Whenever the discussion of clerics, channel energy, or healing comes up, many folks dismiss healing during combat. It seems accepted knowledge that any action spent healing is a total waste and an amateur mistake. If you can't finish the combat by the second round, you are playing the game wrong.
I understand that single monster damage output generally out-paces the cure spells, and that some encounters benefit from a speedy resolution, but is healing really that ineffective? Is there really another action that is so much better?
My playtest experience with healing in combat - specifically channel energy with the selective channel feat to be a highly effective tactic. Granted, the games I play in/GM are not 100% optimized, however we are experienced gamers and make and play what I would consider effective PCs. We also play fairly by-the-book, with few house rules that meaningfully affect game balance. Our combats seem to last longer then others, but we generally fair pretty well in the Adventure Paths.
I'm just wondering if the "obvious wisdom" that healing isn't effective is based on 3.5 rules, or if folks who have playtested pathfinder healing (specifically channel energy) still think it is a poor tactic?
|
Whenever the discussion of clerics, channel energy, or healing comes up, many folks dismiss healing during combat. It seems accepted knowledge that any action spent healing is a total waste and an amateur mistake. If you can't finish the combat by the second round, you are playing the game wrong.
I understand that single monster damage output generally out-paces the cure spells, and that some encounters benefit from a speedy resolution, but is healing really that ineffective? Is there really another action that is so much better?
My playtest experience with healing in combat - specifically channel energy with the selective channel feat to be a highly effective tactic. Granted, the games I play in/GM are not 100% optimized, however we are experienced gamers and make and play what I would consider effective PCs. We also play fairly by-the-book, with few house rules that meaningfully affect game balance.
I'm just wondering if the "obvious wisdom" that healing isn't effective is based on 3.5 rules, or if folks who have playtested pathfinder healing (specifically channel energy) still think it is a poor tactic?
To me not NOT healing in combat under a lot of situations would be suicidal. I can see some times if there is no Paladin or cleric in the group but even then healing in combat at a lot of encounters in the game is pretty much requires. At least in the games I GM.
|
It usually seems to be badmouthed by theorycrafters or people who crunch numbers way to much. Also seems to be naysayed by people who believe their play style is The One, True Way. I sometimes wonder how much people who crunchnumbers that much actually play. Whenever someone trotted out alot of numbers supporting their viewpoint during the playtest and Jason asked them for actual playtest reference they didn't provide much if any.
Here's my take. Since combat relies on the action economy, you're generally better off fighting or casting other spells, because healing simply cannot outpace or even break even with damage taken. Healing is very effective if it can keep other party members from being taken down, thereby contributing more actions to the fight.
In other words, heal just enough to keep them on their feet, but it's a waste trying to make sure their "health bar" is topped off at 100% all the time.
Two main points.
First if someone says you are doing it wrong then I usually ignore that advice. They may have good ideas but Pathfinder, and other RPG's, are a free form game and there is not a 100% right way to play the game. If you and your friends are having fun you are doing it right... even if it is a TPK.
That being said, some damage should be taken during a fight. And after combat is the time to heal everyone up. But if people are taking too much damage then you really do want to heal in combat no matter what. A dead party member is much harder to fix then healing 15 HP or so that may prevent the PC from dropping.
And some fights sure do require the party healer to be on their toes to keep everyone alive.
I agree with Kryptik, for the most part.
Think of it like going to Las Vegas (for example). When you sit down at the blackjack table, are you playing for fun or do you intend to make a living off it? Some people take the game SO seriously that if someone else isn't playing according to the mathematically optimal model they freak out. Then there are those of us who don't care so much, who'll spend a few rounds running over to heal a fallen party member just so they can participate in the rest of the combat and have fun.
All that said, in my experience in-combat energy is better spent ending the fight quickly and preventing damage in the first place than healing it.
Zo
The argument always annoys me. In some cases, healing can be redundant- but in the longest campaign i've run it became almost essential to heal in combat, especially as the party's big hitter was regularily down 250-300HP in a single rounds worth of damage (Barbarian/Bard/DD with massive Con).
Heal spell is the exception. Heal heals more than most attacks so is better than doing anything else.
Since only Heal can heal 250 hps I assume you mean that.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In pretty much every game I run or play in, and in pretty much every combat in those games, there are spellcasters casting healing spells during combat. That IS the point of healing magic, in fact.
