Especially with the APG, I'd rank Sorcs ahead of Wizards.
The Wizard's advantage comes down to "I just so happen to have the perfect spell for this encounter!"
"We need three of them. And right now, not fifteen minutes from now while you consult your spellbooks."
"Uhhh..."
The Sorceror, at every level, has more default spells Known then the Wizard. With the hUman Sorc variant for favored class, they end up with 6 spells known per level, + the spells from their bloodline. Special spells for one-offs can be put into scrolls, wands, and especially Staves at higher levels.
The wizard MUST have bonus spells to Int to keep even with the sorceror. The extra spell ahead at odd levels..just keeps pace with the fact sorcs have more spells in memory then wizards do.
The wizard has to spend gold to acquire his massive library of spells for any occasion. Too often this is handwaved. A wizard is only entitled to 4 spells/level...less then the sorceror.
Most spells are used repeatedly, and good spell selection is not that hard to do.
While sorcs might not have the key spell for an occasion, if the wizard is given time to prepare, then the sorc can, too...and get access to that spell, one way or another. If they have that access, it's also for repeated use, instead of one-offs.
And if the sorc doesn't have the perfect spell, via Spells known, scrolls, wands, staves, or UMD? He's got choices...and choices he can use repeatedly, including the direct damage the wizard is loathe to take. If the sorc DOES have the perfect spell, he can do what the wizard cannot...he can SPAM it. If he needs 6 or more Dispel Magics, he HAS them. The wizard might be lucky to have ONE.
The 'planning' aspect of having a sorceror is over-blown...not only can they talk to other players to get advice, or come to message boards, but they can later go back and revise some of their choices that don't apply, or get better versions of such things (things the fighter should be able to do). General use spells are often the best spells for anyone and everyone to take, be it summoning, buffage, or mobility. Anyone dwelling on spell selection inevitably ignores the fact most wizards aren't going to be perfectly situated for any fight, either.
Especially in Pathfinder, I give the nod to sorcs over wizards.
==Aelryinth
A question:
Wizards, Clerics and other spellcaster that are not spontaneous casters have that magic item that allow you to recover some of your spells used. Unexpensive compared to ring of wizardry, specially at low level of for low level spells.
Pearl of power, 1000 gp for each 1s level spell per day, 4000 for 2nd level, etc..
What's the equivalent item for spontaneous spellcasters?
The Wizard's advantage comes down to "I just so happen to have the perfect spell for this encounter!"
"We need three of them. And right now, not fifteen minutes from now while you consult your spellbooks."
"Uhhh..."
When weighing the wizard, if you're assuming a high-end player, you basically should pretend he gets to spontaneously cast his slots from the entire list of sorcerer/wizard spells.
A really good wizard player chooses their prepared spells so well, if you didn't have a sheet of their prepared spells in ink ahead of time you'd swear they were cheating and doing this.
If someone playing wizard doesn't give you that feeling, you're not seeing someone who's really good with the class.
Generally I feel that a poor player is better off with the sorcerer, a mediocre player doesn't see a large advantage from either, and the really good player with a wizard will put an equivalent player with a sorcerer to shame.
Generally I feel that a poor player is better off with the sorcerer, a mediocre player doesn't see a large advantage from either, and the really good player with a wizard will put an equivalent player with a sorcerer to shame.
And if you include the APG the wizard has partial spontaneous casting from their spellbook as well, for one or two schools. There are magic items that let them freely cast any spell from their spellbook by expending a spell of the same school and level.
I think it's doable with transmutation and necromancy. I don't think there was an item for the others, besides the one that requires you to be a universalist (any school).
The Wizard's advantage comes down to "I just so happen to have the perfect spell for this encounter!"
"We need three of them. And right now, not fifteen minutes from now while you consult your spellbooks."
"Uhhh..."
When weighing the wizard, if you're assuming a high-end player, you basically should pretend he gets to spontaneously cast his slots from the entire list of sorcerer/wizard spells.
A really good wizard player chooses their prepared spells so well, if you didn't have a sheet of their prepared spells in ink ahead of time you'd swear they were cheating and doing this.
If someone playing wizard doesn't give you that feeling, you're not seeing someone who's really good with the class.
