Well, your specific examples were interesting (and I like the image/flavor of your character, BTW) but, like-wise interestingly,
it seems your character could only function with the stated tactics around the same level that higher level flying WS becomes available
My point of the flying form mobile touch-healing is to fly ABOVE any enemies, bypassing AoO's & dive down on top of your ally...
The thing is, if you think Ranged Heal spells would "fix" this problem for you, SAY THAT.
Everyone thinks the Fighter sucks ass, but obviously if they get some bad-ass Feats, that could fix them, right?
Same with Spells. I'm just not sure WHAT Class-Features you're suggesting to fix this, though...?
Well, your specific examples were interesting (and I like the image/flavor of your character, BTW)
but, like-wise interestingly,
it seems your character could only function with the stated tactics around the same level that higher level flying WS becomes available
My point of the flying form mobile touch-healing is to fly ABOVE any enemies, bypassing AoO's & dive down on top of your ally...
The thing is, if you think Ranged Heal spells would "fix" this problem for you, SAY THAT.
Everyone thinks the Fighter sucks ass, but obviously if they get some bad-ass Feats, that could fix them, right?
Same with Spells. I'm just not sure WHAT Class-Features you're suggesting to fix this, though...?
Well, as far as any attack of opportunity mechanics I have ever played with are concerned, simply being above the enemy does not obviate the attack of opportunity, if you are indeed at any point leaving an area which they threaten and have reach on. Even if you are able to dive-bomb your ally with the healing spell, you will then need to escape, and such an escape would provoke an attack of opportunity, not to mention the normal attack the enemy would get on you in the time between when you deliver the spell and when you escape.
And you are right, the mechanic I employed with the panther animal companion/mount did not become available until being able to wild-shape into flying creatures was also available, however, wild-shape has a limited number of uses per day, and to achieve the same effect, I would have had to take the feats: natural spell, dodge, mobility, fly-by attack (which becomes a wasted feat any time I am not wild-shaped into a flying form). Thus the animal companion/mount option was more viable, and useful in more situations (all sorts of cool offensive maneuvers ensued), and also titillatingly more flavorful.
... 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.
Actually my first selection of words would have been a tad more offensive, so no it wasn't contradictory and the preface was appropriate. And the whole 'stay on topic or don't post' vibe is what made me think I was in a playground all over again, thus the reference. Nor was it a personal insult, it was an observation on how the poster has been handling the views of others so far. "It makes you sound like" is a far cry from "you are being". If you or the OP want to be insulted, by all means go ahead, but that wasn't the intent. This is an internet posting, I was trying to call out behavior that was counterproductive to the posters cause in case he or she hadn't realized what they were doing. I may not be able to change the posters mind about the subject on hand, but maybe implying that their behavior change because their current tact, or lack of, is hurting their argument could help. Explaining another view on the rules, giving examples and providing explanation on game mechanics, character class roles and general observations on players tendencies would normally called constructive criticism. I also understand that some people don't handle that well.
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.
You are absolutely right about the title of the thread, however in order to bring a valid argument on your point you must consider all the implications. No to mention it isn't "healing at range" that is the problem that the OP has, so even that title is a bit of a misnomer. The OP has a problem not with healing at range, but the burst healing AOE healing capabilities of the channel energy class ability mechanic. The healing and damaging of channeling are tied together in the game mechanic, you must consider changes done to one as well as the other. If you refuse to see or fail to understand that, your arguments on said point will be weakened more. You are proposing a change or removal of a game mechanic, pointing out that that mechanic doesn't always heal and that not every cleric has access to the facet of the mechanic the OP doesn't like doesn't weaken my argument. I might be wrong but it will take more than "you are wrong and being negative" to convince me of that. Stick and stones...
His suggestion, I believe, was rhetorical at best. I don't think he wants to see CE removed...
Actually I'd have to say the tone of the posts makes it less rhetorical and more something else. Being PC again.
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.
Again I covered that (and someone else pointed it out as well). And it is a valid argument that channeled energy does change the game, I however will disagree on the drastic part. I also never dismissed your or the OPs opinions. I gave my parties playtesting experience as a counter to the OP's argument in effect showing that the drastic changes you all are seeing are NOT shared by everyone and therefore probably not as drastic as you are believing them to be. The game in Pathfinder has become less deadly in general. Characters are getting more hitpoints, abilities, feats, stabilize at will and possibly dying at lower negative hitpoint range now. If you want to ignore those facts and say that the channeled energy is the reason that the encounters are less deadly I will have to call you out as well... wrong. I'm sorry, but that is the truth even if you haven't bothered to take it into consideration. I personally could care less if you want to consider my posts relevant on your meter, if I have hurt the feelings of a friend I applaud you for coming to their rescue. Also realize that type of behavior also speaks of a level of immaturity and harms your friends credibility as well. I do still believe that this post is of the "emotional/opinion and I'm going to post about it" type with little to back it up, rather than an "intellectual/well thought out post" with plenty of facts or observations to back it up though. Either that or its actually a post about powering up the druid class which is pretty much universally considered one of the (if not the) most powerful base class even with the wildshape nerf. And I will state for the record again that I believe the druid doesn't require anything more, like the OP was suggesting, for a great many reasons beyond the scope of this topic I'm supposed to stay on.
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.
Great, thanks to the OPs playstyle you weren't required to healbot. Now as a neutral cleric who might not have taken positive energy you are no longer any worse off than you were prior to the Channel Energy change now are you? You weren't using channel energy (positive) to heal so your group hasn't lost anything has it? How has the change made the Druid less effective? If you did have the channel energy (positive) it would have just ended up more supplemental healing right? Again how was this a detriment to the druid class or a game breaker??
As for the hp of the enemies healed with channel energy, my experience has been that low and mid levels are often encounters with multiple monsters rather than 3-4 more powerful enemies (which would often be the limit of a high charisma in order to exclude them from the burst- and again using the games rules of a point buy character creation system, your wisdom would suffer drastically), and that ranks close quickly leaving few options for not healing the enemy and that using the AOE healing would often help them as much as us. But then again different DM's and different playstyles. However because of this and a less consistant hit point total healed, AOE healing was generally used after combat in our games, unless someone was dying and difficult to get to.
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...germane to the discussion.
Druids are viable healers, that however doesn't mean they need absolutely every ability that a cleric does to heal. Being viable and effective doesn't mean being as good as the best. Thus the fighter and UMD example. Giving clerics the channel energy ability doesn't detract from the druid making them less of a healer. Giving the druid class the ability does detract from the cleric however. And you are right all those mystical and historical figures aren't relevant to this discussion. Not to mention that a so called "druid" could have just as easily been a sorcerer, wizard or cleric with a nature theme. Magic is magic is magic to an uninitiated or the ignorant, regardless of how it works or where the power came from. We are talking about a game built on mechanics where the designers have set roles for each of the classes. If the designers wanted druids to have the healing domain, they would have given it to them in the list when they changed the Nature's Bond ability. The fact that it is not listed shows that they have decided the druid class was supposed to be more druidic-y then cleric-y. They still have healing spells but the intent of the class was to ideally fill another role. Not that it can't heal, just that is isn't as suited to the role as another class is... That was built to do just that. If you want to play the class otherwise, its a game, go ahead and you don't even need to house rule it - they are viable. If you absolutely have to, house rule it in your game. But realize [B]you[/b} are changing things and thus the balance of the game could be off because of what you are doing.