What I suspect some folks are blanching about is that if you're healing an ally, you're not attacking an enemy, and for a lot of people it's not as "heroic" or "action-movie star" to be doing something other than trying to be the superstar of the combat. This is, in my opinion, the same type of mindset that gets all worked up about classes like bards not being able to "hold their own" in a fight. It's all in how you look at things.
If a bard grants everyone in the group a bonus to hit and damage, all of that extra damage (including the damage caused by hits that, without the bard's bonus, would have missed), then all of that "extra" damage is technically the bard's contribution to the battle.
Likewise, a spellcaster who heals another character who would have otherwise been knocked out of a battle is technically contributing all of that character's damage to the battle by virtue of having healed that character enough so that he doesn't get knocked out of the fight.
So yeah... as far as I'm concerned in games I run and adventures I develop and write, I'm assuming that spellcasters who can heal are indeed doing so during battles.
It depends.
As many things do.
In theory, the crunchers have it right, and it's a wasted action. But their models do NOT include things like one fight spilling into another, where the PCs might consider a tactical retreat that doesn't go outside of initiative, buying themselves a few rounds to replenish HP.
Basically, it makes sense if it makes sense. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
In my current campaign, the cleric has been designed to do nothing but heal and buff the party. He is a healing machine and keeps the party in the fight. He is so good at it, that they can turn difficult challenges into a walk in the park.
Anyone who tries to play the game as an exercise in optimising would not get a place around my table. I would prefer to play a role playing game, where occasionally the player might not act to the best of his abilities because his character wouldn't know what to do.
My general impression is, if you can regularly get through combat without NEEDING heals, then your DM is handling you with kiddie gloves. But that's my 2cp, based on my personal experience playing a healer.
Now it is true that most healing spells won't keep up with the damage being taken. On the other hand, which would contribute more swinging your weapon for a whopping d8, or keeping your barbarian alive that is doing more than +8 in his modifiers alone? Each round you keep him up far exceeds what you may have otherwise contributed.
Here's the thing: damaging the enemy bring you closer to the end of combat, healing does not. The short the battle is, the more it favors the PCs. The longer the battle goes, the rolls are made, the more random things get. Random favors enemies. (the longer you go, the more likely a critical hit is.)
So if you don't need to, don't heal in battle. You won't heal as much in one round as much as the enemy can damage. If an enemy attacks you every round, and you heal yourself every round, you'll die. Simple.
That said- chances are you will need to heal in combat-if things go wrong, you don't want to die just to follow a heuristic. Heal people to keep them from dying.
If they are knocked out, you are left with a choice: stabilize or heal enough to get them back in action. If healing someone with get them up and running and they don't have much health, they'll be bleeding out again in no time. If they lay down there unconscious but stable, most enemies will focus on targets that are actually a threat (some DMs will kick a PC when they are down- which is a jerk move, and some enemies would rather kill one character and try to get away- like an animal that wants food. barring those situations though, enemies are more likely to attack a foes that can attack back.)
That said, there are times when a character MUST be kept fighting. If keeping the Paladin up and running does more to kill the enemies by himself, than by all means use your actions to keep him going.
So here's my rule of thumb- in most fights, something has gone wrong if you need to heal. The "something" that went wrong isn't always your tactics, all it means is that the tide of battle has turned against you. And if you don't have life-threatening battles every now and then, your campaign is bound to get boring. So yes, every cleric should have to heal in battle. just not when he could be curb-stomping the foe.
Heh, I think that whole point behind "combat healing = stupid" is that cleric players should pay attention to their other spells and keep in mind that buffed party will do more bang and need less healing as a result for the same investment of spell slots. Which is a mechanically sound idea compared to cleric saving spells for healing conversion later (Yeah, he'll need them, but is this need a result of necessity or inefficient spell use in the first place?).
...The point that people have tried to make is that, as a general rule, damage outpaces the ability to heal. So, as a general rule, it's more effective to focus on damage.
However, an entire combat can hinge on certain actions taken in specific rounds. Often, that fulcrum point has to do with whether or not a particular PC is ready and actively engaged. Healing may well play a role in whether that PC is ready and actively engaged.
To play devils advocate, it is a general rule that it is better to control an enemy then to destroy it, yet people don't add that to every discussion about killing monsters.
"So if you don't need to, don't heal in battle. You won't heal as much in one round as much as the enemy can damage. If an enemy attacks you every round, and you heal yourself every round, you'll die. Simple."
