|
You should never heal in combat, especially if everyone is playing an undead character. Healing them is not healthy.Nobody I have seen on this thread has been sayning that you should never heal in combat. I certainly haven't. In my mind the issue is how parties approach in-combat healing. The suggestion I have been making is to treat in-combat healing as a last-ditch emergency behavior as opposed to an integral battle tactic.
As far as this thread is concerned, perhaps it has made a few players rethink how they approach healing in combat such that they decide to investigate serious alternatives to having a party member dedicated to combat healing. If so, perhaps those few people will have their game play and tactical awareness enriched such that they enjoy the game a little bit more. Then this will have been a worthwhile thread.
I reckon if you never heal in combat you may well end up playing an undead party, made from the corpses of the party that started e campaign.
Actually, I think there was a whole campaign supplement for this in 3.5. Ghostwatch?? Maybe.
Cheers
...He has Precise Shot, so what is the problem here?
The problem is that with your example you demonstrate a fundamental misconception.
Nothing in your example suggests that your Cleric is someone who, as a basic in combat tactic, mostly just throws heals around, which would be sub optimal. Noone sane says that in combat healing should never be done. In fact even the thread topic staes as such.
So, actually, this is what the thread is all about.
And here I am tempted to quote Basil Fawlty talking to Manuel from Barcelona:
"Try to understand that before one of us dies."
I see in-combat healing as a viable part of in-combat buffing that can be appropriate in the right situations.
He agreed to that a while back.
It's just not usually the best tactic.
Interestingly, with the reduced need of in-combat healing in PF, I've had my first ever urge to actually play a "healbot". A blind oracle of life who makes everyone around him invulnerable.
I think, the less the game tells you "you must have this in your group", the more character options you have to pick from. I could never play a supposed 'must-have'. Peer pressure is a funny thing. :)
...He has Precise Shot, so what is the problem here?The problem is that with your example you demonstrate a fundamental misconception.
Nothing in your example suggests that your Cleric is someone who, as a basic in combat tactic, mostly just throws heals around, which would be sub optimal. Noone sane says that in combat healing should never be done. In fact even the thread topic staes as such.
So, actually, this is what the thread is all about.
And here I am tempted to quote Basil Fawlty talking to Manuel from Barcelona:
"Try to understand that before one of us dies."
That I am even in this thread is a spill-over from that other thread about combat healing, where we had someone saying
You never need a healbot. NEVER
which got my dander up somewhat.
Point in case though, unless you someone who can put out a combination of single target and multi-target healing ( i.e. someone who can channel energy ), the use of a dedicated healer declines sharply.
I think healbot refers to someone who is made to heal as a primary function, not someone who can heal. It that sense a healbot is not needed.
If Brambleman was saying nobody will ever need to be heal then he is on his own, but I hope that is not what he was saying.
|
I think healbot refers to someone who is made to heal as a primary function, not someone who can heal. It that sense a healbot is not needed.
If Brambleman was saying nobody will ever need to be heal then he is on his own, but I hope that is not what he was saying.
I don't think anyone is saying that the ONLY option is not to heal. Everyone I think is saying that healing should never be the ONLY option. There are way too many options, and playing a character that their sole purpose is to spam heals is tactically poor.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Healing in combat is like being drunk in public. Every once in a while its called for but if you're doing it all the time you probably have problems.
We had someone play a healer in 3.5 and he was so good at healing that he was bored at some points because that was pretty much all he could do. You gotta do something else besides healing.
I played an oracle of life and I was very good at healing as well but there were plenty of times when I wish I was doing something else. I wanted to see if I could play a dedicated healer and see if it was effective. It was but it wasn't necessary at all. I could have done so much more for the party if I was a bit less dedicated to healing.
|
|
Healing in combat is like being drunk in public. Every once in a while its called for but if you're doing it all the time you probably have problems.
