I've never seen an instance of what you're talking about. Could you give an example in context?
There are actually more opportunities for healing in Pathfinder than in previous editions, as far as I've seen.
In previous editions you have to focus on being a healer. In 3.X/Pathfinder you don't have to do that. You can sacrifice spells to cast cure spells. In Pathfinder you can channel healing energy. You no longer have to make it your primary objective if you want to be able to heal. If you don't need to heal, that's cool. You can do something else. You didn't really have that choice until 3.0 came out. You had to make healing a primary concern if you wanted to be any good at healing.
With the amount of damage that PCs and NPCs can put out, it's often a better strategy to be proactive rather than reactive. A cleric could cast cure moderate wounds on the fighter when he gets hit by a Big Bad, or the cleric could hit the Big Bad with a hold person spell, and take him out of the fight immediately.
|
Obligatory.
Just something from the Wizards forums I like to post every time this question comes up.
A Player's Guide To Healing:
Healin'. Patchin' up the wounds. Sewing the Fighter's larynx back in after he took an arrow through the neck and lived and wanted to tell about it. Every player knows the drill. But oddly, a lot of players just use really... silly methods of going about healing themselves, and have some wild misconceptions about how to do it effectively and even how much of a priority it should be.The Problems
Some players think they *have* to have a cleric or druid to cover the healing role, and place healing as an extremely high priority, even in combat, and even if they don't, many even spend inordinate amounts of money on extremely inefficient healing items that may hurt them more than help them.
To summarize a few common issues:
Players overprioritize healing in combat when there are more effective options available to them.
Players spend too much money on healing, often spending wads of cash on things like potions of Cure Moderate Wounds.
Players believe they can't heal efficiently without a Cleric or Druid or similar class in the party, and view such as an essential role, to the point where some even *force* others to play a Cleric or Druid just so that they can have a dedicated healer, and then downplay the extraordinary talents of those classes and belittle them to a mere healing role, making for an unenjoyable experience for the victim of this treatment.
Many players just don't know how to get the best healing for their buck.
Some Information and Comparisons
First, an effort at dispelling some of the myths. First off, you should probably never be buying healing potions, perhaps with the exception of Cure Light Wounds or a similar level 1 spell. The reason for this is simple. The cost is exorbitant, and it's really not worth it. A Cure Serious Wounds potion will heal, on average, 18.5 hp, and it will cost you 750gp, and it will take either a standard or a full round action to use, and it will provoke AoOs unless you did some further investment to prevent that, and on top of that it probably smells bad and tastes bitter. Yuck. For the same price, you could have gotten a Wand of Cure Light Wounds (275hp total instead of 18.5hp), a Wand of Lesser Vigor (550hp total instead of 18.5gp), or a Healing Belt (Either 6d8 hp (average 27 hp) a day, or 18 hp (same as the potion!) per day if you burst heal, usable as a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.)) Would you rather get 18 hp, or 18 hp per day? Now would you rather use a standard or full action that provokes AoOs, *and* need to draw the item, or would you rather use a standard action that doesn't provoke AoOs? And hey, wouldn't you like the option to heal even more for efficiency, outside of battle? There's even another option, this one for artificers, that costs a mere 50 gp a pop: Infuse an ally with Greater Healing armor. This will give them 6d8+30 total healing (3d8+15 as a swift action, usable twice). As an added bonus, it will even automatically heal you if you get knocked unconscious. The point is... potions are bad. Potions are inefficient. So are scrolls of Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, and so forth.
Second, a dedicated healer is not a necessary combat role. Seriously.
First off, healing often does not outpace damage. Moreover, removing an enemy a threat can often be much more effective at saving your allies' necks than going up and poking them with Cure X Wounds. If an enemy were to deal 50 damage to an ally, and you can take that enemy out by either disabling or killing them, then you've "healed" that ally of the 50 damage he would have taken. Additionally, as healing often does not keep up the pace with damage, even if you can't disable the enemy, healing the ally might not be good enough to save them. Instead, you might want to use an ability to help the ally escape, or block the enemy from attacking them (this can be something as simple as Benign Transposition, really). In fact, healing in combat is only situationally a good choice, and is often a subpar tactical option.
Secondly, you can get very efficient out-of-combat healing quite easily without a Cleric or Druid, and indeed a Rogue, Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Factotum, Warlock, or Bard could fill the healing role with a wand of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor. In fact, you can even get good, cheap burst healing comparable to the Cleric or Druid's ability at low levels with items like the Healing Belt.
Actually, the Artificer can prove to be a fantastic healer, cheaply (we're talking 37.5% market price here) turning out healing belts, wands of lesser vigor, and providing Greater Healing armor infusions (a mere second level infusion) at an early level. The Paladin and Ranger can use wands of Cure Light Wounds without penalty, and the others can use UMD to master the efficient wands. On top of that, members of *any* class can easily chip in with the very efficient Healing Belt.
These things considered, you really can get by without a Cleric or Druid. In fact, if you do have a Cleric or Druid, they're probably going to be more useful in most combats if they are doing something OTHER than healing, since they have considerable talents in many regards.
