All of the discussions on the healing classes are missing the main change to healing that PathfinderRPG has introduced. Clerics and Paladins have been given an innate ability heretofore unheard of: the ability to heal allies AT RANGE. This is such a drastic change that it completely alters the balance of damage and healing in the game. I like this change, and think it is indispensable in achieving one of the main goals of PathfinderRPG: the elimination of the 15 minute adventuring day. However, the class which in 3.5 was the undisputed second-best healer in the game has been left in the dark - the druid.
I feel that in order to bring balance back to the system, the druid needs to be allowed a means by which he can also heal at range. As it stands now, a player who decides to play the druid as the party healer is severely penalized for his choice, so much so that he risks the wrath of the other players for his choice. I am involved in 2 play test campaigns at the moment, and using those campaigns I will illustrate the problem below.
In campaign 1 I play a Sun/Fire cleric with Extra Turning. The other players are: a rogue specialized in Bladed Scarf (a pathfinder specific weapon similar to the spiked chain, but slashing damage), a Conjuration specialist wizard and a great sword specialist fighter. The fighter often misses sessions due to family responsibilities. In this campaign we are often able to take on 5-7 encounters, 2-3 of which are 3 or more levels above us, and finish up with a fair fraction of our resources still available to us. We feel like super-heroes.
In campaign 2 I play a defensive fighter with full plate, tower shield, toughness, endurance, die hard, max intimidate, dazzling display, etc. The other players are a druid healer, a 2-weapon fighting barbarian and a melee fighting cleric (cleric often misses sessions, same player as the fighter in the first campaign). In this campaign we are barely able to handle 2-3 level-appropriate encounters before we are forced to flee for our lives. The druid is absolutely not shirking his healing duties or being lax, he spends almost every round of combat casting healing spells. The 15 minute adventuring day is in full effect in this campaign.
Isn't it obvious that there is a severe imbalance here? Are we abandoning every class but the cleric (or paladin at very high levels) as the party healer? If not, the druid needs the ability to heal at range, and possibly a boost to the amount of healing available to him.
I have a couple ideas about addressing this imbalance:
1) Give the druid a choice at character creation to focus on healing. Such a druid would give up his animal companion and any domain, and instead choose a 'healing companion.' Said companion would be some sort of tiny fey, or perhaps an incorporeal 'spirit animal' which would have no combat abilities beyond the ability to deliver Cure spells cast by the druid. Such a mechanic already exists in the wizard/sorcerer familiar ability 'deliver touch spells', except that the druid's ability would be limited to Cure spells in the same way that the cleric's spontaneous casting ability is limited.
2) Give the druid an ability similar to channel energy, except that it would be a single-target ability, and not area of effect in the way that the cleric/paladin channel energy is. The druid would get this ability once per day plus his wisdom modifier.
3) Give the druid the ability to 'burn' a use of his wildshape ability to express one Cure spell as an area of effect heal with the same range and restrictions as the cleric channel energy ability.
All of the above suggestions would help to close the healing gap for the druid, while at the same time not put the druid past or even very near the cleric in volume nor versatility of healing.
I really think this is flaw in the current system that needs to be addressed, and I am sure there are many solutions other than the 3 I have outlined above that would fix this flaw, and I am sure I would be happy with any one of the as long as the result is that the druid is not completely left out in the dark as far as the new mechanic of healing at range is concerned.
If the druid is not caught up in this regard, then what we are left with is a single class (the cleric) that MUST be in every party, which I don't think is anyone's wish. As it stands now any party without a cleric is doomed to the 15 minute adventuring day, which I think we all agree is the dragon we have all sworn to slay.
Healing is fine.
Also, the reason that you aren't able to handle level-specific encounters is because your character is made terribly.
Just dropping the healing spells down a level would help the druid enough--after all, it's the class that's a tank that comes with its own tank. There's a reason that its spell list is weaker.
|
All of the discussions on the healing classes are missing the main change to healing that PathfinderRPG has introduced. Clerics and Paladins have been given an innate ability heretofore unheard of: the ability to heal allies AT RANGE. This is such a drastic change that it completely alters the balance of damage and healing in the game. I like this change, and think it is indispensable in achieving one of the main goals of PathfinderRPG: the elimination of the 15 minute adventuring day. However, the class which in 3.5 was the undisputed second-best healer in the game has been left in the dark - the druid.
Just because it was, doesn't mean it should be, the only reason it was the second best healer was because they were the only other full divine spellcaster. The Paladin should be the second best healer, druid should be the third or fourth. They revere nature and nature is vicious and cruel. The closest thing nature has to healing is regeneration which coincidentally is a druid spell, or being so tough that they just ignore the damage, which a druid can do through proper use of buff spells. I think it's fine that the druids healing doesn't get improved, they have enough going for them allready. Sorry that you feel left out as a druid lover, but at least you aren't in the paladins boat where even with his boost to healing he is still sub-par as a class.
Please don't bother to answer my post if you are not interested in staying on topic and discussing the advent of healing at distance and the problem of a single viable healing class.
Here's a link to another option if mine is too radical a change.
Healing Abilities for Druids and Bards
It gives Fast Healing instead of converting damage to non-lethal.
The nature's lifeblood ability you proposed is definitely an option for giving the druid a heal at range ability, however, it needs some work, it needs to scale better. Perhaps increasing it by 1 every 6 levels, so at 6th level it is fast healing 2 for one round plus druid level, then at 12th it becomes fast healing 3 for one round plus druid level, at level 18 it becomes fast healing 4 for one round plus druid level.
The bard on the other hand, I am not too worried about, as it was always a terrible healing class, but if they decide to give it a bit more healing oomf, I won't complain.
Also, the reason that you aren't able to handle level-specific encounters is because your character is made terribly.
Just dropping the healing spells down a level would help the druid enough--after all, it's the class that's a tank that comes with its own tank. There's a reason that its spell list is weaker.
You need to learn that making personal insults based on zero information is not an effective way to make your point.
|
|
You need to learn that making personal insults based on zero information is not an effective way to make your point.Also, the reason that you aren't able to handle level-specific encounters is because your character is made terribly.
Just dropping the healing spells down a level would help the druid enough--after all, it's the class that's a tank that comes with its own tank. There's a reason that its spell list is weaker.
Oh yeah, I missed that post, that wasn't in very good form. unnecessary and mean. for the record I agree with freesword that the problem with the druid is in the fact that the only heals she can make are at the expense of other spells. Unfortunately for your point I think that is exactly how it should be for the druid. But maybe I'm a little biased having grown up in the woods and being a huge nature lover.
Please don't bother to answer my post if you are not interested in staying on topic and discussing the advent of healing at distance and the problem of a single viable healing class.Who is off topic?