Generally I feel that a poor player is better off with the sorcerer, a mediocre player doesn't see a large advantage from either, and the really good player with a wizard will put an equivalent player with a sorcerer to shame.
You know I don't agree with Mongoose often -- but on this I do. As a wizard player (especially at higher levels) I will give the GM a copy of my spell sheet -- but even at the start of the day it usually has several blank lines on it. These are spells I'll prepare as the day goes on instead of at the start of the day. This gives me more versatility and a better chance of getting my spell choices right. I find that having about 3/5 to 2/3 of my spells not memorised at the start of the day works well for me.
You know I don't agree with Mongoose often -- but on this I do. As a wizard player (especially at higher levels) I will give the GM a copy of my spell sheet -- but even at the start of the day it usually has several blank lines on it. These are spells I'll prepare as the day goes on instead of at the start of the day. This gives me more versatility and a better chance of getting my spell choices right. I find that having about 3/5 to 2/3 of my spells not memorised at the start of the day works well for me.
The Wizard's advantage comes down to "I just so happen to have the perfect spell for this encounter!"
"We need three of them. And right now, not fifteen minutes from now while you consult your spellbooks."
"Uhhh..."
When weighing the wizard, if you're assuming a high-end player, you basically should pretend he gets to spontaneously cast his slots from the entire list of sorcerer/wizard spells.
A really good wizard player chooses their prepared spells so well, if you didn't have a sheet of their prepared spells in ink ahead of time you'd swear they were cheating and doing this.
If someone playing wizard doesn't give you that feeling, you're not seeing someone who's really good with the class.
Generally I feel that a poor player is better off with the sorcerer, a mediocre player doesn't see a large advantage from either, and the really good player with a wizard will put an equivalent player with a sorcerer to shame.
+1, and that is all I have to say about that :)
And if you're playing with a GM who insists that you can only prep once? (Not RAW as far as I know, but I know a few who will insist up and down that it is and not look in the book)
Honestly, the best I've seen (which I don't rank myself among) needed very little use of keeping slots open to fill later.
And if you're playing with a GM who insists that you can only prep once? (Not RAW as far as I know, but I know a few who will insist up and down that it is and not look in the book)Honestly, the best I've seen (which I don't rank myself among) needed very little use of keeping slots open to fill later.
Depending on level and items had (and scrolls -- I don't like using up a lot of scrolls and leave slots open instead). I did it the first time as a bet "Sure I'll go in with only half my spells for today if you go in with one arm tied behind your back mister fighter" but generally it's worthwhile to leave some open "just in case".
Generally I feel that a poor player is better off with the sorcerer,I just don't see a poor player knowing how to get maximal use out of charm spells, planar binding, illusions, etc. - the bread and butter of a good sorcerer.
There's an awful lot of hidden power in the sorcerer that even experienced players miss.And that's not even addressing the skill level needed to plan out your progression of learning new spells. I mean, when you only know a few spells, you really got to know them inside and out.
I believe sorcerers can be good for new players (if they got some experienced player giving them a hand) and sorcerers are great for experienced players. In between those extremes is where most wizard players reside.
I also see a poor player getting stuck with less optimal spells. I guess this is also a +1 to LT.
I just don't see a poor player knowing how to get maximal use out of charm spells, planar binding, illusions, etc. - the bread and butter of a good sorcerer.
There's an awful lot of hidden power in the sorcerer that even experienced players miss.
I definitely agree with that, and actually I'd be curious to hear your take on which spells are those evergreen spells that the sorcerer can beat to death each day (because he has to) and how to best do so.
And that's not even addressing the skill level needed to plan out your progression of learning new spells.
My take here is:
1) (Almost) any idiot can find a decent build on the internet, but the finer-grain skill of picking smart spells day by day (wizard) or using the right spell in the right way in the right moment (either) is a harder skill for someone else to do for you, so in that sense, yes I agree the spell selection of a sorcerer is one of its key skill bits but I think it's one of the skill bits that's easier to outsource than many other bits.
