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
Even when fighter fail reflex saves and the damage is really high they can still have half of their left most of the time. Maybe if empower spell is used and the dice are really high, but even then he will still have at least 25% of his hp left, and if the caster rolls like that again, and the fighter fails again he will die anyway.
Not only that the dice rolls being so high as to take that much hp are very low even with empower spell tacked on. That is a corner case which just proves healing is not the best option. It is a last resort option in many cases.
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.
Yes, assuming everyone in your party is damaged, and is in need of healing right now before a fireball goes off or the swarm of mooks get off another round of attacks, that is effective.
In fact, in some situations, this would be the optimal use of resources.But in other situations, this set-up is far less effective. If the people needing healing can't move (entangle, will provoke AoO, will lose full-attack), energy body is ineffective. If the rogue is getting focused instead of the damage being spread out, Channel Energy and Life Link (or Shield Other) probibly arn't going to keep him alive.
All skills, spells, abilities, and feats are somewhat situational. In-combat healing is dependent upon your allies taking enough damage that they are at risk of dying during combat, but not taking so much damage that they die before your turn, AND the assumption that your actions would not mitigate more damage if they were used in some other way (i.e. Run up to the mage and grapple him to prevent him from casting a fireball, rather than heal so your allies can survive the fireball)
Or, to put it another way:
1. Nobody is saying never ever heal your buddy and/or let them die. That is ridiculous.
2. Nobody is saying you will never ever have to heal.
3. What is being said is that the bad guys can put out damage faster than you can heal so the best thing to do is kill bad guys. The less bad guys there are the less damage output there is.
4. Most of the time if you have decent characters and use good tactics you will not have to heal in combat.
5. Once again, most of the time does not mean never.
6. Bookmark this thread if you have too.
In an earlier post, you correctly pointed out that this is a Roleplaying game. If you enjoy and have fun playing a character that is focused on healing others, go for it. It is sometimes optimal and sometimes not, like everything in Pathfinder.
But please don't expect everyone to play an oracle or cleric the same way you do. Not because your way is "wrong", but because there are multiple solutions to any problem, and you should never force someone into a playstyle they do not enjoy.
Lindsey, let me go through a recent encounter to give you an idea of what I mean.
Level 8 Party makeup:
- Archer druid w/Tiger AC
- Rogue SA specialist
- Blaster sorcerer
- Buffer cleric (not dedicated healer)
- 2HW barbarian
Situation: Battle against huge treant, one smaller treant, one dire bear and a couple of dire wolverines. Party surprised in large underground room and surrounded immediately.
Surprise Round:
- Treant1 casts a spell - Druid, using spellcraft, identifies spell as "barkskin." (Yes, that's right, the treant has druid levels)
- Treant2 attacks barbarian, does significant damage
- Dire bear attacks rogue, does 1/3 HP damage or so
- Dire wolverines move into range, but can't yet attack
Round 1:
- Cleric casts Bless on party
- Druid casts "protection from plants" (See, we knew there were treants)
- Tiger uses pounce on nearest dire wolverine. Does considerable damage.
- Rogue uses wand of vanish
- Sorcerer casts invisibility then moves
- Treant 1 climbs up wall to roof of cavern.
- Treant 2 full attacks and tramples druid, fails due to PfP spell.
- Dire bear attacks barbarian, does significant damage, but barbarian has massive hit points.
- Dire Wolverine 1 attacks tiger, does some damge.
- Dire Wolverine 2 attacks cleric, does some damage.
- Barbarian full attacks dire bear, does huge damage, but bear still stands.
Round 2:
- Cleric five foot steps and casts "Greater Magic Weapon" on druid's bow.
- Druid full attacks dire wolverine 1, does serious damage. Treant2 takes AoO but fails due to PfP spell.
- Tiger uses full attack on dire wolverine 1, killing it.
- Rogue withholds his action.
- Sorcerer begins summoning some sort of dire boar I think.
- Treant 1 attacks barbarian from roof, fails due to PfP spell.