I think it really depends more on the dm. I have seen some that if you do not have a character in the group able to heal big time or everyone there you WILL have deaths. Others that do not care if each combat ends in 2 rounds without ever landing a blow on a PC. Sometimes you are drunk in utah and it is very bad, other times you are in the fun dorm in college and drunk is a lifestyle
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Healing in combat is like being drunk in public. Every once in a while its called for but if you're doing it all the time you probably have problems.I think it really depends more on the dm. I have seen some that if you do not have a character in the group able to heal big time or everyone there you WILL have deaths. Others that do not care if each combat ends in 2 rounds without ever landing a blow on a PC. Sometimes you are drunk in utah and it is very bad, other times you are in the fun dorm in college and drunk is a lifestyle
If thats the case then its not the players doing it wrong its the GM.
Imagine this was turned around on a Wizard. Try telling a Wizard that the ONLY way to survive combat is to spam Magic Missile...see how ridiculous that sounds?
Imagine this was turned around on a Wizard. Try telling a Wizard that the ONLY way to survive combat is to spam Magic Missile...Wait...you mean there are other ways?
Yes.
A cleric has every ability to pro actively prevent damage by killing the thing before it gets in another round of damage. I don't see how the DMing style can factor into it. More dead critters= less damage. Dead boss faster= less damage.
There are 3 situations where I heal in combat with my current bard:
- To stabilize someone when I am playing my bard, instead of rolling a heal check.
- When I do not have other options that are sound (stuck in a tight spot, no line of sight, fighting skeletons and all I have is a sword and bow, etc).
- Stop severe bleed effects.
Beyond that, healing is the stuff I do post-combat, with my many wands of cure light/mod wounds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would never play something focused on in-combat healing in the first place. Much less do so as a bard.
And comparing healing to archery is a fallacy. Archery is something you NEED to do in battle. It has no place out of battle. At best, healing in a battle is comparable to picking a lock in battle. Not the time you REALLY want to do it, but sometimes a crazy situation involving traps and such mandate that you have to do it in order to survive.
Focusing on healing in combat is as silly to me as focusing on using skills in combat, or any other activity that you can do safely and easily after the fight is won.
Unless you run with a "that guy" GM, who fudges and breaks the rules to "make things exciting". Which is the equivalent of the crazy situation mentioned in the second paragraph. Or you play with a hopeless party of "hardcore roleplayers" who make horribly subpar characters that need the healer as an existential equivalent of training wheels to keep them from falling over every other round.
And if you are that kind of GM, you deserve to play the healer every time you find yourself as a player, as punishment for depriving someone of the chance to do something FUN with their character.
Sure, the enemy might land the odd crit, and a PC might made stupid decisions, and in the first case, I always keep a high end potion or such on hand as an emergency solution, and in the second... well, lets just say I believe in Darwinism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I fail to understand from the have-to-heal-in-combat faction:
some say it is a necessity to have a healer because of bad dice, however when you are rolling poorly you could well roll only 1-2 on your cure critical dices. Even with healing-optimization a poor roll will screw everything, whether used for offense or used for defense/healing.
What I notice is quite a bunch of pro-healing people say, they can't get their crown control spells to stick:
- did they specialize to push their spell DC to make SoD's more likely to stick? (on top of specializing for healing at char-level ~7)
- are their DMs tweaking dice because they don't want their BBEG to suck so quickly?
All calculations about good combat-healers I see are dedicated 1-trick-pony-healers with selective channeling, quick channeling and healing domains and even metamagic feats to pump healing.
If these people enjoy playing such characters, I bow to them: I could not, I would be bored to hell, the same way I am bored playing a healer in any MMO, pushing two buttons over and over.
To those must-combat-heal-people: how come your BBEG are too stupid to go after the healer of your party? who is making sure the evil guys keep hitting the tank who get's healed for 5 rounds in a row?
in our games mobs would figure out after the 2-3 round latest that they should focus on the real problem: the healer.