I should also add that I don't think the damage out-paces healing argument is even necessarily true, much less a "fact". A party that uses summons, battlefield control, a character with a decent AC, and selective channel can easily keep up with damage against most types of opponents.
I should also add that I don't think the damage out-paces healing argument is even necessarily true, much less a "fact". A party that uses summons, battlefield control, a character with a decent AC, and selective channel can easily keep up with damage against most types of opponents.
When damage is spread out, yes heal can keep up- channel energy is a great ability. but traditionally you don't get mass healing until mid levels. I was pointing out a very specific situation. That said I don't use the "no combat healing" idea as dogma at all.
So here's my rule of thumb- in most fights, something has gone wrong if you need to heal. The "something" that went wrong isn't always your tactics, all it means is that the tide of battle has turned against you. And if you don't have life-threatening battles every now and then, your campaign is bound to get boring. So yes, every cleric should have to heal in battle. just not when he could be curb-stomping the foe.
Or, in my opinion the DM decided to take the gloves off.
If you so clearly outmatch your foe that you would not need healing support and could treat him as a speedbump, then any intelligent and sensible foe would never make contact, they would find help, a better strategy, or leave you be.
And honestly, if you let a player drop, or should he be unlucky and die on your watch... prepare for the ridicule because it will get heaped on. You would have basically demonstrated failure at your role.
Healing when you don't need to is not the best tactical choice. Healing when the barbarian is about to go down (which in my group means he dies) can be the most important action that needs to be taken.
Combats are dynamic. A wise healer will pay attention to the options and do the best thing for the specific situation.
Whenever the discussion of clerics, channel energy, or healing comes up, many folks dismiss healing during combat. It seems accepted knowledge that any action spent healing is a total waste and an amateur mistake. If you can't finish the combat by the second round, you are playing the game wrong.
I understand that single monster damage output generally out-paces the cure spells, and that some encounters benefit from a speedy resolution, but is healing really that ineffective? Is there really another action that is so much better?
My playtest experience with healing in combat - specifically channel energy with the selective channel feat to be a highly effective tactic. Granted, the games I play in/GM are not 100% optimized, however we are experienced gamers and make and play what I would consider effective PCs. We also play fairly by-the-book, with few house rules that meaningfully affect game balance. Our combats seem to last longer then others, but we generally fair pretty well in the Adventure Paths.
I'm just wondering if the "obvious wisdom" that healing isn't effective is based on 3.5 rules, or if folks who have playtested pathfinder healing (specifically channel energy) still think it is a poor tactic?
As someone who has been gaming for 30 years, this is the first time I've ever heard this bit of "obvious wisdom." Healing in combat has always been a crucial option, which is why 3E's spontaneous casting for clerics was such a boon. It allowed a cleric to be well-stocked with spells for combat and general adventuring, but still be able to rip off a spell at a crucial time for a grievously wounded or dying ally, rather than choosing between being a combat monster or a walking first aid kit.
A cleric able to provide needed healing for multiple characters, while denying it to enemies, is a winning tactic.
Spells like shield other (used carefully) can close the gap between damage taken and damaged healed.
|
So first, there is no "Doing it Wrong", each game is different and each GM runs different levels of challenge.
Personally, I try and run encounters right on the edge of deadly. In particular if the players are fighting a boss creature if no one goes negative I plan on ratcheting things up the next time. This leads to more player deaths but it makes for a more tense, exciting game.
I also tend to have longer, more complex encounters with multiple enemies joining the fray at various times. In my game healing in combat is often required regardless of player tactics.
All that said, as a few people have suggested it's probably better building characters that are good at dealing damage and can also heal rather than focusing on healing. If you spend the first two rounds of combat dishing out damage rather than topping off the fighter it's going to make combat that much shorter.
What I suspect some folks are blanching about is that if you're healing an ally, you're not attacking an enemy, and for a lot of people it's not as "heroic" or "action-movie star" to be doing something other than trying to be the superstar of the combat. This is, in my opinion, the same type of mindset that gets all worked up about classes like bards not being able to "hold their own" in a fight. It's all in how you look at things.
No, actually, that's not even remotely close to the truth.
Incoming damage outpaces the potential for even a Healing Domain Cleric with heal-focused 3rd party feat support to heal up. This is a fact. It is a fact at level 1, level 20, and all levels in between. Mathematically, healing an ally in combat is, at best, sticking your finger in the dike. It's simply not possible to actually stay even with incoming damage, and all you're doing is delaying the inevitable.
