Healing in PFO, powerful or just an add on?


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

How will this be handled in PFO?

Will only very few classes be able to heal "well" and do these classes need to skill deep into the corresponding trees for this to balance the power of the heals?

Will most PvE encounters suppose that there is powerful in combat healing available?

Will a dedicated healer be able to counter the damage of two dedicated damage dealers?

Goblin Squad Member

As a bard aficianado, I hope to have minor healing abilities. A dedicated healer should be able to do better. Of course a lot depends on the PFO healing system. Will they have passive regen out of combat? Will it be fast? Slow? Will they have no regen without magic? I see passive regen more likely since it would make longer exploration trips easier unless they create a rest mechanic like Bioware's Neverwinter Nights did.

Goblin Squad Member

I hope that the (good) cleric can be the best healer available like in the tabletop with the channel positive energy.

The blog have said:«Solo play is going to require a character that has quite a bit of diversity in character abilities. You'll want to be able to explore (to find stuff), to heal (to recover from the monsters that infest the stuff you find), to adventure (so you can cope with the hostile environments you'll be exploring), and to fight (so you can try to kill the creatures that make those environments especially hostile). (Sounds very "ranger-y" or "druid-y" to us.)»

Source:https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20120215

So that say that the pve will take to account that the player have healing with them.

Druid and ranger will likely have just enough to them, but a group should have a priest to heal the group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gayel Nord wrote:
Druid and ranger will likely have just enough to them, but a group should have a priest to heal the group.

Unequivocally and whole-heartedly disagree.

No specific class should ever be "required".
No specific class should ever be "the best at" a given role.

Adding either of these to the game basically changes those classes from being desirable to being mandatory amongst more serious play circles. No dedicated group wants the second best, and no player wants to be the class that people settle for when <x> isn't around.

Goblin Squad Member

There was a really interesting thread some time back: Get rid of the Trinity roles in PFO.

Ryan had some really interesting analysis that makes it sound like the classic Tank/Healer/DPS trinity is probably not going to exist in PFO, or will be significantly different in some important ways.

Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:
Gayel Nord wrote:
Druid and ranger will likely have just enough to them, but a group should have a priest to heal the group.

Unequivocally and whole-heartedly disagree.

No specific class should ever be "required".
No specific class should ever be "the best at" a given role.

Adding either of these to the game basically changes those classes from being desirable to being mandatory amongst more serious play circles. No dedicated group wants the second best, and no player wants to be the class that people settle for when <x> isn't around.

You make good points but I don't see a way around clerics being the best healers, thiefs being the best trap removers, druids being the best shapeshifters, etc..at some point we need something that still has a connection to the Pathfinder RPG.

I'm fine with one class being the best at something as long as every class is the best at something and they all have roles to fill.


Hrm, Personally I don't think that trying to eliminate the trinity will work, because I don't really think players want the trinity to go away. I think there are too many people out there who like playing "the healer" or "the tank".

I personally think that a lot of it stems from human potential for multitasking. The "trinity" developed because abilities had to be spread out to encourage teamwork, and persisted because it works. It is a lot easier to focus on one or two tasks then 4 or 5. When a person is being called on to watch their health, watch out for AOEs, figure out where the monsters are going, worry about what sequence to use abilities in, determine if they need to use some cooldown style ability, heal themselves, heal someone else, save someone else, etc, they do so far less efficiently then only being called on to perform 2 or 3 of those tasks at a time.

The fact that efficiency tends to bring success, and success tends to bring enjoyment, has made the trinity a staple not so much because it's easy to design for, but because players actively embrace it.

So no, I don't think the trinity is going to go away until MMO players decide they want it to go away. Even if the mechanics don't support it, players will continue to try to find ways to make it work.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

I feel that the trinity will be around, but maybe in a bit of an altered form. I know GW2 has tried to kick the trinity out and I seriously hated going into a dungeon and just having a boss running all over the place.

What I am hoping to see if that people will be able in a way to spec into a build that will have some healing, but for main healing 1 or 2 classes for it. If you have a good healer in PvP or in PvE it will make things so much easier and less frustrating. I know that for PvP it will be one of the most daunting tasks ever but if you have a close knit grp it works.

no holy trinity is just, meah for me.