You are off topic. I have seen your posts in many threads about how you feel that the druid is not a healing class, and that nature is vicious and yada yada. That is not the topic of this thread, we all completely understand your opinion on the subject.
|
|
You are off topic. I have seen your posts in many threads about how you feel that the druid is not a healing class, and that nature is vicious and yada yada. That is not the topic of this thread, we all completely understand your opinion on the subject.Please don't bother to answer my post if you are not interested in staying on topic and discussing the advent of healing at distance and the problem of a single viable healing class.Who is off topic?
No I am not off topic. Disagreement that change is necessary and expressing why is actually quite on topic. You say I think this needs a change, I say I disagree this is why. On topic is to then give me a reason why I'm wrong, and hopefully disuade me from my disagreement. Not just shout "QUIT BEING OFF TOPC" yada yada. But your right, me not thinking the druid needs a healing boost when we are discussing whether or not the druid's healing should be boosted is off topic, I'll just ignore this thread which by the way I may be off topic, but since this is being discussed on several other threads at least I'm not spamming the board. So I'll just ignore this conversation and watch as it falls to the bottom of the thread with the whopping 10 posts it has. Clearly everyone is in agreement with you and is just rushing to suggest alternates for the druids healing.
EDIT: oh and by the way, it was one thread, not many, way to get on P_Rs case and then go and do it to someone else.
As my previous posts have addressed the topic of a single viable healing class and improving the Druid's healing capability I will now comment on the "advent" of healing at a distance. This concept is not newly introduced. It's been in 3.x Core in the form of the Mass Cure xxxx Wounds spells. It has also been made available at lower levels in the WOTC supplements granting 30' range to touch spells. The addition of healing to Channel Energy may have added the ranged component at an even earlier level, but without the Selective Channeling feat it is a less than ideal choice for healing in combat where range is of greatest value. The fact that it added another option for healing to 2 classes is where the real change took place. Traditionally there have been 3 tiers of healing. Primary has always been the Cleric. Druid and Paladin have been the second. Ranger and Bard the third. Currently Druids are slipping to a new tier between the second and third. This is not an affect of healing at range, but of more options for healing for the Cleric and Paladin. What Druids need is not so much healing at range but additional ways to heal.
Here is the problem as I see it: Channel Energy not only gives the cleric and the paladin access to healing at range earlier than any class has with the mass cure spells, but one that is more effective and freely available than the mass cure spells, and at a lower level. A cleric of 7th level can channel energy for 4d6, minimum 4 healing, average of 12-16 healing, max of 24 healing. a 9th level cleric who memorizes mass cure light wounds can heal for 1d8+9, minimum of 10 healing, average of 13-14, maximum of 17. As you can see, channel energy makes cure light wounds mass completely obsolete for a cleric, and simply a bad joke for a druid who doesn't even gain access to it till 11th level. And this doesn't even take into account the fact that channel energy is also a very effective offensive ability against undead, and even other types if special feats are chosen.
Ok, now lets just ignore the existence of the druid class altogether. Before the advent of channel energy, there were items which would allow non-healer characters access to equivalent healing to the cleric in the form of potions, scrolls, wands and wondrous items. Granted, these items had their drawbacks - potions could not replicate cure spells beyond 3rd level and required the melee player to take a round away from fighting and drink, risking an attack of opportunity; scrolls, wands and wondrous items usually had a significantly lower bonus to healing than a cleric casting the cure spell from memory, and scrolls and wands cast by a non-healing class required a hefty use magic device check. However, now there is a mechanic to healing which not only makes the cleric superior at the task of healing, but gives them an effectiveness at the task which is so overwhelming that any party which does not include a cleric falls outside the intended balance of the system, and thus is terribly crippled. Once again, prepare to welcome back the 15 minute adventuring day if you don't have a cleric in your party.
I'd have to disagree with you on this one. We've (my friends and I) played many games with parties that didn't have a cleric OR had a cleric that wasn't the typical healbot (aka N or E cleric with spontaneous negative energy). They still kept a cure or two in memory but generally were out there dealing damage/summoning/or something else. At low levels all you need to keep the 15 min work day a bay is a simple wand, or if you allow MIC, a belt of healing. Both items are easily worth the 750 gp or so (can't remember the belts price off the top of my head) that they go for. They have allowed the "healing" characters to play how they want instead of sitting back and waiting to healbot for the party. They are even more obtainable with the Pathdfinder traits system now that every character can basically start with 900gp + starting class gp. Before we had a potion or two amongst the party until after our first significant treasure haul where we pooled our money and would buy a wand long before anyone could afford a magic weapon. If there is that much of a disparity between your groups I would honestly say there is something else to blame besides the cleric/druid complaint you are putting forth.
I'm not saying there isn't a difference, what I am saying is that with a little forethought and preparation there isn't nearly as much of a difference between the two parties as you propose. So no, druids don't need anymore on top of their overflowing plates.
The druid is clearly not as effective a healer as the cleric. This is not news. It has never been as effective a healer as the cleric.
The fact that the druid could in some small way heal the party if they opted to have a druid rather than a cleric does not really mean that the druid is a good and effective healer. They sucked at it. They still suck at it. They haven't been made any worse (at healing) in the transition.
I would suggest if your party wants to stick one person into the healing role, that such person be a cleric. If no one wants to be then the role falls to /everyone/ to make sure they have healing. Scrolls, wands, UmD and if available some magical items. (see-> magic item compendium).
The druid has better things to be doing in his life than to try to play cleric. If he wants to be a cleric- he should Be a cleric. Lets not try to make the druid a cleric.
-S
The druid is clearly not as effective a healer as the cleric. This is not news. It has never been as effective a healer as the cleric.
The fact that the druid could in some small way heal the party if they opted to have a druid rather than a cleric does not really mean that the druid is a good and effective healer. They sucked at it. They still suck at it. They haven't been made any worse (at healing) in the transition.
I would suggest if your party wants to stick one person into the healing role, that such person be a cleric. If no one wants to be then the role falls to /everyone/ to make sure they have healing. Scrolls, wands, UmD and if available some magical items. (see-> magic item compendium).
The druid has better things to be doing in his life than to try to play cleric. If he wants to be a cleric- he should Be a cleric. Lets not try to make the druid a cleric.
-S
This is simply not true. In 3.5, a druid who chose to prepare healing spells almost exclusively had an equal amount of healing ability as a cleric of his level, excluding clerics who chose healing domain. Now they have varying fractions of the healing ability, dependent on level and charisma modifier of the cleric:
At first level, assuming a 4 person party, assuming that the cleric waits till at least 2 party members are wounded before using channel energy, assuming a cleric with charisma modifier of 0, wisdom modifier of 3, druid with wisdom modifier of 3:
Cleric can heal 6d6 + 2x 1d8 +1; Druid can heal 2x 1d8 +1. Cleric has a minimum heal of 10, druid has a minimum heal of 4. Cleric has an average heal of 28-34, druid has an average heal of 10-12. Cleric has a maximum heal of 54, druid has a maximum heal of 18. As you can see, in this case of 1st level cleric and druid, the druid has slightly less than 1/3 the potential healing of the cleric. You must admit, I have used very conservative numbers for the cleric's potential heals, and maximum possible potential heals for the druid. If the cleric only uses his channel energy when 3 or 4 party members are wounded, you end up with an even smaller fraction of potential heals for the druid.