How to Heal Effectively
(Author's note: I have excluded a few very potent and efficient means of healing because things like the infinite-healing-for-cheap trap and other such things are just plain abusive, and few sane DMs will allow them)Blessed Bandages (10gp, MiC page 152): 10gp to automatically succeed to stabilize an ally. Can definitely save a friend at very low levels.
Wands of Cure Light Wounds (750gp, Core): The hallmark of efficiency. These wands will dish out an average of 5.5hp a pop, and with 50 charges that will add up to 275 total healing. This wand gains an advantage over Lesser Vigor in two respects: Speed of use, and the fact that Lesser Vigor is a Cleric and Druid only spell, and thus is only available to those classes and UMD users, while Paladins and Rangers and the like will stick to Cure Light Wounds.
Wands of Lesser Vigor (750gp, Spell Compendium Page 229): These are the most efficient healing wands around! You get 11 hp per pop (though it takes a full minute to gain that 11 hp), and you get a total of 550hp of healing for your 750gp.
Healing Belts (750gp, MiC page 110): For 750gp, *anyone* can heal 6d8 hp a day, and even burst heal for 4d8hp as a Standard action with a Touch range, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity like spells and scrolls. Also, with the MiC rules for adding common effects, you don't even need to worry about "keeping the slot free" anymore. You can actually just say, give one of these to everyone in a party of 5 for 30d8 healing per day, and just subsidize your healing costs. This is a great way to keep everyone alive at low levels. As if this weren't good enough, you get feel-good +2 bonus to Heal checks as a bonus.
Artificers can heal very effectively with Greater Healing Armor (MiC page 12), dishing out 3d8+15 healing *twice* usable as a swift action, and even automatically healing a character should they fall unconscious. Best of all, this only costs you 50gp for a total of 6d8+30hp healing, and is available at a very low level.
Wand of Faith Healing (Spell Compendium): It's kinda cheesy, but it's worth mentioning if your DM allows it. It's exactly the same as Cure Light Wounds, except maximized and only usable on people who share your faith (which can easily just be everyone in your party). I personally don't allow this spell as a DM.
Touch of Healing (Reserve Feat, Complete Champion pg 62): This one is for the actual "healers." As long as you have a healing spell of second level or higher ready to cast, you can heal anyone up to half their total hp (but no higher, meaning you have to use more abilities to fully heal them) for free. Basically, for the cost of a feat, you get a lot of free healing.
Summon Nature's Ally IV (Core): Summoning a Unicorn nets you a free set of 3 CLWs, 1 CMW, and a Neutralize Poison. It has a caster level of 5th, so that'll total 5d8+20 points of healing (and a neutralize poison). It's even something a druid can cast spontaneously. Not bad.
Revivify (Cleric 5, Spell Compendium page 176): Revive your dead buddy for 1000gp as a standard action instead of for 5000gp as a much longer action, and best of all *no level loss.* A no brainer really. You just need to be quick about it, acting within 1 round of the victim's death!
Revenance (Cleric 4, Paladin 4, Bard 6): This spell can target any character that died within 1 round / caster level of casting. The subject comes back to life (as if by Raise Dead except with no penalties) and is able to fight (with a +1 morale bonus on attack, damage, and saves against the person who killer her) for 1 minute per level, at the end of which the character dies again. The real seller here is that it has a wider window to cast than Revivify (1 round / level), and moreover the ally will die at the end of the spell (or after being killed again), often allowing you to use Revivify when it would otherwise be impossible (window passed) or too dangerous (in the middle of combat).
Delay Death (Cleric 4, Spell Compendium page 63): As an *Immediate Action*, the ally becomes unable to die from hit point damage (they'll still fall unconscious, they just won't die.) This means that you can instantaneously cast this spell when a buddy takes their final hit, and they won't die for 1 round/level (during which time you can finish the encounter, then heal them up.) Can definitely be a lifesaver.
Tomb Tainted Soul (Feat, Libris Mortis): This handy feat allows you to be healed by negative energy. This means that a living Dread Necromancer can heal you to full as much as she likes with Charnel Touch, and that you can heal yourself with things like Uttercold metamagiced spells and the like.
Amulet of Retributive Healing (2000gp, MiC Page 69): This handy little doodad lets you double up on your healing 3 times per day. When activated (as a swift action) this amulet allows you to cure yourself of an amount of damage equal to however much you cured your buddy of. So, if you cast Heal on your ally, you can activate this item to use a free quickened Heal on yourself. Works with scrolls and everything, too.
Collar of Healing (5000gp, MiC page 90): As an *Immediate action* once per day, heal your animal companion of 50hp and cures the Fatigued or Exhausted conditions. Keep your little buddy going. As an added bonus, it works at any range (as long as you're on the same plane), and lets you know your companion's exact hit point total at all times.
