|
As the subject states, where have all the fun PFS modules gone? All I've seen for the past months is meatgrinder after meatgrinder. No plot, no role-playing, just hours of combat versus one-trick ponies who have all sorts of cheesy crap that the authors have designed into the module purely to kill characters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have played about 30 mods and played the newer ones at gen con. I would say the newer scenarios have decent plots to them but when you have ~4 combats and 4 hours to play its kinda hard to work in roleplaying. So I try to make sure that by the end of the scenario (if I am running it) that the players sort of understand what is going on. I think the strength of Pathfinder is its storyline, so it should be more of a focus.
I know from playing Living Greyhawk the power creep hedged out roleplaying in a lot of the modules towards the end because there was concern if mods were challenging enough (others would know better then me if that is exactly what is happening here). I think combat challenge is less of an issue... then a variety of types of challenges... diplomacy and other skills should allow you to bypass a certain amount of combat. That way if you are a rolplaying heavy group you can more or less bypass some combats to focus more on roleplaying. Conversely, if you are party of fighters and REALLY like to get your power attack on ALL the time then you can slog through killing everything.
I still really enjoy the Pathfinder scenarios/ modudules and all in all they do a good job of entertaining me for a 3-5 hour timeslot. I find most of the roleplaying is created by the characters at the table then the scenario itself. Bottom line Sieylianna it depends on what about the game is the most "fun" for you... but I definately understand your concerns.
|
There are great posts in the GM discussion forum for the scenarios that add lots of flavor to encounters if your GM has time to read them.
I know that there are a couple threads for 4-01 Rise of the Goblin Guild that add lots of fun content to the scenario; such as songs for each encounter, and wacky high jinks for NPCs. I could see this scenario feeling like a meatgrinder if it was run on limited prep-time.
|
... diplomacy and other skills should allow you to bypass a certain amount of combat.
Unfortunately my experience is that pretty much every table I've played & GM'd at there's at least one "Alpha Male" fighter / barbarian with a 7 Int whose first action is always to attack, because that's what a 7 Int character would do. If it's a group of them, fine. But in a mixed party they tend to steamroll over any chance at role playing. I'm struggling with this in my home campaign - no matter what anyone else has done in the encounter, on his turn he attacks the NPC.
One of the more memorable scenarios for me was playing my level 5 bard in a group of all casters: bard, sorceress, witch, wizard, and pregen Cleric. It was a refreshing change from the melee hack & slash as the casters try to work around the PC's surrounding the NPC's. My archer bard was the main non-magical damage dealer (as well as the designated "trap-finder" & first one into a room) along with an occasional foray into melee by the cleric.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I agree that Rise of the Goblin Guild and The Golemworks Incident are both loaded with role play (i.e. fun) opportunities. Handled correctly King of the Storval Stairs likewise has lots of fun role playing (which, admittedly, still devolve into fairly brutal fights). In Wrath's Shadow...not so much. I thought it was amusing and worth playing, but it is certainly a more traditional dungeon crawl, and is a scenario whose story is hard to give to the players.
I have not played the other two, so will reserve judgment.
But, even if those two end up being fight after fight, 3 out of 6 scenarios have a high "fun factor," I believe. So, a 50% hit ratio. That's about what previous seasons were, in my experience.
And, echoing what Eric said above, I found my ability to have fun is far more influenced by the players and GMs I end up with than it ever is by the scenarios themselves.
Dunno whether you've done this, but you should start leaving reviews of the scenarios. The developers and writers read those, I know, and they really do influence what comes later.
|
|
From what I've seen, the stories and combat have both gotten better the further along we go. Unfortunately, the time required to experience the best a scenario has to offer has also increased. To get the most out of the newer scenarios you need 5-6 hrs. Trying to fit them into the standard 4 hr slot means roleplay is dropped first to allow parties to finish the adventure.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To get the most out of the newer scenarios you need 5-6 hrs. Trying to fit them into the standard 4 hr slot means roleplay is dropped first to allow parties to finish the adventure.
In cases like this (lots of opportunity for fun RP vs. too much combat), I tend to cut/omit pointless combats (defined as those that aren't part of the main scenario storyline) rather than limit RP.