At 5th level, same assumptions as above:
Cleric can heal 18d6 + 4x 1d8 +5 + 3x 2d8 +5 + 2x 3d8 +5; druid can heal 4x 1d8 +5 + 2x 2d8 +5. Cleric has a minimum heal of 69, druid has a minimum heal of 38. Cleric has an average heal of 163-197, druid has an average heal of 62-70. Cleric has a maximum heal of 281, druid has a maximum heal of 94. On average heals, the druid has slightly better than 1/3 the healing of the cleric; on maximum heals the druid has slightly less than 1/3 the healing of the cleric.
I am too sick of doing the math to extend this into higher levels, but it is obvious to be from the progression that at the highest levels the druid's healing power is going to at best reach perhaps 40-45% of the cleric's healing power. Once again, this is assuming a cleric who has 0 charisma bonus and has not taken healing domain or any feats which boost his healing.
If you believe that every party MUST HAVE A CLERIC, PERIOD, then none of this has any relevance. I however do not believe that the cleric should be THE indispensable class, and some parity of healing needs to be achieved.
Sure.
But in 3.5 the druid who prepared all cure/healing spells... was playing a Cleric with a 5 letter name instead of a 6 letter name.
And, to top it off, he Still doesn't get to play druid! or be useful outside healing. He's wasted all his spell casting on trying to play catchup against a healer who can do it /without sacrificing anything/.
He can memorize anything he wants and sTILL have a full complement of healing spells. The druid can do one or the other- but not both. And as I said before- he's far better off /being a druid/ than trying and failing to play cleric. This is even *more so* now than before, since wildshape has been nerfed. The druid doesn't have the option anymore of dedicating his spell casting to healing knowing he can be a melee powerhouse.
Giving them healing at range isn't needed because the underlying premise still doesn't work. They still aren't good healers. They are, at best, *emergency emergency* healers. The "oh crap someone fell!" healers. That's about it. For that- they memorize a healing spell or two and the spend the rest of the day being a druid. And using the CLW wand after battle to top everyone off. (juuust like the cleric).
The druid shouldn't be trying to be a better cleric. If we adjust the druid, we need to make him a better druid.
-S
Well, my take on it is that on top of non-spontaneous healing and no channel energy,
Druid healing is (and was) nerfed by the spell level lag of the Cure Wounds spells.
In any case, on topic to this thread:
As mentioned, there are "Touch Spells at 30' Range" Feats (I forget the name, in WotC material, probably Complete Divine)
that take care of this problem (and more, ALL touch spells - they basically let you 'attune' to X number of allies when you prepare spells, and can target those allies as if you could touch them. These seem a reasonable addition to the Pathfinder Feats, when that Chapter is seen to.
A UNIQUE DRUID WAY TO ACHIEVE THIS:
Wildshape into Animal with a high fly speed, and preferably with high AC/ high DEX (and maybe take mobility if you like this tactic, for when you CAN'T just fly over Threat Areas) This lets you fly around the battlefield (if the fly speed > 30', it's better than the WotC Feat), reaching your allies and healing them. Ta da! Druid is still sub-par healer but can heal "at range"!
If you believe that every party MUST HAVE A CLERIC, PERIOD, then none of this has any relevance. I however do not believe that the cleric should be THE indispensable class, and some parity of healing needs to be achieved.
I would say that I beleive if a party does not have a Cleric, they need MULTIPLE characters who can Heal, even with items, unless they're ready for a very different style of play without ready access to healing. The Core Rules do NOT assume one style of play, otherwise the rules for natural healing may as well be tossed out, since they don't remotely compare to (H)ealing.
Ummm why should the druid be a healer? He is not really made for it and I am ok with him being a 3rd class healer as thats not really his thing. Sure he has some healing spells but he is not a cleric. Heh back in the old days when ya had to be the big N he would have prob let you die as it was natural. 3E kinda made him a 2nd class healer and he really should stay one, or drop to 3rd class with the paladin stepping up as the other main healer
Given the new cleric and bard options, I would like for the druid heals to be bumped up to be at the same progression (I hate having spells at different levels for different classes), but it's hardly necessary. The druid's pretty darned good without it. As for anything else...I dunno, the druid can do a lot already...
All of the discussions on the healing classes are missing the main change to healing that PathfinderRPG has introduced. Clerics and Paladins have been given an innate ability heretofore unheard of: the ability to heal allies AT RANGE. This is such a drastic change that it completely alters the balance of damage and healing in the game.
Umm... sorry but no it doesn't. It's nice to have but it is not an earth shattering thing that alters game balance. Clerics have been able to take a feat to do ranged touch spells for some time.
More significant is the fact that they are given 12d6 (assumes 4 player party 10CHA) additional healing at 1st level with an additional 12d6 healing every level... And to be more fair it's not even 12d6 unless everyone in the party is injured each time the cleric uses his power (which is unlikely).
The ability is not particularly suited for melee because it heals enemies as well. It also doesn't heal enough to really save someone's bacon. If the cleric has invested in a higher charisma and the selective channeling feat he is already then he's made the decision he wants to be a dedicated healer (or undead killer one or the other). He's allocated resources which he could have used elsewhere so he can be good at healing.
Lowering the druids Cure X wounds spells down to the same level as the clerics would be a good idea, I also like the idea of granting the druid the option to get the healing domain instead of an elemental domain.
You need to learn that making personal insults based on zero information is not an effective way to make your point.Also, the reason that you aren't able to handle level-specific encounters is because your character is made terribly.
Just dropping the healing spells down a level would help the druid enough--after all, it's the class that's a tank that comes with its own tank. There's a reason that its spell list is weaker.
Sweetcheeks, you need to learn that me saying that your character is made up of fail isn't insulting YOU. Unless, of course, you are your character.
A druid is having trouble healling?
Let me help: Summon Nature's Ally IV +
Summon: Unicorn.
You get: 3 first level spells, 2 second level spells (all as Spell like abilities) AND a magic circle of Protection evil (can be a decent buff).
3 Cure light wounds
1 Cure Moderate
1 Neutralize poison
COP: Evil
AND
a fourth level Ranger (4d10 HD +11 Horn d8+8, FA +11 horn (d8+8)/ +3 Hooves (d4+2) Darkvision, Loads of immunities, Wild Empathy, Scent 18 AC)
Heck use Summon Nature's Ally V get d3 of them to heal several allies then have them stampede. I can see it now:
Gateman of Heck: How did you die?