I'm less fascinated by the fact that your healer is capable of keeping the tank alive... I am really fascinated by the fact that all those evil guys feel like it's best to go pound the tank with high hitpoints and gets healed to heaven instead of 1-shooting the rogue or mage or go take out the cleric...what makes your tank such a nightmare for your enemies to make sure all monsters want to pound just that guy and never anybody else?
In our current Jade Regent campaign, our cleric is also one of our frontline people (we have 3). Thus he has high defense and hitpoints and enemies will be hard pressed focussing on him. Especially since this means the other characters get to do what they want (bad idea). So usually our enemies have to figure out who is the biggest immediate danger, because each of us is a headache in his own way.
Edit:
Somehow this discussion reminds me of MMO forums where people say you can only raid efficiently if you have build X because otherwise you are incapable of facing some hard-core mode thingy.
I always enjoyed coming up with alternate solutions to a problem because I like diversity and new things and as a RL CG person I dislike "rules" (= you must do X). :-)
I have to admit, having a healer is nice at levels 7+, if only for Restoration spells and cheap Raise Deads. So far (in 7 levels), in-combat healing hasn't been needed if you play smart.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit, having a healer is nice at levels 7+, if only for Restoration spells and cheap Raise Deads. So far (in 7 levels), in-combat healing hasn't been needed if you play smart.
Restoration and Raise are not "healer" spells. That is post-combat stuff. Stuff you want to stick on scrolls to cover your butt when the dust have settled.
The usefulness, or even NEED for those, is something I would never contest. What I do contest is the use of actions on casting cure lights or whatnot while the fighting is going on. Could have used that spell for a bless at the start, and made the fight easier. Preemptive, not reactive, is what wins.
I appreciate the comments from those who are not fans of dedicated in-combat healing. I never really understood it (since it seems essential to us).
Even understanding the argument, the reality is we dont make decisions as to what our actions should be based on a rational evaluation of the most efficient way of achieving some desired result (either in RL or in the game). How our characters behave is significantly influenced by how we think that kind of character behaves. Clerics are healers, magic users cast damage dealing spells. They always have (at our table) so doing something else just doesnt feel right, even if it's demonstrably superior.
It's been useful to see why people think that's an inferior strategy, even if it probably wont change what we do very much.
I appreciate the comments from those who are not fans of dedicated in-combat healing. I never really understood it (since it seems essential to us).
Even understanding the argument, the reality is we dont make decisions as to what our actions should be based on a rational evaluation of the most efficient way of achieving some desired result (either in RL or in the game). How our characters behave is significantly influenced by how we think that kind of character behaves. Clerics are healers, magic users cast damage dealing spells. They always have (at our table) so doing something else just doesnt feel right, even if it's demonstrably superior.
It's been useful to see why people think that's an inferior strategy, even if it probably wont change what we do very much.
From what I understood you just said your group might play inefficiently for the sake of RP.
Does the GM fudge dice or use less than optimal tactics for to help the story keep moving. Just to be clear I am asking a serious question here, not judging you.
If you say "yes" that is ok since you should do what you have to do to have fun. My response would simply be that many of us don't have GM's that help us out like that. If you say "no" then kudos to you. It just seems that in my group playing like that has come close to getting people killed.
Heh. We generally die at about fifth or sixth level (playing Paizo modules/APs as written). CR appropriate encounters are pretty much impossible for us. It's no big deal, since we dont really mind starting new characters. FWIW, I dont really think of it as "We dont optimise, we roleplay!" (since we're not very good at that either). The brutally honest truth is that none of us have the time to master the system - I'd never heard of black tentacles, glitterdust, grease, etcetera until I came here (and have still never seen any of them used in play). We also never fly and are very rarely invisible (amongst a whole bunch of other presumably egregious errors). We still play the same as we did in the eighties - the mages all cast damage spells, the clerics heal the fighters who go toe-to-toe with the biggest enemy and the thief tries to backstab everyone. We generally just hope the monster falls over before we do. (No doubt the DM is using suboptimal tactics, but it isnt out of any sense of charity). :p
My only point was that I never really understood how people could get away with not healing, but I do now. By not healing and doing better things, you guys probably arent getting wiped out by the things we find insurmountable.