2) I've played with guys who pretty much load up on tons of the same damage spell and dump those out. I'm talking the kind of player for whom every level 1 spell is magic missile and every level (4? can't remember) in 3.5 was acid orb. No question, that's terrible. That guy might as well play sorcerer, what he's getting for it beats what he's giving up. I'm not saying that's the only point at which sorcerer is effective, just that it's one point at which sorcerer is a more effective choice.
Just because spamming damage spells is something the sorcerer can do better than the wizard does -not- mean that's an optimal build for a sorcerer. Spamming damage spells is something better left to the wizard because it's such a tightly focused skill set that once that sorcerer is in a different kind of encounter, he's screwed.
I don't think spamming damage spells is an optimal build for anyone, but if what you really want to do is spam magic missile for some reason (and I make no claims at all that this is a decent, much less good, idea), you might as well be able to cast it an extra time or two?
.
..
...
....
.....
:. :: :. :: :. :: :.
For BIFTech Engineers Only
File No. 917d
Re: Core Clases, Rankings
- - - - - -
Barbarian: Test remain inconclusive, taffy or cheese? See File 41gh
Bard: Wood chuck could chuck would?
Cleric: Subjects reported vomiting and abominal pains.
Druid: Handle with care. Always read the label. /Simon92d = We need tea!
Fighter: This way up.
Guru: Gone, fer sure.
Ranger: Soothes and fortifies - relief for the whole family.
Rogue: Flaccid diet? Try Viattoml J!
Sorcerer: Rises rapidly during the fourth quarter.
Wizard: BYOB.
- - - - - - - -
//
OT: Well kinda.. Regarding Spamming o' Damage and casting extra times = good. Have you seen the Bloatmage PrC? I have a wizard built to make use of it. Granted the sheer joy of a waddling fat man is enough of a joy alone to play the character - also, the Bloatmage brings extra 'spammy' casting options to the metaphorical table through managable increased spells/day use. Now, personally, a sorcerer taking the class could certainly 'spam' yet more spells.. however, I believe that adding the flexibility to the wizard class is.. well 'better' - for a given value of better.
GO BLOAT!
I just don't see a poor player knowing how to get maximal use out of charm spells, planar binding, illusions, etc. - the bread and butter of a good sorcerer.
There's an awful lot of hidden power in the sorcerer that even experienced players miss.
I definitely agree with that, and actually I'd be curious to hear your take on which spells are those evergreen spells that the sorcerer can beat to death each day (because he has to) and how to best do so.
And that's not even addressing the skill level needed to plan out your progression of learning new spells.My take here is:
1) (Almost) any idiot can find a decent build on the internet, but the finer-grain skill of picking smart spells day by day (wizard) or using the right spell in the right way in the right moment (either) is a harder skill for someone else to do for you, so in that sense, yes I agree the spell selection of a sorcerer is one of its key skill bits but I think it's one of the skill bits that's easier to outsource than many other bits.
2) I've played with guys who pretty much load up on tons of the same damage spell and dump those out. I'm talking the kind of player for whom every level 1 spell is magic missile and every level (4? can't remember) in 3.5 was acid orb. No question, that's terrible. That guy might as well play sorcerer, what he's getting for it beats what he's giving up. I'm not saying that's the only point at which sorcerer is effective, just that it's one point at which sorcerer is a more effective choice.
I believe LT once said if her group has to fight something went wrong, where as a lot of us go out looking for the fight. Some of my players make a pass at diplomacy, but I see them smile when it fails. The "correct" sorcerer list is largely dependent on the group playstyle. I do think spells that can be used for a variety of things are key though.
LT likes the binding spells. I am a stingy bastard so I don't bind anything unless I have to since I have to pay them. I think they accept favors too, but owing favors is something else I dislike. I think we both agree that grabbing 8000 damage spell is pointless. You take one or two spells with one that might be an AoE, and another that might be a ray. You take a feat that allows you to sub the energy type(S) out, and call it a day. That way if you have to blast you can. The rest of your spells can go to other things.
The point I'm trying to make is that the wizard could more easily back out of such a glass cannon spell list. So, while I agree with you that sorcerer would be better over the short run for such a thing, over the long run wizard would be better.
Oh, sure.