BBEG: Unicorn stampede.
Gateman of Heck: WHAT?
BBEG: Unicorns stampeded me to death.
Gateman of Heck: *uproarious Laughter*
I don't know what to say to you all, except, play a cleric for 9 levels like I have and then tell me that channel energy healing at range makes no difference. In fact, if you don't think it makes that much of a difference, why not just remove it from the game altogether, since it is just a matter of convenience?
Hey, Mabven and welcome to the boards. Full disclosure: I've known Mabven for many many years.
As you probably know from our many discussions, my opinion has always been that adding the option of the healing domain to the Druid's domain choices would be an elegant solution which would require no addition to the power base of the already admittedly powerful class, giving non killer-druids the option of bolstering their healing ability if they so desired.
I don't necessarily believe that the druid needs ranged healing at low level, although you make a decent case for it. I would like to see some balance for channel positive energy and I definitely don't want to see it removed from the game.
That being said, I thought your argument was intelligent and well thought out and completely germane. Thanks for taking the time to post.
I am somewhat disappointed by the acrimonious reaction you received. I have always felt at home here but these discussions seem to really anger people and sometimes bring out the worst in otherwise intelligent folks.
I can only hope it is because they share our passion for the game and are caught up in appreciating this unprecedented process which Paizo has chosen to undertake, and allowed us to be a part of.
-S
All of the discussions on the healing classes are missing the main change to healing that PathfinderRPG has introduced. Clerics and Paladins have been given an innate ability heretofore unheard of: the ability to heal allies AT RANGE. This is such a drastic change that it completely alters the balance of dam ... SNIP...
The problem is not with the Druid, but with the cleric.
2-3 encounters per day is more then enough.
The new cleric is overpowered and too powerful when compared to other classes. I do not suggest giving druids more healing, but removing this cleric healing boost that it does not need. Healing was OK as it was before.
If you want more encounters per day go play 4e, that game is a perfect dungeon hack system!!
I don't know what to say to you all, except, play a cleric for 9 levels like I have and then tell me that channel energy healing at range makes no difference. In fact, if you don't think it makes that much of a difference, why not just remove it from the game altogether, since it is just a matter of convenience?
I'm going to make this as PC as possible. First off anything that starts like that just makes you come off sounding like a whiny kid. Meaning that there are SO many ways to play a class between 1 and 20, many of them you may never thought of. Saying "...play X for Y and tell me I'm wrong..." it sounds like you know exactly the best way to play a cleric. For example, play a N or E cleric using negative energy (not saying you never thought of that) - they don't get ranged healing and your point is moot. I could care less if they removed it from the game, sure go back to the old turning rules, no big deal for me - because the new rules didn't really influence the game in this huge drastic way you are expecting us to agree with you on.
That being said I don't mind the new rules, and if you read through the book and the side bar about the turning changes maybe you'd understand the reason they were made. They were "elegant" changes as so many of the people on this board are so fond of saying. It simplified a rarely used rules system and made that system useful outside of its original purpose, not to mention it actually gives someone a reason to use turn attempts for something other than the divine metamagic feats.
The fact that everyone in the area is healed (ignoring undead) is a fairly large drawback and as such the AOE healing at range is more than likely going to be used as an after combat option (when the wands would generally be used as well btw). In our combats we usually aren't 20'+ away from each other the entire time, nor does terrain when indoors allow the cleric to get far enough away to just catch the party on the edge because of hallways and doorways, maybe in the beginning but not after a few rounds - I can't speak on your games obviously. I can't imagine your party melee combatant would like to see the last round or two of work suddenly erased because you wanted to heal someone in the back though. Another limiting factor is the whole 3+chr mod. Using the point buy system in Pathfinder, most clerics aren't going to have a whopping 8+ turn attempts per day. More like 3-4 which, oddly enough, is how many encounters per day the game system suggests. Using that as the guideline, every combat the cleric can drop a AOE heal instead of having to use 3-4 cure x wounds spells and that AOE heal will on average cure 3 hp per 2 levels. Taking the numbers it doesn't really solve the 15 min work day all on its own now does it? How is it making such a huge difference in your games??
Then we can again get the the point of what a druid is supposed to be... Not the cleric - is pretty much the answer. There are two types of magic in D&D, arcane and divine. Arcane doesn't make a great deal of sense for a druid does it? I don't think so but maybe it is something else we disagree on. And if the druid was supposed to be the cleric why does he/she not have the same spell list?? I mean if they were supposed to be an alternative to replace the cleric wouldn't it make sense to give them the same spells too? But look at that, a different spell list and even spells the cleric doesn't get. Looking at the evidence I'd have to say the druid isn't supposed to be a cleric, there are a few similarities, but that is because of flavor and limitations of game mechanics.
I get that people like to make characters and not play the "typical" character class. If you want to shoe horn your druid into playing heal bot then go ahead do it. If it were me and I wanted to play druid, it wouldn't be to spend all combat healing you. Personally I'd let you get downed and hope you learned your lesson. Not to say I would just let you die but if circumstances dictated I couldn't get to you to drop a stabilize on you so I could clean up after combat, it was your own damn fault for thinking I was something other than what I was really playing. I mean, I could make a fighter with UMD to use wands in Pathfinder - my fighter could be the healer but he can't heal as well as the cleric - are we going to give him access to turning?? He needs it a hell of a lot more than the druid does... Actually thinking about it I'd let you get downed even if I were playing a cleric, I'm not anybody's healbot - again not to say I wouldn't heal you but unless its a "crap you are about to die" situation I probably have better things to do that will contribute more and so the micromanagement of the parties hit points isn't first thing on my list.
I'm kinda getting jaded by all these posts, obvious and veiled, that keep trying to enforce what they think the character classes should be on the rules that were presented in Beta. There are definite roles for some character classes, others can be more varied or easily replaced, some not so much - that is core, that is the game as it has always been. The cleric is one of those "not so much" roles, it is hard to replace. All I can say is if you really don't like it try to get your groups to play with the old turning rules, but I see no real reason to change the current rules set from anything you've brought forth. And just because you don't like it isn't grounds for removing it from the game entirely as you so blithely suggested. Because, again, in most cases outside of yours, the rules haven't had the game shattering impact you are seemingly experiencing.
I don't know what to say to you all, except, play a cleric for 9 levels like I have and then tell me that channel energy healing at range makes no difference. In fact, if you don't think it makes that much of a difference, why not just remove it from the game altogether, since it is just a matter of convenience?
I've been DMing a group where the cleric has ranged touch for the last 2 years. It's quite nice but it's not game shattering.
Mabven: Are you at all interested in simple 'solutions' to your issue, namely calling for the Ranged Touch Feat to be introduced, or playing as a Wild-shaping Mobile Healer? And, like I mentioned, if you don't have a Cleric in your party, just make sure you have SEVERAL characters who CAN heal, even Sorcerors/Rogues with UMD.