Obviously, this is all pretty tangential to your OP - the distinction between "healing in combat is usually wrong" and "healing in combat is always wrong" shouldnt really need to be made, but apparently did.
Heh. We generally die at about fifth or sixth level (playing Paizo modules/APs as written). CR appropriate encounters are pretty much impossible for us. It's no big deal, since we dont really mind starting new characters. FWIW, I dont really think of it as "We dont optimise, we roleplay!" (since we're not very good at that either). The brutally honest truth is that none of us have the time to master the system - I'd never heard of black tentacles, glitterdust, grease, etcetera until I came here (and have still never seen any of them used in play). We also never fly and are very rarely invisible (amongst a whole bunch of other presumably egregious errors). We still play the same as we did in the eighties - the mages all cast damage spells, the clerics heal the fighters who go toe-to-toe with the biggest enemy and the thief tries to backstab everyone. We generally just hope the monster falls over before we do. (No doubt the DM is using suboptimal tactics, but it isnt out of any sense of charity). :p
My only point was that I never really understood how people could get away with not healing, but I do now. By not healing and doing better things, you guys probably arent getting wiped out by the things we find insurmountable.
Obviously, this is all pretty tangential to your OP - the distinction between "healing in combat is usually wrong" and "healing in combat is always wrong" shouldnt really need to be made, but apparently did.
It sounds like you have run though. The real point of the OP was to clear up a misconception. It just evolved into the current conversation. :)
It sounds like you have run though. The real point of the OP was to clear up a misconception. It just evolved into the current conversation. :)Heh. We generally die at about fifth or sixth level (playing Paizo modules/APs as written). CR appropriate encounters are pretty much impossible for us. It's no big deal, since we dont really mind starting new characters. FWIW, I dont really think of it as "We dont optimise, we roleplay!" (since we're not very good at that either). The brutally honest truth is that none of us have the time to master the system - I'd never heard of black tentacles, glitterdust, grease, etcetera until I came here (and have still never seen any of them used in play). We also never fly and are very rarely invisible (amongst a whole bunch of other presumably egregious errors). We still play the same as we did in the eighties - the mages all cast damage spells, the clerics heal the fighters who go toe-to-toe with the biggest enemy and the thief tries to backstab everyone. We generally just hope the monster falls over before we do. (No doubt the DM is using suboptimal tactics, but it isnt out of any sense of charity). :p
My only point was that I never really understood how people could get away with not healing, but I do now. By not healing and doing better things, you guys probably arent getting wiped out by the things we find insurmountable.
Obviously, this is all pretty tangential to your OP - the distinction between "healing in combat is usually wrong" and "healing in combat is always wrong" shouldnt really need to be made, but apparently did.
Yeah - I'm an unintended beneficiary. This and the current "wizards always win" thread in the 4E forum have been something of a revelation to me. I never really understood how wizards (and clerics, for that matter) were seen as omnipotent. They're not that great the way we play them.
We've moved away from PF of late anyhow - first to 4E but then to Swords and wizardry, OSRIC, castles and crusades and the new Dungeon Crawl Classic. A bit of a better fit, I think. It's hard to play PF "well" without the time or inclination to really master the rules.
|
|
More so when the fighter failed his/her reflex save and got the worst of the blast and you know he's probably going to drop next round... yes, you could (try to) hit the bad guys instead of healing the fighter; let him spend his next round drinking that CSW of his (and, by doing so, he gets the AoO that will eventually drop him anyway). Of course, you're forgetting that he is much better than you at hitting bad guys, but don't let this little detail change your mind about the fact that "healing in battle is usually a poor choice"...What I do contest is the use of actions on casting cure lights or whatnot while the fighting is going on. Could have used that spell for a bless at the start, and made the fight easier. Preemptive, not reactive, is what wins.The efficacy of one buff (bless) over another (curing) is going to vary by situation.