Heal (Core): Heal is a great spell. It really is. It's the healing spell you actually might want to use in fights fairly often. It heals a ton of damage, and it takes away ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned. A laundry list of status effects, some of which are quite deadly in their own right! However, Heal is not a necessary party role in and of itself! Again, you don't actually need *any* in-combat healing to have a highly effective party. Still, when you *do* have a Cleric or Druid around, there's no reason they shouldn't have this ready. If you don't have a Cleric or Druid around, you may want to consider a scroll or two of this for those few situations where you really do want a Heal (i.e., your buddy just got blasted for 100 damage and got stunned to boot).
Divine Ward (Feat, PHB II): This feat will help out the "true healers," allowing them to use Close Range instead of Touch Range for their healing spells on one ally by spending your Turning attempts. You can get a similar results with Divine Metamagic (Reach Spell) (Which happens to be doubly useful for, say, a ranged Slay Living).
Augment Healing (Feat, Complete Divine): Add +2 healing per level of the healing spell cast. Simple and effective for a dedicated healer, should you choose to get one.
False Life (Sor/Wiz 2, Core):
Instead of taking up an action to heal during combat, take an action to heal up to 1 hour / level before combat ever happens! See also, Aid (Cleric 2, PHB)Empathic Transfer (Egoist 2, Psychic Warrior 2, XPH): This useful power is the standy of healing as a Psionic character. The method is a little unique as opposed to standard methods of healing, but it works just as well. You eliminate anywhere from 2d10 to 10d10 (depending on augment) hp of damage from an ally, and transfer half of that damage onto yourself. Combined with Vigor (Psion 1, Psychic Warrior 1, XPH), and Share Pain (Psion 2, XPH) both shared to your psicrystal through Share Powers, the temporary hit points will absorb all of the damage.
Vigor (Psion 1, Psychic Warrior 1, XPH): This power giives you 5 temporary hit points per power point spent, lasting for a minute per level. It's like healing *before* you ever take damage, and lets you buff beforehand in order to avoid the need to heal in combat.
Amulet of Tears (2300gp, MiC page 70): Another source of temporary hit points, this handy item stores 3 charges per day and grants temporary hit points lasting for 10 minutes based on the number of charges spent. For 1 charge, you gain 12 tmporary hit points, and for 3 charges grants 24 temporary hit points.
Share Pain (Psion 2, XPH): This power transfers half of the damage dealt to you to a willing subject, and thus helps a good deal with damage mitigation. It lasts for an hour per level, so can last for a full day's worth of encounters, and a popular use is to combine it with a Vigor (Psion 1, Psychic Warrior 1, XPH) power shared with your psicrystal and make your psicrystal the subject, effectively doubling the effect of vigor and transferring a good deal of hp damage onto a target that is often a noncombatant.
Shield Other (Cleric 2, Paladin 2, Core): This is much like Share Pain, except it deals half of an ally's damage to you, helping you to protect them. It also adds a +1 resistance bonus to saves and a +1 deflection bonus to AC for the target, as an added plus.
Vampiric Touch (Sor/Wiz 3, Duskblade 3, Core): 1d6 damage per two levels, and gain temporary hp equal to the damage dealt. This spell is notable for combining offensive abilities and effective in-combat "healing" into the same attack. This spell is useful in spell storing weapons, or channeled through a Duskblade's "Arcane Channelling" ability. It is generally *not* a good idea for the average mage to run up into melee and try to touch an enemy with it, because the damage will be low and the temporary hp probably won't save you from a world of pain (unless you have other protective spells and such up). Also note that if you're an Unseen Seer or Arcane Trickster, you can increase the amount healed with sneak attacks!
Bloodstone weapon enhancement (+1, page 29 MiC): Stores and casts Vampiric Touch just like a spell storing weapon, except that it's automatically empowered. Basically, this will deal extra damage on attacks equal to (1d6 per two caster levels)*1.5, *and* give the wielder of the weapon temporary hp equal to the damage dealt. Thus, you're adding to damage and to healing at the same time! See also: Vampiric Touch.
Bodyfeeder weapon enhancement (+3 bonus, XPH): This handy enhancement will grant its wielder temporary hit points equal to the damage dealt by any critical hit he dishes out. With an expanded critical hit range, you can expect this to give a steady stream of temporary hp. This enhancement can be granted by an artificer spending a 3rd level infusion and a small amount of gp. (Note: Though "Wrathful Healing" is almost certainly more effective, it's much less likely to be allowed)
|
Hello all,
So I have been playing D&D for about 19 years now. As I go searching through the forums for whatever it may be, I often see "healing is a secondary role in 3.x". This is usually in comparison to 3.5 or earlier editions, but I don't really see the difference in need or function. Is anyone able to explain to me why healing is a secondary role now?
Thank you in advance?
Because a dead or controlled enemy doesn't deal damage. Why give them a chance to kill you in the first place? Be proactive, not reactive.
|
A bunch of good stuff
Every time you post that, TOZ, I have an urge to go through the specific suggestions and rewrite it for a purely Pathfinder game, and every time, my innate laziness prevents me.