The thing is, it seems like you're mostly calling for the Cleric's Channel Energy to be nerfed, while Druid healing hasn't actually changed. I REALLY dont' think Channel Energy is going to be altered signifigantly: For every person that appreciated the Druid as Healer, there is 2 more who didn't like that was the ONLY job their Cleric got to do: thus Clerics now can actually cast most of their Spells on non-Healing spells... Which implies that the Channel Energy Healing is NOT all a net healing increase, it is just replacing Cure Spells they would have had to spend their Spell Slots on; instead they are free to use those for other spells (of course, you CAN 100% Healbot out, but the point of the change was that many players were BORED with that limited role for Clerics)
Allowing Druids to gain Healing spells at the same level as Clerics I don't really care much about one way or the other, but if you want to advocate for that, I'm not against it.
I wanted to refrain a little bit from jumping to Mab's aid as he doesn't need anyone to fight his battles, and I don't want to add to the contentiousness, but I feel like I need to get involved here to point out a few things.
I'm going to make this as PC as possible.
Nobody is asking for PC. What I am asking for is basic ettiquette and respect for other people who you at least share the love of the game in common with. I applaud your tip of the hat to politeness but...
... then you go ahead in the next sentence and act decidedly un-PC and begin with a personal insult based on opinion and predicated on a post taken somewhat out of context.
Unless I'm mistaken, the title of this thread is "Healing at range", and the introduction of channeled negative energy into the discussion is actually more moot (if such a thing is possible). Furthermore your argument there follows the pattern of your first sentence and the following one. You say, "don't say play x and see" and then say in the following sentence, "play y and see". This seems to weaken the foundation of your argument, and adds unnecessarily to the acrimony and negativity.
His suggestion, I believe, was rhetorical at best. I don't think he wants to see CE removed from the game. He does care if its in there or not, and if it is he feels it should be balanced.
The original poster never said: Agree with me or don't post. And it is a valid argument that channeled healing affects the game drastically, and his opinion should be at least as valid as yours. He has played this game for a long time and I have played with him for years. In our group he is one of the players who remains on top of the rules, and adapts the fastest and most proficiently to changes in the rules, house-rules, etc... Our experience play testing has been that Channeled Energy has made encounters that would have been fatal to one or more characters less do-or-die. It has had more than a significant impact, but not an unwelcome one.
Mabven merely made some observations based on experience playing both a cleric and a tank in a party without a main healer, then encouraged discussion. By not acknowledging that his points were valid and participating in the dialogue, people turned this thread immediately into a situation where posters acted contentious and disagreeable with one another.
Furthermore, (and unrelated to the post I'm responding to) any post that begins with "Ummm... what are you smoking?" or some, sullen, impolite rejoinder like that immediately goes down a few notches on my relevance meter.
I used Divine Reach to great effect while playing a 3.5 Cleric with Mabven in a party where he was the druid healer. I really enjoyed it but then again I almost never used my turning ability to turn, so you have a good point there.
I rarely engaged in heals and played a neutral cleric who specialized in buff-and-tank antics. Yes, I used wands to supplement his healing, or the occasional begrudgingly substituted spell, but he was able to heal and participate in combat with his Animal Companion and his Wildshape. I was less of a platoon healer than I was a frontliner thanks to Mab's play style.
We have logged something like 150+ hours of playtime since beginning our own Pathfinder play test and Channeled healing has healed exactly 5hp worth of enemies. Mab took selective channeling at third level and never looked back. He is a bright and tactical player who always gets the best bang for his CE buck and this, I'm sure colors his perception somewhat.
Also, HP healed outside of combat by Channeled Energy= 0
It has never been used outside of combat by either party. It is a combat ability that greatly empowers the cleric but is not overpowered by dint of empowering every party member, pet, summoned companion, etc in the party. It is an ability that essentially balances itself. That being said, I like the idea of allowing the druid to play a healer. Why would they have healing spells to begin with if that wasn't at least a semi-viable idea.History and Myth are filled with examples of druid healers and the druid especially espouses the archetype of "wounded healer" a creature between two worlds who embodies both the violence and the gentleness and nurture of nature. If you like I will provide examples, but they are not particularly germane to the discussion.
Please remember that this is not a contest of egos and lets stick to a useful, friendly debate on the issues.
Mabven: Are you at all interested in simple 'solutions' to your issue, namely calling for the Ranged Touch Feat to be introduced, or playing as a Wild-shaping Mobile Healer? And, like I mentioned, if you don't have a Cleric in your party, just make sure you have SEVERAL characters who CAN heal, even Sorcerors/Rogues with UMD.
The thing is, it seems like you're mostly calling for the Cleric's Channel Energy to be nerfed, while Druid healing hasn't actually changed. I REALLY dont' think Channel Energy is going to be altered signifigantly: For every person that appreciated the Druid as Healer, there is 2 more who didn't like that was the ONLY job their Cleric got to do: thus Clerics now can actually cast most of their Spells on non-Healing spells... Which implies that the Channel Energy Healing is NOT all a net healing increase, it is just replacing Cure Spells they would have had to spend their Spell Slots on; instead they are free to use those for other spells (of course, you CAN 100% Healbot out, but the point of the change was that many players were BORED with that limited role for Clerics)
Allowing Druids to gain Healing spells at the same level as Clerics I don't really care much about one way or the other, but if you want to advocate for that, I'm not against it.
I can't speak for Mab, but I enjoy your suggestions and I don't believe he is advocating that CE be nerfed. I think your polite and constructive contributions may have been overshadowed by other people's personal attacks.
...the original poster never said: Agree with me or don't post.
No he told people they were off topic then suggested they stay on topic or not post. Look at his response to LastKnightLeft's posts which were fairly well reasoned and did not attack him personally.
...the original poster never said: Agree with me or don't post.No he told people they were off topic then suggested they stay on topic or not post. Look at his response to LastKnightLeft's posts which were fairly well reasoned and did not attack him personally.
gonna have to side with dennis here the OP kinda made it seem as either you had to be 100% on his side or he didn't want to hear it.
gonna have to side with dennis here the OP kinda made it seem as either you had to be 100% on his side or he didn't want to hear it....the original poster never said: Agree with me or don't post.No he told people they were off topic then suggested they stay on topic or not post. Look at his response to LastKnightLeft's posts which were fairly well reasoned and did not attack him personally.
I will go ahead and preface this with the declaration that posts (and sentences) that begin with "No" are really irritating to me. I feel like it takes little effort to write "I disagree" or "My opinion is" instead of "NO".
Nobody even tried to have a discussion with Mabven. Most of the early posts discounted his ideas without a real effort to understand where he was coming from or suggesting anything constructive. All I am saying is I can sympathize with his frustration and I feel a little let down by the comunity's warm welcome to a first time poster.