As to 'preemptive not reactive' that's great when given the option. However many combats can start with tempo on the side of the enemy and recovering that is paramount.
If the in-combat buff that helps achieve that is healing then so be it.
-James
But these comments go back to tactics. Not sure why everyone has this "run and whack things with a big stick" mentality. Sometimes the strongest tactical approach is a retreat, or a change in initiative. Fighter take a withdrawal to Cleric, Cleric prepare for AoO, Rogue move to support Fighter and prepare for AoO, Wizard cast a spell to slow enemy progression or hit party/fighter with beneficial buff, and when the fighter has the chance to recoup with a potion and a heal get back in there. No one here said healing is absolutely forbidden, but there are definitely different alternatives that could be taken. Depending on the level I can definitely think of at least 2-3 other viable options for the scenario you laid out that not only have a longer term effect, but also grant you a tactical advantage for the rest of the fight.
Edit: In combat healing is NOT a "buff"
More so when the fighter failed his/her reflex save and got the worst of the blast and you know he's probably going to drop next round... yes, you could (try to) hit the bad guys instead of healing the fighter; let him spend his next round drinking that CSW of his (and, by doing so, he gets the AoO that will eventually drop him anyway). Of course, you're forgetting that he is much better than you at hitting bad guys, but don't let this little detail change your mind about the fact that "healing in battle is usually a poor choice"...What I do contest is the use of actions on casting cure lights or whatnot while the fighting is going on. Could have used that spell for a bless at the start, and made the fight easier. Preemptive, not reactive, is what wins.The efficacy of one buff (bless) over another (curing) is going to vary by situation.
As to 'preemptive not reactive' that's great when given the option. However many combats can start with tempo on the side of the enemy and recovering that is paramount.
If the in-combat buff that helps achieve that is healing then so be it.
-James
1: Sounds like you are describing an "unusual situation" as mentioned above: A FIGHTER taking so much damage that he is gonna drop? What just happened? Is this fighter a viable character? Is an enemy allowed to cast big AoE spells unchecked? Are you fighting a dragon as a random encounter? Otherwise, why is he not protected?
2: Really? The fighter has such crap AC he is likely to get hit by an AoO? Is he wearing historically accurate armor, or something? Leading into-
3: The fighter is apparently in melee. The enemies should be dead on his turn, then he can consider guzzling a potion.
4: As the cleric, you should hold person/command/blind/cause fear/dismissal/banishment/slay living/any of the other spells you have at your disposal to get rid of the thing that made the AoE in one fell swoop. (If your GM is the nasty "Gonna fudge because 'save or sucks' are boooooriiiing, and my amazing story need teh dramah!" kind, my apologies, as this does not apply then)
In short: Occupying a CASTER to keep a BSF-grunt who fails at being a BSF-grunt alive is badwrongsad. And on higher levels, fighters die. That is why you always carry around diamond dust. Just how the game is, and has always been. Discrepancy between combatant and casters become too vast.
As for James: Bless affects roughly 10-40 attacks in any given combat. Cure remedies one hit. Those are not equal. The cure is not without merit, as I have mentioned earlier, but on low levels, increasing the party damage average for an entire battle is simply better.
|
|
I am rather wondering why you are clumping up the bad progression reflex save cleric with the fighter when you know that there is an enemy that can deal over half of the fighters HP with one AOE (on what is presumably an average roll). Really you are just asking for another AOE on 2 targets with bad reflex while leaving the cleric in melee that can hit the fighter with ease.More so when the fighter failed his/her reflex save and got the worst of the blast and you know he's probably going to drop next round... yes, you could (try to) hit the bad guys instead of healing the fighter; let him spend his next round drinking that CSW of his (and, by doing so, he gets the AoO that will eventually drop him anyway). Of course, you're forgetting that he is much better than you at hitting bad guys, but don't let this little detail change your mind about the fact that "healing in battle is usually a poor choice"...What I do contest is the use of actions on casting cure lights or whatnot while the fighting is going on. Could have used that spell for a bless at the start, and made the fight easier. Preemptive, not reactive, is what wins.The efficacy of one buff (bless) over another (curing) is going to vary by situation.