- Treant 2 full attacks tiger, does considerable damage. Tiger should have stayed in PfP range.
- Dire bear moves to attack cleric, misses.
- Dire wolverine 2 moves to attack tiger, misses.
- Barbarian five-foot steps into position to full attack dire bear, does massive damage.
- Rogue moves invisibly into flanking postion against dire bear, does massive damage, killing it
Round 3:
- Cleric casts "wall of fire" on ceiling, directly adjacent to treant1, then moves to other side of fire wall on floor below.
- Druid full attacks remaining wolverine, crits once, kills wolverine. Only enemy left are plants.
- Tiger full attacks treant2, treant is close to death
- Rogue moves into flanking position against treant2, but misses.
- Summoned boar attacks treant2, does significant damage from charge
- Sorcerer moves into PfP range, magic missiles treant2, killing it.
- Treant1 takes damage from moving through wall of fire, moves into position to attack cleric and bloodies cleric.
- Barbarian looks for something to throw at roof-walking treant. Gives up and moves inside PfP range.
- Rogue throws daggers at treant, does no visible damage, moves into PfP range.
The rest was mopup. The treant couldn't really hurt us, and was vulnerable to fire, so the sorcerer ended up fireballing it.
At the end of the fight we had three significantly damaged characters and used up some wands and potions to heal them.
Why did my druid have "protection from plants memorized?" Because we had information that the big boss was a treant. She thought it might come in handy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[I'm 200% with you on this. And I never (you can read my previous posts, they're few) said every oracle or cleric should be played like that, infact I recall saying (or better, writing) that the beauty of this class is its versatility. The fact is, I do believe that a party with a character who's good ALSO at healing in the middle of a fight is stronger than a party without it. Some people seem to think otherwise, and that's completely fine with me, everybody is entitled to their opinion. I just get itchy all over when somebody says "that's the way it should be played otherwise you're just plain wrong".
In my experience, there are 4 basic positions people take on this issue:
1) You should never heal in combat. If someone dies in combat, they deserve it. If someone asks for a heal in combat, they suck and clearly don't know game strategy.
2) Most healing should be done out of combat. Healing in combat is usually not the best idea, but it sometimes the optimal tactical decision. You can play without a full divine caster, you just have to take less risks.
3) Healing is an important aspect of combat. It allows players to make mistakes, it allows for more risk-taking, and it offsets unlucky dice-rolls. You should always have a full divine caster in the party, and atleast some of their feats should help them heal.
4) The cleric's(or oracle's) job is to heal me in combat. If I die in combat, it is the cleric's fault. If the cleric uses any spells except healing spells, he is wasting resources he could be using to heal me!
The OP appears to take position #2. You appear to take position #3. There is quite a bit of overlap between these positions, and depending on your GM, your party composition, and your party's tactical skill, either one could be "right."
Positions #1 and #4 are wrong. Completely and totally wrong. Always.
I primarily encounter people who take position #4 in my gaming store. It is remarkable infuriating. People constantly tell me that I'm playing my Cleric wrong. They insult me for not taking channeling feats. They get upset when they end a battle at 30% hp, saying "they could have died." They pationize me and tell me my role should be healing them.
I primarily encounter people who take position #1 in the forums. I tend to suspect that they take position #1 as a direct result of encountering people who take position #4.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[I'm 200% with you on this. And I never (you can read my previous posts, they're few) said every oracle or cleric should be played like that, infact I recall saying (or better, writing) that the beauty of this class is its versatility. The fact is, I do believe that a party with a character who's good ALSO at healing in the middle of a fight is stronger than a party without it. Some people seem to think otherwise, and that's completely fine with me, everybody is entitled to their opinion. I just get itchy all over when somebody says "that's the way it should be played otherwise you're just plain wrong".In my experience, there are 4 basic positions people take on this issue:
1) You should never heal in combat. If someone dies in combat, they deserve it. If someone asks for a heal in combat, they suck and clearly don't know game strategy.
2) Most healing should be done out of combat. Healing in combat is usually not the best idea, but it sometimes the optimal tactical decision. You can play without a full divine caster, you just have to take less risks.