Goblinworks Game Designer

Keep in mind that players don't have aggro mechanics, so you'd have to have very good positioning to convince them to keep attacking a "tank" that was being healed faster than they could do damage rather than just greasing the healer. We'll likely do our best to get AI enemies to behave similarly so there's not a huge disconnect between PvP and PvE fights.

The Pathfinder tabletop roles with the easiest access to healing also tend to be capable combatants, rather than their main job being hanging in the back refilling health bars like in some games, and we're very likely to maintain that in PFO. That is, you'll probably have a hard time setting up as a "dedicated healer" in the first place, and you'd be giving up a lot of useful non-healing contributions if you do.

So with those elements in mind, how would people like to see healing work?

Goblin Squad Member

I wonder if healing can only be done in a major capacity outside of combat "zone"? A few band-aid small heals but healing well away or after combat seems better to me for serious effects and injuries, so the weak can retreat for medical attention to try to regroup - and make the remaining combatants fight more severely or stalling tactics?

Goblin Squad Member

Healing should play a role in combat and not only outside.

I can see Battle Clerics able to heal while dishing out some damage, Bards having HoTs and Holy Clerics having big group heals or such.

So if mobs (like players) tend to go for the healers first, I guess the squishies need to be able to withstand some damage or have some crowd control.

Another HUGE factor is how easy it will be to cast spells while under attack. In DAoC for instance you couldn't cast at all while under attack while in WoW everything is instant anyways so it doesn't really matter.

If PFO aims for tactical combat I would prefer the former, casting while being damaged is very hard/impossible.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Thanks for speaking up Stephen!

I still lean towards the holy trinity, I didn't like the way it was done in GW2 for PvP that everyone was able to heal and you were a bit of a hybrid. The option for people to play full dedicated healers for PvP (and they are good at it) will be good for me. Have someone who is well armored soak up the hits and then the damage dealers.

My main fear, and if that is the case I might change my option, will be player collision. If that is done and will be in place it will make a healer job harder but also more fun to do.


Stephen Cheney wrote:

Keep in mind that players don't have aggro mechanics, so you'd have to have very good positioning to convince them to keep attacking a "tank" that was being healed faster than they could do damage rather than just greasing the healer. We'll likely do our best to get AI enemies to behave similarly so there's not a huge disconnect between PvP and PvE fights.

The Pathfinder tabletop roles with the easiest access to healing also tend to be capable combatants, rather than their main job being hanging in the back refilling health bars like in some games, and we're very likely to maintain that in PFO. That is, you'll probably have a hard time setting up as a "dedicated healer" in the first place, and you'd be giving up a lot of useful non-healing contributions if you do.

So with those elements in mind, how would people like to see healing work?

Similar to Tabletop, I would prefer to see healing as something that occurs after fights to reduce downtime, rather than necessary during the fight except in emergency situations. If you truly want to eliminate the trinity, you need to eliminate the need for in-combat healing except as an emergency mechanism, in this gamer's opinion.

Goblin Squad Member

MicMan wrote:

Healing should play a role in combat and not only outside.

I can see Battle Clerics able to heal while dishing out some damage, Bards having HoTs and Holy Clerics having big group heals or such.

So if mobs (like players) tend to go for the healers first, I guess the squishies need to be able to withstand some damage or have some crowd control.

Another HUGE factor is how easy it will be to cast spells while under attack. In DAoC for instance you couldn't cast at all while under attack while in WoW everything is instant anyways so it doesn't really matter.

If PFO aims for tactical combat I would prefer the former, casting while being damaged is very hard/impossible.

That's a good point about clerics. I wonder if "prevention" could be more the idea for their "healing spells" (ie buffs, or protections) and actual "curing" being very energy/stamina expensive - during combat? And time intensive out of combat?

I prefer "healing" to be more about buffs or removing various conditions and critical damage to be much harder to shift that "life-meter" back up. Tbh feedback from characters who enjoy the various tricks and skills of healing might be more valuable than my opinions.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:
Stephen Cheney wrote:

Keep in mind that players don't have aggro mechanics, so you'd have to have very good positioning to convince them to keep attacking a "tank" that was being healed faster than they could do damage rather than just greasing the healer. We'll likely do our best to get AI enemies to behave similarly so there's not a huge disconnect between PvP and PvE fights.