As to 'preemptive not reactive' that's great when given the option. However many combats can start with tempo on the side of the enemy and recovering that is paramount.
If the in-combat buff that helps achieve that is healing then so be it.
-James
We've been over this...poor tactics.
At this point the Cleric or Wizard should either have stopped them from casting anymore, OR prepared for a counter spell here shortly. I assumed the spell that hit the fighter wasn't even AoE...didn't even think about the reflex save...
I think one thing adding a lot of confusion to this threat is poorly defined terms. I will attempt to make some distinctions which I think will be helpful.
The difference between in and out of combat healing is pretty straight-forward, and has already been discussed quite heavily. Most of the classes can heal out of combat using a Wand of CLW, but not many classes can effectively heal *in combat.*
What is a healer? I will define a healer as someone who is of a class (and build) with abilities that grant them the full range of divine healing and status removing spells. A paladin and a bard are not healers...only secondary healers...good for out of combat heals or perhaps the odd emergency. The simplest way of putting it...a healer is somebody who can cast "Heal." If the party gets ambushed by an invisible spellcaster with a maximized fireball, followed by some empowered scorching rays at the fighter, which puts the wizard at 0, the rogue at 15 and the fighter in single digits, Lay on Hands isn't gonna cut it.
A "dedicated healer" "heal-bot" "walking band-aid" etc. is somebody who has thoroughly specialized in healing to the point where they are not good at anything else, least-wise common combat applications. Dedicated Healers are usually beast when fighting undead, but that doesn't exactly happen everyday in most campaigns.
The heal spell is actually a pretty good use of your standard action. Woe is the party that is fighting a monster who can do more damage in a typical round than a "heal" will heal. The cleric's Channel energy, particularly with the selective channel feat, is decent too, especially at lower levels. I've seen that keep the whole party from dropping. However, these are only better than smiting the thing when HP are low, particularly if somebody could die.
Another option you have is to summon a creature with healing spells and let them cast cure serious or whatever they have on the fighter while you drop a comet on the evil priest on Zon Kuthon.
A "dedicated healer" "heal-bot" "walking band-aid" etc. is somebody who has thoroughly specialized in healing to the point where they are not good at anything else
That's pretty rare. Any healing-focused cleric can have bless, prayer, blessings of fervour, summon monster, etc, and still convert these spells to healing at will.
A heal-bot is someone who chooses to cast cures in preference to the alternatives. (Or: a heavily focused oracle.)
The simplest way of putting it...a healer is somebody who can cast "Heal."
So how does your gourp survive levels 1-9 ?
The simplest way of putting it...a healer is somebody who can cast "Heal."So how does your gourp survive levels 1-9 ?
Healing after a fight, like most sensible folks? The point is that the difference between Heal and most Cure whatever Wound spell is that Heal is made worthwhile as it cancels out a lot of crippling statuses that can render a character helpless or worse long before HP run out. And if HP is the problem, you heal enough to make a real difference, not just undoing one round of damage.
Also, the earliest level where you can get Heal is 11.
I too have to wonder how many of these "must heal in combat" people also are of the "can never run away and regroup" people.
Heck, my parties run away a lot. If we get surprised by something that drops half the party to 1/4 HP, we tend to say "Crap!" and drop an obscuring mist or an entangle and run like heck. Usually that allows us to regroup and come up with something akin to tactics.
