Is is possible to make healing (during combat) a viable and fun party role? Currently it's not even close to keeping up with incoming damage, until you get Heal, so the only reason to use Cure X in combat is when you're so outclassed that there would be a TPK without it. It's far more useful for the cleric (or other healing capable class) to do other things, and then patch everyone up after combat ends.
All my thoughts on how to make healing useful (and fun, if possible) require sweeping changes. Things like making Cure spells do significantly more healing (well, scale up better), making them not Touch range, removing most non-player healing abilities/items (wand of CLW), adding spells that give more temporary HP than the paltry few available now, using status conditions (like sickened/fatigued/blinded) more often and making them easier to cure (something like paladin mercies perhaps), etc.
Is it worth doing? Has anyone looked at this before and made any progress?
It is what it is.
Heal is sometimes worth casting (right after a breath of life is a good time). It's just not worth focusing on before it becomes necessary, which is why healing will remain a strange choice of specialization.
I don't think anything needs to be rearranged in order to make Pathfinder fit the preconceptions of other games (and I presume other games are where this notion originates). It's its own game.
I am considering a houserule for my next campaign, which is significantly lower magic.
Each player gets non-lethal/temporary damage up to a certain ammount, something like constitution modifier * level, before they start getting lethal damage, though possibly I might go sofar as to have half a creature's hitpoints act as a buffer which I will use in the example below.
For example a 6th level dwarven fighter has 60 hitpointswhen full, he has suffered 45 damage and is in a bit of a pickle. Only 15 of these points are infact lethal damage the rest is non-lethal/temporary damage.
Considering this :
1) A cure spell will heal an equal ammount of lethal and non-lethal hitpoints with each casting. Because of this healing spells will end up having more impact when really needed, if the dwarf in the example got a cure moderate wounds rolling 16, it would replenish the 15 lethal damage, but also 16 hitpoints temporary/non-lethal damage. This would restore 31 hitpoints to the dwarf and put him back at 46 with only 14 hitpoints temporary damage.
2) After a combat they will quickly replenish temporary/non-lethal damage allowing them to stay in reasonable shape without using alot of resources between battles. Keeping the party going for longer periods of time. Not sure how long of a rest this should require possibly 1hp per round of rest will be fine, so going from the above example the dwarf with 14 temporary damage will be good to go after a brief rest when the battle is concluded.
Now that we've been moved to Homebrew,
if you really want to make healing in combat worthwhile, consider damage penalties. One of the reasons it doesn't make sense to heal in combat is because damage doesn't decrease your effectiveness.
Huh? I could have sworn that a well placed Mass Heal in combat is extremely worthwhile...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So part of the thread title was "should we".
And I don't think so.
At least- not as a broad general rule.
"healing in combat" is really an issue of any individual campaign.
Some groups really min/max the numbers.
Some DM's don't alter published encounters.
Some groups really don't min/max the numbers.
Some players play as though their characters were tactical geniuses.
Some players don't play as though their characters were tactical geniuses.
Some DM's alter published encounters to deal with either min/max Or tactical genius players. (or both).
Now you mix and match the DM "type" and player "type" and what you find out is that-
some groups need a wand of CLW. Period. dazzit. Nuttin else cept the occasional Restoration or such.
Other groups need a solid, well built healbot in order to function. And the CLW doesn't hurt for inbetween battles, either.
Some groups just need someone who can spot heal occasionally in battle but not necessarily for every single battle.
So, assuming you even think its an issue at all:
1) figure out where on the spectrum you and your group are.
2) discuss it with the players to find out if they are interested in changing it.
3) discuss with them what changes they feel you should make, to get to where they want to be.
*please* keep in mind that even if *you* think combat should be such that a solid built healbot is required, that *they* might not want to have such a person along with them. (since someone may not want to *have* to play such a character)
tl;dr: talk to your players about whether or not -they- think you need a healbot and whether or not one of them wants to play one, before you go trying to muddle with the rules. You could be fixing a problem that isn't a problem in the first place.
-S
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is is possible to make healing (during combat) a viable and fun party role? Currently it's not even close to keeping up with incoming damage, until you get Heal, so the only reason to use Cure X in combat is when you're so outclassed that there would be a TPK without it. It's far more useful for the cleric (or other healing capable class) to do other things, and then patch everyone up after combat ends.
All my thoughts on how to make healing useful (and fun, if possible) require sweeping changes. Things like making Cure spells do significantly more healing (well, scale up better), making them not Touch range, removing most non-player healing abilities/items (wand of CLW), adding spells that give more temporary HP than the paltry few available now, using status conditions (like sickened/fatigued/blinded) more often and making them easier to cure (something like paladin mercies perhaps), etc.