The only ego that seems to be injured was your friends and I would have to say that solely rests on their shoulders. LKL took himself/herself out of the post realizing that there wasn't going to be any chance of convincing the OP to see it any other way then he/she does (at least I'm guessing), things had already gotten emotional and maybe personal at that point so it was a smart move. As it stands I'm just trying to show that the OP could be wrong and as far as I'm concerned anything here isn't worth taking to heart. I believe the OP was wrong but I'm not so set in my belief that I wouldn't consider changing it. However neither you or the OP has given anything that really sways me in that direction.
OK, but just in case you ever want to use the Heal Birdy tactic:
(Air Elemental is probably superior, but higher level)
so did you have any specific suggestions re: class abilities (heal spells not delayed?)
or would Ranged Heal Spells/ Feats do it for you?
OK, but just in case you ever want to use the Heal Birdy tactic:
(Air Elemental is probably superior, but higher level)
so did you have any specific suggestions re: class abilities (heal spells not delayed?)
or would Ranged Heal Spells/ Feats do it for you?
Yes, your flying healer concept is sound in specific situations where you can actually get in touch range of your ally while not at the same time being in reach of the foe. However, those situations are rare, as the fighter is often surrounded, fighting a large creature, in a low-ceiling dungeon, or other confining environments. However, in those situations, being a flying creature isn't really giving you the ranged heal capability, but really just more mobility - in many cases you could have delivered the heal just as effectively in humanoid form.
As far as specific suggestions I have posited many. Ranged heal spells are a good one, because they are not class specific, and the bard and ranger could also benefit from them. I have refrained from suggesting them simply because they are not class features but spells, and we have been specifically instructed to keep our discussions to class features for this section of the play test.
I have suggested the option of the druid choosing a 'healing companion' at first level instead of an animal companion, which would be able to deliver healing spells for the druid, but be incapable of any other type of combat actions.
I have suggested the introduction of some sort of wondrous item that would do a limited aoe heal, a 'healing grenade' if you wish.
I have suggested giving the druid a 'healing aura' that would grant allies within range fast-healing for a certain duration, usable once per day plus wisdom modifier. Such an aura would need to scale at higher levels, say 1 at first level, 2 at 7th level, 3 at 12th level and 4 at 16th level.
Another possibility would be the creation of a lesser rod, which would allow the caster to deliver touch-based healing spells at short range.
As you can see, I am not so much concerned about the druid, I know everyone thinks the druid already gets too much, but with balancing out the mechanic of healing at range so it is not just available to 2 classes.
My main concern is that in order to balance encounters so they are not ridiculously easy for a party with a cleric, foes will need to be powered up to such an extent that any party that does not contain a cleric is doomed.
Well, it sounds like those all aren't Druid class specific, but can be brought up in Feat/Spell/Item chapters... You can already share spells with an AC, I don't see a problem with a Feat to allow it to "Hold the Charge"
(I think we can agree the Druid will not get Channel Energy)
Well, it sounds like those all aren't Druid class specific, but can be brought up in Feat/Spell/Item chapters... You can already share spells with an AC, I don't see a problem with a Feat to allow it to "Hold the Charge"
(I think we can agree the Druid will not get Channel Energy)
I at no point ever suggested that the druid should get channel energy, and do not believe they should get it. As far as feats, perhaps one which is a metamagic feat that has a one-spell-level penalty which allows you to deliver cure spells only at short range. I still think that is too cheap tho, non-clerics should have to give up more than just a feat slot to get the ability to heal at range. perhaps a feat that is 2 slots down a feat tree?
OK, that sounds fine, and obviously, will not be directly dealt with by Paizo until those Chapters.
Feats, Spells, & the like obviously give players a CHOICE, i.e. giving up other options to do "OK" at Healing.
This thread has wasted so much space, because most people objected to the concept of the Druid Class NEEDING to be on-par Healing-wise with the Cleric. Given their AC & Wildshaping, I REALLY don't think Paizo is going to add NEW Class Features to cater to that, but Feats/Items/Spells that help you accomplish this sort of thing all seem viable to be added. On a Class Basis, I think Healing Druids don't have much more pull than full-Fighter Swashbucklers. :-/
right. it's not a class feature that needs to change.
|
If you want to bump the druid, you have to give SOMETHING up. the cleric is an unskilled, solo, tin can. no nifty side fluff.
people fascination with the druid bugs me because NOBODY played them in 2ed ( if i remember right, that was back when they werent CHEESE ) but that is a diffent story
holly mistletoe batman. what else does a Druid NEED!
the cleric is fine....if pathfinder hadnt made that tiny weeny feat called SELECTIVE CHANNELING. it is a must have ( and clerics should really consider having charisma being there primary attribute )
that feat is too broken to be allowed, please nerf that feat
If you want to bump the druid, you have to give SOMETHING up. the cleric is an unskilled, solo, tin can. no nifty side fluff.
How can you take one sentence that is so true and then follow it with one that is so wrong?
I guess next to the most powerful class in the game (aka the Druid) you might portray the cleric as being ineffective... but next to any other class?
the cleric is fine....if pathfinder hadnt made that tiny weeny feat called SELECTIVE CHANNELING. it is a must have ( and clerics should really consider having charisma being there primary attribute )
Meh... so the cleric needs to make a choice, bump the CHA and be the healbot or boost some other stats and be something else. They have the luxury of being able to be good at most any role.
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.'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...we are play testing the PathfinderRPG CORE RULES...balance against each other.
(For brevity's sake I only took parts of the whole.)
First off, that you even suggest something like this shows that regardless of your tactical sense and "play test" experience you don't understand the base game mechanics. That npc group is made to obliterate parties even without the channel energy ability. It's basically all damage dealers and npc's have always had the upper hand when it came to encounters and limited use items/abilities (rage and spells in this case) because they are made for one encounter. The party has to ration their resources for 3-4 encounters per day. Part of the reason npcs have so little gear in respect to the pcs of same level when looking at the charts. They don't have to worry about the fights that come later, they blow everything that combat.
On paper, in theory, yes it is a CR equivalent to what the pcs should be able to handle with significant drain on resources if not losses. The cleric alone is a CR 10 encounter, a single barbarian is a CR 8, two a CR 9, four a CR 10. There aren't 4 but teamed with the caster who is generally more powerful than the CR when played even remotely intelligently, I'd say it counts as a CR 11 encounter (two CR 10's). But in actuality you stacked the deck so far in your favor it would be surprising that all the pcs actually survive. Now again things could go all sorts of ways, depending on your party composition and preparations and the luck of the dice. And this has nothing to do with channel energy, this has to do with the game mechanics in a game where all things are not equal (because if they were it wouldn't be much fun, truth be told) and even more complicated because not being equal does not necessarily mean not being balanced. The CR system is much better than the old 2nd edition XP system but it still falls flat in many ways.