We ain't proud. Usually. If we're at a severe tactical disadvantage, we very much utilize the better part of valor.
One thing I've learned in most D&D versions is that it is pretty difficult to stop someone from flat running away. In fact I have special tactics devised for just that purpose when our enemy is the one running away. And even then I'd say the majority of the time at least some of the runaways get away.
Running away to regroup is a completely reasonable, rational and viable tactic. Plus it gives you the advantage of actually knowing something about the enemy you are going to fight next.
On rare occasions we find ourselves in a situation where retreat is impossible. And in those cases we might have to spam cure spells to survive.
This doesn't apply to our 4e group with a dedicated combat healer. In that group we never run away. We just gut it out and let the healer shine.
I really do wonder how much of a correlation exists between parties who feel that combat healing is absolutely necessary and parties who feel that running away or hiding behind cover or otherwise behaving somewhat less heroically than Rambo is unacceptable behavior.
I have to admit, having a healer is nice at levels 7+, if only for Restoration spells and cheap Raise Deads. So far (in 7 levels), in-combat healing hasn't been needed if you play smart.Restoration and Raise are not "healer" spells. That is post-combat stuff. Stuff you want to stick on scrolls to cover your butt when the dust have settled.
The usefulness, or even NEED for those, is something I would never contest. What I do contest is the use of actions on casting cure lights or whatnot while the fighting is going on. Could have used that spell for a bless at the start, and made the fight easier. Preemptive, not reactive, is what wins.
I agree with you about in-combat healing and that (in general), proactive beats reactive. I guess what I was saying was that it was nice to have someone cast Restoration after the fight instead of relying on a scroll, which is an expense that can add up over time.
|
|
The simplest way of putting it...a healer is somebody who can cast "Heal."So how does your gourp survive levels 1-9 ?Healing after a fight, like most sensible folks? The point is that the difference between Heal and most Cure whatever Wound spell is that Heal is made worthwhile as it cancels out a lot of crippling statuses that can render a character helpless or worse long before HP run out. And if HP is the problem, you heal enough to make a real difference, not just undoing one round of damage.
Also, the earliest level where you can get Heal is 11.
You mean, nobody dies in battle in your campaign? Ever?
Also, regarding healing, a 5th level oracle of life with Energy Body, Life Link and Channel can heal up to (assuming party of 4+the oracle):
- Life link 5x4
- Energy Body 1d6+5 to one ally
- Channel Energy 3d6 to allin one round. Pretty effective for the level.
Assuming the party you laid out (4+the oracle) lets assume you fight a Large Fire Elemental. The elemental has a +12 to hit, so odds are it is hitting 50% of the time. Its damage is 1d8+2 and a burn, which also gets a chance at happening on each attack setting you on fire unless you pass a DC 16 Reflex save burning you for 1d8 damage/round until you spend a full round passing that Reflex save. Now this is a pretty lame encounter just due to the fact that for every 1 turn it gets you guys get 5. Looking at an encounter like that you'd end up potentially spending all of combat burning through your abilities (pun intended) if not played right. If you approach it with the "whack it with a stick til it dies" strategy then you are in a world of hurt. That healing is just a band aid that could instead be used to try and get rid of that DR 5/-. This is a good example of what we are talking about largely here. We understand healing needs done sometimes, but in this situation for every round you remain in combat there is a good chance someone will die. Thats just a poorly constructed CR5 encounter that my group had some trouble with, and they are only a Bard, Wizard and Witch...they managed to put the elemental down with using only one CSW potion.
All we are saying is that the majority of the time your actions are better spent on ending combat SOONER or PREVENTING damage rather than band aiding the party with Cure/Cure like spells. AND if thats how every combat is with your GM/Party/Whatever then there is either a lack of experience/tactics from the GM or the party.