I won't cut fights that have meaning in exchange for RP, but I will make rational and reasonable adjustments as necessary to fit the story and RP into my often limited timeslot.
-Pain
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're not allowed to cut combat encounters (aside from the optional one) without penalizing the players items and gold (and possibly the faction mission prestige point).
Lol. One of the reasons I hate this reply (not that you necessarily agree with it, Don) is that it suggests that it's okay to cut RP and story when time is short rather than letting the PFS table enjoy RP to fit in mandatory combats.
I reject cutting RP/story for combats when there are time limits.
We've all either been at a table (or, like me, judged a few to my own sadness) where you just run out of time and the last encounter is a hand waved/rushed mess. It happens to us all.
It seems silly that your GMs are not allowed to make rational and reasonable adjustments to accommodate the table and the rules.
I, personally, favor story and RP above all else and still want to have enough time for the meaningful, climatic boss fight.
-Pain
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
"because that's what a 7 Int character would do"
WARNING: I am not pulling punches...
[rant]
I absolutely detest this player comment (not directed at Mr. Manypockets) and any player that uses it to justify poor gameplay is, IMO, an absolute douche. Period. Over 30+ years of gaming, I have seen, time and time again, players create characters that are at odds with their companions and/or the majority of NPC's. Personality conflicts, opposing alignments, low-Int PC's routinely screwing the party with bad tactical decisions or jumping to combat and ruining role-playing, low-Cha characters that seem to go out of their way to sabotage any attempts at role-playing, the list goes on. I love balance in my RPG, and the VAST majority of players I have encountered are the same. If you only enjoy combat and don't like role-playing, then play something else. MMORPG and console games may be more your style. If you hate combat and only enjoy the role-playing, then read a book or play Diplomacy. PFS is a game of balance with player cooperation to overcome challenges at its heart. If you are not embracing that premise, then GO AWAY! Both you and the PFS community will be better for it.
It has been said before, but demands repeating, characters are not the problem, players are. *We* are in charge of the character, from creation to the grave. I am not saying you cannot create unique and memorable characters with flaws that can define their personality, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, well you know the rest. If you create a character who's actions routinely seem to be in conflict with your companions, NPC's, the environment, etc. and said "conflict" is distracting or straight out reducing the fun of the players at the table, STOP FRIGGIN' BUILDING THOSE CHARACTERS!!!!
[/rant]
Sorry for the derail
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
|
We're not allowed to cut combat encounters (aside from the optional one) without penalizing the players items and gold (and possibly the faction mission prestige point).Lol. One of the reasons I hate this reply (not that you necessarily agree with it, Don) is that it suggests that it's okay to cut RP and story when time is short rather than letting the PFS table enjoy RP to fit in mandatory combats.
I reject cutting RP/story for combats when there are time limits.
We've all either been at a table (or, like me, judged a few to my own sadness) where you just run out of time and the last encounter is a hand waved/rushed mess. It happens to us all.
It seems silly that your GMs are not allowed to make rational and reasonable adjustments to accommodate the table and the rules.
I, personally, favor story and RP above all else and still want to have enough time for the meaningful, climatic boss fight.
-Pain
I agree with Painlord on this one. Sometimes adventures must be trimmed to fit.
A perfect GM in a perfect world would give everything in the encounter the attention it deserves.
Sometimes things need to be trimmed a bit, things that should be trimmed are the things that are least important to the story.
Sometimes those things are combat encounters, sometimes those are role-playing opportunities.
What should not happen is the final climatic encounter being cut short because the GM felt that they were unable to cut short a non-important combat earlier.
|
|
Favoring RP over combat is fine and dandy, but in a 4 hour time slot, in which you have to finish the 4-5 encounters to get the rewards, it is certainly not always possible.
I have played in scenarios at Gen Con with tables heavily dominated by RP'ers who have dragged out the first enounter for 2+ hours. While I can and am able to RP, I am of the belief that it should not take up an inordinate amount of time. Especially if there are people who have paid money for that 4 hour slot. You cannot make combats more dangerous, especially at higher levels, and expect them to be able to be done in the same amount of time. If you think it can be done, you are just fooling yourself.