The hope with combat healing is that you're delaying the inevitable just long enough for everybody else to actually defeat it. The thing is, you could be contributing directly to that instead of just putting your finger in the hole and praying. For example, if you hold person an ogre, not only have you made it incredibly easy to kill that ogre, but it also will not be able to attack next round -- effectively healing 100% of the damage it would have dealt preemptively. Or you could erect a wall of stone to divide the enemy forces and make it easier to kill them in detail. Or you could do any of a number of other things, almost all of which are better, mathematically, than healing.
That's not to say that healing should never be done in combat. When your Fighter's just about to die, you pretty much have to heal him. When your party have all been hit for low to moderate amounts of damage, mass healing actually can outpace the incoming damage. And sometimes, just delaying the inevitable is enough (for example, when you've already divided up the battlefield such that only one or two enemies can attack at a time and you actually can keep up with it).
Most of the time, though, you're better off saving the healing for after the fighting and using offensive or battlefield control spells instead.
|
So first, there is no "Doing it Wrong", each game is different and each GM runs different levels of challenge.
Personally, I try and run encounters right on the edge of deadly. In particular if the players are fighting a boss creature if no one goes negative I plan on ratcheting things up the next time. This leads to more player deaths but it makes for a more tense, exciting game.
I also tend to have longer, more complex encounters with multiple enemies joining the fray at various times. In my game healing in combat is often required regardless of player tactics.
All that said, as a few people have suggested it's probably better building characters that are good at dealing damage and can also heal rather than focusing on healing. If you spend the first two rounds of combat dishing out damage rather than topping off the fighter it's going to make combat that much shorter.
Playing a Druid/Beastmaster through RotRL made this quite clear.
HP healing, when spread to multiple allies, is FANTASTIC. In 3.5, being able to Cure Wounds on both me & my animal companion, from up to 30' away, made the difference in a couple of spots.
That's gone in PF, but it stands to reason that a similar function can be achieved with Channel Energy or other area heals. Being able to shred face while still casting (wolf attacks, Druid heals, basically) was awesome.
Incoming damage outpaces the potential for even a Healing Domain Cleric with heal-focused 3rd party feat support to heal up. This is a fact. It is a fact at level 1, level 20, and all levels in between. Mathematically, healing an ally in combat is, at best, sticking your finger in the dike. It's simply not possible to actually stay even with incoming damage, and all you're doing is delaying the inevitable.
My experience is that this "fact" is not correct in many cases. A party can be designed with a strong defense, and not take all that much damage. I'm not saying you are going to beat a monster by healing your party members, or that keeping folks "topped off" is an effective tactic, but defense based tactics can win a battle just as offensive tactics can. A party that wins in round 4 does not necessarily take twice as much damage, (and use twice as much resources) as a party that wins in round 2. That type of math is based on faulty assumptions or gross oversimplifications.
I would also point out that in the majority of combats, the healing resources available to the average PC party (cleric, druid, or paladin) is vastly superior to the healing resources available to the monsters (potions? evil cleric?). Therefor you could logically defeat much tougher monsters by out healing them, then by out damaging them.
My experience is that this "fact" is not correct in many cases. A party can be designed with a strong defense, and not take all that much damage. I'm not saying you are going to beat a monster by healing your party members, or that keeping folks "topped off" is an effective tactic, but defense based tactics can win a battle just as offensive tactics can. A party that wins in round 4 does not necessarily take twice as much damage, (and use twice as much resources) as a party that wins in round 2. That type of math is based on faulty assumptions or gross oversimplifications.
Incoming damage outpaces the potential for even a Healing Domain Cleric with heal-focused 3rd party feat support to heal up. This is a fact. It is a fact at level 1, level 20, and all levels in between. Mathematically, healing an ally in combat is, at best, sticking your finger in the dike. It's simply not possible to actually stay even with incoming damage, and all you're doing is delaying the inevitable.
Fine. Allow me to re-phrase: "Incoming damage outpaces the potential for even a Healing Domain Cleric with heal-focused 3rd party feat support to heal up, assuming the mathematical assumptions that govern the design of the game, as evidenced by the extensive mathematical theory that went into the re-designed Bestiary.