Secondly, the highest charisma a heroic vanilla npc is going to have (by Core Pathfinder rules, as that is what you are going to pay attention to) is 15 +2 (if gnome) so he would *just* be able to not effect 3 people. And that is if you ignore Wis and Con using a 14 or 13 in either. So now you have gimped your casting as you can't even cast 5th level spells at 10th unless you drop both advancement points into wisdom (if 13). FYI, a non heroic cleric would be even more hard pressed to pull it off as the highest score they get is 13 and you would have to use that in Wis if you wanted to have access to 5th level spells. All that so you could NOT effect 3 people in the 20' burst of positive energy. Realistically it would be 2 people in the range so the Wis is higher (and more spells to boot). So if the rest of the party crowds after realizing the channel positive is happening two are getting healed, more if animal companions or summoned help. The more opponents, the more the channel energy positive hurts the user. The feat Selective Channeling makes A LOT more sense for a negative energy wielder than it does positive user, dealing damage to everyone in range besides your party. But that is the party you suggested so I ran with it.
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.
This is one of those posts that I would have to agree with ZeroCharisma on, where you just chuckle and shake your head... But as the poster actually brought it up it is fair game and goes to show what degree of understanding the game mechanics the poster might have.
I've never read through the Complete Munchkin but I pre ordered the Bo9S as soon as I found out it was coming out. It doesn't have NEARLY the amount of brokenness so many people on the boards complain about. The melee types have ALWAYS been in the shadow of casters in the mid to high levels. The melee classes only shine at low levels where the hp/cheap gear (read armor) favor them. It has always been the case. The Bo9S gives melee a much needed boost but they still get out shined by the casters, it just happens a bit later. They do get a little of a power boost versus core but if you were using the Bo9S then you were probably using reserve feats for the casters (which is basically what Pathfinder gives casters innately now) so it wasn't a huge jump. Definitely not enough to give it the name Book of Nine Twinks unless you are just following the party line... Or have you put in 150+ hours of play testing that as well? The power boost from that book would put lower level melee on par with most of the power levels of the casters in Pathfinder. But it still doesn't fix the fact that melee gets the short end of the stick at high levels. Even the capstone abilities in that book pale in comparison to high level spells and what casters can do with them. There is no contest between wish and the possibility of doing 100 damage in your only hit that round or any number of the other abilities (as they allow saving throws that are usually based on fortitude so pretty ineffective at high levels) available to a martial character.That isn't to say it isn't a little more powerful, but it is more so at lower levels, just like anything else that gives more options that other characters don't have. At mid levels they can actually hold their own versus casters continuing to allow the melee types to have a stamina that the casters don't have (keeping the status quo) and then at high levels being left in the dust as usual, just not as badly as the fighter, who is widely considered the least powerful core class. I would even suggest that if you are going to use the Bo9S you might want to remove the fighter or even just replace the other melee core classes with those of Bo9S so that melee is balanced across the board and your barbarian isn't feeling left out as the warblade out damages him consistently or whatever other issue might come up.
And before you go off and reiterate "post on topic and considering core only balance" please remind yourself that you brought this up. Pathfinder core casters are getting bumps in power which makes a book like Bo9S for melee an even more understandable, if not welcome proposition if it had been OGL.
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.
Well I think the first problem could be that you might be using adventures that are based on core 3.5/srd. There are no Pathfinder adventures out there right now and there won't be for some time, at the earliest - once the rules for the Pathfinder game are completely finalized I'd imagine. Not even their own adventure paths have gone that route. That means that every GM will have to account for the power shift do to all the new rules that are in play. This power shift isn't completely accounted for by the channel energy rules, there are other things that when taken into account could make up this "gap" you are seeing (again more hit points, stabilize at will, more feats and a extension of the "deaths door" to negative con score); aka less dying and more reasons you won't die 'cause it isn't heroic. For you the channel energy seems to be the base of the mountain, to others it is just the tip of it, and for some it is someplace in between something and relative nothing. As it is, the vast majority of published adventures are typically a cake walk for a well thought out and imaginative party. Using "core" Pathfinder on a srd adventure is asking for it without modification, with or without a cleric.
Not to mention it wasn't a "healing boost" alone. Not all clerics are healers, your own gaming member has made this point. It was a change to allow the cleric to do more than just heal, that same character can now do something other than heal with their spells while at the same time still make sure someone doesn't die thus shirking that responsibility most people expect him/her to perform in the group.
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.'
I honestly hope you are being sarcastic, because it is absurd. Paladins got channel energy positive. Did they just jump to God-like??? I didn't think so. It would be more appropriate to say "There goes Mab, the god-like positive energy wielding druid and he thought clerics were bad...But he got what he wanted so it is OK."
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.
You say it is a plea for balance, I say you are looking at things through too narrow a scope and not taking everything into consideration. Not having a cleric means you change your tactics, you have more of an intellectual challenge and can enjoy the victory all the more. Having a cleric isn't the "I win button" you keep making it out to be all because of the channel positive energy class feature.
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.
This was a game design choice, I fail to see it as a problem. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it is a game shattering balance problem. The people who are working very hard at making the core classes something desirable to play through out the entire level range, as well as balance them which is an even more unenviable (and possibly impossible) task in a system fraught with flaws, have come up with it. Their solution was simple, effective and streamlined an ability that had an "extra" mechanic. I don't think they are considering it overpowered or broken the way you keep saying.
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.
You see, I find this interesting as it isn't the way it works. Your small druid still gets possibly smacked and provokes AoO's moving in and out of the threat range if your panther spring attacks, only your mount who has spring attack doesn't. If you had ride by attack you could, but you would be limited in what you can attack (as with charge you'd need an unobstructed line of effect) and you would have to continue in a straight line after (unable to use spring attack regardless of how much or little you moved) and as it is a full round action your panther wouldn't get to make any attacks (it is charging so it can't use spring attack and it isn't riding anything as it... Well, is being ridden by you). Also this companion couldn't possibly have spring attack at 9th level as core (both) states the animal companion uses base stats (meaning it will have alertness and weapon finesse @ 3HD) and then at level 9 druid you could give it 2 more feats with its +4 hit dice in pathfinder (dodge- 5HD and mobility- 7HD, the requirements to spring attack) leaving you waiting until 12th level (spring attack- 9HD) to do this wondrous yet impossible solution. Now you could have taken all those feats by 9th (as you aren't human) but that still leaves your mount provoking AoO's until it gets spring attack at 12th where you can both spring attack to your hearts (plural) delight. Now with that out of the way, as you are "spring attacking" your team mate to heal them, you would still provoke AoO's from any adjacent foes or foes with reach (which are fairly plentiful at the mid levels) as you are 1) casting right next to them and 2) moving into and out of their threat range. Not to mention you will be making 2 spellcraft checks (casting defensively and casting while on a vigorously moving mount) with a possible 3rd if hit.