This isn't total theorycraft on my part, incidentally -- there's one dude in a group I sometimes play with who is on at least his third all-damage-spells-plus-fly-and-teleport sorcerer, each one lasting a full campaign (e.g., an AP). People have tried many times to get him to pick better spells and he just is not interested. So that guy? Sorcerer all the way. (There's a second guy in that group who's played that same kind of character at least twice.)
It's not the only thing the class is good for, but it is good for "that guy".
I removed a post. Feel free to repost with less snark.
So now the prepared casters are spending gold trying to keep up with the numbers of spells known by sorcerors, and it doesn't help them with their higher level slots unless they lay out a TON of moolah.
Which the sorceror doesn't have to.
A blaster build caster is ineffective unless you build it whole hog to be a blaster. People usually fail to realize that you only need 2-3 dmg spells to use on enemies, but you need a ton of dmg enhancing FEATS to make it effective. Once you are at that level, however, blasters become Save-and-Die-Anyways builds, pretty much able to crack most problems by bringing out a 600 dmg hammer to pound the square peg through the round hole.
The sorceror gets more spells/day by Charisma, their only limit is Spells known...and they are naturally better then the wizard at that.
As for wizards prepping spell slots on the go...that's completely the DM letting them get away with it. It's 15 minutes the enemy should be preparing to hit them hard, unless the enemy is stupid, too.
I just find too many of the wizards 'uberness' to be so highly situational that the description just rings false.
==Aelryinth
Best case scenario..
Wizard's spell book is worth the cost of copying the spell from another wizard (a very generous interpretation of the rules) and the cost of copying the spells into a book.
At 13th level, that's about 5500 gp.
A much worse scenario, when the book says that a spellbook can be sold for an amount equal to half what it costs to purchase the spells plus the cost to copy the spells, it's talking about purchasing them as scrolls. If that's the case, the value of the spell book just went up to about 16000.
In all cases, we're assuming that the Wizard has no more spells in his book than a Sorcerer of the same level knows innately. Which gimps the Wizard because he has fewer spells he can cast per day and can't change the spells per day (eg. he can't cast three charm persons unless he actually memorized charm person three times). On the other hand, if you want to increase the number of spells he knows any further, you're even more substantially cutting into his WBL. Also, we're not assuming he's spent anything on blessed books or even a back-up spell book.
To add insult to injury, that 5500 - 16000 that the Wizard spent on his spell book, the Sorcerer could spend that same amount of money to pick up a couple of cleric scrolls (which he'd cast with UMD).
And while the Wizard is boasting of the power of his theoretical flexibility, the Sorcerer is casting spells (off scrolls) the Wizard will never ever be able to cast.
While, with his 30 or so Cha and his Leadership feat, he'll have one of his 150 or so followers offer the Wizard a beer to cheer him up.
A wizard can UMD. It just is not common, and he can take skill focus in UMD to help offset the low(most likely) charisma. I might try a UMD'ing wizard in game next time to see how it works.
Great, now I have another concept to add to the 1000 other ones I want to play. [shakes facist fist at LT] and hopes Benign Facist is not around.
Honestly Trall you forget a couple of things -- the wizard probably already has the scroll figured out -- so that's one check not needed (especially if he has the scroll with him) -- and identify can help with this.
Also I find the choker of eloquence is a great buy -- for that low price I get another +5 on those UMD checks.
Also I really wouldn't be pumping my Cha -- I would go with wisdom instead. So lower that Cha to... meh 12. That gives you back +4 so I'm only 1 ahead with my choker. But because my wisdom is higher (and high wisdom serves me better since it helps with saves, having a score that allows the spell to be cast, and some vital skill checks) I only need one check at DC 32 when I have a +25 on the check. Means I need a 7 to succeed -- IF I didn't take a trait to have UMD as a class skill -- or picked up a prestige class with it as a class skill.
Either way I suddenly have another +3 on my skill check which means I only need a 4. That's odds I'll take -- especially since I can use any spell trigger item I want with that skill bonus.
Don't forget the circlet of persuasion for a pretty affordable +3 to UMD (and all other charisma-based checks, including binding and such).
Don't forget the circlet of persuasion for a pretty affordable +3 to UMD (and all other charisma-based checks, including binding and such).