Is it worth doing? Has anyone looked at this before and made any progress?
Should we?...Absolutely.
My Pathfinder group has made the following changes to "Cure" spells:
-Double the dice, keep the bonus. So, cure light wounds now does 2d8+1 per level (max of +5).
-All cure spells now have a range of Close (25ft.+5ft./2 levels)
The increase in effectiveness is based on wanting the expenditure of a Cleric's highest level spell slot to do significant healing. I ran the numbers against high-average hit points. At a given party level, the healer's highest spell slot will heal about half the hit points of the average party member. Obviously, at extremely low level (1st and 2nd) it is much more swingy, and can heal a PC fully. But an Orc can also drop you with one hit, so we think it is fine.
And the range thing is just because healing in combat devolves quickly into spending half your actions getting in position. And when someone is in trouble, the healer often can't get there in time.
The simplest possibility to make in combat healing viable would be to make tanking viable.
As soon as you know who is the most likely to be attacked and as long as the one is good at mitigating damage (by high AC, DR etc.) combat healing will work.
If we should aim for that is a completely different question. one I am not going to give an answer to.
Sure we can make in-combat healing more viable but you can put me in the category of those who feel absolutely no desire whatsoever to do so.
In fact, I would be totally fine if there were no options whatsoever to allow healing in combat. I think that would make the game much more tactically interesting and force players to learn to maximize their abilities more effectively.
The easier you make it to heal in combat the more similar it becomes to MMORPGs where encounter limitations are defined by how rapidly your healers can refill the hit point buckets in the party. I don't really have a lot of interest in encounters that boil down to whether or not my healers can pump enough hit points out to make up for the hit points lost. In my opinion, that is a tactically uninteresting combat mechanic. I want to figure out how to outfight my enemy, not outheal him.
I play a cleric in my current campaign. For in combat healing I would recommend
1. Metamagic Rod of Reach
It turns my touch spells into ranged touch
2. Positive healing channel in a pinch gets multiple targets
3. Taking 2 feats to get a familiar
I use my familiar to deliver touch spells, primarily healing.
I agree with AD. The game would be more interesting with the lack of in-combat healing.
The problem with healing in combat is that there's no difference in the capability of a fighter with a full 100hp and the same fighter with 10 hp left. The only thing healing does is extend the insurance policy against him dropping out completely. So if you want to make in-combat healing worthwhile or even necessary, you have to change that dynamic. If a character's ability to fight or cast spells were inhibited by hp loss (say -4 to rolls and 20% miscast chance for every 25% hp loss) then you'd have every reason to keep people hale and hearty.
I think there are several things wrong with the concepts presented in the original post.
Stick to standard 15 (or maybe 20) point buy, and something like PFS rules on hp. Seems like a large number of people give extra hp or allow everyone enough points for great con scores, then complain that healing can't keep up. If you have 60hp at 5th level, yeah, your going to have trouble keeping that filled up.
Avoid taking all that damage in the first place. You can't ignore your AC, go toe-to-toe with bruisers, not use debuffing/control magic, then expect to be able to keep up with incoming damage without using significant resources*. If one character is getting beat up fast, fall back and let someone else hold the line, or better yet, stick a summoned creature there.
Keep in mind that the most effective healing, especially in larger parties is often going to be channel energy. This allows everyone to mix it up in combat, and with good positioning and the selective channel feat, you can heal the whole party and their summoned creatures, mounts, and little dogs to.
If you want healing to be effective, sink some resources into it. A cleric with the healing domain, selective channel, and maybe extra channel (or just a decent cha score) is a healing machine! If you add some effects like blur/displacement, temp HP, and occasional defensive tactics, a healer should have a fairly easy time keeping the party in the fight. Baring some kinds of grab/constrict or swallow whole situations or lucky crits, I can't really see a situation where the healing cleric wouldn't be hugely effective.
*Healing spells are not a very "limited" resource in most parties, so they can't be super effective, or the game would be too easy.
EDIT:
Let's use 10th level as an example:
Healing domain cleric swaps out one of his 4 4th level spells for a cure critical wounds. 4d8+10 empowered averages about 38 healing per round. If almost 40 hp of healing/round isn't keeping the character (who probably has about 100hp) in the fight, you probably need to switch up your tactics.
Honestly, I am tired of hearing how healing is subpar. While I agree that 'waiting' for an opportunity to do your job (healing) is a bad idea I think the whole 'clerics shouldn't heal' concept gets overstated. I have seen clerics keep the party alive with healing.
Take the healing Domain: By many people's standards it is the worst domain out there. But I think it is an excellent domain because at level 6 you gain the ability to cast fewer healing spells to do the same job.