3) Healing is an important aspect of combat. It allows players to make mistakes, it allows for more risk-taking, and it offsets unlucky dice-rolls. You should always have a full divine caster in the party, and atleast some of their feats should help them heal.
4) The cleric's(or oracle's) job is to heal me in combat. If I die in combat, it is the cleric's fault. If the cleric uses any spells except healing spells, he is wasting resources he could be using to heal me!
The OP appears to take position #2. You appear to take position #3. There is quite a bit of overlap between these positions, and depending on your GM, your party composition, and your party's tactical skill, either one could be "right."
Positions #1 and #4 are wrong. Completely and totally wrong. Always.
I primarily encounter people who take position #4 in my gaming store. It is remarkable infuriating. People constantly tell me that I'm playing...
The OP was advocating position 2 which also makes sense.
|
What we've found in our group is that characters with abilities to heal tend to cast medium to long duration buffs early in game. Then they hold on to their spells for dire situations.
Many of the healing types are medium BAB and therefore not so bad at combatting mooks or holding a line as well. The best option for them is often not casting a spell at all, but hitting and enemy instead.
They hold those spells for dire situations, be it a well needed debuff on enemy (Save or Suck spells count here), or for the most likely scenario that a desperate heal will be called for from someone or other.
It's true that a single encounter rarely calls for healing in combat, but how many players get a single combat? My guys regulalry find that multiple areas are engaged, particularly in AP's. Dungeon crawls or assaults on enemy bases regularly cause escalating engagements. Combat is a loud noise, casting is a loud noise, many spell effects cause loud noises. Loud noises get heard by critters pretty easily, this causes a response. This is where you're going to need casting in combat.
It doesn't happen every game, and it shouldn't, but I feel that these things should happen occasionally to keep some sort of realism in the situation.
Again I'll point out, that past level 10, creature's you fight regularly deal large damage to folks, and that raises the threat significantly. Combats also tend to last mare than 2 or 3 rounds up here as well, given that multiple opponents come in with better saves and higher hit point totals. At this point, you're going to be dropping a healing spell in combat at least once every two fights or so, to keep your damage potential up (ie, your front liners). Once someone who soaks full attacks is dropped, healers and casters start dying at an awfully fast rate.
Remember also, casting a buff on a party is great, as it is guaranteed to work. Casting a debuff on an enemy has a chance to fail. Failing to affect a target is a wasted round, and in high level play, that can be very costly. "Should I cast a guaranteed to work heal that means the fighting type can stay in play at least one more round and maybe kill the enemy, or should I cast a potentially unsuccessful spell that will make the enemy less usefull?" If you are going to talk about odds, then the guaranteed succesful spell is always the better option.
Also, how many of you have been in a situation where the save or suck spell worked, but the oponent still did nasty things? Our scorceror cast blindiness on a fire giant the other night, but the damn thing still hit with three attacks which dropped the PC he was facing, because of good rolls. The healer hadn't healed that round because they thought the gaint was a non threat. The heal in there would have seen the PC upright still, despite the bad luck the dice threw their way.
I guess my point is, the higher the level of gameplay, the less true that healing in combat becomes optional. Again, in our experience only.
Cheers
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hearing a lot of "our way is the only smart way" crap from a lot of folks here. You know, the reason that many people bail on groups and the hobby altogether.....
Sometimes what people "hear" and what people "say" are not exactly the same thing.
Sometimes what people "hear" and what people "say" are not exactly the same thing.
Oh, so we're stupid are we?
Sometimes what people "hear" and what people "say" are not exactly the same thing.Oh, so we're stupid are we?
Excellent demonstration of the syndrome Steve! Thanks!
If some monster manages to surprise the party and hits the party summoner hard enough to bring him down to 2 rounds till death the best action economy is and will always be to heal mit up with enough healing power so that he can start doing his job one turn later.
In such a situation there is nothing else that is better action economy.
The healer spende one turn healing and that nets one additional combattant for the rest of the fight. Or more than one, because it was a summonoer that can bring more help with more actions.