Oh, and as for encounters in which the players have to fight the bad guys in the terrain that is completely set up to destroy the players,(Hello last fight of Golemworks), that's just incredibly cheesy. You wanna make it tough? Fine. But do it in a way that isn't terrible.
|
|
I am a Venture-Captain. My personal opinion is kept to myself. :-/
That is a simple fix.
Go to PaizoCon next year, take off your Venture-Captain hat for a short while and then throw down with Painlord!..
We can call it Don Walker/Painlord Brawl 2013! Maybe we can get a pub brawl going! A whole brawl of Painlords side vs Don's Side! I will be the guy in the middle instigating both sides...;)
|
|
PFS has always been toeing the line between too many combats (more than three per scenario) and just the right number (two or three). At PaizoCon 2012, all my sessions went over time. I was fortunate that my Round Mountain II table was on Sunday morning, meaning that we could go past the six-hour mark. With Season 4, those combats are taking longer to go through, and there are no fewer of them to compensate.
Our local group has consistently been having six-hour sessions lately. It would be nice, on a time-constrained weeknight, to be able to have a five-hour session again. And to do that, it's going to mean less combat, which means either fewer combats will have to be placed in the scenario, or some will have to be trimmed.
That's where all the fun PFS modules have gone, Sieylianna. To longer and longer combats.
-Matt
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Go to PaizoCon next year, take off your Venture-Captain hat for a short while and then throw down with Painlord!..
We can call it Don Walker/Painlord Brawl 2013! Maybe we can get a pub brawl going! A whole brawl of Painlords side vs Don's Side! I will be the guy in the middle instigating both sides...;)
Lol.
The only thing I'd throw down is dice.
I believe Don and I are on the same side...the side where we both want a fun and awesome PFS experience for everyone.
-Pain
|
|
3. The GM running the game. A good GM can certainly make a scenario better.
I think #3 is the deciding factor if a scenario is fun or a complete waste of 4 hours. Amazingly written scenarios in the hands of a bad GM are putrid stinkers while smoking piles of ink on paper are fantastic journeys when run by good GMs.
[Excluding Pain's quote for space] I agree with cutting down combats if it causes crucial RP to be cut. To me this doesn't mean skipping the combat entirely but cutting it down. To save time I call out who's on deck, place people on delay if they....take....for...ever....to...make.....a......move (to give them time to think, of course), I don't take the baddies down to the last hit point (e.g. running away if over half the baddie party is down or retire them to an early grave if below 20% of HPs and no immediate danger to the party). Without telling the story through RP then the table is performing an exercise of initiative and rules look-ups. That's not fun, for me, and I'm sure many others.
My opinion is I rest the entire responsibility on the GM to deliver a fun session. I've had to control bad players, players who try to destroy table dynamics on purpose, expand RP story opportunities if the scenario doesn't detail areas, expand NPC RP opportunities if the table is enjoying the discussion, monologue through important story events (through the eyes of the PC's) if a long combat couldn't be avoided and, above all, conscious time management to know how and when to employ learned tools of the GM trade.
I truly believe every scenario has the potential to deliver RP, combat and story. The GM needs to care enough to deliver it and players need to respect others at the table so each enjoys the "scooby snack" for their PC build.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know I tend to agree. It seems to me that starting with the year of the Ruby Pheonix, PFS modules changed signifiantly. The combats all seem to have some built in gag that draws it out, leaves many players just waiting until they can actually start to act. It's ok once in a while, but, (and this might just be me) seemes to be the norm now. The other thing is that it seemes like a lot more of options for progressions (or understanding) rely on a rediculously high check, and an uncommon one more often than not.
As a generic example, tonights game had an encounter where, as far as we know (and this is my second play through) the first 5+ rounds of combat are people trying to climb a wall just to get to the enemy that can see them, but basically has total cover vs ranged attacks and is about 70ft up. The next two encounters take place in a 5ft hallway, so essentually only one or two characters can really act effectively. These types of things, whle interesting some times, seem ike a really common set up, and not only drag the game on and on with many players simply not bing able to do anything, but also just are not that interesting for the time they take up.