The Pathfinder tabletop roles with the easiest access to healing also tend to be capable combatants, rather than their main job being hanging in the back refilling health bars like in some games, and we're very likely to maintain that in PFO. That is, you'll probably have a hard time setting up as a "dedicated healer" in the first place, and you'd be giving up a lot of useful non-healing contributions if you do.

So with those elements in mind, how would people like to see healing work?

Similar to Tabletop, I would prefer to see healing as something that occurs after fights to reduce downtime, rather than necessary during the fight except in emergency situations. If you truly want to eliminate the trinity, you need to eliminate the need for in-combat healing except as an emergency mechanism, in this gamer's opinion.

Hmmm your idea might be interesting but I doubt that will work in a MMO. If you look at bossfights in a themepark MMO there is always healing, in PvP the same thing. And I doubt that we would start as a char with 6hp and find a rat with 4hp and then fight and die because there was no way to heal ourself (bad example I know but had to make one) and same goes for facing a dragon or a giant.

Goblin Squad Member

I belive in combat healing should be done in emergency situations. but the way i've always had the pnp PF work for my groups is whoever has hit the mob gets noticed. that means if the squishy wizard hits hard before a melee gets a chance to swing the mob is going after the wizard. i would hope something similiar would work for PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

There should be a balance in the party between damage, toughness, and healing. It should be possible to not have a healer, but the party would have to be full of high HP and well armored characters.

99 times out of 100, bringing a healers and high damage characters should be more efficient than bringing a bunch of heavy armor high HP characters.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:

Keep in mind that players don't have aggro mechanics, so you'd have to have very good positioning to convince them to keep attacking a "tank" that was being healed faster than they could do damage rather than just greasing the healer. We'll likely do our best to get AI enemies to behave similarly so there's not a huge disconnect between PvP and PvE fights.

The Pathfinder tabletop roles with the easiest access to healing also tend to be capable combatants, rather than their main job being hanging in the back refilling health bars like in some games, and we're very likely to maintain that in PFO. That is, you'll probably have a hard time setting up as a "dedicated healer" in the first place, and you'd be giving up a lot of useful non-healing contributions if you do.

So with those elements in mind, how would people like to see healing work?

Given that I think healing should be powerful abilities with long cooldowns. If rather than having a heal that does 50 points of healing and has a 1 second cooldown it does 500 points of healing and has a 20 second cooldown, players will be forced to mix their healing with other abilities.

This presents 2 problems though:
1. It has a huge potential to become overpowered.
2. It will be super underpowered if you have to switch weapons in order to heal.

For one I say experiment with it a bit and see what you can come up with. You may have to have to lower the healing a bit, up the resources required to cast the healing, or find ways to make it so having healing makes your other abilities a bit less powerful.

With two there I two good solutions. You could make all healing abilities refresh abilities. You could also make healing abilities something you have access to on your primary weapons. For instance you might make touch-heal abilities able to be fit into melee weapon ability slots, and ranged-heal abilities able to fit onto a holy symbol that also contains non-healing spells.

Goblin Squad Member

As a future alchemist/potion maker I would like ALL healing to come from POTIONS! j/k

I think in-combat heals should have a long cool down. If a healer can just sit there and spam heals then fights become "who brought the most healers wins".

Now if that healer can only throw out one heal during your average fight its still worth having them around and it lets those healers do something besides stare at health bars the whole game.

Goblin Squad Member

I took a shower, so of course a brilliant idea came to me. Or rather I have more of a specific idea of how to make an earlier idea work.

Most healing abilities are long cooldown fairly powerful abilities that go into weapon slots. For instance the "healing touch" ability can be slotted on your cleric's mace of paladin's bastard sword. And the "healing ray" ability can be slotted on your clerics holy symbol.

Each healing ability slotted lowers the damage rating of the weapon by a bit.

So the end result would be like this:

Your paladin has a bastard sword that can do about 100 DPS. You slot "healing touch." on that sword. Healing touch does 200 healing and has a 10 second cooldown. It also lowers that weapon's damage rating a bit.

Now you have a powerful healing ability that leaves you 9 seconds of doing nothing unless you use that sword for it's other intended purpose. Damage.

Your new effective output is 80 DPS and 20 HPS. You have healing, you still primarily use other combat abilities, and it isn't overpowered. Though I would say probably testing would reveal 80 DPS and 40 healing to be more balanced, since it requires a split in your attention. It would make you a 1vs1 PVP god, but who cares about 1vs1 PVP?