Nevertheless, the general concept - active spellcasting trumps passive healing just about every time, use item-based healing, and actually do the math on how much healing you're getting for your gold - is completely valid. And in terms of not locking the druid or cleric (or oracle) into a pure-healing mode, remember that while Pathfinder may not have lesser vigor, it does have lesser infernal healing - and that's a wand you can buy for a wizard or sorcerer!
What's basically going on here is that, with strong enough shutdown/battlefield control/damage prevention (read: Arcane magic), then healing (read: Divine magic) becomes less necessary.
Or... Arcane is how you win, Divine is how you not-lose.
-Matt
What's basically going on here is that, with strong enough shutdown/battlefield control/damage prevention (read: Arcane magic), then healing (read: Divine magic) becomes less necessary.
Or... Arcane is how you win, Divine is how you not-lose.
-Matt
Except that the divine/arcane divide isn't that clear cut. The druid can do battlefield control and both druids and clerics can do shutdown and damage prevention in the form of buffing. Also, healing is not strictly divine, and hasn't been for some time, as the bard as has had it since 3.0, and now the witch, and even the wizard with infernal healing, have it as well. Clerics just have the small problem that when you take out the situational alignment based spells, the situational undead based spells, and the need to use the cure/remove spells on a regular basis from spell slots, there isn't a whole lot left that can be used on a regular basis for many of the levels, and most of those are touch spells, so it can become very tedious very quickly unless the group is really willing to work the group tactics around the cleric.
Obligatory.
...Just something from the Wizards forums I like to post every time this question comes up.
** spoiler omitted **
I remember that from when I used to regularly visit. Do you have a link to it?
This what you are looking for?
A Player's Guide to Healing (And, why you will be Just Fine without a Cleric to heal)
|
|
Though I agree with the above points, especially what Sunshadow had to say I want to say something else. A focused healer is still an acceptable party role. I know very few players who would not value a dedicated healer. The game is designed for the enjoyment of players obviously, and there are people who like being in the support role. Most more experienced players expect their dedicated healers to also be experienced enough to effectively buff, which is often perceived to have a bigger tactical impact.
What I am trying to say, is that healing as a role is still viable, but what people say about healing being secondary is in terms of combat efficiency. Still, combat efficiency isn't everything.
A focused healer is a wonderful role to fill. And one any party would be happy to have. Indeed, in some scenarios (and Adventure Paths) it's a necessity. There are large sections of Legacy of Fire, for example, wher if you don't have a PC with the ability to cast, say, Restoration and Raise Dead, those spells won't be available to you. Ditto healing, actually (though Crafting Feats are still a good plan).
What it's not is a combat role. It's like being a social skills character, the party face. It's a wonderful role, and one the party will be screwed without in some scenarios...but it's got nothing to do with what you should usually be doing in combat.
In both cases, there are exceptions where you do want to use that ability in combat...but they're exceptions not the rule.
And that's what a 'secondary role' means. I mean, a socially skilled character who can't do anything in a fight but use social skills is a bad idea, ditto a healer who can't do anything in a fight but heal. That doesn't mean your character can't be focused on being the best healer ever (there are several builds that do precisely that)...it's just not their only, or even primary, combat option.
This what you are looking for?
A Player's Guide to Healing (And, why you will be Just Fine without a Cleric to heal)
Thanks.
In my experience it depends. i've seen that the more my players skilled, the more they relied on careful tactis and buffing and less on heals.
In some campaign there was no "greater" healer classes, so they managed to buy or steal wands, use SWAT tactics and so on.
Said this, the healer in the party is not only that. Is the PC who.. well, heals, but you can be the party "healer" and the party summoner or blaster if you know what to do.
As an additional note, sometimes is a matter of character concept. a player of mine could not care less for "optimization" more than to a minimal extent. He likes to play an oracle of life because he likes the concept of a full heals dude - that's all.
@TOZ: I like your guide, but IME sometimes a well timed cure is needed. Maybe I'm a too harsh DM and my players are subjected to too much punishment, but after a x3 critical if controls fail, it's time to heal.
A focused healer is a wonderful role to fill. And one any party would be happy to have. Indeed, in some scenarios (and Adventure Paths) it's a necessity. There are large sections of Legacy of Fire, for example, wher if you don't have a PC with the ability to cast, say, Restoration and Raise Dead, those spells won't be available to you. Ditto healing, actually (though Crafting Feats are still a good plan).
What it's not is a combat role. It's like being a social skills character, the party face. It's a wonderful role, and one the party will be screwed without in some scenarios...but it's got nothing to do with what you should usually be doing in combat.
In both cases, there are exceptions where you do want to use that ability in combat...but they're exceptions not the rule.
Just this. That's why, when my kids wanted to start into D&D and I designed the characters for them, they ended up without a cleric. Clerics can do so many things that they can actually be tough to play for beginners. Instead they have a bard (who's their 'face', buffer, and can spam cure light wounds spells), they have a paladin (lay on hands from second level, channelling from third) and a druid (who can do the more advanced healing spells if needed). They have lots of healing awesomeness, but they don't have or need a dedicated healer, at least in the 'in combat' sense of the word.