*Sigh* this was what I was after -- got thinking about the old 3.5 item of similiar effect in one of the splat books -- so above bonuses reduced of course as appropriate.
The great thing about it is that it's the 'head' slot and not 'headband'. :D
Honestly Trall you forget a couple of things -- the wizard probably already has the scroll figured out -- so that's one check not needed (especially if he has the scroll with him) -- and identify can help with this.
Also I find the choker of eloquence is a great buy -- for that low price I get another +5 on those UMD checks.
Also I really wouldn't be pumping my Cha -- I would go with wisdom instead. So lower that Cha to... meh 12. That gives you back +4 so I'm only 1 ahead with my choker. But because my wisdom is higher (and high wisdom serves me better since it helps with saves, having a score that allows the spell to be cast, and some vital skill checks) I only need one check at DC 32 when I have a +25 on the check. Means I need a 7 to succeed -- IF I didn't take a trait to have UMD as a class skill -- or picked up a prestige class with it as a class skill.
Either way I suddenly have another +3 on my skill check which means I only need a 4. That's odds I'll take -- especially since I can use any spell trigger item I want with that skill bonus.
I stick to core rules. Is the choker of eloquence in the APG? I loaned that out to a friend.
And why would I buy down CHA to pump up Wis? My goal isn't to min-max the character to single purpose it into casting Cleric spells.
That's the nice thing -- A high wisdom isn't necessarily a min/max thing. Maybe I want a good will save. Possibly I want to make perception checks, or sense motive checks. Many of the same tricks a wizard uses he is surprisingly vulnerable to as well, and shoring up your Wisdom helps you not fall into one of the many pitfalls so many other wizards have fallen into (egomania, deals with the devil -- reading books that "mortals are not meant to read", etc).
Now I'm not saying that having a high CHA somehow is more or less min/maxing than having a high Wisdom -- I'm just saying having a high wisdom is fully understandable even if you are not planning to ever cast a clerical spell.
.
..
...
....
.....
[shakes facist fist at LT] and hopes Benign Facist is not around.
Let's give them both the circlet of persuasion.
The Wizard now has roughly a 50% chance of casting a 6th level spell off a scroll. I still think a 50% chance is poor.
Meanwhile, the Sorcerer has a 90% chance of casting a 9th level cleric spell off a scroll.
I'm still thinking 50% is incorrect.
13 ranks, 1 from charisma (cause no one wants to be just average), 3 from the item, 6 from skill focus + possible trait means +4 more (1 trait bonus 3 class bonus) = +27.
I don't need the stat roll (since my wisdom is high enough) and as I pointed out I am *highly* likely to already know what spell is on the scroll (read magic for is free access to *know* what the scroll is).
So I got either a +24 on a DC 32 (need an 8 or better which is 65% success rate) or I need a 5 or better (which is an 80% success rate).
Either way I firmly dispute the 50% you cite.
.
..
...
....
.....[shakes facist fist at LT] and hopes Benign Facist is not around.
Darn someone's ratted me out. <runs away from thread>
I don't need the stat roll (since my wisdom is high enough) and as I pointed out I am *highly* likely to already know what spell is on the scrollI'm not talking about a character who is specifically designed to cast cleric spells. The cleric scroll is meant to be an example of a spell not on the Wizard list. We could just as easily be talking about a Bard scroll. If we were, then what use is your higher Wis?
You can't say "I've built my character so as to get the most use out of a skill which allows me to cast anything off a scroll by specifically limiting it's ability to cast anything off a scroll" (well, you -could- say that, but you kinda lose the argument when you do). It's like you're trying to min-max and forgetting the "min" part.As for being highly like to already know what spell is on the scroll, I'll give you Read Magic to decipher. That just increases the delta between the Sorcerer and the Wizard even further.
Not At all on the Charisma -- the highest level bard spell I'll actually want to cast is third level (good hope) -- I'm good without everything else. I'm more than willing to leave the Charisma at a 10~12 range honestly -- I much rather have good wisdom than good charisma with a wizard. However the highest level bard spell I'll ever need to worry about is 6th level so the DC has already flattened on that side and what sixth level bard spell am I really going to want to cast as a wizard from a scroll?