The other thing you could do is make it so when you switch weapons all the healing abilities start on cooldown. That way you don't whip out your holy symbol, pop off a bunch of super long cooldown heals, then switch back to a 100% damage weapon.

Note: Before someone inevitably comments on it. No you aren't healing with the melee weapon. Think of weapon abilities more as things you can do WHILE using a weapon, and less as things that weapon itself actually does. Like having a melee weapon out allows you to use the kick ability. That's because you are likely to kick someone when you are in close enough to use that weapon. Not because you need that weapon to kick someone.

Goblin Squad Member

I would like to see in-combat healing generally reserved for emergency situations. For me, that means that a healer shouldn't be able to heal more hit points than a warrior has. I also think it makes sense for there to be diminishing returns for healing the same target in a single combat.


I would see it as more duel-wieldind with a mace in one hand and a huge bandaid in the other. Of course the pure spec healer type of player probably will not even have an offensive weapon (maybe an offensive spell or two) I have played with the Idea of having a Pacifist character as my alt. A diplomate/medical claric of Abadar. A healing system should be impleted and very useful but not nessasary just like any other class is not always needed.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't want to see combat healing emergency only, but somewhere between that and constantly necessary.

There are people that want to play as heal-bots, keeping the party at full health as much as possible, and really don't want to play a damage role in combat. The key is making healing not necessary, just another way to play.

I would like to see a triangle of balance between healing amount, toughness, and damage. The less of one you have, the more you need of the other two, and if you have none of one, you need to be very high in the other two.

Goblin Squad Member

I look forward to players "trying" to make the trinity work in a PvP environment. Too much specialization means you have really good strengths and really big weaknesses. A good tactician will make your strengths seem pointless and wasted and your weaknesses look like super "nerfs".

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
I look forward to players "trying" to make the trinity work in a PvP environment. Too much specialization means you have really good strengths and really big weaknesses. A good tactician will make your strengths seem pointless and wasted and your weaknesses look like super "nerfs".

It will be hard in this setting to do it, and it will be a challenge. But if people are willing to put in the time, effort and willing specialize a character, more power to them. I might actually look into the option of different chars and specialize them so I have them ready for certain events.

Goblin Squad Member

I actually did play the "healbot" in PnP Pathfinder. Life Mystery Oracle. Worked pretty well with the group I had. We had a Barbarian to murderlate everything and I patched him up. The biggest offensive spell I had at low-mid levels was spiritual hammer. He also rolled around (one time literally) in full plate armour. Didn't worry about the proficiency since I wasn't going to attack anything personally.

Goblin Squad Member

As someone who has always ended up being a healer for my group of friends, I can say that I want a middle ground. Dedicated healing is very rewarding in good teams, but it can be tiresome when you are always the focus or burn target for enemies. I love PVP, and I always end up going for a healer with high survivability and large single heals.

For people who play dedicated healers, there is nothing else they want to play. For people who play hybrids, they generally can't stand dedicated healing. I love both, but for different reasons.

If I heal as a priest, I expect to be primarily healing and "curing" my allies while they protect me. If I play a paladin/cleric, I would like to be up there smacking things around while dropping large emergency heals and buffing/curing friends. I expect my damage to be moderate and my emergency heals to be powerful enough to turn a tide when used right, but not really a spammable thing. To prevent myself from being useless, providing some sort of buffing/curing to allies would also make me useful enough to bring along as support to the dedicated healer.

I feel both types have their place in a MMO, and both have their dedicated player base.

Goblin Squad Member

Psyblade wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
I look forward to players "trying" to make the trinity work in a PvP environment. Too much specialization means you have really good strengths and really big weaknesses. A good tactician will make your strengths seem pointless and wasted and your weaknesses look like super "nerfs".
It will be hard in this setting to do it, and it will be a challenge. But if people are willing to put in the time, effort and willing specialize a character, more power to them. I might actually look into the option of different chars and specialize them so I have them ready for certain events.

But the trinity, which you seem to "lean towards" is specialization.