We had that situation recently.
Thats debatable, when someone drops below 0 they fall prone and are probably inside their attackers threatened area. This means that the fighter who you just healed can will attack at a -4 penalty or generate an attack of oportunity wich can drop it back to negatives or kill him; said summoner will have to deal with a hard concentration check.
In either case, there's a significant risk, specially at lower levels, that the healing is wasted action becaused the character you healed will probably do nothing and you may have removed the threat instead of making your buddy a target again, now the NPCs has every reason to focused in the dangerous near death caracter rather than the cleric.
Humbly,
Yawar
1) You should never heal in combat. If someone dies in combat, they deserve it. If someone asks for a heal in combat, they suck and clearly don't know game strategy.
Somewhere between the notions of this,
2) Most healing should be done out of combat. Healing in combat is usually not the best idea, but it sometimes the optimal tactical decision. You can play without a full divine caster, you just have to take less risks.
and the practical application of this, is where my playstyle is.
Positions #1 and #4 are wrong. Completely and totally wrong. Always.
I primarily encounter people who take position #4 in my gaming store. It is remarkable infuriating. People constantly tell me that I'm playing...
Position #1 has some truths. If you charge the full length of your barbarian speed into the midst of a band of trolls, out of reach from the party, because "I don't want to waste a round on archery" or whatever, and then proceed to cry foul when your rage/charge AC has your character being turned to pulp, and blame the cleric when he does not take a run action to catch up and heal you, your character deserve to die.
Had this happen in my previous game, where the cavalier lance-charged across a narrow bridge into the midst of a group of cyclops. They proceeded to rain down x3 axe-crits with their "Take 20 1/day" ability, and confirm the critical threats thanks to his AC being lowered by the charge penalty, and turn him to mush. No amount of skilled sorcery or divine intervention could make right of that mess.
But it is reckless and stupid to not have a backup plan in case you are hit with a case of bad luck. It happens. It's like making a melee character and not bringing a bunch of javelins to chuck at the things that hovers our of reach from your blades every once in a while.
So, #2 at heart, with a light sprinkle of #1 when people act like idiots.
And yes, I have played with MMO-tards that cried foul when I made my healing secondary for my cleric. "Then I am not gonna defend you!" the fighter said. "Who do you think is gonna be protecting who now?" I replied, and proved true throughout the game. However, I did give them DR 3/evil with tricks from Complete Champion, and negate damage with mass resists energy when we encountered AoE types. And when the situation called for it, I smote the everloving goo out of the opposition, making the fighter realize how the food-chain worked in 3E.
Which colors my take on healing in combat. Because #4 types pushes my buttons.
I can see the reasons of your preferences, and the fact that I cannot agree is probably due to my fellow players being not "that" reckless; if they take a huge risk they don't cry foul if it goes badly and are duly grateful if my character saves their collective axxes
;-)
Yeah. However, there is a danger involved in having a healing focused character: You come to rely on him. What happens when the enemy wise up and take him out in round 1 or 2? Are the rest able to survive without you?
I slowly managed to teach those aforementioned MMO-types to carry potions or other magical healing on themselves. Not only so they can heal themselves when my cleric was busy, but so that if my cleric went down, they could stabilize him. Because if the cleric goes, there will be complications with the raise dead he needs to cast to bring himself back :P
However, I much prefer the way we play in our current group, sub-par as it might be (blasty sorc, bard, magus and a ninja/monk... no full bab classes and no divine casters), where I am the bard that uses the wands after the fight. Players have to think for themselves, and abandon useless MMO tropes that does not carry over. Everyone have decent defenses (ACs over 25 when buffed at lv6, or mirror image and such), and they have come to accept that when they are "on the verge of going down", I will hit them with a vanish spell, and have them reposition to get our of harms way and either quaff a potion to heal, or take up a different tactic, rather than heal and leave them pretty much in the same predicament they were in before I healed them.