Build a healer, but make sure you also build an idea of what your healer is doing when healing is not necessary. A healer 'only' concept is subpar. A Healer/buffer/debuffer is awesome.
- Gauss
I agree with AD. The game would be more interesting with the lack of in-combat healing.
The problem with healing in combat is that there's no difference in the capability of a fighter with a full 100hp and the same fighter with 10 hp left. The only thing healing does is extend the insurance policy against him dropping out completely. So if you want to make in-combat healing worthwhile or even necessary, you have to change that dynamic. If a character's ability to fight or cast spells were inhibited by hp loss (say -4 to rolls and 20% miscast chance for every 25% hp loss) then you'd have every reason to keep people hale and hearty.
Tim, in a previous thread on this subject I tried to explain this same concept by explaining that from an action economy and tactical perspective any heal spell cast in combat that does not explicitly stop a party member from dropping is a wasted spell and action.
That's just the reality of healing. Because of the way the game works, "topping off" a character is a purely wasted action. But that's what I see happen all the time in combat. "Hey! I'm hit again! Now I'm down to half hit points! HEAL ME!!!"
I personally don't want to play a character who has a significant fraction of combat actions that are provably wasted.
But that's just me.
3. Taking 2 feats to get a familiar
I use my familiar to deliver touch spells, primarily healing.
Actually, that was one of the situations my MT was glad she had a familiar :)
When thinking about whether healing should be better, you have to consider one consequence, encounter length. If healing is effective as blasting spells, or hitting someone with a sword, then encounters will go much longer, until one side runs out of healing. If its against a single opponent, unless that opponent can self heal for a swift action, they are pretty much guaranteed to lose.
The MMO argument is bunk in my experience, particularly after several years of healing. Dull and cookie cutter combat will always be boring, regardless of the style or inspiration. Dynamic encounter design with set pieces and goals will usually be more interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The MMO argument is bunk in my experience, particularly after several years of healing. Dull and cookie cutter combat will always be boring, regardless of the style or inspiration. Dynamic encounter design with set pieces and goals will usually be more interesting.
I'd say 'usually be more interesting' is an understatement. Who would want to bring the boring, zombie-like experience of cookie-cutter raid-party MMO gaming into other things? You can see signs of it already.
Player A: "Ouch, wipe-out."Player B: "It's not my fault! Someone wasn't doing the 'job' I expected of them that covered for my glaring lack of versatility and survivability!"
Player A: "We'll put that on your tombstone."
MMO's used to be an interesting experience, until developers realized two things: that it was much easier to program and balance an 'aggro' system than to try to create a dangerous, clever and dynamic AI, and that many gamers really took to the safe, comforting and mind-numbing repetition. I once watched someone permanently quit Guild Wars (which has no subscription fee) after two weeks of angrily refusing to understand that there are no 'tanks' in PVP arenas.
There are no 'tanks' in PVP arenas.
This should be a common phrase. It bears repeating.
All RPG is PVP, in a sense, with the GM as a Player. At the same time, that isn't true at all.
Want healing to be considered viable? Make it CL x 10 hp, capped based on spell level. That way it can keep up with damage that you see incoming. Healing in combat would be as valid as casting heal in combat.
CLW = 10 x CL, max 20
CMW = 10 x CL, max 40
And so forth. That might actually draw attention from the healer. As is, enemies will just beat through healing. Make a healer actually keep people standing and you might see bad guys going for the healer now and then.
There are no 'tanks' in PVP arenas.This should be a common phrase. It bears repeating.
All RPG is PVP, in a sense, with the GM as a Player. At the same time, that isn't true at all.
I agree with this whole heartedly.
Moronic Player: "D&D is not about PvP, it's about cooperation. It doesn't matter if the classes are unbalanced.
Later...
GM: "The evil ranger hits your monk for 89 damage this round, having cast instant enemy during his surprise round. Sorry Tim, but your monk is dead."
|
A better solution would be to give clerics damage reduction/prevention /negation spells. Start off with DR/magic and work your way up to mass versions with larger numbers and harder bypasses.
That way you don't have to tinker with the existing healing rules, and you give cleric's something to keep characters alive longer.
Moronic Player: "D&D is not about PvP, it's about cooperation. It doesn't matter if the classes are unbalanced.Later...
GM: "The evil ranger hits your monk for 89 damage this round, having cast instant enemy during his surprise round. Sorry Tim, but your monk is dead."
What I find hilarious Ashiel, is that "Moronic Player" could be "Fantastic GM" without a change of script.
What I find hilarious Ashiel, is that "Moronic Player" could be "Fantastic GM" without a change of script.
Moronic Player: "D&D is not about PvP, it's about cooperation. It doesn't matter if the classes are unbalanced.Later...