****Now folks if you are sensitive you may not want to read the following, this is about as nasty as I get - quoted so you can tell when to begin reading again****
Seeing as you were so vehemently against anything not core in your post I am going to return the favor... Please get your house-rules out of my core and come back when you have a better grasp of the game mechanics so we can attempt to have a civilized discussion on subject matter where you aren't contradicting yourself. For all intents you are basically cheating at the game to get your desired results with a half a$$ed solution that doesn't actually hold up. IE you are either - ignorant of the rules, are ignoring the rules purposely or using house rules when arguing changes to core. And I went to wikipedia to look this up: Munchkins are infamous for various degrees of cheating, willfully misinterpreting rules that work against them while loudly proclaiming ones that work in their favor. As a matter of course they selectively obey the letter of rules while perverting the spirit blatantly. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Or did you stop reading because I mentioned book of 9 twinks earlier... If that is the case hopefully your friend ZeroCharisma can explain the way the rules work to you after reading this.
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.
So you wish to introduce yet another, probable unnecessary, game mechanic when they are trying to consolidate and simplify them all? The difference between the familiar and the animal companion is fairly large. An animal companion is just that, an animal intelligence beast that protects the druid (read combat oriented, more natural) and gets tricks. The familiar on the other hand is a supernaturally sentient being (read non-combat oriented, more magic-y) that doesn't advance hit dice or anything like that (it doesn't get feats nor skills as it advances - all of its abilities are basically based on the caster it is bonded to). If you had some sort of animal intelligence beast that had the deliver touch spell ability and you cast cure light wounds setting it as the "toucher" then pointed to the fighter in the group and said "Get"... It's going to go maul the fighter while delivering the touch spell. There is no "lick" trick under the combat style animal training, it might consider for a moment that the fighter gave it meat last night at dinner but boss said "get", so that is good enough for it. The closest trick there is, is fetch and that will seriously cramp your fighters style when the man-sized beast goes and starts a grapple so it can pull the fighter back to you.
I'm not saying any of the suggestions are "wrong" but they are definitely not well thought out.
This was posted after my last post:
As far as specific suggestions I have posited many. Ranged heal spells are a good one, because they are not class specific, and the bard and ranger could also benefit from them. I have refrained from suggesting them simply because they are not class features but spells, and we have been specifically instructed to keep our discussions to class features for this section of the play test.
Mass cure spells exist already and are available to bards, clerics and druids. This suggestion is already implemented in game.
I have suggested the option of the druid choosing a 'healing companion' at first level instead of an animal companion, which would be able to deliver healing spells for the druid, but be incapable of any other type of combat actions.
This now creates another rule set with a slew of other things besides "incapable of combat actions". It would require more explanation than that, not to mention it smacks way too much of another class I would be off topic talking about as it is not core. Well you know what, I'll say it anyways, hexblade. They had the flittery shadowy useless familiar thing that could flank but not attack. Not to mention that the fact it could only heal, if spending the paragraphs and page space to properly explain its abilities - in an already REALLY tight page count - in the core Pathfinder rule book, it would be pretty much so limited to not even take unless you had a very specific character build you wanted to play... hmm, sounds like a prestige class, for a splat book, to me. It would be something not NEEDED in core because core is generally generalized. Specific niches are typically filled in by the prestige classes which specialize and become real good a specific things (sort of like taking the druid and making him more heal-y like as you are proposing).
I have suggested the introduction of some sort of wondrous item that would do a limited aoe heal, a 'healing grenade' if you wish.
Umm, if you can buy class abilities why do you need the class?? Making class abilities purchasable is a very very bad precedent to start in a game where they are trying to make the classes stand out more and more attractive to play don't you think? All that and a scroll of mass cure works too.
I have suggested giving the druid a 'healing aura' that would grant allies within range fast-healing for a certain duration, usable once per day plus wisdom modifier. Such an aura would need to scale at higher levels, say 1 at first level, 2 at 7th level, 3 at 12th level and 4 at 16th level.
Um not to bring up non core (well who cares I'll do it anyway, you are just going to ignore it), but you just ripped off the dragon aura from the dragon shaman. Yeah ok, you put a limit per day on it, but what is the druid going to give up to get this and is it something that a generalist core druid really needs (and depending on what you are giving up is it worth it)? Again you are trying to make a specialist druid healer when you would be better served with an actual cleric.
Another possibility would be the creation of a lesser rod, which would allow the caster to deliver touch-based healing spells at short range.
Ok, see response to wondrous item above and then I'll give you a freebie as well, as no one has brought it up yet and the OP insists on comparing to core but again seems to insist core be changed for their personal satisfaction. You can get ranged healing in CORE via a prestige class. Hierophant, accessible by any divine caster. First level will net you - DING! - divine reach class ability: you can make touch spells as ranged touch attacks up to 30' away. You can even take it a second time to get a range of 60' at second level.
Ok, again just to get the point across, your CORE druid can now have ranged touch healing with out any finagling of the rules, creating new rules or balance issues created by the first two. They (the game designers) must be psychic and heard your argument before we started this whole shambles and all the bad and hurt feelings were pointless. You won and it didn't even require us changing any of the rules. You actually got exactly what you stated that you wanted out of it, druids can have ranged healing. I'm happy for you. Now having solved your problem, I can get to sleep and rest peacefully knowing I did a good thing. Apparently it wasn't the elephant in the room, it was the elephant sitting on the rule book!
By reading this spoiler you are acknowledging that you have a thick enough skin to handle constructive criticism, sarcasm and opinions that in no way match yours. You also are aware that the posters comments may upset or anger you, that the opinions are not personal attacks and forfeit the right to be angry or throw tantrums. Also you realize that your (better)150+ hours of play testing, just like my (implied inferior)play testing, actually mean -jack- and -squat- in the grand scheme of things because by all indications the games being played were not STRICTLY CORE (I know mine haven't totally been as much as I tried and the OPs build wasn't, so that basically voids the OPs entire argument and standing - because what other rules were being ignored or bent -, it is a technicality but a very valid one). Lastly things in the spoiler probably aren't nearly as bad as you all may be thinking or hoping, as if you haven't guessed that already (you sly dog you), I'm really a nice guy and what I quoted earlier is about as "vicious" as I could get.
I know I've been absent minded in this regard as I've had other more pressing concerns besides game play. However if I was defending an objective as vehemently as the OP I also know that, personally, I would have been scouring the rules to find something even remotely like what I was proposing to base my suggested changes on. Either that or they know of the rule/class, don't like it and so are not mentioning it on purpose. Unfortunately I do think that is a possibility and expect this thread to go on with reasons why the PrC doesn't fit the OPs vision of what should be changed, or this or that. There is always an excuse when someone wants to hear their opinion is correct and they are given proof (or in this case, a flawlessly logical answer satisfying all desired criteria - which up to this point seem to have been: give X class [example given - Druid as if they needed more] ranged healing abilities that don't endanger them, stay core and don't nerf clerics channel energy) showing that opinion to be incorrect. I would be VERY surprised if the OP takes this answer and gives even a grudging acknowledgment that their problem has been solved in any way satisfactorily. Then again maybe they will surprise me, that would be nice. Surprises are good.
|
If you had some sort of animal intelligence beast that had the deliver touch spell ability and you cast cure light wounds setting it as the "toucher" then pointed to the fighter in the group and said "Get"... It's going to go maul the fighter while delivering the touch spell. There is no "lick" trick under the combat style animal training...