I agree that his initial frustration at last knight's post was actually misplaced as the post he was upset about (and I think we can all agree it was pretty rude) was psychic robot's.
Whether LKL is ultimately right or wrong about what the druid is, is another matter, perhaps better left to another thread. I happen to firmly disagree with him as I stated above. I do, however respect his opinion and his right to use this public venue to express it.
His personal attacks that followed Mab's self-defense against a perceived attack, real or not, were groundless, rude and base and made me not want to read anything more on the subject by him. I imagine that Mab felt somewhat similar.
Mab is not the most diplomatic of fellows and his brain often gets ahead of him, but he is a bright guy and a potentially very valuable member of this open community. he certainly brings more to my game and our group and while we often disagree about rules interpretations or meta-game concepts, he has never personally attacked me while making a point or discounted my ideas out of hand...
I understand people get excited about this game, I do too. I find it counter intuitive to argue about "what" a druid or cleric is supposed to be.
If you don't agree that the two classes should be balanced or even compared against one another then you have very little, if anything at all to bring to the discussion of how to go about doing it. That's just logic. Express your disagreement tersely, politely and move on.
I don't think setting the boundaries of what he wanted to discuss constitutes unilateral dismissal of opposing viewpoints. I agree he could have been more politic in his response, but its not surprising that he felt it was appropriate ettiquette judging by the first few responses he received.
To me the only sacred cow in the game is the spirit of the original game and the fact that everyone is entitled to their opinion, ideas and interpretations. I have been swayed by arguments on these boards and I have chuckled and shook my head and moved on when I wasn't. Often I feel my dissension doesn't even need to be expressed as it adds little to the content and substance of the discussion.
I do feel rather awkward in this regard. I am not a prolific poster here but I feel I have made an effort to regularly contribute constructive and respectful opinions and ideas. I don't intend to upset anyone by speaking on behalf of my friend, but it is my personal opinion that he has been treated shabbily and deserves to be heard. It would be nice if page two of this topic contained helpful and germane discussion and less personal inveigling on either side.
No he told people they were off topic then suggested they stay on topic or not post. Look at his response to LastKnightLeft's posts which were fairly well reasoned and did not attack him personally.I will go ahead and preface this with the declaration that posts (and sentences) that begin with "No" are really irritating to me. I feel like it takes little effort to write "I disagree" or "My opinion is" instead of "NO".
Sorry you feel that way, it's sort of a traditional word to suggest disagreement.
His personal attacks that followed Mab's self-defense against a perceived attack, real or not, were groundless, rude and base and made me not want to read anything more on the subject by him. I imagine that Mab felt somewhat similar.Which personal attacks from LKL? As far as I'm can tell your buddy was a bit of an A$$ to him and LKL left the thread.
I disagree with you. "No" is a word of denial, of obliteration. Other words are better at expressing simple disagreement without shoving a "NO" in somebody's face. Words have power. I feel the same way about "NO" as I do "hate". They are strong words.
I apologize for calling them personal attacks they were more oblique. I dont think Mab meant to be belligerent, (and again, calling him anatomical names rather than saying he "acted like an ---", which I would be less inclined to disagree with) and if he did, its indefensible, and I would chastise him for it. They were attacks against his ideas and his validity as a poster.
For goodness sake need I stress that this was his first post here at Paizo.com? We have all made gaffes or come off as meaning one thing when we meant another. Please be understanding.
shout "QUIT BEING OFF TOPC" yada yada.
Mabven didn't use caps this was a mis-characterization of his post
I'll just ignore this thread which by the way I may be off topic, but since this is being discussed on several other threads at least I'm not spamming the board.
Implies Mab's opinion and effort at contributing is less valid than his own or others. Generally considered an attack, at the very least a judgment.
So I'll just ignore this conversation and watch as it falls to the bottom of the thread with the whopping 10 posts it has
I dont see how sarcasm and judgmental pronouncements can be seen as anything other than attacks.
Clearly everyone is in agreement with you and is just rushing to suggest alternates for the druids healing.
see above. Sarcasm is not my fave.
<shrug> Look, I really need to go and do some stuff and get away from this. Its just irritating me. Dennis, I really like what you have to say and value your input a great deal. I actually sometimes seek out or read a thread because you have posted in it recently.
As much as you can like someone who you only know of from the 'net, I like you. I generally agree with you about many things, bud. We're not enemies here, and I wish we could just drop it.
I really don't want to fight. I don't enjoy it. I am sorry I got mixed up in this whole thing, but my friends matter to me and I will stick up for them if I see them getting some static. Just the way I am. I apologize if anything I did hurt or offended anyone, I tried to write as methodically and thoughtfully as I could.
As I asked before can we please get back to discussing this matter civilly?
hey ZC I think your getting knight's and physic robots posts confused. As for the OP yeah some folks my self among them dont think the druid should be a healer really and that's a valid counter point .
As I asked before can we please get back to discussing this matter civilly?
Well I was gonna drop it. I actually deleted the post you replied to before I saw your reply.
Look, I think you are being overly sensitive about your buddy and looking the other way about some fairly rude behavior on his part. That's all I was trying to point out. Ogre Out.
Let me start by stating that I could care less how polite or rude to me anyone is. I appreciate ZeroCharisma's attempts to elicit some sort of mature behavior out of people, but I have learned in my long life that expectation of such will always leave you disappointed.
Now, I will continue by saying that I in no way wish the cleric to be nerfed, I quite enjoy what Channel Energy has brought to the game, and wish it to remain in the core rules. My main concern is that the rest of the healing in the game remain balanced against the obvious power-boost that Channel Energy represents. I have shown with simple math how the druid represents less than 1/3 the healing capability of a quite poorly designed cleric, I have not done the math to compare the druid, ranger or paladin against the cleric, but for argument's sake, I will say that the paladin represents half of the healing power of the cleric, the bard represents slightly better than 1/3 the healing power of the cleric, and the ranger represents 1/4 the healing power of the cleric. Based on these assumptions, if you wish to have a party without a cleric, but have equal healing available, assuming a 4 player party, 3 out of the 4 characters must be healing-capable classes. This means that if no one in the party wishes to play the cleric, the class choices of the rest of the party are severely constrained. If there is a fighter in the party, that means there is no room for a rogue, monk, wizard, sorcerer or barbarian. That party suffers from a serious capability-gap.
In response to those who say that Channel Energy is not useful in melee combat, there is a feat in the core PathfinderRPG rules called 'Selective Channeling' which allows you to selectively omit targets of your choice, numbering up to your charisma modifier, from the healing effect of your Channel Energy ability. And with the increased frequency of feat progression in PathfinderRPG, feats become very cheap.