GM: "The evil ranger hits your monk for 89 damage this round, having cast instant enemy during his surprise round. Sorry Tim, but your monk is dead."
Hmm, I tend to prefer GMs who know what the hell they're talking about. :P
I think you missed what I was saying. I found most of my MMO experience to actually be quite interesting. Sure, I got bored after killing a guy the 20th time, but I would be bored watching my favorite movie once a week for 5 months as well, or reading the same chapter of the best book ever written over and over.
In WoW I had great fun from early late Vanilla to early Cataclysm, just over 5 years of raiding. Yes it always hit doldrums after 3-4 months on the same stuff, but there were more than a few fights that were very different from one another, both as a healer and a damage dealer (and sometimes tank).
I do think that necessarily trying to emulate the MMO methods is a poor choice overall, but I think the cool thing about PnP RPGs is their ability to help recreate any type of genre/experience. It isn't done exactly the same though, and it isn't necessarily easy to see how it's done, particularly with an already complex game like Pathfinder.
There are no 'tanks' in PVP arenas.This should be a common phrase. It bears repeating.
All RPG is PVP, in a sense, with the GM as a Player. At the same time, that isn't true at all.
Then you guys haven't played Warhammer or SWTOR. I played a tank in SWTOR and I dominated in PVP. In certain types of matches I could almost carry a team 8v8.
Iron, there are really two games in MMORPGs. There is "casual play" and there is "raiding."
I raided with a serious raiding guild for three years. I eventually quit because it was becoming a job, not fun. To be an "A Team" raider you had to build a specific build and had to execute specific combat rotations reliably or you were not invited back.
Raiding in WoW was the very opposite of creative, outside-the-box gaming. It was so highly constrained that our raid leaders would take one look at a recruits gear and build and tell them WHETHER they could raid with the team, and IF they could raid, whether they were with the A, B, or C team. That was before they even auditioned their actual performance.
The main reason I quit WoW is because I got tired of working my ass off for months just to end up looking exactly the same as every other serious raiding character of the same class.
I completely understand. But which of those specific things that you just complained about is actively being suggested, or is a very logical, direct consequence of increased healing in Pathfinder?
I hardcore raided as well, so completely sympathize. It was sad how much of my HR administrator skills I put to use recruiting and managing my responsibilities as an officer in a guild. I scheduled interviews, which I ran pretty much the same as when I interviewed people for real jobs too (I got more practice in WoW though, so it actually made me better at my job).
A pathfinder fight usually lasts about 2-10 turns, which even if you extrapolate that to "real time" is 12 to 60 seconds. For a major boss fight in an MMO, the target time is usually 3-5 minutes. Higher healing output is going to extend how many rounds combat lasts. Usually people complain about pathfinder combat taking too long, instead of being too quick.
Iron, one of the key attributes of WoW style games is healing in combat. The encounters are designed around it. There are even specific raids that are designed to test how rapidly your healers can heal.
If healing in combat becomes a major focus of the game, then encounters will be designed around how fast you can heal in combat.
I just would prefer not to have the game become a hit point transfusion exercise, like it is in MMORPGs.
I am well aware that there are lots and lots of Pathfinder and D&D gamers who believe that the game is already designed that way, and if you aren't having to heal in combat, then you aren't being challenged. I disagree with that. As the game is currently designed, healing in combat is an option, not a requirement, except in emergencies.
I want to keep the game such that you can win encounters through sheer tactical superiority and cleverness instead of having one of the PCs be consigned to operating as a hit point transfusion tube for the main tank.
Just how I prefer to play.
I completely understand. But which of those specific things that you just complained about is actively being suggested, or is a very logical, direct consequence of increased healing in Pathfinder?
I hardcore raided as well, so completely sympathize. It was sad how much of my HR administrator skills I put to use recruiting and managing my responsibilities as an officer in a guild. I scheduled interviews, which I ran pretty much the same as when I interviewed people for real jobs too (I got more practice in WoW though, so it actually made me better at my job).
A pathfinder fight usually lasts about 2-10 turns, which even if you extrapolate that to "real time" is 12 to 60 seconds. For a major boss fight in an MMO, the target time is usually 3-5 minutes. Higher healing output is going to extend how many rounds combat lasts. Usually people complain about pathfinder combat taking too long, instead of being too quick.
The difference is that everytime the raid fights boss X that boss is going to deal Y damage to the raid and Z damage to the tank (with some variation for gear and such) so that when you go to fight that boss you know *know* -know- /know/ you are going to need a healer. Period.
But in D&D- any given group of different players going against any given creature run by different DM's will require (or not require) any given level of healing.
Some players (myself for instance) would prefer that "they", the dev's, Not design the game such that a permanent healer is required.
Now I wouldn't have an issue playing a healbot. In fact- i probably will in my next AP. But to have it required? as a design feature?