Typically you got one guy who can take a lot of damage, but deals little to moderate damage, one who is a high damage glass canon, and a healbot. It works great for scripted encounters, but against other players who focus on builds that let them outmaneuver you, 3 of them can quickly kill off the healbot and the glass canon. Then two keep the tank distracted while the third loots the two corpses. Then the remaining three decide whether the tank is worth the bother or to just leave him choking on their dust.

Scarab Sages

Robb Smith wrote:


Adding either of these to the game basically changes those classes from being desirable to being mandatory amongst more serious play circles. No dedicated group wants the second best, and no player wants to be the class that people settle for when <x> isn't around.

I used to LMAO in EQ when my group of second tier classes smoked top tier groups in terms of performance.

Warrior/Chanter/Cleric/Zerker x2/Wizard < Magician x5, Shaman. Magician was considered second tier dps and most groups only invited a shaman for buffs.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
I look forward to players "trying" to make the trinity work in a PvP environment. Too much specialization means you have really good strengths and really big weaknesses. A good tactician will make your strengths seem pointless and wasted and your weaknesses look like super "nerfs".

I'm hoping this would be particularly true in all out wars, what with lines of troops rather than adventuring parties.

But maybe I just want to see great generals arise, eh?


Artanthos wrote:

I used to LMAO in EQ when my group of second tier classes smoked top tier groups in terms of performance.

Warrior/Chanter/Cleric/Zerker x2/Wizard < Magician x5, Shaman. Magician was considered second tier dps and most groups only invited a shaman for buffs.

You are talking about an extremely specialized group of characters that only functions because you can summon 5 tank-based pets to spread damage around, while the mages sit in the back and nuke. Substitute ANY OTHER 2nd tier class besides Magician(or Necromancer, since the mechanic is the same) and that group wipes on the first pull.

I'd like to think it's also pretty well known that +HP buffs in EQ were completely overpowered when utilized on pets. I think all die-hard MMO vets of that time period know about the legend of the nerfwalker.

Seriously man, I want to cut you some slack but you're going to need to come up with a waaaay better example of "2nd tier classes outperforming 1st tier classes" to make any sort of argument on that. Or did you just assume I wouldn't know enough about EQ to call you out on it?


Psyblade wrote:
I still lean towards the holy trinity, I didn't like the way it was done in GW2 for PvP that everyone was able to heal and you were a bit of a hybrid. The option for people to play full dedicated healers for PvP (and they are good at it) will be good for me. Have someone who is well armored soak up the hits and then the damage dealers.

Heh, I loved Guild Wars 2's system, especially for PvP. I played a melee support ele -- I could keep regeneration on my teammates pretty much constantly, with high protection uptime (reduced incoming damage by 1/3 for those not familiar) while also being able to grant swiftness and might -- all of this happened while I swapped attunements to players near me. I also had lots of easy, frequent condition removal for my fellow meleers, and plenty of CC. I could also grant buffs to all of us using blast finishers well.

...and I could still survive on the frontline, or solo kill multiple other level 80s. This isn't an "I'm awesome" thing, this is a, "with enough micromanagement, it was dynamic and awesome and I never felt like an anything-bot" explanation. And that's why I loved it. I wasn't necessary, but I sure made things a hell of a lot smoother for all involved while being a threat in my own right.

For Pathfinder specifically, I'd prefer several classes be able to heal reasonably well, even if they do it in different ways. The only healers shouldn't have to be lawful good clerics or whatever. With a heavy reliance on alignments, I'm a little afraid that anyone who doesn't toe the line will be at so much of a disadvantage that it ultimately won't be worth it to be anything but good ... and when that happens is when things get boring for everyone. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Ruse wrote:
For Pathfinder specifically, I'd prefer several classes be able to heal reasonably well, even if they do it in different ways. The only healers shouldn't have to be lawful good clerics or whatever. With a heavy reliance on alignments, I'm a little afraid that anyone who doesn't toe the line will be at so much of a disadvantage that it ultimately won't be worth it to be anything but good ... and when that happens is when things get boring for everyone. :)

There will have to be some adjustments but being Lawful-Good NEEDS to be a clearly better option than Chaotic Evil.

There is a reason 99% of veteran players in Open World PVP MMOs like Darkfall and Mortal are always evil aligned. It's because there is no real mechanical downside to being so.

You're giving up mechanical benefit for not having to follow restrictions. Those benefits need to be meaningful.