I find it quite astounding that one poster in particular, in the same breath, chose to ignore the existence of Selective Channeling and suggested that Divine Reach was available for the druid to heal at range. Two very large flaws in the logic of that argument are that we are playtesting PathfinderRPG CORE RULES, not PathfinderRPG in conjunction with dozens of WotC splat-books which paizo has quite explicitly said they are not even attempting to balance against their new system at this point; and that Divine Reach requires that the player sacrifice a use of Turn Undead in order to use - obviously not a choice for the druid who never has, and never will have any uses of Turn Undead or Channel Energy to sacrifice. And for the cleric, sacrificing an AOE heal at range to get one use of a single-target heal at range is simply not a choice any cleric would make.
Now here is where some people may get offended, but considering the absolutely juvenile behavior of many of the posters in this thread, I really don't care. ZeroCharisma, our regular gaming group, and I have been doing actual play testing since the release of alpha 1 of PathfinderRPG, not just reading the new rules, drooling over them and imagining what it would be like to actually have people to play with. So, if your post is not prepended with some exposition on your actual play testing of healing in a party with or without a cleric, I will simply ignore your posts and assume that you don't actually play, and just like to create acrimony on internet message boards like so many in the long line of trolls who have preceded you. On that same note, we are play testing the PathfinderRPG CORE RULES, as they have been presented by paizo, and not some ill conceived mixture of PathfinderRPG and WotC supplemental material which paizo has explicitly said they are not even attempting to balance against each other. So, if your post contains suggestions that such and such class should use such and such feat from The Complete Munchkin or The Book of Nine Twinks, you will also be ignored.
Now, onto the topic at hand. As I see it, the advent of Channel Energy represents a significant power-boost to any party which includes a cleric. This power-boost will need to be accounted for when any DM puts together encounters, and thus the power-level of the foes we must face also needs to be increased. In our campaign, ZeroCharisma has been accounting for this by giving foes an extra hit-die, and often class-levels, which in-and-of themselves represent a large power-boost for the foes, considering the amount of extra abilities PathfinderRPG gives to all PC classes. In my 150+ hours of experience play testing the PathfinderRPG cleric, these 2 improvements to the foes have been insufficient to balance out the significant power-boost represented by Channel Energy. Even when he has faced us with multiple negative energy channeling clerics with Selective Channeling, they simply have been no match for the positive energy channeling cleric.
If the party has access to so much extra healing, done at range, with little danger to the healer, why do the foes not? Now, you could suggest that ZeroCharisma include a CN cleric who channels positive energy in every encounter we face, but that is simply unrealistic and would break the verisimilitude of the gaming experience.
Something must be done to close this healing gap. Perhaps the inclusion of common wondrous items which do a limited aoe heal, or giving the druid, bard and ranger access to similar aoe heal abilities at lower levels than they are accessible through the mass cure spells, or perhaps some variant of the 4e ability of all players and npcs to heal themselves as a swift action in some minor way.
If you still think that Channel Energy is not unbalancing, and you actually play the game, put together a party of 10th level characters of any class but cleric, and ask your DM to put you in an encounter with one 10th level neutral cleric who channels positive energy, has a high charisma and has the selective channeling feat. Team that cleric up with say 3 barbarians of 8th level, and see if you can possibly put out enough damage to bypass the healing the cleric is doing every round. I'd wager quite a bit that TPK will be the result. And after you are all dead, go to your DM, give him a hug and say 'I didn't realize, dude, I feel for ya.'
Please don't get me wrong, I love playing the cleric, always have, and I love his new abilities, and wouldn't want to give them up for the world. But I also do not want to play a game that is fixed in my favor just because I chose to play the cleric, nor do I want my play experience to be 'Mabven, the god-like cleric, and his lowly companions.'
This is a plea for balance. I play role-playing games for the intellectual challenge, the enjoyment we all get out of facing what seems to be insurmountable obstacles, and overcoming them by the skin of our teeth, not because the class I chose to play was designed to be inherently superior, but because we tried hard, fought hard, and triumphed due to careful planning and quick thinking.
well you do have a good point and I have playtested since alpha 1. I do think your trying to boost the wrong class. A druid is not a healer. I think the paladin is a good choice or even a bard as there more healer classes.
Now the new channel is pure awesome.And any class that lacks channel is never gonna come close to being anything but a 3rd rate healer. Now I don't see the need to boost a druid to fill that role as that's a role he is not meant to play.
Let me ask you this. Why is the druid the class that should be the healer?
And I never meant to come off as rude am sorry if I have done so.
well you do have a good point and I have playtested since alpha 1. I do think your trying to boost the wrong class. A druid is not a healer. I think the paladin is a good choice or even a bard as there more healer classes.
Now the new channel is pure awesome.And any class that lacks channel is never gonna come close to being anything but a 3rd rate healer. Now I don't see the need to boost a druid to fill that role as that's a role he is not meant to play.
Let me ask you this. Why is the druid the class that should be the healer?
And I never meant to come off as rude am sorry if I have done so.
I am not a sensitive person, and I don't care if others are rude, or polite or ignore me entirely. I don't recall your posts, but if you in any way ended up in an adversarial position to me, I'll chalk it up to my own insensitivity and leave it at that.
The reason I chose the druid as the EXAMPLE is that in 3.5 the druid was by far the second-best healer, and with careful preparation of spells and use of wands and scrolls, he was quite able to fill the roll of the main party healer handily. I had a gnome druid with a panther animal companion and maxed-out ride skill, mounted combat, and ride-by attack; the panther had spring-attack as a feat. That druid was the best darn healer I ever played in a 3.5 campaign. He was able to zip by melee, dropping off a heal on the way, and be out of range of the foes in a single round. So, as someone who has played at least 4 cleric characters and one druid character in 3.5, and found the druid to actually be the superior healer (not due to volume of healing, but due to the fact that he could deliver heals in the middle of melee without being harmed) it is strange to me that the majority opinion in this message board is that the druid is not a healer, never was a healer, and I am just plain stupid to think otherwise.
In 3.5 the druid could match the healing of the cleric simply by having the right wands and scrolls. In PathfinderRPG this simply is not the case.
Mabven:
Would you like to see Targeted Range Heal Spells introduced? (one bracket lower than Touch Cure X spells in Healing power?)
Wildshaping into Flying Creature/ Air Elemental, and casting Heal Spells with Natural Spell (not necessary if Air Elemental?)
still seems a flavorful & effective tactic....
...What's your solution, if you're NOT suggesting nerfing CE Healing/Damage?
I mean, you COULD give the Druid a weaker Channel Energy (=Paladin?), but I really feel Pathfinder is NOT going to go that way, it's just giving ONE to many Features to one Class... Seriously, with the Animal & Plant Domains, you can play a True Neutral Nature Cleric who Channels Energy, has a (weaker) Animal Companion, and Nature Domain Abilities... Nature-Boy Healer party role fixed, in my book...