Extreme corner cases (as a party where every character is nigh-invulnerable very definitely is) don't a convincing argument make. 3rd edition was designed (and 3.5 and Pathfinder inherited this design unchanged) such that offense scales with level/HD, but defense either does not (AC) or does so more slowly than offense (saves). This was a very explicitly intentional design decision; the designers did not want defense to be a prominent part of the base game because they felt that hitting and doing damage was more exciting than trading misses. The designers of 3.0 have said this many*many times.
|
|
If combat were a static dynamic where one guy was dealing damage and one guy was healing then the rate of healing versus damage dealing would be relevant but in the games I've played it just doesn't work that way.
Usually the enemy focuses his attacks on someone and they back off and a different party member moves in and attacks while the injured character either gets healed or switches to ranged combat. Sometimes the healer just kicks in enough healing where the injured person can get one more round of full attacks in rather than dropping.
Healing doesn't have to equal damage output in order for it to be effective in keeping your hardest hitters in the encounter for a round or two longer.
Healing doesn't have to equal damage output in order for it to be effective in keeping your hardest hitters in the encounter for a round or two longer.
I never said it did. The fact is, however, that "a round or two" is really all healing generally buys you.
If it's merely a formula, and the actions of your characters are dictated by established algorithms and number crunching - why game at all? You are doing your best to argue away that thrilling moment where the player has to choose - do I attack the high AC enemy, hoping to finish the battle, even though I might miss? Or do I channel energy, give everyone a few dice of HP, and keep the battle going?
Or better yet - I make a decision from a roleplaying perspective...Take up sudoku or something...
I don't even know where to start from this enormous logical fallacy of a post. Every single thing you say here either is, or derives from, a logical fallacy. You're arguing nothing but hot air.
i think there is a flawed argument here. You could also argue that if you or your Allies are Dead they cant deal damage. And theres Lots of level appropriate monsters capable of disembowling PCs if they dont get healed.
Again. This is a role playing game. If you and your friends are having fun then you are playing the game right and that is all you need to worry about. If you have fun "Doing the math" that is fine too. I will be the first to admit that optimizing is a fun way to pass the time between sessions.
But when it comes to game day and my poor little wizard gets stuck with a sword I am screaming my big head off for the cleric to MAKE THE PAIN STOP and heal me now!!!!
When my big half orc barbarian practically gets his arm eaten off by some horrid thing that just jumped out of the hole in the tree it is nothing but a flesh wound and I am sure I will be fine in a couple of days so the fancy man with the pretty hair can keep his gawd-magik to himself.
i think there is a flawed argument here. You could also argue that if you or your Allies are Dead they cant deal damage. And theres Lots of level appropriate monsters capable of disembowling PCs if they dont get healed.
Speaking of flawed arguments...
No one is saying, "Never heal in combat!". What we're saying is that, mathematically, you should reserve healing in combat for times when it's the best option, which is generally either when the entire party is hurt and you have an effective AOE heal or when one character is near death.
I don't think anyone here is advocating, 'topping off' as a good strategy.
I personally love summons, because damage done to a summon is no damage at all.
I don't even use channel energy in combat except in the most serious of circumstances, but whenever a meaty damage dealer goes below half, or sometimes not even that far I will not hesitate to slap him with an empowered cure serious that does an average of ((3*4.5)+6)x1.5 ~ 29 hp of healing, and unless he is taking every hit coming to him that usually compensates for more than a round of beating.
The argument boils down to Healing in Combat = Wrong which is the title of the thread and the OPs question. In my opinion the above assertion combat healing = wrong is dumb, plain and simply dumb. Now a cleric has options otherwise they would be the most boring class ever but combat healing is still good. If someone drops on your watch you failed them, if someone dies on your watch unless through crazy miraculous happenstance (string of crits or x4 crit) then you may be in the running for worst cleric ever. Again, IMO. :)
|
|
I never said it did. The fact is, however, that "a round or two" is really all healing generally buys you.Healing doesn't have to equal damage output in order for it to be effective in keeping your hardest hitters in the encounter for a round or two longer.
Often an additional round or two of damage is all you need. Considering the dedicated bruiser is vastly better at dishing damage keeping him in combat is generally more effective than the far less combat effective cleric attacking.
Of course sometimes the healer has have some other even more effective method of inflicting pain in which case it's probably better for him to do that. Ultimately the best tactic often depends a lot on who the opponent is.
|
|
i think there is a flawed argument here. You could also argue that if you or your Allies are Dead they cant deal damage. And theres Lots of level appropriate monsters capable of disembowling PCs if they dont get healed.Speaking of flawed arguments...