No way.
I much prefer to leave it to each group whether or not they want or need such a thing.
-S
I agree with AD. The game would be more interesting with the lack of in-combat healing.
The problem with healing in combat is that there's no difference in the capability of a fighter with a full 100hp and the same fighter with 10 hp left. The only thing healing does is extend the insurance policy against him dropping out completely. So if you want to make in-combat healing worthwhile or even necessary, you have to change that dynamic. If a character's ability to fight or cast spells were inhibited by hp loss (say -4 to rolls and 20% miscast chance for every 25% hp loss) then you'd have every reason to keep people hale and hearty.
Honestly, I think there should be more status conditions used across the board. It's been argued in countless other threads (here and elsewhere) that D&D/PF is "rocket tag", that characters can survive falling off a cliff or getting mauled by a bear with no actual reduction in effectiveness, etc.
The root problem seems to be that HP is an all-or-nothing resource. You lose 1 hp, no big deal. 10 hp, no big deal. All but 1 hp, still no big deal because it's better mechanically to keep pushing out the damage to kill the monster before it can take that last 1hp from you, instead of someone "wasting actions" to heal you.
You can take ability score damage and it degrades your performance, but hp damage has no mechanical effect until the very last point.
HP is a great way to simplify a lot of different factors, but I think it almost goes too far without some sort of wound system or condition track (like in SW Saga) to accompany it.
I see a lot of people speaking out against in-combat healing at all. Why? I can understand that with even more limited resources, combat could tend to be more tactical, but (IMO) the system really isn't built to handle that.
There are already complaints about balancing repetitive-action characters (e.g. fighters, who do the same thing to every monster - hit it with a stick, then once they heal up afterward they're just as effective as before) with nova-capable characters (casters, who run out of spell slots and thus become less effective with each fight). (As an aside, I personally think that removing the fire-and-forget magic system would neatly solve this problem too.)
I'd like to know some of the design logic behind why healing spells are so vastly outclassed by damage spells, and why healing (apparently by design) is suboptimal in combat.
When discussing what tabletop RPGs can gleam from MMOs like World of Warcraft, dungeons and raiding are never a concern. I tend to think of things in terms of PvP, which is far closer to how things go down in an actual tabletop RPG. In PvP, there is no aggro system. There are people thinking tactically, and strategically. You have to be good at dealing with stuff and actually protecting your allies "for keepsies".
My brother and I play on a 3.3.5 wow server. He played a protection-spec warrior (sword & board guy) and I played a discipline priest (healer with some caster-combat potential). The two of us were a very dangerous pair, and complemented one-another very well. In the Hellfire Peninsula (a large open PvP area) we would be running around completing our quests and get mobbed by groups of equal level enemies who had us 2 to 1, but we would be them handily because of our teamwork and quick thinking.
Why was my brother's "tank" effective in this sort of environment, where there is no aggro system and enemies can literally run THROUGH you? Because he had abilities that allowed him to keep on their faces. He could charge enemies which would get him on them quick and slow them down with a stun-hiccup giving me a chance to pull away. He then had techniques like concussion blow which would stun them for a moment, and could disarm enemies like Death Knights to destroy their DPS. He could shield bash them to daze them (movement speed reduced by 1/2 and it had a temporary silence if they were casting a spell) which made it hard for them to flee the might of his sword or to catch my evasive butt. If all else failed he could use an intimidating shout to panic every enemy around him and cause them to run around in fear while my DoTs were tearing them apart. He also had other tricks like shield slam which dealt solid damage and dispelled buffs. His tankiness was a mixture of heavy control, mobility, and survivability. He dealt fair damage too (especially if he was being focused on).
Meanwhile, my healer would "dot" enemies with Damage over Time effects and throw up priest "bubbles" which in D&D terms is effectively temporary HP (so I could bubble myself and him, giving us a buffer). The buffer let me continue casting unimpeded, and I'd use spells that slowed movement speed, and if enemies were really bugging me I could use psychic scream and panic them as well (sometimes we'd tag-team an enemy who used a magic trinket to break out of the fear, by following our fear attacks one after another). I would spend most of my time being mobile and moving while using instant-cast attacks, buffs, and healing occasionally. Since my heals were meaningful, killing me was kind of a big deal (without me dead, my brother was the unstoppable juggernaut) but killing me was a pain because I'd throw up temporary HP, reflect 45% of your damage back at you, break your snares, and while you're trying to eat me my brother was removing your favorite appendages with his sword & board. But if you ignored me, I'd be sitting back healing and dispelling your buffs.