Seriously, this topic reminds of others where people are whining that the Pathfinder Fighter doesn't let them be a single Class Fighter-Swashbuckler - and of course, THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF PF'S FIGHTER, but the Rogue is a very good Swashbuckler, with maxed Bluff/Feint, and SOME Fighter levels for Feats...
You happened to pull off a semi-effective main healer role with 3.5's Druid, though that was obviously not the main intent of the Class. Pathfinder has changed the rules so the Druid doesn't really compare to a Healing Cleric anymore (though it never did, unless Light=Moderate, Moderate=Serious, etc). OK. If you want to run with a Party with only a Druid as a healer, you CAN, that's just going to be a different sort of game, different sort of heal-economy, than with a Healing Cleric, in Pathfinder...
Ok I can see where your coming from. But the fact is there not really healers. Sure they could with the right spell, scrolls and wand. They still can and do it just as good as they did.
Now can they now be just as good as a cleric? well no. not at all and again that's fine. They are a class that can fill that role if they must, but really it is not there role.
I don't find you stupid or silly for thinking that they should be better healers. I just don't see a need for them to become something they are not.
But you know a feat allowing a ranged heal might be a nice addition. or allowing you to use your companion to dealer such spells might fit as well.
Out right allowing ranged heal with a druid does not fit the generalist druid to me. But feats and such could fill that role for ones that want a more healer druid.
Mabven:
Would you like to see Targeted Range Heal Spells introduced? (one bracket lower than Touch Cure X spells in Healing power?)Wildshaping into Flying Creature/ Air Elemental, and casting Heal Spells with Natural Spell (not necessary if Air Elemental?) still seems a flavorful & effective tactic....
...What's your solution, if you're NOT suggesting nerfing CE Healing/Damage?
I mean, you COULD give the Druid a weaker Channel Energy (=Paladin?), but I really feel Pathfinder is NOT going to go that way, it's just giving ONE to many Features to one Class... Seriously, with the Animal & Plant Domains, you can play a Cleric who Channels Energy, has a (weaker) Animal Companion, and Nature Domain Abilities... Nature-Boy Healer party role fixed, in my book...
Seriously, this topic reminds of others where people are whining that the Pathfinder Fighter doesn't let them be a single Class Fighter-Swashbuckler - and of course, THAT'S NOT THE IDEA, the Rogue is a very good swashbuckler, with maxed Bluff/Feint, and SOME Fighter levels for Feats...
There are many solutions that would balance out the problem, one of which would be targeted ranged heal spells, and if that becomes the choice, I'll be satisfied. However, since we are at the phase of play testing classes and class abilities, and not spells, and the play test of spells is yet to come, that is one solution I did not suggest, although it is one that I thought of.
Wild-shaping into a flying creature or air-elemental and delivering touch spells is quite a handy trick, but does not achieve the same effect as healing at range, since you still need to enter melee range and be exposed to attacks, cast defensively, and you certainly can not use a wand while wild shaped. Plus, wild-shaping into a flying creature requires a fairly high-level usage of the ability (I do not recall which level polymorph spell allows for a fly speed, but I am sure it is not the first-level one) thus does not become an option for the druid until at least 8th level, and wild-shaping into an elemental does not become available to the druid until 15th level, whereas the cleric gets channel energy immediately at first level.
If you read my post directly above yours, you'll see that when I played a druid healer, I came up with a mechanic that was quite satisfactory for delivering healing spells into melee combat while remaining in relative safety - rolling a small-sized druid with a medium sized animal companion, stating myself up with all the mounted combat feats and stating out my animal companion with spring-attack. It was fun, and effective, but once again, the animal companion I chose (the panther, which I chose for its quite extraordinary mobility and high athletic skills) is not available to the druid until 5th level, and racking up all the feats and ranks in ride I needed (of course I rode bare-back, which applies a hefty penalty to ride checks) took at least 9 levels.
Once again, this thread is not about being a druid-lover, and I agree, the druid has all sorts of power and versatility and does not need a power-boost per-se; but about closing the healing gap in general, so that, on the one hand, a party without a cleric is not in trouble because encounters are balanced based on the assumption that a cleric is in the party, and on the other hand, a group of foes is not laughably easy to overcome simply because one of your players chose to play a cleric.
Mabven:
Would you like to see Targeted Range Heal Spells introduced? (one bracket lower than Touch Cure X spells in Healing power?)Wildshaping into Flying Creature/ Air Elemental, and casting Heal Spells with Natural Spell (not necessary if Air Elemental?) still seems a flavorful & effective tactic....
...What's your solution, if you're NOT suggesting nerfing CE Healing/Damage?
I mean, you COULD give the Druid a weaker Channel Energy (=Paladin?), but I really feel Pathfinder is NOT going to go that way, it's just giving ONE to many Features to one Class... Seriously, with the Animal & Plant Domains, you can play a Cleric who Channels Energy, has a (weaker) Animal Companion, and Nature Domain Abilities... Nature-Boy Healer party role fixed, in my book...
Seriously, this topic reminds of others where people are whining that the Pathfinder Fighter doesn't let them be a single Class Fighter-Swashbuckler - and of course, THAT'S NOT THE IDEA, the Rogue is a very good swashbuckler, with maxed Bluff/Feint, and SOME Fighter levels for Feats...
There are many solutions that would balance out the problem, one of which would be targeted ranged heal spells, and if that becomes the choice, I'll be satisfied. However, since we are at the phase of play testing classes and class abilities, and not spells, and the play test of spells is yet to come, that is one solution I did not suggest, although it is one that I thought of.
Wild-shaping into a flying creature or air-elemental and delivering touch spells is quite a handy trick, but does not achieve the same effect as healing at range, since you still need to enter melee range and be exposed to attacks, cast defensively, and you certainly can not use a wand while wild shaped. Plus, wild-shaping into a flying creature requires a fairly high-level usage of the ability (I do not recall which level polymorph spell allows for a fly speed, but I am sure it is not the first-level one) thus does not become an option for the druid until...
If you look all the way at the top, at my original post, one of the solutions I posited was to give the druid the choice at first level to forgo an animal companion, and forgo a domain, and instead choose a 'healing companion', which would be some sort of small, hard-to hit fey, or incorporeal 'animal spirit' which would have no combat abilities beyond the ability to deliver cure spells cast by the cleric. This is much more limiting than making it a feat, since feats are so cheap in PathfinderRPG, but I think it is appropriate, since if a druid wants to fill the main-healer role, he should have to give up something significant in exchange. Plus the mechanic already exists in the wizard/sorcerer familiar ability 'deliver touch spells', however the druid's ability would be more limited, as the only touch spells his 'healing companion' would be able to deliver would be those with the word 'cure' in their title. I also need to give credit where credit is due here, the concept of the 'healing companion' was originated by ZeroCharisma in one of the many post-session discussions we have had on the subject.