No one is saying, "Never heal in combat!". What we're saying is that, mathematically, you should reserve healing in combat for times when it's the best option, which is generally either when the entire party is hurt and you have an effective AOE heal or when one character is near death.
You rolled a 1 on your check to communicate effectively and wound up arguing with a bunch of people who don't disagree with you. Nice job.
You rolled a 1 on your check to communicate effectively and wound up arguing with a bunch of people who don't disagree with you. Nice job.i think there is a flawed argument here. You could also argue that if you or your Allies are Dead they cant deal damage. And theres Lots of level appropriate monsters capable of disembowling PCs if they dont get healed.Speaking of flawed arguments...
No one is saying, "Never heal in combat!". What we're saying is that, mathematically, you should reserve healing in combat for times when it's the best option, which is generally either when the entire party is hurt and you have an effective AOE heal or when one character is near death.
No, I think you rolled the 1 on your Reading Comprehension check. Nice job being a jerk about it, though.
|
|
No, I think you rolled the 1 on your Reading Comprehension check. Nice job being a jerk about it, though.You rolled a 1 on your check to communicate effectively and wound up arguing with a bunch of people who don't disagree with you. Nice job.i think there is a flawed argument here. You could also argue that if you or your Allies are Dead they cant deal damage. And theres Lots of level appropriate monsters capable of disembowling PCs if they dont get healed.Speaking of flawed arguments...
No one is saying, "Never heal in combat!". What we're saying is that, mathematically, you should reserve healing in combat for times when it's the best option, which is generally either when the entire party is hurt and you have an effective AOE heal or when one character is near death.
When 5 people get the same impression from a post I think it's pretty clear you didn't communicate what you meant in an effective way. As for being a jerk... you seem to have that under control.
When 5 people get the same impression from a post I think it's pretty clear you didn't communicate what you meant in an effective way. As for being a jerk... you seem to have that under control.No, I think you rolled the 1 on your Reading Comprehension check. Nice job being a jerk about it, though.You rolled a 1 on your check to communicate effectively and wound up arguing with a bunch of people who don't disagree with you. Nice job.i think there is a flawed argument here. You could also argue that if you or your Allies are Dead they cant deal damage. And theres Lots of level appropriate monsters capable of disembowling PCs if they dont get healed.Speaking of flawed arguments...
No one is saying, "Never heal in combat!". What we're saying is that, mathematically, you should reserve healing in combat for times when it's the best option, which is generally either when the entire party is hurt and you have an effective AOE heal or when one character is near death.
+1
mathematically, you should reserve healing in combat for times when it's the best optionIsn't this true of any (and every) action in combat? (I'm pretty sure all he posters you've criticized said essentially the same thing)
You heal when it is most appropriate to heal.
Exactly, than we agree that usually healing in combat is bad idea escept in extreme situations (then it is appropriate).
Really, the only thing that's "wrong" here is folks insisting that there's a "right" way to play the game. :-)
Just do what the Fishy tells you. The Fishy is wise.
Mr. Fishy played a cleric. His cure light had a recoil.
<Mr. Fishy> How much are you down?
<Monk> 6hp
<Mr. Fishy> Mr. Fishy can't heal that the recoil alone would kill the mage!
Mr. Fishy still couldn't heal eaten...Mr. Fishy's shame.
To the OP: Healing in combat is neccessary when you deem it important.
Healing in combat should NEVER be done 'just to get HP back' when it's not life-threatening. That's a task best left to vigor spells and their fast healing via wands, and out of combat.
Heals that go off in combat should generally be area effect, because the sum total of AoE healing going off is an order of magnitude better then single healing spells. Total amount of healing going off at once is important. Focused ones to keep your sources of damage in the game are naturally important, however.
Design around doing nothing but healing in combat is generally not a superior combat form. You are generally better off using those slots to contribute to neutralizing the enemy in some fashion, be it debuffing, counterspelling, battlefield control, or brutalizing them in some fashion.
But in emergencies, you do what you feel you have to to win the fight. If that means spending a spell to keep the barbarian in the game, then you do what you do...he's probably dealing out more offense then you, and it's the smart play. Heals are 100% going to go off, after all....spells can fail, attacks miss, and monsters whiff...healing removes at least one element of chance from the equation.
===Aelryinth