Goblin Squad Member

I've played pure healers before. In DDO, my primary was a Cleric that was 'literaly' a walking shrine. I truly enjoyed playing him, so having that type of option would appeal to me for PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

@Banesama another DDO fan :D I love how arcanes can be self healing in that game (warforged and pale masters). Nothing harder to kill in that game than 12 pale masters huddled together each with both death auras active.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't feel that Lawful Good needs to be better. With the settlement perks for LG, it seems that going evil will already have enough disadvantages.


Andius wrote:
Ruse wrote:
For Pathfinder specifically, I'd prefer several classes be able to heal reasonably well, even if they do it in different ways. The only healers shouldn't have to be lawful good clerics or whatever. With a heavy reliance on alignments, I'm a little afraid that anyone who doesn't toe the line will be at so much of a disadvantage that it ultimately won't be worth it to be anything but good ... and when that happens is when things get boring for everyone. :)

There will have to be some adjustments but being Lawful-Good NEEDS to be a clearly better option than Chaotic Evil.

There is a reason 99% of veteran players in Open World PVP MMOs like Darkfall and Mortal are always evil aligned. It's because there is no real mechanical downside to being so.

You're giving up mechanical benefit for not having to follow restrictions. Those benefits need to be meaningful.

From what I've read they're already planning a lot of ways to make Chaotic Evil less appealing, though. Higher town upkeep, which leads to higher training costs, people being able to attack YOU without alignment loss, etc.

I agree it should definitely have its downsides ... but I don't think in a battle of good vs. evil (assuming relatively equal numbers/skill), good should win just because evil can't have healers. Or worse yet, if the same thing happened in good vs. neutral.

Scarab Sages

Robb Smith wrote:
Artanthos wrote:

I used to LMAO in EQ when my group of second tier classes smoked top tier groups in terms of performance.

Warrior/Chanter/Cleric/Zerker x2/Wizard < Magician x5, Shaman. Magician was considered second tier dps and most groups only invited a shaman for buffs.

You are talking about an extremely specialized group of characters that only functions because you can summon 5 tank-based pets to spread damage around, while the mages sit in the back and nuke. Substitute ANY OTHER 2nd tier class besides Magician(or Necromancer, since the mechanic is the same) and that group wipes on the first pull.

I'd like to think it's also pretty well known that +HP buffs in EQ were completely overpowered when utilized on pets. I think all die-hard MMO vets of that time period know about the legend of the nerfwalker.

Seriously man, I want to cut you some slack but you're going to need to come up with a waaaay better example of "2nd tier classes outperforming 1st tier classes" to make any sort of argument on that. Or did you just assume I wouldn't know enough about EQ to call you out on it?

or Beastlords.

or 6 paladins facing undead.

or (earlier in the game) 6 wizards.

or we can exclude any non-perfect group as not counting because they succeeded using the tactics best suited to their capabilities instead of the preset formula most players used.

EQ was the game that established the holy trinity. Even in that game it failed when players were willing to look outside the box.

As for hp buffs on pets ... if you think that even mattered outside low level farming it goes to show you never ran one. High level pet groups either stunned-locked and dps'd or they cycled unbuffed pets.

Goblin Squad Member

@Stephen Cheney

I would like the healer to be very judicious in his/her casting spells, giving them more of a chance to battle. Regaining spell points should not be easy and require meaningful rest. I would also like to see channel energy worked in with the same mentality that it might take a while to recover the attempts fully, not just a shrine to rest at.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:

Keep in mind that players don't have aggro mechanics, so you'd have to have very good positioning to convince them to keep attacking a "tank" that was being healed faster than they could do damage rather than just greasing the healer. We'll likely do our best to get AI enemies to behave similarly so there's not a huge disconnect between PvP and PvE fights.

The Pathfinder tabletop roles with the easiest access to healing also tend to be capable combatants, rather than their main job being hanging in the back refilling health bars like in some games, and we're very likely to maintain that in PFO. That is, you'll probably have a hard time setting up as a "dedicated healer" in the first place, and you'd be giving up a lot of useful non-healing contributions if you do.

So with those elements in mind, how would people like to see healing work?