Some one needs to call someone else a obtuse or a welcome. Mr. Fishy is not here to watch a debate...Mr. Fishy and many others want a post shanking. One post removed? Back in the Tier Wars we had whole posters removed.
Some one needs to call someone else a obtuse or a welcome. Mr. Fishy is not here to watch a debate...Mr. Fishy and many others want a post shanking. One post removed? Back in the Tier Wars we had whole posters removed.
You smell bad, and flop around like a fish out of water!
Just trying to please the audience -- hope you are alright.
EDIT:
I think sympathetic vibration is pretty nice. One sixth level spell that can do 26d10 (at thirtenth level) to an enemy fortress - no save.
And why not just use a different spell that can accomplish much the same thing?
Stone Shape, Wall of Lava, Disintegrate (1,000 cubic feet), Tsunami (much higher level yes), earthquake, et al.
Minimum caster level for sympathic vibration is 16 as a 16th level bardic spell. Also it takes 16 rounds to do that 32d10 points of damage (with no save and bypassing hardness) which is nice -- if you have the time 10 minute casting time.
It's an extremely limited spell over all -- good at what it does -- but extremely limited.
I have never seen water breathing prepared. Who actually prepares that spell unless they know they will need it. Even then I would just buy the scroll.
I've prepared it most every day in our current campaign, and have used it several times to hideously useful effect. In another campaign, the party's wizard invalidated a water-flooding room trap with the spell. It literally would have been a TPK without that spell, as they didn't manage to get the doors open before their normal time would have been up.
It's one of those spells that you should always prepare if you can spare the slot. And you can spare the slot.
Moar dmgz not always equal to moar winning. Surviving is important, as well as an ability to increase when, how, and where you can damage, rather than just high end potential damage.
CE is not that great in my games because my group does not get beat up a lot. As I said before if getting beat on is common then it has a lot of value, but I have learned that not needing healing is the better path to try to follow. I guess the truth is somewhere in between.
I say the following meaning no offense to your person, but knowing you'll take offense anyway, as I direct said statement not towards you, but to your actual statement.
That is probably the dumbest statement I've heard all month. Ignoring the fact appropriately designed encounters are, well, designed to damage you, you should always be taking damage. Thus, healing will always be effective. If you're not taking any damage, your DM is wearing kiddie gloves. There is no way in any number of appropriate encounters for your group to just never be taking damage. Not taking damage to the point of significant impairment, maybe, but you should always be taking damage unless you're getting incredibly lucky or the DM is using carebears on you.
Generally speaking, well-played clerics are not casting healing spells in combat. Heal is an exception to this.
You're craaazy. Are you serious? What kind of game do you play that healing isn't necessary? xD
And disregarding "necessary," it's always helpful to keep the group at a high enough level of hit points where sudden hit point loss won't cause impairment. I speak, of course, of the dreaded greataxe critical or any other host of abilities that can bring a character down quickly.
Plus there's that whole "not dying" thing. I'm a big fan of that.
Moar dmgz not always equal to moar winning. Surviving is important, as well as an ability to increase when, how, and where you can damage, rather than just high end potential damage.
Um.
If there's anything you should take from anything that involves wizards, it's that "moar dmgz" is never the answer. Wizards have a thousand and one tools...that are all better then dealing damage.
You're craaazy. Are you serious? What kind of game do you play that healing isn't necessary? xD
And disregarding "necessary," it's always helpful to keep the group at a high enough level of hit points where sudden hit point loss won't cause impairment. I speak, of course, of the dreaded greataxe critical or any other host of abilities that can bring a character down quickly.
Plus there's that whole "not dying" thing. I'm a big fan of that.
Healing is great.
Outside of combat.
Using items.
The problem is that, inside of combat, healing doesn't really...heal. Or at least, it doesn't heal all that much. Until you reach the actual Heal spell, you will never be able to heal for as much damage is being dealt - that means you're already playing a losing game.
To compound this, once it's night time (if it already isn't), go outside, and look up. Make a tiny ring with your fingers and peek through it. In that amount of space you're seeing, there are more then billions of entire galaxies.