That said, in combat healing is sometimes a necessity. The bard with the CLW and the paladin with their lay-on-hands have both had to pull a character back from the brink on occasion. You should have the ability to do it, but that doesn't mean you have to every combat.
|
|
@TOZ: I like your guide, but IME sometimes a well timed cure is needed. Maybe I'm a too harsh DM and my players are subjected to too much punishment, but after a x3 critical if controls fail, it's time to heal.
Not my guide, but you'll note the author mentions having Heal available for in combat emergencies.
90% of the ways to disregard a healer in that guide are non-existent in PF though. Magic Item Compendium, Artificers, Psionics, etc are no longer viable (in any of the games I run or play in anyway, since there has not been any balanced revisions).
I find that having a cleric with selective channel is an excellent way to stay alive now. Channeling is a versatile tool; heal friends, fry undead, take feats to play with elementals and outsiders as well, which means it is not "dedicated healer only" stuff.
Sure, ideally, healing happens between combat. Anyone who have played the game knows that this is by far the easiest way to do it. But it is nice to have a healing source in case of emergency, or very long battles. Of course, this should be limited to when it is strategically sound to do so. Like channel when most everyone will benefit from it, or dropping a Heal when someone is both messed up with status effects AND have lost 150+ hp.
Not my guide, but you'll note the author mentions having Heal available for in combat emergencies.
@TOZ: I like your guide, but IME sometimes a well timed cure is needed. Maybe I'm a too harsh DM and my players are subjected to too much punishment, but after a x3 critical if controls fail, it's time to heal.
Missed it. ;)
|
|
Just wanted to pop in to point out that wands of CLW are cheese.
My group has outlawed their availablity, and the role of the divine classes (and Bards, and witches, and...you get the idea) is now much more interesting. That's a subjective viewpoint, I know, but it's one that I'll put forward with confidence at every opportunity.
Even with restricted wands and other magic items, healing still can be shared among characters. Bards, Witches, Oracles, Druids, Clerics, Inquisitors, Paladins, Rangers, and Alchemists all have it on their spell lists, as do Wizards now. Witches, Clerics (and some Oracles), Paladins, and even Monks all have additional healing abilities. Alchemists get Brew Potion free, Wizards, and at least one Domain, get Scribe Scroll free.
Healing is now seen as a secondary role because it is something that multiple people can do as a secondary focus and the party still has the overall healing capabilities as if one person was focusing on it. It can still be done as a primary focus, and few people will complain, but in my experience, such characters end up bored because the party tactics are good enough that need for healing is actually quite low, or they end up frustrated and annoyed, because the party has no tactics, and blows through all the available healing in 5 minutes of game time.
Just wanted to pop in to point out that wands of CLW are cheese.
My group has outlawed their availablity, and the role of the divine classes (and Bards, and witches, and...you get the idea) is now much more interesting. That's a subjective viewpoint, I know, but it's one that I'll put forward with confidence at every opportunity.
Why are they cheese? Why does forcing the characters in the party that can heal to blow their spell slots on a spell like that make them more interesting and not less? I guess it's a style thing, but I find that having to do that makes the class a lot less fun because you don't have any of your major class features - spells - available for anything else but healing.
Having a wand available means that you don't need to reserve spell slots for healing is all. It means you can do more interesting things, fight more effectively, overcome other problems etc. that you wouldn't otherwise be able to do. Yes, a wand frees up resources (and costs them) ... that isn't necessarily cheese, though. I regard it as a boon for good gaming.
For what it's worth, for my first D&D character (2nd Edition), I was pressed into playing the party's Cleric/First-Aid Kit. Unfortunately, that meant that I got typecast as the party Healer, even in later campaigns.
I hated it. Every time I tried to memorize a non-healing spell, I caught so much crap from the other players that I eventually decreed that I wouldn't play another Cleric, and that if no one else was going to, that we simply wouldn't have a healer in our parties.
We managed to get by without it in future campaigns without the healer, but it was rough, and required a lot of extra potions of Cure Light to be dropped into the campaign by our GM.
Then came d20, with the ability to convert spells to healing. Suddenly, I became interested in the role again, since I could actually pick out a real spell selection, and still fill the role of party healer. I didn't go back to always being a cleric, but suddenly the class was more than just the First-Aid Kit.
The decentralization of healing amongst the different classes meant that people like myself who played clerics didn't need to self-nerf in order to keep the rest of the party happy. As a result, I’ve been able to help showcase what a Holy Warrior is SUPPOSED to be able to do, yet still fulfill that very important party role.
Now, in Pathfinder, I find that I need to worry about being a dedicated healer less and less. I just started in Kingmaker, with a group whose previous cleric absolutely REFUSED to cast healing spells of any kind. I’m still as effective as any other character in the party in combat, and don’t feel obligated to save my spells for healing. However, I still bear in mind that part of my role in the party is to support the rest of the team, and that balance my resource use with that in mind.