To me, WoW PvP is more in line with D&D combat. It reminds me of high level combat where everyone is countering what everyone else is doing. Wizard swift-casts a buff and readies an action to stop an incoming spell while his familiar readies to cast dimension door from a wand if anyone tries any funny business. Meanwhile the Paladin activates grace and runs through the enemy lines to the back side and declares a Smite vs the marilith and locks her in melee. The Ranger emerges from a concealment-Stealth in melee flanking the marilith, after activating instant enemy to declare her his #1 enemy, while his pet jaguar is moving along side the bard. The bard of course is split into 6 different mirror images with a 50% concealment and shooting everything in sight while buffing all allies via bardic music. He has a familiar too ('cause that's the cool thing to do) and his familiar also readies to dimension door via a Wand if anyone does anything goofy. Meanwhile, the succubi swarming around the marilith are greater teleporting around the field and dropping charm monster at will; while the vrocks run back to the Paladin to try and keep him off the Marilith long enough for her to grapple-KO him with her tail; and the dretch-necromancer is getting ready to cast waves of exhaustion while the party cleric casts death ward and draws a life-drinker and dives once more into the breach.
Tvarog, while I agree that the lack of realism exists, it has existed in every version of D&D going back to at least 2nd (my memory of basic and first is hazy as I was a kid then). Only optional rules or GM fiat has covered this.
However, if you look at the hero movies/comics/whatnot where the hero is on deaths door and yet gets up to fight at full strength or even stronger you will find that the idea of people fighting at full strength while mortally wounded has been around for a long time. It is simply part of the fantasy genre.
As for why healing is outclassed: if it were not then nobody would ever risk death. Simply have your favorite healer behind you ready to heal all wounds that you acquire. Frankly, the spell Heal breaks this concept (and it is unfortunate that it does).
- Gauss
there are no 'tanks' in PVP arenas.
Just to mention, I was specifically referring to 'arenas' 4v4 in Guild Wars. Since in GW you pick only 8 skills to use out of the whole class/multiclass list and combos are important, every self-heal or self-defense is a considerable sacrifice of offense, meaning that a 'tank' draws zero 'aggro' from the enemy team. The person in question simply had so locked-down the idea of complete role specialization - down to having a guy whose job was 'the guy who gets hit' - that it was impossible for him to understand dynamic situations.
I don't think slightly more effective healing would be a big problem, but once it crosses a certain line and becomes irreplaceable, then you start down the road that turns roles in a party into programmed actions in a machine. Besides, conceptually it's much easier to destroy than fix. I know its all fantasy, but I've never cared for trying to conceptualize having some guy lose ten times his 'max hp' in a couple minutes but be just fine because he had someone spamming healing spells on him.
|
That's just the reality of healing. Because of the way the game works, "topping off" a character is a purely wasted action. But that's what I see happen all the time in combat. "Hey! I'm hit again! Now I'm down to half hit points! HEAL ME!!!"
But if the enemy can take off half your HP in one round, the healing is not a wasted action.
Iron, one of the key attributes of WoW style games is healing in combat. The encounters are designed around it. There are even specific raids that are designed to test how rapidly your healers can heal.
If healing in combat becomes a major focus of the game, then encounters will be designed around how fast you can heal in combat.
I just would prefer not to have the game become a hit point transfusion exercise, like it is in MMORPGs.
I am well aware that there are lots and lots of Pathfinder and D&D gamers who believe that the game is already designed that way, and if you aren't having to heal in combat, then you aren't being challenged. I disagree with that. As the game is currently designed, healing in combat is an option, not a requirement, except in emergencies.
I want to keep the game such that you can win encounters through sheer tactical superiority and cleverness instead of having one of the PCs be consigned to operating as a hit point transfusion tube for the main tank.
Just how I prefer to play.
You don't have to tell me how wow mechanics work. I was the healing officer for my guild, from late SSC to early cataclysm, for a guild that managed to down down KJ pre-nerf. I theorycrafted on EJ, I helped write our strats, I recruited and trained players. I know full well what it was like.
I agree, I mostly like PF the way it is. I'm just getting tired of people making false comparisons with MMOs.
I personally like the concept of a specialized healer, but I don't think it works well in PF. If you significantly boost healing output, you basically either need to boost monster HP significantly or add healing to them too. It just becomes an endurance match between healers and I don't think that's a good thing.
I think boosting healers would be better to add effects to their heals, or add heals to their other effects. Like adding a free casting of a cure spell 3-4 levels lower than the spell you just cast (still expends a slot though), maybe as meta magic or just a normal feat.
My two copper touches in a few points that have already been stated, but I definitely want to reinforce them.
