleric and healing (and clearing conditions that will slowly sap your party effectiveness through 10 encounters), try some Bulmahn adventures - they're great for scratching that itch. They tend to be more "classic" in feel (I suspect he has a formula for them) and there's usually a couple challenges for each iconic role to be a major contributor.
I've recently had the fortune to play an old season 0 PFS scenario at the level 1-2 subtier. As a player, we finished a certain combat with a cleric and two zombies in a single round. Five different PCs walked up and hit the right AC for the right damage. While running this same scenario a few weeks later, as a GM my dice were hot and I was dishing out 10-12 damage per zombie while the PCs were missing. Their major contributor (a barbarian with tribal scars and a big 2H axe) failed a save versus Cause Fear and was out of the fight). A couple lucky rolls with zombies and a heavy pick meant more PCs were dropping. As a GM, I was debating if this would be a TPK or a "capture the PCs" moment, and this is where some in-combat healing brings the party back up and the dice shift back to the player's favor.
TLDR: A lot depends on how dice are rolling, for saves, attacks and critical hits/confirms. You'll almost universally be glad when you have a cleric/healer type and the player dice are cold and the GM dice are hot.
And honestly... Who cares how JJ plays his games?
I mean, I love his work and I really hope to one day see a Pathfinder Tales novel written by him, but his gaming experience has no more weight than that of anyone else.
Stop acting like every PF designer had said they agree with you on everything PF-related. This appeal to authority thing is getting really old, and it doesn't matter to anyone but you.
I do.
But it's not so much he is automatically right, he's not. But all I can do is repeat what I have seen and read, and outside rocket tag or theory craft everyone seems to thing healing is necessary fairly often.
So, he's an example, and a good one. My games are an example. I think how the game is played IRL is more important than theory rafting, although that certainly has it's value too.
And gosh, SKR and I had some small but fierce disagreements here. I don't like his corner rule for reach weapons, and a few other things. I also don't always agree withJJ either .
I'd still like to play at their table.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And honestly... Who cares how JJ plays his games?
I mean, I love his work and I really hope to one day see a Pathfinder Tales novel written by him, but his gaming experience has no more weight than that of anyone else.
Stop acting like every PF designer had said they agree with you on everything PF-related. This appeal to authority thing is getting really old, and it doesn't matter to anyone but you.
I do.
But it's not so much he is automatically right, he's not. But all I can do is repeat what I have seen and read, and outside rocket tag or theory craft everyone seems to thing healing is necessary fairly often.
So, he's an example, and a good one. My games are an example. I think how the game is played IRL is more important than theory rafting, although that certainly has it's value too.
And gosh, SKR and I had some small but fierce disagreements here. I don't like his corner rule for reach weapons, and a few other things. I also don't always agree withJJ either .
I'd still like to play at their table.
It is not theorycraft, just like your experience is not theorycraft. Well I take that back. For some of us it is not theorycraft, since we have seen it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But all I can do is repeat what I have seen and read, and outside rocket tag or theory craft everyone seems to thing healing is necessary fairly often.
So, he's an example, and a good one. My games are an example. I think how the game is played IRL is more important than theory rafting, although that certainly has it's value too.
The problem here, DD, is that you always dismiss each and every opinion that differ from your own as "theory craft", as if your gaming experience were the only one that matters.
If what you say about your history with D&D is true, I bet I have far more play time with 3.X and PF than you, so if anything, your opinion is closer to "theorycraft" than mine, but you don't see me claiming that you (or anyone else) don't play the game right or that you (or anyone else) don't play the game at all.
Instead of dismissing other people's points about the game, trying making your own.
I think it's interesting that the two examples we've had to prove that "healing is necessary" were both massively over CR: 5 trolls (roughly a CR 9 encounter) against 4 level 4 PCs, and an "an APL+9 if not APL+10 or higher encounter."
If healing is useful - even necessary - in massively over CR encounters, that implies healing is powerful (and therefore easily powerful enough for easier battles, if not so necessary). Which is odd, because you wouldn't think it would 'keep up' in those situations.
Don't play a healer, play a support character who can do many things, including healing when it's necessary.
Agreed - healer is too specific a niche to dedicate yourself to completely. It makes you feel useless in any situation where no-one needs healing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's interesting that the two examples we've had to prove that "healing is necessary" were both massively over CR: 5 trolls (roughly a CR 9 encounter) against 4 level 4 PCs, and an "an APL+9 if not APL+10 or higher encounter."If healing is useful - even necessary - in massively over CR encounters, that implies healing is powerful (and therefore easily powerful enough for easier battles, if not so necessary). Which is odd, because you wouldn't think it would 'keep up' in those situations.