I’ve gone from playing characters that have to stay out of the way in combat, and patch people together afterwords, to someone who can take part in the entire game, and even have a specialized niche that other characters simply can’t keep up with (barring someone grabbing a CLW wand, but no one needs to do that, either). It’s not that healing is a secondary role, it’s that there are other roles that can be fulfilled simultaneously.
|
|
Why are they cheese? Why does forcing the characters in the party that can heal to blow their spell slots on a spell like that make them more interesting and not less? I guess it's a style thing, but I find that having to do that makes the class a lot less fun because you don't have any of your major class features - spells - available for anything else but healing.
Channeling. Potions. Spontaneous conversion (which, granted, will use a memorized spell, but it doesn't hurt the character's flexability, which seems to be your arguement - correct me if I'm wrong). There are lots of ways to achieve out-of-combat healing without CLW wands. CLW Wands, on the other hand, totally marginalize the value of the healing classes, because of the inefficiency of in-combat healing - as noted above by TOZ, there are many more superior options in combat than the Cure line, up until Heal. Now these classes become purely about battlefield control and buffing, because of a simple 750gp wand. That's kind of fine, because battlefield control and buffing are great, but they are done better by a wizard in almost 100% of cases. So why not play a wizard? I don't have an answer to that question.
Having a wand available means that you don't need to reserve spell slots for healing is all. It means you can do more interesting things, fight more effectively, overcome other problems etc. that you wouldn't otherwise be able to do. Yes, a wand frees up resources (and costs them) ... that isn't necessarily cheese, though. I regard it as a boon for good gaming.
Again, spontaneous conversion and channeling (or healing hexes, or lay on hands, or whatever) say that it's not necessary to memorize CLW/CMW etc. in order to provide good out-of-combat healing. It's really rare, in fact, when playing a cleric under the modified "no CLW wands" rules, to use the Cure line out of combat. Heck, channeling is usually a pretty inefficient in combat healing method, so it's virtually made for OOC heals.
But you're right, it's definitely a playstyle difference. I also hate the economics of a CLW wand for all the reasons outlined in TOZ's post above. Compared to the level-appropriate options, it's totally busted.
Why are they cheese? Why does forcing the characters in the party that can heal to blow their spell slots on a spell like that make them more interesting and not less? I guess it's a style thing, but I find that having to do that makes the class a lot less fun because you don't have any of your major class features - spells - available for anything else but healing.Channeling. Potions. Spontaneous conversion (which, granted, will use a memorized spell, but it doesn't hurt the character's flexability, which seems to be your arguement - correct me if I'm wrong). There are lots of ways to achieve out-of-combat healing without CLW wands. CLW Wands, on the other hand, totally marginalize the value of the healing classes, because of the inefficiency of in-combat healing - as noted above by TOZ, there are many more superior options in combat than the Cure line, up until Heal. Now these classes become purely about battlefield control and buffing, because of a simple 750gp wand. That's kind of fine, because battlefield control and buffing are great, but they are done better by a wizard in almost 100% of cases. So why not play a wizard? I don't have an answer to that question.
I do see where you're coming from, but if you have to blow spell slots on healing then you aren't using them for your other spells, is kind of my point, and potions are horribly expensive for what they are. Thing is if it was this easy to cover the healing angle, wands of CLW wouldn't need to exist.
I do have an answer to the question of why not just be a wizard: if I am playing a cleric, for example, I have versatility over the wizard - he has better battlefield control spells, but I have some good ones too and can wear armour and help out the fighter. Buffing is something clerics are good at as well, better than wizards and second only to bards. Druids have a whole shed-load of things they can do other than spam healing spells (which they are not so good at anyway), and the best use of a paladin's lay on hands is on himself to make up for his MAD status leaving him down on Con compared to the fighter.
I have seen wands of CLW make clerics non-essential, it's true, but that's not a bad thing because when a class isn't essential, it gives the players more choice about what they want to play, and no-one 'has' to be the cleric. Non-essential is a far cry from 'useless' after all.
Having a wand available means that you don't need to reserve spell slots for healing is all. It means you can do more interesting things, fight more effectively, overcome other problems etc. that you wouldn't otherwise be able to do. Yes, a wand frees up resources (and costs them) ... that isn't necessarily cheese, though. I regard it as a boon for good gaming.Again, spontaneous conversion and channeling (or healing hexes, or lay on hands, or whatever) say that it's not necessary to memorize CLW/CMW etc. in order to provide good out-of-combat healing. It's really rare, in fact, when playing a cleric under the modified "no CLW wands" rules, to use the Cure line out of combat. Heck, channeling is usually a pretty inefficient in combat healing method, so it's...
No, it isn't, but what if you do not have a cleric or a paladin? What if your only character that can cast cure spells is a druid? That's when you actually need the wand, because he cannot spontaneously convert and he has a lot better things to do with his spells.