Also, the GM does not do stealth right (dramatically in his favor, allowing NPCs to ambush us in melee all the time, or close the distance before we get to act), and I have given up correcting him. So we always take lots of damage when combat starts, then we get our defenses up and tear through things in 2-4 rounds, and manage to stand at 30-50% when done. So far, I have burned through two fully charged wands on a single level.
|
Edit: In combat healing is NOT a "buff"
Yes, actually it is.
Now, doing out of combat healing while you are in-combat will only help if the healer had no meaningful contribution (i.e. lessening the number of rounds of combat) while the party is also under a time pressure (e.g. another set of enemies will arrive before the party would otherwise be healed).
That is very rare, but encounters with time pressure will cause more problems for parties that rely upon slower forms of healing (wands of clw, fast healing spells).
However, in-combat healing enables a PC to continue to act proactively in the combat as opposed to having their actions dictated to them. This could be simply because they are dropped/killed or it can be sufficient positional damage that they feel the need to retreat.
-James
Nope. Argue all you want. Never has been and never will be a "buff".
|
|
Nope. Argue all you want. Never has been and never will be a "buff".What is a 'buff'?
It is something that either enables one to do something that they otherwise could not or enables them to do something better.
In-combat healing allows the recipient to stay in combat when they otherwise would be dropped and out of combat if not dead.
In-combat healing reduces the pressure from sheer hp damage to retreat, enabling the combatant to take proactive rather than reactive actions.
Sure sounds like a buff to me.
Maybe you are confusing in-combat healing for when people start 'out of combat' healing (or maintenance healing) while combat is still going on? This is akin to the rogue who starts searching for treasure during the combat.
-James
Healing is healing.
Buffing increases one or more aspects of another player's statistics, skills, feats, etc.
If you'd like to continue your petty squable about what a buff is start a new thread so I can choose not to follow.
|
|
Don't hp's belong to the "statistics" category?
Buffing increases one or more aspects of another player's statistics, skills, feats, etc.
So then by hitting someone with a sword you a "debuffing" them? Cmon if you want to start silly pointless arguments I will tell you the same as James, go start another thread where I won't follow. Your statistics are your stats aka str, dex, con, int, wis, cha.
There was a spell in the 3.5 "Spell Compendium" which I can't remember the name, but it did healing over time. The "lesser" version healed one hit point for up to 13 rounds or something like that. With an "extend rod" it would go up to 26 rounds.
I used to use that as a "buff" spell and called it a "buff." In other words, I cast it on completely healed up characters before we went into combat and just let it run its course. If a character happened to go down, it would automatically stabilize them, and sometimes would even get them back up with no help from a healer.
To me "buff" is a category of spells that you use to protect/enhance a character over time. Any instant duration spell does not qualify as a "buff" because it doesn't provide benefits over time. So "cure light wounds" or even "heal" is not a "buff." But the spell that healed over time would qualify.
So then by hitting someone with a sword you a "debuffing" them? Cmon if you want to start silly pointless arguments I will tell you the same as James, go start another thread where I won't follow. Your statistics are your stats aka str, dex, con, int, wis, cha.Don't hp's belong to the "statistics" category?
Buffing increases one or more aspects of another player's statistics, skills, feats, etc.
I've honestly heard people argue that the best debuff is to kill them. Both in DnD and video games. Whether or not I believe em, well, even I can't say
Have to agree with James on this one. In the proper context, healing IS a buff.
The easy comparison is False Life. False Life IS a buff spell...you can't argue it, it's temporary hit points, giving you more then you had. If something bashes you, does tons of damage, blows up your False Life and a bunch besides, and you recast your False Life, you 'effectively' just healed yourself using a buff.
A cure applied IN COMBAT is effectively no different then False Life. After combat, it's just healing/recovery. But in combat? It's a spot buff...suddenly you have more hit points to work with then you did at the beginning of the fight.
Sure, after combat, False Life raises your maximum possible hit points, and getting cured does not. But BOTH spells raise your maximum hit points AS OF THE MOMENT...which is all that matters.