First, not every game is the same. At one time, I was running a group through a couple different published campaigns, and when I looked at what kind of enemies they had to put against the players, the enemies felt inadequate. Healing in combat may be not worth it to some, but that's only when the enemies you're fighting aren't strong enough to MAKE healing in combat worth it. Conversely, a dedicated healer or at least two side-healers are almost required in the homebrew games I play with my friends because the enemies we face are almost always far stronger than what a group of the same level may face in something official.
Second, we don't really need to house-rules anything about healing. There's some really decent 3rd party content available on www.d20pfsrd.com that my groups like to dip into when they need a little extra boost with their healing. I myself am a really strong supporter of a feat called "Mystical Healer" which gives you some extra dice for your healing spells depending on what your caster level is.
Third, I can definitely reinforce that a "Healing Only" character isn't going to be super helpful to a group. Healing is good, and we make good use of healing in combat, but a healer that can do other things when healing isn't all that needed at the moment is going to be a stronger character.
Healing in combat works just fine, but you need the right kind of game and you need to take advanced of the tools already in place to really make it all work.
Iron Heroes has a 'HP Pool' rule. Characters have a pool of HP equal to their normal HP. They can draw upon it to heal wounds if they gave a chance to take a breather.
Healing in combat may be not worth it to some, but that's only when the enemies you're fighting aren't strong enough to MAKE healing in combat worth it.
Generally the stronger the opposition the less healing is effective. That's just a mathematical fact. The more damage an opponent deals, the less viable healing is as a means of keeping people up and alive in comparison to eliminating the creature.
For example, a CR 3 ogre has 30 HP and deals about 16 damage per hit. He can kill most 3rd level PCs in 2 shots (32 damage). However, you only have to deal 30 damage to drop the ogre and thus stop the damage entirely. The ogre can quite easily be dead in 3 shots. So if you have an 18 Str ranger with a longspear, an 18 strength cleric wit a longspear, and Bard shooting with a +2 composite shortbow, that sets the damage to 27.5. If the bard is using inspire courage then the damage hits 30.5 (+1 to everyone). That's 3/4 party members contributing to fighting the ogre and minimizing incoming damage. If the party's mage dropped a magic missile you don't even need inspire courage.
While both the cleric and bard are healers, the ranger would suffer MORE damage over the combat by trying to out-heal the ogre's damage. It would take the range around 3 rounds to kill the ogre, versus 1 round to kill the ogre as a group. Each round the fight continues, the ogre could deal another 16 damage to the ranger, requiring more and more healing.
Any way you slice it, 16 damage over 1 round versus 48 damage over 3 rounds is good "healing".
One idea I presented back in the beta testing was as follows:
CLW heals 1d8+1d8/5 levels
CMW heals 2d8+1d8/4 levels
CSW heals 3d8+1d8/3 levels
CCW heals 4d8+1d8/2 levels
This allows caster level to matter more with curing spells, makes the lower level curing spells more attractive at the higher levels, and helps give healing a bit of a boost when it is needed in combat while not allowing it to eclipse either damage or the actual heal spell (the best you are getting is 14d8 which averages 63 points of damage and maxes at 112 damage).
I still feel this is a good middle ground to what is currently available and making healing 'too good'.
But if the enemy can take off half your HP in one round, the healing is not a wasted action.
That's just the reality of healing. Because of the way the game works, "topping off" a character is a purely wasted action. But that's what I see happen all the time in combat. "Hey! I'm hit again! Now I'm down to half hit points! HEAL ME!!!"
Nebel... note how carefully I worded my combat dialog:
"Hey! I'm hit again! Now I'm down to half hit points!"
In other words, the fight may have been going for four rounds but the "tank" is calling for healing because he's at half hit points.
I see this ALL THE TIME. There is some psychological thing that happens to many players when they hit half hit points. Suddenly they are dying and that's when the desperate calls for heals come out. Not because they really ARE dying, just because they think they are.
Healing in combat may be not worth it to some, but that's only when the enemies you're fighting aren't strong enough to MAKE healing in combat worth it.
Ah yes. Here it is again. The "if you aren't healing in combat therefore the GM is not challenging you" argument. It's Q.E.D. to some. Healing = challenge. Period. End of discussion.
Superior tactics, superior game play, superior concepts be damned.
You aren't healing = you aren't challenged.
I see Ashiel already addressed the mathematical side of this.
But it's pointless. Because for some if you aren't healing, you aren't being pushed. Period.
The great thing about this argument is that it is self-reinforcing. Get pushed? Heal. Survive? It was because you healed! Next combat? Heal! Now you know it was a great combat because you had to heal!
Sigh.... Back to square one. Again.
It also depends on how they got you to half -- I mean if you've been untouched for six rounds because they can only hit on a natural twenty and then the stars align and you get critical hit by a x3 weapon then you are probably still good healing or no.