Your cleric has more options then that. You could heal for 1d8+8 damage...or you could use a spell to hold the monster to heal for 1d12+14 damage every turn. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and both clerics and druids are prevention moguls, sitting on thrones made out of prevention on a castle in which their prevention vault sits, lording over the lesser peasants and their lack of preventions.
Which, incidentally, makes for a lot of cure that they don't need.
Healing is great.
Outside of combat.
This.
I'm not saying a well-played cleric will never heal in combat, but it's rare. You have better things to be doing when rounds count.
Moar dmgz not always equal to moar winning. Surviving is important, as well as an ability to increase when, how, and where you can damage, rather than just high end potential damage.
Water base situations almost never come up, and you can hold breath for a long time. I think that spell being used in your games is playstyle issue, and you can't use an extraordinary situation to prove the point.CE is not that great in my games because my group does not get beat up a lot. As I said before if getting beat on is common then it has a lot of value, but I have learned that not needing healing is the better path to try to follow. I guess the truth is somewhere in between.
I say the following meaning no offense to your person, but knowing you'll take offense anyway, as I direct said statement not towards you, but to your actual statement.That is probably the dumbest statement I've heard all month. Ignoring the fact appropriately designed encounters are, well, designed to damage you, you should always be taking damage. Thus, healing will always be effective. If you're not taking any damage, your DM is wearing kiddie gloves. There is no way in any number of appropriate encounters for your group to just never be taking damage. Not taking damage to the point of significant impairment, maybe, but you should always be taking damage unless you're getting incredibly lucky or the DM is using carebears on you.
I have needed healing at times, and I used to believe like you do. I also remember the first time I heard the statement I made, and I thought it was nonsense. Well, one day the other DM(also the two best players in the group), finally got a chance to play on the same team. Well, between us being careful, and directing the others in tactics the party hardly ever needed in combat healing. If a group is getting beat up in regular fights the DM is cheating or your tactics are lacking, IMHO. I have DM'd against groups of varying abilities, and one group does need the healing a lot, while the other group does is often not too bad off, and heals after fights. I did not say never taking damage by the way, but we were not hurt enough to justify healing in combat.
I understand where you are coming from because I have been there, but I won't ever be there again.
Sigh. Folks are talking past each other while making diffeent assumptions based on different gamestyles again.
On combat healing, I tend to agree that in general it is best to heal after the fight. It is usually better to put down the opponents first and prevent more damage than to just play bandaid. Whether you do the healing with an item or spells is largely dependent on the level of the PCs and on the easy availability of specific magic items in your campaign world, which is highly variable.
However, that doesn't change the fact that sometimes healing in combat just needs to be done or characters are going to die, right then, right there. This happens a little less often now with auto-stabilization rules having been liberalized, but it still happens. I would also agree that if this NEVER happens in your campaign, your DM isn't challenging you enough. No amount of clever tactics can't be overcome by equally clever tactics by the bad guys. If your DM is playing in such a way that the PCs always have better tactics than the players, he's pulling punches.
That said, admittedly my players frequently outthink me, fairly understandable given there are seven of them and only one of me. To balance that, I put more time into prep and since I know the adventure, can do some of my thinking ahead of time. Seems to work. sometime they eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats them.
|
I would also agree that if this NEVER happens in your campaign, your DM isn't challenging you enough. No amount of clever tactics can't be overcome by equally clever tactics by the bad guys. If your DM is playing in such a way that the PCs always have better tactics than the players, he's pulling punches.
+1
I am the cleric for one of my campaigns (currently level 7) and there come times when I HAVE to channel just to keep the BSFs on their feet. Other times, I am buffing, blinding and/or holding.
If you never have to heal in battle (haha we always winz over teh turrasque and we have balors as lapdogs LOL !!1!!!1), I question your DM's ability to challenge you.
However, that doesn't change the fact that sometimes healing in combat just needs to be done or characters are going to die, right then, right there.
Sure. But there's really no special reason that has to be the cleric's job. Anything with a healing potion can manage in that case.
There's almost always something the cleric can do in a round to prevent more damage, by far, than he'd be able to heal in that round.