We do try to do a lot of roleplaying, and overall enjoy many of the scenarios we have done, but we also tend to have 6+ hour games for a singe session, and still often miss key points of the info and background that explains what is actually going on. In my opinion Seasons 0 and 1 are the best over all. As a DM I like that the pertenent info is there and easy to find, but not so detailed that I can't put my own spin to it. The later seasons got much more graphic heavy, information is all over the place, sometimes key information, and things are very easy to miss.
As a player, the simplcity of the earlier seasons is a plus, as it allows the DM to reasonably add flavor and setting, and also to personalize the single game to the party/players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and as for encounters in which the players have to fight the bad guys in the terrain that is completely set up to destroy the players,(Hello last fight of Golemworks), that's just incredibly cheesy. You wanna make it tough? Fine. But do it in a way that isn't terrible.
Yes. One module where the bad guys use darkness to harass the party is one thing. When it becomes an every module thing - I've seen it in about 4 of my last 8 modules, it becomes a trite piece of DM cheese.
Also, I learned in my most recent module that I had to suceed in both the faction missions I was given in order to get my AP and the other was for mission completion. That's assinine since most of the two mission modules had an easy one and a very difficult one. So anyone playing the modules these days are going to get boned. The last module I played, along with being poorly written, confusing, and having a totally maxed out boss with terrain advantage and all his buff spells up and running is the first module where I have earned zero PA.
My last two modules have been Rats 2 and Dahlsine Affair - if those were my first two, I would have given up on PFS.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Also, I learned in my most recent module that I had to suceed in both the faction missions I was given in order to get my AP and the other was for mission completion.
Whoever told you that is wrong.
If a scenario has two faction missions, then you will get one prestige point for completing each of them; completing the overall scenario mission is neither necessary nor sufficient.
The very early scenarios, and everything from season 3 onward, only have a single faction mission. In those scenarios a second prestige point is awarded for overall scenario mission completion so that the maximum of 2PP is the same for every scenario.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SEASON 4 SPOILERS BELOW
In Rise of the Goblin Guild, I had a blast roleplaying with Ekkie. Playing a tiefling, I smashed alchemist's fire on my face to impress her. I carried her around town in a barrel, calling it her palantine (sp?) and calling her Queen Ekkie (her domain was my closet in Heidmarch Manor). The most memorable parts of that scenario were the roleplaying.
In The Golemworks Incident, I had a blast with all the creepiness. Someone actually cast detect thoughts on the simulacrum, for ultimate WTF-ness. It was awesome. And roleplaying at the customer service desk was tons of fun.
In The Green Market, I had fun chatting up Zeeva (sp?) and investigating the haunt. Plenty of roleplaying to be had there.
Yeah, I'm not really sure what the OP is talking about.
As the subject states, where have all the fun PFS modules gone? All I've seen for the past months is meatgrinder after meatgrinder. No plot, no role-playing, just hours of combat versus one-trick ponies who have all sorts of cheesy crap that the authors have designed into the module purely to kill characters.
Prepare for a lot of responses along the lines of "there's no such thing as bad or deadly scenarios, just bad GMs!"
|
|
SEASON 4 SPOILERS BELOW
In Rise of the Goblin Guild, I had a blast roleplaying with Ekkie. Playing a tiefling, I smashed alchemist's fire on my face to impress her. I carried her around town in a barrel, calling it her palantine (sp?) and calling her Queen Ekkie (her domain was my closet in Heidmarch Manor). The most memorable parts of that scenario were the roleplaying.
In The Golemworks Incident, I had a blast with all the creepiness. Someone actually cast detect thoughts on the simulacrum, for ultimate WTF-ness. It was awesome. And roleplaying at the customer service desk was tons of fun.
In The Green Market, I had fun chatting up Zeeva (sp?) and investigating the haunt. Plenty of roleplaying to be had there.
Yeah, I'm not really sure what the OP is talking about.
Oh yeah.. definitely the best so far has to be Rise of the Goblin Guild.. Ekkie in the hands of a good DM is ALWAYS going to be fun. One of the fun points of mine was when the players gave her an Everburning torch and she kept trying to set the group rogue on fire with it. And pouting when it didn't.
|
|
New season scenarios are designed for 5-hour slots. If you're playing them in less, you will be rushed.