It keeps up depending on the GM. If I throw an APL+9 fight at a party the healing will not keep up.
It seems to me like there is a bit of confusion around exactly what "healing" entails - let's try out some terms that makes it more clear what kind of healing people are talking about?
I typed up a few terms, listed from "most" to "least" time/effort spent healing - feel free to critique, suggest edits or add your own categories. :)
- Combat Healing: This is a character that uses his action economy and healing resources to predominantly to heal and "top off" characters - he will start healing as soon as people start getting injured using a mix of high and low level spells, channeling charges and consumables. The Merciful Healer cleric and the Life Oracle can be examples of this approach.
- Emergency Healing: This is a character that uses his action economy on other tasks than healing, but has the potential to drop a CXW or a Heal when the situation calls for it. He will usually only use healing spells when the lack of healing probably means another character will fall unconscious or die, and even then only if he does not feel confident that a different action can end the encounter. Oath of Vengeance Paladins, Fighter/Clerics, and CC/blaster Oracles can be examples of this approach.
- Downtime healing: This is a character that focuses on other tasks in combat than healing and doesn't have the output to meaningfully heal in combat. When the encounter is ended, the character will help heal up, typically using low level spell slots, wands or other cheap consumables. A mid-level sorcerer with Infernal Healing on his list of Spells Known or a ranger with a wand of CLW can be examples of this approach.
- No healing - this is a party that quite simply doesn't heal between encounters except natural healing (ie resting). No potions, no wands, no spells, no channeling. This is extremely unusual and will likely only happen in "no magic"-games, mostly included for completion's sake. A party of four fighters in a low-magic world is an example of this approach.
It seems to me like there is a bit of confusion around exactly what "healing" entails - let's try out some terms that makes it more clear what kind of healing people are talking about?
I typed up a few terms, listed from "most" to "least" time/effort spent healing - feel free to critique, suggest edits or add your own categories. :)
- Combat Healing: This is a character that uses his action economy and healing resources to predominantly to heal and "top off" characters - he will start healing as soon as people start getting injured using a mix of high and low level spells, channeling charges and consumables. The Merciful Healer cleric and the Life Oracle can be examples of this approach.
- Emergency Healing: This is a character that uses his action economy on other tasks than healing, but has the potential to drop a CXW or a Heal when the situation calls for it. He will usually only use healing spells when the lack of healing probably means another character will fall unconscious or die, and even then only if he does not feel confident that a different action can end the encounter. Oath of Vengeance Paladins, Fighter/Clerics, and CC/blaster Oracles can be examples of this approach.
- Downtime healing: This is a character that focuses on other tasks in combat than healing and doesn't have the output to meaningfully heal in combat. When the encounter is ended, the character will help heal up, typically using low level spell slots, wands or other cheap consumables. A mid-level sorcerer with Infernal Healing on his list of Spells Known or a ranger with a wand of CLW can be examples of this approach.
- No healing - this is a party that quite simply doesn't heal between encounters except natural healing (ie resting). No potions, no wands, no spells, no channeling. This is extremely unusual and will likely only happen in "no magic"-games, mostly included for completion's sake. A party of four fighters in a low-magic world is an example of this approach.
I think we agree on what healing is, but the disagreement is on when to do it. The other problem is that some GM's will do whatever they have to do to force the party to heal in combat, while other GM's will allow you to take advantage of your tactics.
Now I will up the difficulty of my combats overall, but I won't push them to the point where every fight requires a heal because that negates the trouble the player put into building a powerful character. It also pushes players to optimize since the game is now more dangerous.
|
Coltron,
Having started running scenarios at the beginning of this year I have seen basically three things:
1. The person with one level of some sort of divine caster gets thrown about 2-3 cure light wands for after the battle. Players in pathfinder are starting to fall into the same trap that is evident in MMO's... if you aren't doing massive dps, you are useless... Which means, if you are healing them, you aren't doing damage and are therefor inefficient, a waste of space and an oxygen thief. However... when the BBG crits for say 50-60 points of damage and actually starts putting the party down, cure light wounds does not cut it.
2. Enter the battle cleric, who is basically a light fighter, ie the reach cleric. It may a bit more efficient, since you use a long spear and AOO's for your main attack while your summoned minions add to your damage, but again... you fall into the same trap, you lose a lot of healing efficiency. Because what normally happens in a scenario? The "Tank" charges into combat, gets beat up and then then its YOUR job to go in and fix him. Or in a better case, the BBG drops a fireball and nukes half of the party... Guess you better channel instead of doing damage right?