The same feeling in the roleplaying games. I do not think that the cleric can just do healing. But it is the best group healer with his ability to channel positive energy. This power heal a average of the quarter of all hitpoint and a cure wound is useful after the fight, because everyone is attacked. If the warrior is not the least injured, the thief has little left so he treats everyone in the vicinity, He should only use cure wound in an emergency and even it may have already used his most powerful spell. So, there are only the lower level spells left.

I'll make an example of our cleric in the campaign where I play.
Our cleric is a para-medic warrier. It is in the heat of the action. His feats are just focused on concentration. His first spells he throws are his fire domain and then it protects and heals the group after. The group members can collect a number of stroke before seeking help.

Spells of protection, he is the first to use them. To date, our cleric is the one who has been killed the most. They tried to steal his soul, and he was poisoned numerous times and half the fight he is under zero. During a surprise attack, He is the target. There have even been times when he cast freedom of movement on himself and it was me who was grapple. He was right, because we would have missed the talents of our best group healer (and I say group) and a good fire power.

I would like the healing being done by level. I mean that the spell of remove disease would not have always the same power. A Disease level 5 should not be treated with a remove of level three. It could, slowing or canceling this effect for a while, but that could not be remove.

For example, I am suffering from leprosy, a disease level 5. Every 15 minutes I lose skill levels achieved on the attribute affected (attribute also down). After one hour. If I did not care, I may have lose a significants levels of competence. I would than need of restoration. If I have resistance to the disease, if I got treated by a lot of lower level or in a non-magical way. I have some time where the disease, although present and infectious, does not affect me. The remove diesease level 4 can have no effect on me for 30 minutes, but I could not have the same spell cast on me after 30 minutes because it takes a lot more powerful to work) Same for curses.

The problem with this idea is that it is perhaps better and faster to kill myself than be treated.

non-magical heals should never have the same effect as magic. Except for the points, everything non-mechanical heal could do is to prevent the symptoms of the disease to come after some time.

Cure wound or channel positive energy (or mercy. I have forgot about them) should not be very powerful. Only to make last the combat a little longer, but with equal force, the monster will do more damage than healing.

(Version orignale)

Le même sentiment que dans le jeu de rôle. Je ne pensait pas que le cleric n'avait que le but de soigner. Mais qu'il soit le meilleur soigneur de groupe avec sa faculté de channel positive energy. Cette faculté remonte en moyenne le quart de tous nos points de vie et les sort de soins direct sont utile après le combat, car tout le monde se fait attaqué. Si le guerrier n'est pas pour le moins du monde blessé, le voleur lui reste que peu de points de vie alors il soigne tout le monde au alentours. Il n'utilise que les soins de sort direct en cas d'urgence et même il peut déjà avoir utilisé ses sorts le plus puissant . Alors il ne reste que des sorts de niveau inférieurs.

Je vais faire l'exemple de notre cleric dans la campagne où je joue.
Notre cleric est un para-médic combatant. Il est dans le feu de l'action. Ses feats sont juste axé sur la concentration. Ses premiers sorts qu'il lance sont de son domaine du feu et ensuite il protège et après ils soigne le groupe. Les membre du groupe peuvent encaisser un certain nombre de coup avant de demander de l'aide.

Les sorts de protection, c'est sur lui qui les lance. À ce jour, notre cleric a été celui qui a été tué le plus souvent. On a essayé de lui voler son âme, empoisonné et a été de nombreuse fois sous la barre des zéros. Durant un attaque surprise, c'est lui qu'on vise. Il est même arrivé des moments où il lançait le sort de freedom of mouvement sur lui alors, que c'était moi que était grapplé. Il avait bien raison, car nous aurions manqué les talents de notre meilleur soigneur de groupe (et je dit bien groupe)et d'un bonne puissance de feu.

Je voudrais que le healing se fasse par niveau. Je veux dire que le sort de soins des maladies bien qu'un sort de niveau 3 dans le jeu de rôle n'aurait pas toujours la même puissance. Une maladie de niveau 5 ne devrais pas être soignée par soin de niveau trois. Elle pourrait par contre le ralentir ou annuler c'est effet pendant une certain temps, mais que ne pourrais pas être renouveler.