Maybe there should be?
And, having taught that trick, you'd use a command word that had no confusing meaning.
Maybe there should be?
And, having taught that trick, you'd use a command word that had no confusing meaning.
Soooo.. basically fix what isn't broken to give the animal companion the ability to relay touch spells and add another rule to something that makes perfect sense as is?
Is it me or am I sinking in quicksand called power creep?
Ok, back to the real (Beta) world. Class ability doesn't exist, we have all agreed that the druid doesn't need yet more added to it (yet everything, including druid needs a bump in healing to be a viable healer), so there is actually no need to add another trick to the skill rules. However, feel free to house rule it with my permission. I won't sue, promise.
|
|
Maybe there should be?
And, having taught that trick, you'd use a command word that had no confusing meaning.
Soooo.. basically fix what isn't broken to give the animal companion the ability to relay touch spells and add another rule to something that makes perfect sense as is?
Is it me or am I sinking in quicksand called power creep?
No, not at all. I'm just seeing the funny side.
Teaching a dog to lick someone is hardly difficult.Heck, they do it without asking.
And, having taught it to deliver beneficial touch spells this way, you're going to go "Where's Uncle Valeros? There's Uncle Valeros! Say hello to Uncle Valeros!".
<lick>
<b-ding!>
You really aren't going to make the command "G'wan boy! Bite his f+#%in'head off!", now, are you?
I actually think there's far too much healing in 3.5, already.
The increases to the cleric in PF just baffle me.
The druid doesn't get as much healing as the cleric, you say?
Thank the gods, says I.
Is it me or am I sinking in quicksand called power creep?
Most of it is just people's wishful thinking. It's not power creep until it's in writing... then again there is quite a bit of in the Beta that is in writing :(
Ok, back to the real (Beta) world. Class ability doesn't exist, we have all agreed that the druid doesn't need yet more added to it (yet everything, including druid needs a bump in healing to be a viable healer), so there is actually no need to add another trick to the skill rules. However, feel free to house rule it with my permission. I won't sue, promise.
Well the actual rule on tricks is "Possible tricks (and their associated DCs) include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following. " So technically any trick that's reasonable to teach an animal is open and just as legal as the examples. Teaching a dog to touch someone without hurting them is well within the realm of normal pet tricks. So it wouldn't be a 'house rule'.
You can also teach your pet to walk on his front paws or balance a piece of cheese on his nose. I would put a pretty high DC on the cheese on nose thing, I've tried it.
I actually think there's far too much healing in 3.5, already.
The increases to the cleric in PF just baffle me.The druid doesn't get as much healing as the cleric, you say?
Thank the gods, says I.
QFT...
The druid has a 5000 lbs dinosaur but the cleric is not capable of putting down the hurt the way the druid does. We need to get a dinosaur for the cleric.
Actually- it's not power creep until we see the MM. :)
I'm very interested in finding out if the monsters are gonna see similar bumps and upward-adjustments.
-S
Skylancer: I happen to agree with you on many points, although your argument could be phrased differently and be more effective. What I don't agree with is your tone and your insinuation that somehow I don't know how to play/dm this game.
1st: People mock me all the time for my sensitivity. Surprisingly it is one of the few things I am not sensitive about. I believe firmly that people should be good to one another and that negativity is a poison. The sooner the world at large wakes up and starts living in the present and without ego, the better IMO. YMMV
2d: My philosophy on this is quite different than Mab's. I was merely looking out for him on a personal level and where this caused me to veer far far off topic, I apologize. As far as Im concerned, I'm done with that as of this post.
3d:I apologize that I got your goat up and will refrain from directly addressing what I perceive as problems with your arguments in the future. In fact, if I don't address you it is because I dont want to engage in this tete-a-tete any longer.
4thly: In my defense, I have not used any house rules or non-core anything in my play test. I don't know where you got that idea. I add a few hit points to certain monsters in key encounters (no more than 5 or 6 and that is for a boss level encounter with a large or larger monster) and while I add character levels and certain abilities, I do so within the framework of CR and the encounter guidelines in the Beta. I consider myself quite fair and adept with encounter building. Insults on my ability to play a game I have played since the late seventies will unfortunately fall on less-than-appreciative ears. Why can't you get that what brought us both here is love for the game?
The players have no special abilities, bonus feats, etc beyond what they come with out of the Beta box. I don't know what you are saying here, beyond deliberately trying to get a rise out of me and/or Mab and then putting a jokey "disclaimer" so everything is "all right". Punching someone in the face and then saying you only did it to illustrate a point is still assault.
And finally: I was aware of the Hierophant, but I had not brought it up here as I am not sure how the PrC's will function in Pathfinder and as far as my campaign, it has little relevance. I know they touch on PrC's briefly in the Beta, but our effort has been so far, to playtest single, core classes and I would like for it to remain so.
As to why I didn't spend every minute studying so that I could make a point on an internet forum? Listen, man. I have a life. I dedicate about 20 hours a week to D&D, playing, researching, preparing. I work full time, often late hours, and have diverse hobbies and interests as well as pursuing a course of independent study. I have a daughter, a live in mate all of whom demand attention, and last I checked needed about 42+ hours of sleep a week. Its simply not worth it for me to spend more than a few minutes on this argument that I don't even feel that passionately about.
Your "In your Face!!!!!!!" attitude is less than appreciated. I am over it and hope to move on and I hope you shall too. I expect, however, that you will mar these proceedings again with another lengthy dissertation on how Mabven and I don't know how to play D&D, have no skill, can't read, etc. I look forward to chuckling and moving on next time.
Below I will post some of my thoughts and be done with the back and forth bickering that has been a source of unease in my life for nearly 48 hours now.
Actually- it's not power creep until we see the MM. :)
I'm very interested in finding out if the monsters are gonna see similar bumps and upward-adjustments.
-S
I believe this will generally be the case, but that's just my opinion.
Thoughts on the topic:
I still think its not game breaking to give Druids the option of access to healing domain. (Maybe make healing domain a little better than it is right now)
-or-
people have suggested playing with the level of druid's cure spells. That could work too.
however
I believe that most of people's concerns about classes and what they can or can't do can be addressed with feats and spells when we get to those chapters. That is my stated and so far unchanging position on most of the classes I have looked at and tested so far.
"Healing Companion": It was a nice Idea, but probably a pipe dream. This could be the basis for a cool PrC though. Unicorn Rider or somethin'...
I enjoyed the idea of a fey spirit that could deliver some sort of healing for the druid, but I agree after hearing some of the arguments that it's flawed and maybe not the best answer.