3. Everyone is in the damage role. There is basically so much damage being cranked out by the party that basically a scratch or two is insignificant. Because of dodge, improved dodge, uncanny dodge, save for half/none, and the inquisitor/paladin/monk having a 50AC that simply never gets hit...ever, no one in the party is really in any danger. Meanwhile the zen archer, alchemist, and sorc annihilate everything at range. Again, your cure light/mod/serious/critical aren't really needed. Just throw shield of faith and shield other on the tank, and she's a happy camper.
However my current character I am playing while not running games is the walking bandaid-cleric of Sarenrae and just about every party thinks I am the bomb schizzle. Figher at -7: no problem, cure serious, you are up. Wiz at -8, bard -2 and monk -5, no problem, quick channel and throw another cure serious on the tank that's life linked, and I still got HP to spare.
"Allow you to take advantage of your own tactics"? So it somehow isn't tactics if you are put in situations where you have to use in combat healing? The fact that the battle is arranged so that in combat healing is required is merely another tactical element to respond to. Just because the combat isn't set up so you can use all of your resources , ever an only in e manner you most optimally want to ...
... doesn't mean that it isn't 'tactics' somehow. It's just different tactics. If anything, having to account for in combat healing because its adding another element you normally try not to consider, necessitates MORE tactics ...
Giving monsters phantom hit points, fluffing saves, and so on is not tactics. It is GM fiat.
Just to be clear tactics refers to battlefield tactics.
edit: I never said optimally using resources was a requirement. Don't put words in my mouth.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Allow you to take advantage of your own tactics"? So it somehow isn't tactics if you are put in situations where you have to use in combat healing? The fact that the battle is arranged so that in combat healing is required is merely another tactical element to respond to. Just because the combat isn't set up so you can use all of your resources , ever an only in e manner you most optimally want to ...
... doesn't mean that it isn't 'tactics' somehow. It's just different tactics. If anything, having to account for in combat healing because its adding another element you normally try not to consider, necessitates MORE tactics ...
Okay, let's consider two parties. The composition is identical except one party (A) has a support-focused cleric, the other party (B) has a control-focused wizard.
Next, think of control-spells as "preemptive healing" - instead of healing up damage in reaction to taking damage, you're using spells to stop damage from happening to your players by hindering or controlling the source of that damage.
If party A and B both have a pool of 100 resources (encompassing healing, spell slots, wands, channel energy, the works), party A would use 25 "resources" in a given fight to reactively heal up damage in the form of healing, while party B uses 25 "resources" to preemptively stop damage in the form of control spells.
What Wraith was referencing is when a GM looks at party A and party B, notices that B takes less "visible" damage (since they have additional control) and ramps up his damage output in the form of more dangerous monsters, extra HP, better saves etc to close the gap. But taking less damage is the logical result of how they've distributed their resources, so he's effectively punishing them for "taking advantage of tactics" when both parties have entirely valid and reasonably play styles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tactics are reacting to the situation at hand and finding a way to compensate and win. If your favorite tactics can't survive a different setup, then I would submit they have the fatal flaw of not being flexible tactics but are instead fragile tactics. Over specializing is also a problem, just as much as if you over specialized in any other area. The idea that somehow there is an obligation to only present combat scenarios that play right into the way you have optimized yourself for is a bit alien to me. My general idea is to always present players with a variety of tactical situations which force them to draw on different resources and come up with different tactics, and use all of the abilities on their sheets in different ways.
First of all, a strawman seems to have wandered into the middle of your post - to the best of my knowledge no one has said "there is an obligation to only present combat scenarios that play right into the way you have optimized yourself", or anything remotely similar to it.
Secondly, there is a difference between "this encounter requires different tactics from our preferred approach" and "this encounter requires lots of in-combat healing".
Thirdly, How is this different from a party that focuses on high AC, healing spells and endurance and faces an enemy that takes advantage of their typically long fights to pick them apart with control spells and burst damage? Any tactic is "fragile" when it comes up against its counter. "Doesn't perform well vs a specific setup" is in my opinion not a fatal flaw for a tactic - it simply means you need to have more than one tactic available. This is much of the reason why people prefer "control" to "charm", for example - control includes a host of options able to adapt to many situations, while charm spells have strong limitations when facing undead, constructs, spell resistance and so on.
Which is why you see a mantra being repeated over and over and over again by numerous posters here (including Wraith and myself) - that you need to have a secondary function so you can still benefit your party when your primary niche (healing) is not needed. It's sound advice and equally valid for every character, not just healers.
The key point for me isn't that "healing is always useless" but rather that Healing is no more a "required" tactic than having a "controller", "supporter", "tank" or any other . A smart party who marshals their resources can use their strong points (whatever it is) to balance out their weak points, and a smart GM will recognize this and not punish them for it.