Par exemple, je suis atteint de la lèpre, un maladie de niveau 5. Elle dure 1 heure de jeu. À chaque 15 minutes je perd des niveaux de compétence sur l'attribut atteint (L'attribut aussi descente). Après une heure. Si je n'ai pas de soins, je risque d'avoir perdu un niveau important de compétence pour avoir besoin du sort de restauration. Si je suis entraîné à la résistance à la maladie, si je me suis fait soigner par un sort de niveau inférieur ou de façon non magique. J'ai un certain temps où la maladie, bien que présente et infectieuse, ne m'affecte pas. Le sort de guérison des maladies niveau 4 permet de ne pas avoir d'effet pendant 30 minutes, mais je ne pourrais pas avoir le même sort ou inférieur après 30 minutes car il faut un sort plus puissant pour que cela fonctionne) Même chose pour les curses.

Le problème avec cette idée,c'est qu'il convient peut-être mieux de se tuer avec presque rien pour se faire se soigner sois-même.

Un soin non-magical ne pourra jamais avoir le même effet que la magie. À part pour les points de vie, tout ce que le non-mécanique pourrais faire c'est empêcher les symptômes de la maladie pendant un certain temps.

Un soin de point de vie ne devrait pas être très puissant. Seulement pour faire durer le combat un peu plus longtemps, mais à force égale, le monstre va faire plus de dégâts que les soins.


Quote:
or we can exclude any non-perfect group as not counting because they succeeded using the tactics best suited to their capabilities instead of the preset formula most players used.

Depends on if you can you think of any parties comprised of selections of 2nd tier classes that can "take all comers" that don't rely on having 4+ members of the same class exploiting very specific abilities of their class against a very limited selection of monsters that consistently, not occasionally, outperform "classic style" groups.

"<x>" burn parties were common in FFXI and were more successful then conventional groups, but when this phenomenon started it was heavily frowned upon by the playerbase and Square.

The end result of this is worse than having a trinity setup. Instead of having a trinity, you end up with players who all gravitate towards the handful of classes that can participate in these types of groups. Trying to find a DPS that wasn't a Samurai or Black Mage or finding a group as a DPS class other than Samurai or Black Mage in FFXI was an exercise in frustration towards my end of playing that game.

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:

Keep in mind that players don't have aggro mechanics, so you'd have to have very good positioning to convince them to keep attacking a "tank" that was being healed faster than they could do damage rather than just greasing the healer. We'll likely do our best to get AI enemies to behave similarly so there's not a huge disconnect between PvP and PvE fights.

The Pathfinder tabletop roles with the easiest access to healing also tend to be capable combatants, rather than their main job being hanging in the back refilling health bars like in some games, and we're very likely to maintain that in PFO. That is, you'll probably have a hard time setting up as a "dedicated healer" in the first place, and you'd be giving up a lot of useful non-healing contributions if you do.

So with those elements in mind, how would people like to see healing work?

If you are doing content designed to be soloable you should not need healing, unless your incredibly stupid, afk or lag out.

Group content should scale up at some point to require SOME healing which can be provided by multiple classes/builds.

Elite content, i.e. a raids, should require dedicated healing which could be provided by more then one class/build, but fewer then the group content.

PVE content if it requires healing needs to have agro mechanics, or the healer needs to be able to survive pulling agro at which point he becomes OP.

PVP

Needs to be fun.

Dieing the instant the other side recognizes you as a healer = not fun.

ergo you either need to make healer OP in pvp OR you need to give the healers allies some method of helping the healer survive, i.e. agro/stun/snare/shielding mechanics to mitigate damage against them/

remember not fun = players quitting = game dies.

Goblin Squad Member

I should also add class/build is more generally something along the lines of multiple classes with multiple builds (I think cleric and oracle and paladin and maybe druids which I'm not yet familiar with in PnP)

Each build under each class should basically offer tradeoffs, the more healing ability you have, the less pure dps or damage mitigation you should have.

Goblin Squad Member

Summersnow wrote:

PVP

Needs to be fun.

Dieing the instant the other side recognizes you as a healer = not fun.

ergo you either need to make healer OP in pvp OR you need to give the healers allies some method of helping the healer survive, i.e. agro/stun/snare/shielding mechanics to mitigate damage against them/

remember not fun = players quitting = game dies.

I'd assume it makes sense to develop healing under the context of pvp, primarily in PfO. (To be sure, this is assuming the tank-trinity-pve style is reevaluated).

1. Lots of variables
2. Not always "balanced"
3. