wizardmark's page

I think it's less "we shouldn't need a healer" and more "We shouldn't need a specific a dedicated healer that does literally nothing but heal" and "The Healer shouldn't have to save all their resources for out of combat Healing instead of doing cool things in combat".

Because blowing limited resources for out of combat Healing isn't fun. Saving people in combat is great and part of the fun/power fantasy of being a healer. Being the party's CLW wand isn't.

Could you imagine if detect magic wasn't a cantrip? Or if a fighter could only repair their shield one time per day? Or if you were only allowed to shoot x arrows per day?

I get that, but I never felt that way about Pathfinder. With Clerics getting Channels, and the proliferation of magic items via item creation feats (wands/potions/scrolls), I feel there is plenty of available out of combat healing. It just might cost you more. You cant choose not to have a type of character in the group and then complain about the gaps, imo. I definitely do not subscribe to the philosophy group make-up shouldnt matter.

Detect Magic wasnt a cantrip, back in the day (there was no such thing!). Buy/Create a wand of it via group loot if that was the case.

Nox Aeterna wrote:

If anything i think it is too weak and it still takes too long to fully heal the party after a fight, in a rushed dungeon this might aswell be forgotten.

Well, will give it sometime before i judge it, could be it works better than it looks, but if anything to me right now it still doesnt look strong enough.

If anything less than "full strength before every fight" is "too weak", why even call it Treat Wounds or Medicine? At that point just call it "health bar regen" that occurs after every fight and call it a day.

I agree. I also get that's a play style choice and ultimately there is going to be a group of people who "lose out" on this debate.

So, what I am about to say isn't a condemnation of one playing style over another (to each their own), just an honest inquiry...

I'm curious where the "we shouldn't need a healer" movement comes from. Is it the younger crowd, accustomed to video game-esque mechanics where everything rapidly replenishes? I feel as if older generation players (with roots in 1E or maybe 2E) are less likely to feel that way. I might be wrong, I have no real data to back this thinking aside from other 1E/2E people I talk to who don't seem to mind the need for a dedicated healer (or a spread of classes that give you the same thing).

I believe 1.3 Treat Wounds is too powerful as-is. I fully support non magical healing being part of the game. But I do not like the idea of spamming Treat Wounds in 10 minute bursts, being able to use mundane methods only to fully heal someone so quickly. I'd consider two restrictions to it:

1. Targets are bolstered against Treat Wounds until receiving another wound.

This at least stops Treat Wounds spamming.

2. Treat Wounds cannot heal more HP than the target has taken since the last time they benefited from Treat Wounds.

I get it, people will hate #2 because of book-keep reasons. But that type of detail has not bothered me.

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Magic Missile should probably be Heighten 1 rather than Heighten 2. No one will cast a Magic Missile in a 9th level slot, when that works out to only being as good as a 5th level spell and nowhere comparable to higher level magic.

You are right, that 9th level spell is going to be better than a 9th level magic missile, but that is the point. It is usually not the best option, but there are circumstances where it will be.

I think we intentionally made sure that the heightened spells were not obviously better than spells of that level. They are meant to be options to help fill out your tool kit in the right scenario. We want you to make choices with your spells, not just automatically prepare the "best" one all the time.

And I would probably prep that higher level magic missile if I knew I was facing down a powerful ghost....

Isnt the problem with this, though - and in some ways the idea of Heighten Spells altogether - that the value of lower level spells are greatly reduced. You admit casting Heightened MM is "usually not the best option", but now when you are higher level using MM in its default level (1st) it is much weaker than in 1E.

Over-all I like the idea of Heightened spells but I do have a concern of it over-all resulting in cast away low level spells because they are no longer any good at their original level and not good enough to Heighten. Something I have been watching for as examples roll out.

Perhaps Heightened lower level spells with be the new staple of wands and such.