My original idea was that a druid with animal companion embodied the wild, feral druid, attuned to the beasts of the world. The druid with domains perhaps represented the more "civilized" druid (before you flame me for the obvious contradiction-in-terms, consider the helpful hermit archetype or Merlin or Gandalf.)
Thus I felt there should be an option for a more fey druid, a petitioner to the seelie and unseelie courts (and actually in Dragon#339, there is a Sidhe Scholar Variant Druid, but it winds up focused more on skills with a slightly different animal companion IIRC). The healing spirit was an attempt to pigeonhole the discussion we were having at the time into my flash of insight.
The topic at hand, when I had that thought after gaming one night was druid healing so I threw that out there as fodder for discussion. I liked it at first but I realize that it may not be everybody's cup of tea, nor does the druid really need more options.
I'll admit that I was excited by the prospects for customization and diversity that Pathfinder at first presented, but we seem to be moving away from that, so my tack will change with the wind. I still wish that there was room for that sort of flight of fancy, but there will be plenty of time to find a good niche for the druid, healing or no.
I believe the druid should have a "healer" option but I am also happy to play (and run) the druid as written.
Zero Charisma, I'll agree with you on two things:
One: There is no need to play the big testosterone-full guy. There are many on every forum that would REALLY help more other people if they were just more polite. There is the perceived problem of "I must be stronger, and I must seem smarter and over that other male" thing, but since I'am a real Psychologist, and many people are not (for wich I'm glad), I'll not enter on this subject. Now, we all people here are working towards the same goal. Your name won't be on the playstester credits as "he is above this other because he is more masculine"...geez... The better thing you'll be able to get is being on the top of the list if your name is Abel. Better yet, if your name is Abbel. I can't think of any other name that would be on the top of the list.
Two: Leaving the falus thing behind (oh, that was horrible), I agree with the part that druids should have the option of being good at healing. They are already very strong and all, so they should have the OPTION of being good at it. OPTION, not base ability. OPTION.
Thoughts on the topic:
I still think its not game breaking to give Druids the option of access to healing domain. (Maybe make healing domain a little better than it is right now)
You don't like people who say "No", I don't care for the phrase "I don't think it's game breaking."
Try this one:
"I don't think it's game breaking to give a barbarian the ability to summon 2d4 3rd level barbarian berserker thralls twice per day at 6th level".
You need to ask two questions though, "Is it appropriate?" and "Does the class really need even more abilities?"
In the case of the druid getting a new healing power I would suggest that the answer to Question #1 is "It's debatable", and the answer to #2 is "Absolutely not".
Suggesting that the druid should get more healing for the greater good of the party is not a good enough reason in my book to bump the druid's power. I would much rather just give the martial characters the ability to heal themselves with a second wind type of power.
Second Wind: As a standard action you can heal a number of hit points equal to 2 times your character level. You can use this power a number of times per day equal to your constitution bonus.
Add that as a class power to the fighter, ranger, and barbarian then every class save rogues, wizards, and sorcerers would have some healing available (rogues and sorcerers could use wands with UMD). This would be much more fair and equitable than giving one of the toughest classes in the game yet more powers stacked upon their mantle.
ugh no 2nd wind please. make the healing skill do this would be fine
ugh no 2nd wind please. make the healing skill do this would be fine
Heh... I'm not in love with the idea. But given the choice I'd take it over giving the druid yet another crowd pleasing supernatural ability.
You can also teach your pet to walk on his front paws or balance a piece of cheese on his nose. I would put a pretty high DC on the cheese on nose thing, I've tried it.Never mind, you'll get the hang of it eventually.
Maybe you should watch your dog, see how he does it?
My dog keeps eating the cheese. I'm ok with that but have trouble keeping it balanced
To summarize everything:
1. The OP's character was crap, so it was bound to get pwned.
2. Druids are powerhouses; not having the ability to megaheal is one of their limitations.
3. Channel energy isn't overpowered; it rocks at low-levels because it prevents groups from having to fight-rest-fight-rest-fight-rest (and so on).
Yeah but... I used to be the party healer with my Sorceror & UMD... What do I get to keep up? ;-P
To summarize everything:
2. Druids are powerhouses; not having the ability to megaheal is one of their limitations.
3. Channel energy isn't overpowered; it rocks at low-levels because it prevents groups from having to fight-rest-fight-rest-fight-rest (and so on).
2 and 3 I will agree with.
Your character is fail. Report to CharOps for rebuilding. Resistance is futile.
|
ugh no 2nd wind please. make the healing skill do this would be fine
I too would like to see the Heal skill be able to restore hit points, but what's your objection to a Second Wind-like mechanic that allows for a (very) small amount of self-healing?
From my perspective - given that HP represent an abstract mix of actual physical health, energy, skill at avoiding damage, and luck - players having the ability to stop, catch their breath and collect themselves (and in game terms, recoup a few HP) doesn't seem that unreasonable. I'd imagine it as maybe 1 HP per level. Maybe there'd be a feat representing training in re-focusing one's self during combat that would up it to 2/level.
I see such a ability as taking pressure off the cleric to just heal, heal, heal during combat. And if you made it part of something like Total Defense, people might use Total Defense more.
ugh no 2nd wind please. make the healing skill do this would be fineI too would like to see the Heal skill be able to restore hit points, but what's your objection to a Second Wind-like mechanic that allows for a (very) small amount of self-healing?
From my perspective - given that HP represent an abstract mix of actual physical health, energy, skill at avoiding damage, and luck - players having the ability to stop, catch their breath and collect themselves (and in game terms, recoup a few HP) doesn't seem that unreasonable. I'd imagine it as maybe 1 HP per level. Maybe there'd be a feat representing training in re-focusing one's self during combat that would up it to 2/level.
I see such a ability as taking pressure off the cleric to just heal, heal, heal during combat. And if you made it part of something like Total Defense, people might use Total Defense more.
It seems like magic to me in a world were a spell restores 1d8. I do not want magic super self healing pc's. Make the heal skill worth taking and be done with it.
It seems like magic to me in a world were a spell restores 1d8. I do not want magic super self healing pc's. Make the heal skill worth taking and be done with it.
If you accept that HP != actual physical damage then resting and catching your breath makes a bit of sense. If you figure HP==Physical Injuries then it's way out of whack. But then the healing skill is out of whack too if you figure it's physical damage.
No 4e crap, please. That's one of my nerd rage fetishes against 4e: the "healing surge" bullsh*t.
2 and 3 I will agree with.
Why not the first?
Skylancer:
Your arguments are so full of holes and demonstrate such a misunderstanding of the core rules that I don't even need to point them out for them to be obvious to anyone who actually plays.
Psychic_Robot:
You are a Troll. Lucky for me, I am a cleric with Fire domain.
Skylancer: I happen to agree with you on many points, although your argument could be phrased differently and be more effective. What I don't agree with is your tone and your insinuation that somehow I don't know how to play/dm this game.