I find the easiest thing to do to shorten combat is to call them when it's clear the PCs have won. Bad guys surrender or flee. If it states the creatures fight to the death, I look at their remaining hit points, how much damage they've been doing, and call the fight, charging the PCs a few extra uses of their wands of CLW or something similar. There's no need to mindlessly grind out rolls to finish a combat that is clearly all over except the math. Oftentimes, an early encounter is a bad guy with lots of HP but no chance to harm the PCs due to DR/AC/whatever - don't waste your time on these, make the call and move on.
Calling out "Biffboff, your turn, Thaddeus, you're next" can prompt the players to be ready on their turn. I then put someone who isn't ready on "delay" until they are ready. Usually only have to do it once.
Finally, and this is important: the GM decides when initiative is rolled. If an NPC is talking and someone says, "I attack", I let the NPC finish, and other players respond first. Remember, PvP isn't allowed, and neither is acting rashly so that your allies' only way to stop you would be considered PvP. This can allow a lot more RP to occur before or instead of combat.
If you're a GM, don't let combat crush RP. If you're a player and another player is doing this, ask your GM to intervene. Don't let "that's what my 7-Int CN Barbarian would do" be a defense for breaking the "don't be a jerk" rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're not allowed to cut combat encounters (aside from the optional one) without penalizing the players items and gold (and possibly the faction mission prestige point).I reject cutting RP/story for combats when there are time limits.
...
It seems silly that your GMs are not allowed to make rational and reasonable adjustments to accommodate the table and the rules.
I, personally, favor story and RP above all else and still want to have enough time for the meaningful, climatic boss fight.
-Pain
I ran Rise of the Goblin Guild twice this weekend. Both times I ran out of time and had to cut an extra encounter. The players absolutely love roleplaying in the city and dealing with Ekkie. Should we punish the players because they're having fun? Also, the encounter designs in this scenario don't really consider the amount of time they actually take to complete for an average party. I'll keep that info for a different thread.
The question of "Where have all the fun scenarios gone" can be answered in the "New scenarios are difficult thread." Here's a good place to start.
To me, the "fun" of a sceanrio is determined by the following three factors in order of importance:
1) GM (quality, energy)
2) Player (interactions, style, communication)
3) What's written in the scenario
edit: Finally read the whole thread. Ninja'd by Eric 36 hours ago. Now that's a ninja!
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that a big problem with the recent scenarios has been their length. I can't remember the last time I ran an optional encounter in a Season 3 or 4 scenario, and even then my tables often tend to run long -- sometimes extremely long.
I've heard a couple of people mention a 5-hour slot. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I thought the intention with increasing the slot length to 5 hours was that the games should still take about 4 hours, with the extra hour there to handle introductions, setup, paperwork, and teardown. However, I think scenario authors are assuming the full five hours will be available for actual gaming, which is almost never the case when playing at a convention or on a weeknight at a game store.
I was hoping that with the six-player assumption, the number of combats would be reduced to compensate for the fact that everything takes longer with more players. Instead, it seems like they have been kept the same, but now with more bad guys, meaning things take even *longer* to resolve!
*sigh*
|
|
New season scenarios are designed for 5-hour slots. If you're playing them in less, you will be rushed.
That is my biggest problem with Season 4. We don't HAVE 5 hour slots here.
I'm not sure what caused the change but I wish that they'd either go back to an expectation of 4 hour slots OR put in advice on which encounters to drop if one is playing in a 4 hour slot. Yes, I can (and do) make my own decisions along these lines but hopefully the designers would make at least as good decisions.
|
|
The roleplay in the new scenarios is as good (or better) than the older scenarios. The challenge however is extremely high, especially in 4 player tables which I don't believe are being properly scaled back in season 4. It's not fun getting crushed.
Maybe the slots are running too long for roleplay. This will definitely be true if players aren't fast during combat. Being efficient during combat means more time to rp.
Rats 1+2 and Dalsine Affair are notorious for being PC killers. Read the reviews and maybe stay away from known PC killer scenarios. Or find a soft (unprepared) GM, they can turn any scenario into a cake walk.
|
|
I thought I got you out of there on time... although it was largely due to a certain Taldan lady's social graces that sped up one of the encounters!