If it's the first round of combat and your tank took half his hit points in damage from the monster you probably need to focus on dropping that thing fast before it does it again -- it's unlikely that you'll have enough healing to keep the tank up long enough to matter.
Continued: Another thing to consider is if your tank is a glass tank -- great defenses but low hp types. My current monk is a bit like this -- he's a crane style master and has an AC of 26 at level 3... but he's got 30 hp and is still kind of squishy when things actually land. Healing matters more to this character than it would to someone with an AC of 27 possibly some DR and more HP.
Sure we can make in-combat healing more viable but you can put me in the category of those who feel absolutely no desire whatsoever to do so.
In fact, I would be totally fine if there were no options whatsoever to allow healing in combat. I think that would make the game much more tactically interesting and force players to learn to maximize their abilities more effectively.
The easier you make it to heal in combat the more similar it becomes to MMORPGs where encounter limitations are defined by how rapidly your healers can refill the hit point buckets in the party. I don't really have a lot of interest in encounters that boil down to whether or not my healers can pump enough hit points out to make up for the hit points lost. In my opinion, that is a tactically uninteresting combat mechanic. I want to figure out how to outfight my enemy, not outheal him.
While I agree that healing is at a fine point right now, I don't quite agree with forcing people to play tactically. Don't get me wrong, I like to do so. But I'd rather not force that kind of playstyle on someone that either wants a more laid back game or is playing a character that isn't the brightest tactically.
But put me in the same camp. I am fine with healing the way it is, especially since potions and scrolls really help a lot at lower levels.
While I agree that healing is at a fine point right now, I don't quite agree with forcing people to play tactically. Don't get me wrong, I like to do so. But I'd rather not force that kind of playstyle on someone that either wants a more laid back game or is playing a character that isn't the brightest tactically.But put me in the same camp. I am fine with healing the way it is, especially since potions and scrolls really help a lot at lower levels.
Odraude, as I see it, this is totally under the control of the GM regardless of whether the party has a healer or not. Making the encounter tactically trivial to defeat for parties that don't want to deal with tactics is a simple exercise for any halfway competent GM.
I've always said that if the gaming group wants to play with a dedicated healer, that's fine. My 4e group does that. I have fun in that campaign. But that's a group that doesn't really execute tactics beyond "jump in there and let the cleric keep you alive." It works too. But in combat healing is much more important and powerful in 4e than in Pathfinder. That's one of the reasons it gets compared to MMORPGs so frequently.
My current monk is a bit like this -- he's a crane style master and has an AC of 26 at level 3... but he's got 30 hp and is still kind of squishy when things actually land. Healing matters more to this character than it would to someone with an AC of 27 possibly some DR and more HP.
+8 (max at level 1) +9 (avg 2d8) +3 (favored class) + 6 (14 con) = 26 hp average. 30 hp doesn't sound that squishy for level 3.
I think the big differences in how people value healing come down to frequency of linked encounters. If you have a GM that throws one encounter after another without time to pass around the CLW wand, you're going to need to heal. If you can't predict when the encounter will end, you still want as many hp as you can get.
It should also be pointed out that you can be a VERY effective healer, and only dedicate half your feats/class abilities/etc. toward healing. You can be the healer/summoner or healer/(de)buffer or healer/blaster and do a decent job of both.
My current monk is a bit like this -- he's a crane style master and has an AC of 26 at level 3... but he's got 30 hp and is still kind of squishy when things actually land. Healing matters more to this character than it would to someone with an AC of 27 possibly some DR and more HP.+8 (max at level 1) +9 (avg 2d8) +3 (favored class) + 6 (14 con) = 26 hp average. 30 hp doesn't sound that squishy for level 3.
I think the big differences in how people value healing come down to frequency of linked encounters. If you have a GM that throws one encounter after another without time to pass around the CLW wand, you're going to need to heal. If you can't predict when the encounter will end, you still want as many hp as you can get.
It should also be pointed out that you can be a VERY effective healer, and only dedicate half your feats/class abilities/etc. toward healing. You can be the healer/summoner or healer/(de)buffer or healer/blaster and do a decent job of both.
Well I'm 'squishy' by d10 hit dice standards, even if not by much (comes out to a 30 base before toughness or what not with a 14 con, 33 with a 16 con 36 with toughness), but yes I could be much more squishy. The main issue is that first round of combat before I get crane style activated and am flat footed or denied my dexterity bonus -- losing 9 points of AC hurts (2 from dexterity, 3 from fighting defensively with crane style +2 from cautious fighter +1 from 3 ranks in acrobatics +1 from dodge).
Having a healer should not be necessary. And I say this as someone who likes to play the healer. The game should function such that an adventuring party that survives a brutal fight should be able to face another brutal fight the same day without being 'healed' in between.