I didn't say or even imply YOU didn't know how to DM. And as it is I have yet to really address you in any negative way. I tried being nice, I got ignored as I was apparently off topic and in no way bringing anything useful (read confirming the OPs topic) to the discussion and it had been a discussion, just one sided as the OP was ignoring it. My insinuation had everything to do with the OPs lack of understanding of the game mechanics and rules and with that very same understanding the OPs possible failure of judgment when lobbying for a very real drastic change of the core rules with a perceived drastic problem.
You have already stated that his or her perceptions could be colored in another way for another reason (where you stated tactics etc earlier). Could this not be the same thing? Could this colored perception be causing him/her to see things that the rest of us aren't? The catch is that people who game together generally think alike, that being said it would stand to reason that your perceptions are colored as well in this regard no?
1st: People mock me all the time for my sensitivity. Surprisingly it is one of the few things I am not sensitive about. I believe firmly that people should be good to one another and that negativity is a poison. The sooner the world at large wakes up and starts living in the present and without ego, the better IMO. YMMV
I will not mock you for your sensitivity, it is a good thing. I will not mock you for your coming to your friends aid, it was a good friend thing to do. However I will mock the OP for not being willing to see things another way. Being willfully ignorant is not an attractive quality in anyone, proposing someone do it, or nurturing that quality is no a good friend thing to do. I was hoping you would hopefully read through my very very long post, see that when I am trying to be offensive I warn you/him/whoever and that you would take back my arguments to the OP and hopefully get them to see the points that are valid and why he/she may be wrong on the whole ranged healing thing.
You have implied your play testing is better than mine. Guess what, I didn't really take offense to that, but I sure has heck made light of it. Because it was funny. The OP implied that his playing of a cleric has been better than mine or anyone I group with. Again that could be construed as offensive, and pretty much made him target to ridicule which would be well deserved. We (my friends and I) have played and have experienced a different situation which is completely opposite to that which you and the OP have experienced. For some inexplicable reason that made my arguments "off topic" to the OP and he or she has decided to ignore them. This stopped being a discussion a long time ago (as far as with the OP). You have been the only one who has really posted anything significant from "your side of the fence" and I thank you for that.
2d: My philosophy on this is quite different than Mab's. I was merely looking out for him on a personal level and where this caused me to veer far far off topic, I apologize. As far as Im concerned, I'm done with that as of this post.
There is no need to apologize, I don't take this seriously or to heart. I have done nothing but try to put forth points to counter what the OP has either experienced or valid rules and points as to why the OPs suggestions may not be good ideas, which lead back to the point of why healing may not need to be changed. That is it. That is my whole intent to posting here.
3d:I apologize that I got your goat up and will refrain from directly addressing what I perceive as problems with your arguments in the future. In fact, if I don't address you it is because I dont want to engage in this tete-a-tete any longer.
I have seen more problems with the way I have said something and less if none, problems with what I said. I have also been told I would be ignored by the OP because I was off topic, yet when I am on topic I get ignored as well. Even when I was being nice and not putting sarcasm, humor or "in your face" comments. And you know what, it was intentional. You have stated you have a daughter, depending on how old she is you are either well aware of how to deal with a stubborn child or will be becoming aware. You will also be aware or will be becoming aware that you sometimes have to use different tactics to get that child to learn or understand something, otherwise you child goes on being a stubborn ignorant a$$ for the rest of life and that is something no parent wants for their child. That being said sometimes you have to be hard, sometimes you have to soft, and sometimes you have to bait and switch. Like when a child stubs their finger and is crying for attention for minutes even though the pain stopped 40 seconds later, you change the child's attention to something else and you can all get on with life like normal. I was not getting a response when being nice. I changed tactics and wrote something in such a way that my ideas were embedded in something that would be read, possibly upsetting, but that would be responded to. Having responded to say that you don't like the way I'm saying something and spent paragraphs on it, with the simple line of "I agree with many points" why did you not spend the same amount of effort on the comments to the points you agreed with? It is what I have done with your friend the OP, I have quoted and given counterpoints regardless of snarky or obnoxious behavior or comments on his/her part.
4thly: In my defense, I have not used any house rules or non-core anything in my play test. I don't know where you got that idea. I add a few hit points to certain monsters in key encounters (no more than 5 or 6 and that is for a boss level encounter with a large or larger monster) and while I add character levels and certain abilities, I do so within the framework of CR and the encounter guidelines in the Beta. I consider myself quite fair and adept with encounter building. Insults on my ability to play a game I have played since the late seventies will unfortunately fall on less-than-appreciative ears. Why can't you get that what brought us both here is love for the game?The players have no special abilities, bonus feats, etc beyond what they come with out of the Beta box. I don't know what you are saying here, beyond deliberately trying to get a rise out of me and/or Mab and then putting a jokey "disclaimer" so everything is "all right". Punching someone in the face and...
I said the OP was using house rules and I also said at the end of it that seeing as the OP was going to ignore my post that maybe you, his/her friend could show him/her that the way he/she built and was running that character was incorrect. I was hoping his/her friend would show him/her what was wrong.
If the OP was running said small druid with said panther in your game and doing what was said, you were running a character with a house rule. You were allowing the rules to be bent or mis-used. That is a house rule. And even if you want to argue that, it was definitely NOT core. Again the OP has consistently stated that the only thing that they want to hear is CORE, yet the game the OPs character was in was decidedly NOT CORE if he was getting away with such behavior on this 9th level druid. Again this invalidates the OPs request and is another indication that the OPs perception is off on subjects of game mechanics. If you are not running a core character how can you say that the core rules need to be changed? I tried to be very clear on that in my post.
All that said, where was the insult - perceived or otherwise - towards your gaming ability? It doesn't exist, I didn't insult you. You took something as an insult that wasn't intended for you
And finally: I was aware of the Hierophant, but I had not brought it up here as I am not sure how the PrC's will function in Pathfinder and as far as my campaign, it has little relevance. I know they touch on PrC's briefly in the Beta, but our effort has been so far, to playtest single, core classes and I would like for it to remain so.
Pathfinder is pretty much dependent in whole on SRD. The PrC's that have been published so far (the follower of Desna, the mantis assassin and the liberator type PrC) have been well thought out but based on 3.5 (BUT are pretty much all compatible out of the box with the Pathfinder) and are in no way the powered up PrC's from the majority of the splat books. I seriously doubt the power curve will get upped every other book that Paizo publishes as was the case with WotC. The PrC's in the magazines that Paizo created have all followed a similar vein, some have been better but that will always be the case. I can't really think of any of the PrC's from the books that were seen as "game breakers" on the boards in the past.