Of course, I am an expert in my field. I recall having very little time to prepare myself for the Grand Convocation immediately following that little foray, though. I do thank you for your concern regarding the matter of my own rather tight schedule, Venture-Captain. It is a treasure to know that there are some of your rank within the Society who place a level of importance on such matters.
The Rose's blessings in your endeavors,
-Lady Gabrielle d'Apcher
|
|
This is a very interesting thread. Are people playing up when they shouldn't be? Or are these groups filled with characters that are inefficient in combat? My regular group, when playing level appropriate characters, and not trying to push the tier envelope, still cheese-grate the encounters and make the NPCs look very bad.
Early on, we determined that a lot of the challenge to the PFS scenarios would be mobility-based problems, so we plan accordingly. After mobility is addressed, huge dps and high ACs still own PFS scenarios. Plenty of time of roleplaying.
|
|
This is a very interesting thread. Are people playing up when they shouldn't be? Or are these groups filled with characters that are inefficient in combat? My regular group, when playing level appropriate characters, and not trying to push the tier envelope, still cheese-grate the encounters and make the NPCs look very bad.
Early on, we determined that a lot of the challenge to the PFS scenarios would be mobility-based problems, so we plan accordingly. After mobility is addressed, huge dps and high ACs still own PFS scenarios. Plenty of time of roleplaying.
Therein lies at least some of the problem. It's already been mentioned that PFS may be heading down the power creep that got into Living Greyhawk, and the regular group is part of why that happened.
If you (almost) always play with the same people in a global campaign you will have the finely balanced team that is usually associated with homeplay. At a big show, doesn't have to be huge like Gen Con, players are thrown together as best the marshal can manage. My experiences tell the most frequent outcome is some tables may end up with no real healer and that can hurt. It's not "cool" to play a primary healer and having marshalled lots of lone players at cons the past 20 years it's rare that one brings a healer. If they do, they become instantly popular with the other lone players.Regular groups chew through just about anything - random groups often struggle.
Writers don't like to see their carefully crafted encounter chewed through in less than two rounds, so they beef the fights up. And thus the power creep kicks in.
That said, the posts about the GM and the players being what makes a table fun are where my thinking sits. A good GM will make any scenario fun. A bad GM will ruin the moment no matter how good the scenario may be. And if the players come to the table expecting to not have fun chances are they won't have fun. You might wonder why they're playing if they start with a low expectation. I've wondered that myself, but I've seen it happen often enough to know it's not an isolated thing.
|
|
Maybe that's something that needs to be addressed. It's very hard to function at about level 5 if all you have are CLW wands. That's just the mathematics of Pathfinder. It's not like other games don't practically mandate a healer to be available: 3.5 D+D, WoW, Everquest, etc.
4th edition's attempt at making a healer not necessary failed miserably, as healing surges were never enough.
I personally don't think that having a healer and some competent character builds are really "power creep". That's all you really need to crush these scenarios if you are not playing up when you shouldn't be. Being optimized seems to ruin them.
If anything, the scenarios still have real trouble standing up to a single combat optimizer or something like a summoner. Ie, many fights have been too *short*.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's very hard to function at about level 5 if all you have are CLW wands. That's just the mathematics of Pathfinder.
...Are you serious? I've got two PCs at 9th level, and I could probably count on one hand the number of sessions I've played with a true "healer" in the group. Your "mathematics of Pathfinder" are more likely just your personal experiences - ones which are not necessarily representative of campaign-wide trends or actual facts.
|
|
Actually I was serious. But if that is indeed the trend, then I could see where some of the issues with the new seasons are coming from then. Not having a true healer (by which I mean someone who can cast level-appropriate healing spells; doesn't have to be a cleric) really reduces the margin for error in combat, which is not desirable at all with a random group.
And yes, my usual experience is to play with 2-3 people I know and 2-3 randoms. Among the people I know, we engineer to have a healer present to cover that base, since it greatly eases combat *and* speeds it up.
|
|
I found my cleric casting heal quite a bit during combat in Eyes of the Ten. In fact, had we not had two clerics at the table, I doubt we would have gotten through with only one death throughout the entire series.
At first and second level, healers cast level-appropriate healing all the time. Between 2nd and 11th? Not so much except breath of life.