I can see how you can get by without one, but I can't see why you feel the need to ban it. If you can use things like wands to extend your resources and lengthen the adventuring day, why not?
But trust me when I say you need somebody in your party who can drop those heal spells and do it on command.
For the record, we won that fight, but only because my inquisitor build is so monstrously damaging. Also our Alchemist hasted us. The monk still got flattened unfortunately.
Bolded for emphasis
Who couldn't use a CLW wand or cast those spells why? Even if it was after combat.
@TOZ: I like your guide, but IME sometimes a well timed cure is needed. Maybe I'm a too harsh DM and my players are subjected to too much punishment, but after a x3 critical if controls fail, it's time to heal.
Yeah, that's my experience, too; most of the time you don't need in-combat healing, but on the occasions that you do need it, there's just no substitute. (I've never really played in a campaign where anyone was high enough level to cast Heal, by the way.)
|
|
Good stuff
Because we've established that it's a playstyle difference and we agree on that, going point/counterpoint isn't going to further anyone's end, so I'll avoid that. But I do want to say, to your point about the Druid being the only option for healing in some parties:
Yeah, in those parties, Druids are going to have to memorize CLW and CMW etc., but they can also then spontaneously cast SNA's as needed (which fits squarely into the shed-load of better things they can do). My point is, the player now has to think, instead of just saying "Oh, no worries, we have the ridiculously cheap and emminently spammable wand of CLW for me to use after the combat. I'll just memorize 2 Entangles and 2 Obscuring Mists (or whatever)." Also, the Druid in that example could well choose to utilize the "Long-Term Care" aspect of the Heal skill to double the amount of HPs gained by the party for 8 hours of rest, and of course the party can choose to invest in any of the other item-based options for Healing, which now become more than "Why does this thing exist/Who would buy one of these/Vendor Trash" in a world without the CLW wand.
One thing I definitely agree with you on, though, is that such a rule doesn't work if your players are into the 15-minute adventuring day. My table is not - they would feel like sissies if they rested after one combat, and rightfully so - so this works out fine for us. Banning things is not my favorite thing to do, believe me; in fact, this is the only item banned at my table. But I would say this: Give it a try, you might find you like it.
Honestly I hear this "healing is over-rated" line all the time and I wonder what type of games you guys play.
If you get into a major firefight, good tactics aren't always going to keep you alive. IF your tank or whatever gets full attacked for 80% of his hit points and the wizards can't seem to hit him hard enough with spells then you are going to need to keep your companions alive and a fricking Wand of CLW is not going to work.
Maybe if you play the cheese way and walk around buffed through splat books and metamagic garbage all the time so you breeeze through battles then yeah it's cool,but if you are playing core and have a GM worth his salt walking around with a bard instead of cleric will get you tpked REAL EASILY.
Our group of 7 is taking on Rise of the Runelords, and has a Bard, a Witch, a Cleric of an evil deity (so no channeled healing) for our potential healers. At lvl 2, we're working on the low end of resources, but the witch invested her share of loot in a CLW wand. We ran into a huge swarm(tactics, not the monster type) combat this week and at one point had four characters down, including the bard and cleric. Without the witch running between the two sides of combat to provide hits from the wand, we would have lost our anchor at either side of the encounter and been overwhelmed.
The reason she went with a wand is economic. 50 charges of CLW for 15g per use compared to 50g per potion.
On the matter of the 'Healer' tag, my other gaming group has someone who got stuck as medic in AD&D so avoids it like the plague now, even though spontaneous casting has been around and available. In her case, it is more that other player attitude toward her role soured her.
One thing I definitely agree with you on, though, is that such a rule doesn't work if your players are into the 15-minute adventuring day. My table is not - they would feel like sissies if they rested after one combat, and rightfully so - so this works out fine for us. Banning things is not my favorite thing to do, believe me; in fact, this is the only item banned at my table. But I would say this: Give it a try, you might find you like it.
Actually, it's not that players want a 15 minute adventuring day, but if they get into a scrape early, or a bad run on the dice, and lose a lot of hit points, that wand helps bring them back in. Or one of their casters can blow all their spells on healing ... in which case they are still down on resources they need to rest to recouperate.
Basically, the I see wand as insurance to keep the party going.
Perhaps is a matter of playstyle sunbeam.
a lot of stuff you say "does not comes in hand" or something similar.. I see it used a lot of times, OR player manage to prepare themselves and have the right spell handy.
Perhaps is a matter of playstyle sunbeam.
a lot of stuff you say "does not comes in hand" or something similar.. I see it used a lot of times, OR player manage to prepare themselves and have the right spell handy.
The point isn't that healing is never needed, it is that a cleric need not focus on it, and is more effective if he focuses on something else and covers healing as needed. Battle clerics, archer cleric, Tark's bad touch cleric, all can cover healing needs just fine. Furthermore, they bring dpr, debuffs, and control abilities that further augment the defensive and offensive capabilities of their party over a pure healer.
Honestly I hear this "healing is over-rated" line all the time and I wonder what type of games you guys play.