Unfortunately I think your idea of core is slightly off, Paizo has stated that all things srd will be usable - backwards compatibility and all that jazz. With that in mind there might be small tweaks, the hit die changes to BAB will be universal for instance, the skill consolidation another example. I think the biggest worry or headache will be the psionic classes. Also with the current changes I'd imagine the PrC's will get small bumps in power if any, not things taken away. PrC's from the DMG were not usually at the top of the power curve and were fairly balanced. Paizo seems to be following the 3.0 to 3.5 change, in so much as things are as they are until they get altered or rewritten.Now whether or not you want to have it in your game, that is a whole other story - it is your game, run it as you like. A game being core will have these options (and will not allow the spring attacking mounted druid at 9th as it was put forth being used - again I don't know if that is your game or not - but as you seem to have taken offense to my comments on it I'm going to guess it was). If these are your games and you are allowing non core behavior or disallowing core PrC's could you please do me the favor of explaining to the OP that many of his or her arguments don't hold the weight that they seem to think they do as the perceived problem may be biased by those choices? The PrC solves the OPs problem, but if you are not allowing the OP access it isn't a problem with the rules, it is something the OP needs to take up with you.
Psychic_Robot:You are a Troll. Lucky for me, I am a cleric with Fire domain.
Don't give me that horsesh*t. Your character sucked. Him having trouble doing things is directly caused by his suckitude.
Druids are really strong, so they don't get to have megahealing.
Channel energy isn't overpowered because it's crap at higher levels, where HP gain drastically scales past its abilities.
Would you like me to show you why your fighter was a piece of crap?
EDIT: Perhaps the druid in the group should stop sucking and start pulling his weight. Instead of casting healing spells, he should try doing something useful.
Skylancer:
Your arguments are so full of holes and demonstrate such a misunderstanding of the core rules that I don't even need to point them out for them to be obvious to anyone who actually plays.
Your response is that of a school yard child, again. I am trying to have a discussion of relevant rules and you post insults and only insults. I will have to wait for ZeroCharisma's response to get anything meaningful apparently. It would help your cause a great deal more if you did actually point out the holes in my arguments, not to mention that if they were so full of holes as you say, someone else would have trolled me or ripped them to shreds. This is the internet after all.
And I assure you, my critique of your druid was not full of holes. I even took the extra step to show when it would be possible for you to do what you wanted by the core rules. If my misunderstanding of the rules was as bad as you say would I have done that? Could I have even done that?Did you notice after my last post and addressing ZeroCharisma's concern how I am being non inflammatory? I want to improve your understanding of this game, because ZeroCharisma is right we all love this game. I don't want people running around with misconceptions or bad interpretations of the rules. However that would require you to have a some what open mind and admit the possibility that your game world isn't the center of everything. It would also mean you have maturity to admit you could be wrong. However we all know actions speak louder than words and I hoped my searching through the core SRD to give you the answer to your proposed problem would have solved this.
How about Aaron A. Aardvark?
LOL! This one is really good. I'll use it against my player who smacked me with Abbel!
Now, I was thinking. Maybe the option about healing could be the spontaneous summoning of the druid. Maybe if the druid could cast 9 spontaneous spells (like themed, don't know, maybe), one of each level. This just came over my head now.
Maybe he could choose "fire", and his spontaneous spells would be a list of fire spells of the druid, instead of the summon nature ally I to IX. Then, maybe he could have the option "Healing", that allowed him to convert his spells into certain 9 druid spells of healing.
Maybe this is a little too much? Is the SNA spells so loved? Never thought about that.
No 4e crap, please. That's one of my nerd rage fetishes against 4e: the "healing surge" bullsh*t.
2 and 3 I will agree with.Why not the first?
Thats simple I don't do the min/max bs. You play what ya want I am not gonna tell someone it's a crap pc .
Thats simple I don't do the min/max bs. You play what ya want I am not gonna tell someone it's a crap pc .
"Min/max BS"? Look, sugarplum, I don't give a rat's ass how you play your game. However, once combat rolls around, you need to be able to pull your weight. If you decide to take NPC levels, you're not only hurting yourself, but you're hurting your party, too. D&D is designed with certain expectations of the characters--namely, that they don't suck. If your character sucks, then the rest of your team has to work harder to defeat the enemies and to keep your character alive. If you decide to play a commoner, you are crippling your team.
If you want to make a piece of crap character, go for it. I'm not stopping you. However, saying that the game should be balanced around characters that are functionally retarded is preposterous.
How about Aaron A. Aardvark?
LOL! This one is really good. I'll use it against my player who smacked me with Abbel!
Now, I was thinking. Maybe the option about healing could be the spontaneous summoning of the druid. Maybe if the druid could cast 9 spontaneous spells (like themed, don't know, maybe), one of each level. This just came over my head now.
Maybe he could choose "fire", and his spontaneous spells would be a list of fire spells of the druid, instead of the summon nature ally I to IX. Then, maybe he could have the option "Healing", that allowed him to convert his spells into certain 9 druid spells of healing.
Maybe this is a little too much? Is the SNA spells so loved? Never thought about that.
This is kind of off topic as it has been pointed out to me as the whole thread is supposed to be about healing at ranged.
Anywho, the SNA is really powerful if you look at it. You get at least another creature on the board who at mid to high levels have special abilities. I think someone mentioned the unicorn earlier who can cure as a SP ability. That being said SNA is powerful in that it is a utility spell as well, you can go through the list and choose what you want to summon for any specific purpose. Need a quick spy? Summon a little critter and use speak with animals. Need a combat brute? Summon one. Need access to something out of reach? Summon a flying or climbing creature. It is also themed in that you can summon a nature associated creature so it fits. The domains that were given to the druids specifically fit the druids theme, nature. And while I will not argue that healing is part of nature (growing, etc) it is not really the main focus of it and that is why they have access to healing spells but not the domain.
Your character is functionally retarded. You will be assimilated. Report to CharOps for immediate optimization. You will be known as Sweetcheeks_of_logic. Resistance is futile.
Your character is functionally retarded. You will be assimilated. Report to CharOps for immediate optimization. You will be known as Sweetcheeks_of_logic. Resistance is futile.
I like your style.
Thats simple I don't do the min/max bs. You play what ya want I am not gonna tell someone it's a crap pc ."Min/max BS"? Look, sugarplum, I don't give a rat's ass how you play your game. However, once combat rolls around, you need to be able to pull your weight. If you decide to take NPC levels, you're not only hurting yourself, but you're hurting your party, too. D&D is designed with certain expectations of the characters--namely, that they don't suck. If your character sucks, then the rest of your team has to work harder to defeat the enemies and to keep your character alive. If you decide to play a commoner, you are crippling your team.
If you want to make a piece of crap character, go for it. I'm not stopping you. However, saying that the game should be balanced around characters that are functionally retarded is preposterous.
Ok babycakes I got where your coming from, however each game runs diff what sucks in one may be damned nice in another. It's really all in how the game is set up.
Now if the game is played by a bunch of min/max I used 37 books to make my guy then yeah the one guy who didn't do that is not gonna hold up.
Still it's not your place or mine to tell someone not in are group his or her pc's suck.
Now I have nothing against ya man , but you did ask me why not. And I told you why not then you said you don't care how I played my game. Well asking is always about how someone plays there game, pure and simple.
Your character is functionally retarded. You will be assimilated. Report to CharOps for immediate optimization. You will be known as Sweetcheeks_of_logic. Resistance is futile.
LOL now that's funny
Can we just agree that Mabven is wrong and that she/he/it needs to learn2logic before posting again?