It's kind of like comparing morale bonuses to hit and enhancement bonuses to hit. Well, in this fight, you're down fifty hit points, you can get twenty back with a Cure or ten back with False Life...which would YOU consider a buff at that time?
==+Aelryinth
James: I am not saying healers are good. I am saying getting used to being patched up is bad, because sensible strategy include taking out casters first, and if the players have gotten bad at applying tactics because they have gotten used to just walking about nilly willy, whacking at the opposition, the existence of a healer is going to make them think that is OK. Kinda like how a game that has an auto-aim feature does not help you get better at shooting games. In fact, it makes you worse at them.
Aelryinth: It is not what it does. It is the terminology. What you and James are doing is arguing that something that has a term by which you identify it belongs in a different category by virtue of mechanical similarities.
And yes, I can argue that False Life is unlike healing. False Life is a preemptive buffer, a change to the otherwise fixed parameters. Healing is a reaction to having a parameter lowered. Beyond that, healing does several things that False Life does not, like stop ongoing bleed damage. They are as dissimilar as Bull's Strength is to Lesser Restoration. Sure, you can use Bull's Strength to temporarily restore someone who has had their strength reduced, but it is not a fix to a damage. It is intended as a boost to statistics, making someone better than he normally is.
To address James' other specific questions though...
I use "buff" as a general term to describe spells which provide a benefit over time. Most of these are pretty obvious. Magic fang, Bull's Strength, Bless, etc...
There are some spells that provide "benefits over time" that I don't typically consider a "buff." Those would be tactical spells like invisibility, fly, longstrider, etc.
Could someone argue those are "buffs?" Sure. Would I argue? I've got better things to do.
Then there are spells which provide some effect only until an event happens, so as soon as they are triggered, they are no longer active. Sanctuary is an example. Do I consider those buffs? Typically, yes. Would I argue if someone objected to calling it a buff? No, I'd rather play.
UPDATE: I removed my previous post because it was quite unfair to James. I shouldn't have allowed myself to snark at him that way.
I think that the interpretation of combat healing as a buff is fine. I think it's confusing and blurs the line a little too much, but if people choose to interpret it that way, I'm cool with it. Here's why:
If you give an ally Shield of Faith that makes him take one more attack before going down, you've cast a buff on him.
If you cast Cure Light Wounds on an ally and it lets him take one more attack before going down, then... well, that's sounding a lot like the above. I'd say that letting your ally stand up and fight for another round is increasing his combat effectiveness.
Now, when I say the word "buff," it will never mean a spell that exclusively heals damage, but I think that if you squint just right, you can justify it.
I concur. It's just words anyway. It helps for people to know what other people mean when they use words, so I try to do that, just so my position is clear.
I guess it's a natural reaction when someone says "here is what I mean when I say 'buff'." for someone else to say "no, that's not it at all!"
I would prefer they say "Oh, I get that, but here's what I mean when I use the same word."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It depends what "is" is.
I understand your intent here (or at least I believe that I do). To whit: by doing 'without' a strong factor that your party becomes stronger for being able to handle it's lack.
My point is that this strong factor is, indeed, strong.
Split down your argument- having a healer lets people get by with poor tactics and not even understand that those tactics are that poor while without a healer such actions would simply not be possible/survivable..
Sounds like having a healer is a very strong force multiplier in your mind. You're not saying that they are good; you're saying that they are great.
No, I am not. Fostering the idea that "it is OK to make bad choices, because someone will spend their time mitigating your consequences" validates and reinforces that kind of thinking, and worse; entitlement. People will get used to the idea that someone actually SHOULD play the most boring, non-rewarding role ever constructed.
If your boat is leaking, do you plug the leak, and then start scooping out water? Or do you start tossing out water while it is still pouring in? Of course healing does something, but compared to all the things you COULD have done with level-equivalent spells, it is weak.
It is simply a matter of more bang for your buck. Lets say some magic ambush shenanigans happens and you get hit with an empowered lightningbolt/fireball/other large scale AoE. Your party is reduced to closer to half hp, and you see that you are about to fight something nasty. You are a lv7 cleric. Your most powerful slot is a lv4 slot where you have prepared Blessing of Fervor. But everyone can benefit from a Cure Critical at this point...