The simplest way of putting it...a healer is somebody who can cast "Heal."So how does your gourp survive levels 1-9 ?Healing after a fight, like most sensible folks? The point is that the difference between Heal and most Cure whatever Wound spell is that Heal is made worthwhile as it cancels out a lot of crippling statuses that can render a character helpless or worse long before HP run out. And if HP is the problem, you heal enough to make a real difference, not just undoing one round of damage.
Also, the earliest level where you can get Heal is 11.
You mean, nobody dies in battle in your campaign? Ever?
Also, regarding healing, a 5th level oracle of life with Energy Body, Life Link and Channel can heal up to (assuming party of 4+the oracle):
- Life link 5x4
- Energy Body 1d6+5 to one ally
- Channel Energy 3d6 to allin one round. Pretty effective for the level.
Oh, certainly. If you are going to do something, do it right. On that notion, I am with you 110%. Though... now you need 4 people to be hurt in one round, which is unusual in my experience (dragons breath and fireballs make sense, but are not THAT common), and he just took 20 more damage on top of whatever he took himself.
Usually, combat goes something akin to this:
CR=APL+2>: Casters cast their middling spells, eliminates half of the enemy's ability to retaliate in a meaningful way by hampering them severely (slow, confusion, black tentacles etc), combatants go, and engage while casters make sure they have the edge. Post combat they use channeling or wands to heal up (depending on how many are damaged)
CR=APL+2<: The stops come out, most powerful spells used to cripple the most dangerous enemy, and powerful buffs (haste, blessing of fervor, good hope) and defenses (mirror image, greater invisibility etc) come up. Hopeless to injure casters unless there are enemy casters, and the fighters tend to deal enough damage to take down what is not disabled before even coming close to falling themselves. Slap on a stoneskin or similar if they keep getting hit. Keep a breath of life spell handy to undo death, because when death occurs, it usually is by quite a large margin, as an unusual frequency of critical hits tends to be what drops the fighter in the first place.
Do you know what has caused more deaths than anything in my games? Unexpected poison in large amounts. Combined with bad rolling. Because neutralize poison is a lv4 spell, and very few spells give high bonuses or rerolls, meaning you are vulnerable until lv7, and when you start taking Con damage, the subsequent saves are not made easier.
Of course, unusual situations may call for some in-combat healing, but we generally think that using a spell slot on something that turns the tide is better than holding the tide back for one round, without giving the recipient of the spell even an edge.
And yes, people die. When they do, it is usually due to stupidity and/or the will of the dice. But generally, there tend to be less than 3 deaths before lv10, and after that, it is kinda expected for people to die every now and then. Death is just another status effect after a certain level.
|
|
Heck, my parties run away a lot. If we get surprised by something that drops half the party to 1/4 HP, we tend to say "Crap!" and drop an obscuring mist or an entangle and run like heck. Usually that allows us to regroup and come up with something akin to tactics.Just one (perhaps silly) question: don't enemies follow?
I really do wonder how much of a correlation exists between parties who feel that combat healing is absolutely necessary and parties who feel that running away or hiding behind cover or otherwise behaving somewhat less heroically than Rambo is unacceptable behavior.Necessary, sometimes, definitely not all the time. Useful? Yes.
I understand that groups without a good healer (mind you, not a dedicated one, but a good one, like an oracle or a cleric) are more prone to guerrilla tactics (hit, run, regroup, come back). On the other hand, having a good healer allows a more direct approach. If you can do it that way, and you like to do it that way, I don't see why you shouldn't. It just means you will probably get rid of the bad guys more quickly/easily. What's so bad about that, I honestly don't know.
Do enemies follow? Yes, but the rules makes it nearly impossible for them to catch you.
To the bolded statement: See the fire elemental example. Regardless of party, class or encounter I always approach every encounter like I could die right then. So every precaution I can take I do. Running in and going wild just because you have a healer just means you will blow through your spells, abilities and players like its your job. God forbid you fight a SECOND fire elemental and need some of those spells or abilities again...