If you get into a major firefight, good tactics aren't always going to keep you alive. IF your tank or whatever gets full attacked for 80% of his hit points and the wizards can't seem to hit him hard enough with spells then you are going to need to keep your companions alive and a fricking Wand of CLW is not going to work.
Maybe if you play the cheese way and walk around buffed through splat books and metamagic garbage all the time so you breeeze through battles then yeah it's cool,but if you are playing core and have a GM worth his salt walking around with a bard instead of cleric will get you tpked REAL EASILY.
Someone isn't doing his/her job right (it can be a player or can be the DM) or the dice are really against your group.
To use your example, if the "tank" or whatever gets full attacked for 80% of hit points, either someone really messed up (probably the controller) or the dice really was against said character.Also if the wizard is trying to damage him (especially if it's only one enemy) then he is doing something very wrong.
In additions, i don't think that poeple are saying that CLW wands is a good way to heal in combat, it's one of the best ways to heal out of combat.
I am going to disagree with you on your last sentence, i am sure that there are a lot of poeple that can tell you that they are playing only with PF material and they don't have a player in the party.
I can tell you, as a player in Kingmaker (now 4th book), until recently the (dedicated healer/wannabe battle cleric) cleric was a complete waste of space.
Of course i can't remember any of the other 3 players ever taking an uneeded or tactically bad action, every move (etc.) action we took was if not the best thing to do at a time or at least a very good choice.
Well, what are we calling a "pure healer"? Even a healing-optimized cleric or Life Oracle can still do other stuff, and do it fairly well.
If there was such a thing as a "pure healer" then yeah, that'd be bad. But there's not, as far as I can tell.
this was my point.
comment
So wait you've never been attacked for a lot of hit points?
In a campaign where you face foes higher than your challenge rating, you can get swallowed, hit with breath weapon, paralyzed etc. ( my GM doesn't pull many punches so maybe I take our play-style for granted).
People make statements like "Bards can use wands" or "just heal outside of combat" as if they play in games where fights don't last 6-9 rounds or healing isn't needed. What happens when the Wizard or Bard fails a Fort Save and gets paralyzed. How many cures have the Druid and Bard memmed?
That doesn't happen in the games I play. Most fights seem to only last 3 or 4 rounds at the most unless there is something out of the ordinary going on.
Been that way since 3e came out actually.
Of course those 3 or 4 rounds can take anywhere from 1 to 6 hours to play through.
Maybe the way I've played isn't totally ordinary, hard to say. But I'd hazard a guess that 9 round combats are not standard for most 3.x or Pathfinder games.
Actually 3-4 rounds is ordinary. We usually have several small encounters and the final fight of the night (Sunday 3-10) would be with multiple monsters, difficult terrain etc. that may last the final 2-3 hours of the night. that's where Clerics earn their keep and become a necessity (though not necessarily as a healbot)
|
|
That's kind of fine, because battlefield control and buffing are great, but they are done better by a wizard in almost 100% of cases. So why not play a wizard? I don't have an answer to that question.
More hit points, higher armor class, different character feel/concept...
Just because you don't have an answer doesn't make it a bad class. The wizard doesn't buff better, the wizard buffs different. How many wizards do you know that can cast barkskin or shield of faith? How many wizards can afford spell slots for bull's strength or bear's endurance? Good wizards are too busy filling those spell slots with things like web and glitterdust.
Clerics (and all other divine casters) have tons of uses, healing just isn't a major one of them anymore. That's good, though, because up until 3rd edition the cleric was nearly always the last character chosen because most people just don't want to be a tool for other people to have fun. As such the rules have changed where healing-focused characters are actually a drain on parties so people don't feel forced to play them anymore. Unfortunately we live in the era of the MMO so it's hard to get people to understand how sub-optimal it is to have a dedicated healer in their group.
commentSo wait you've never been attacked for a lot of hit points?
In a campaign where you face foes higher than your challenge rating, you can get swallowed, hit with breath weapon, paralyzed etc. ( my GM doesn't pull many punches so maybe I take our play-style for granted).
People make statements like "Bards can use wands" or "just heal outside of combat" as if they play in games where fights don't last 6-9 rounds or healing isn't needed. What happens when the Wizard or Bard fails a Fort Save and gets paralyzed. How many cures have the Druid and Bard memmed?
In the campaing i play now, it hasn't, but other characters have.
The thing is, since every DMs style of how to build a campaing can be very different, the only common ground we all have are the APs and the modules.And yes i think that in combat healing is uneeded, because if anyone is doing his job right then there are only two times that in combat healing might be needed, 1)the dice are really against the party and 2) the party screwd up either by mistake or outwitted by DM. So if (in your words) if someone is attacked for a lot of hit points then yes healing is needed, but when i am saying a lot, i mean A LOT of damage.
Also what i am sure the majority of the poeple here are saying is that you don't need a dedicated healer, meaning a character that does nothing else than healing, he has built his character around doing only one thing and that thing is healing. That is what (i believe) most of poeple are saying that is uneeded.