Casting Blessing of Fervor rather than Cure Critical Wounds makes your party win the battle in 1-2 rounds. More attacks, more defense, more whatever you need. Everyone does 30-40% more damage, and you are able to move around much faster, so the enemy cannot hit you with an AoE once more. Taking control away from the enemy, rather than following his pace, getting close to an ally to heal and making a more tempting target.
Better choice. Pure and simple. In 9 out of 10 scenarios, a clever and resourceful player will find a better way to use his spells than to cure. Simply because 9 out of 10 spells has no other application than battle, and thus are designed to have greater effect in battle. Cures are most effective after a fight, when a low roll will not make your action nigh useless, and you are not making yourself a target by clustering up for AoE, cleave or easily applied full-attack actions from frontline grunts engaging the fighting folk.
I understand your intent here (or at least I believe that I do). To whit: by doing 'without' a strong factor that your party becomes stronger for being able to handle it's lack.
My point is that this strong factor is, indeed, strong.
Split down your argument- having a healer lets people get by with poor tactics and not even understand that those tactics are that poor while without a healer such actions would simply not be possible/survivable..
Sounds like having a healer is a very strong force multiplier in your mind. You're not saying that they are good; you're saying that they are great.
No, I am not. Fostering the idea that "it is OK to make bad choices, because someone will spend their time mitigating your consequences" validates and reinforces that kind of thinking, and worse; entitlement. People will get used to the idea that someone actually SHOULD play the most boring, non-rewarding role ever constructed, so they can keep at their behavior.
If your boat is leaking, do you plug the leak, and then start scooping out water? Or do you start tossing out water while it is still pouring in? Of course healing does something, but compared to all the things you COULD have done with level-equivalent spells, it is weak.
It is simply a matter of more bang for your buck. Lets say some magic ambush shenanigans happens and you get hit with an empowered lightningbolt/fireball/other large scale AoE. Your party is reduced to closer to half hp, and you see that you are about to fight something nasty. You are a lv7 cleric. Your most powerful slot is a lv4 slot where you have prepared Blessing of Fervor. But everyone can benefit from a Cure Critical at this point...
Casting Blessing of Fervor rather than Cure Critical Wounds makes your party win the battle in 1-2 rounds. More attacks, more defense, more whatever you need. Everyone does 30-40% more damage, and you are able to move around much faster, so the enemy cannot hit you with an AoE once more. Taking control away from the enemy, rather than following his pace, getting close to an ally to heal and making a more tempting target.
Better choice. Pure and simple. In 9 out of 10 scenarios, a clever and resourceful player will find a better way to use his spells than to cure. Simply because 9 out of 10 spells has no other application than battle, and thus are designed to have greater effect in battle. Cures are most effective after a fight, when a low roll will not make your action nigh useless, and you are not making yourself a target by clustering up for AoE, cleave or easily applied full-attack actions from frontline grunts engaging the fighting folk.
I think he was referring to healbot, not healers themselves as being boring.
If the assailant it still attacking you might want to take the assailant out or you might be next.
I think he was referring to healbot, not healers themselves as being boring.If that's the case, then I stand corrected.
If the assailant it still attacking you might want to take the assailant out or you might be next.Not if I have an armor, a shield and the chance to survive an attack, even at the cost of taking some damage; if I manage to get my german shephard up on its feet again, it will be far more efficient than me in taking the assailant out.
If the assailant is wearing armor then the german shepard probably won't be taking him out. I was not thinking of this being in medieval times though.
You always have a chance to survive the attack. What those chances are depend on the situation.
To go back to his statement when he said "all the things you COULD have done" he is speaking of making sure the boat never leaks or your dog never gets stabbed. Once it is stabbed make sure it is not stabbed again/the hole is plugged.
Of course the dog scenario does not translate well because you have a lot less options than you do in PF. I guess if you can place a barrier in between yourself and the assailant that might work so you can help the dog safely.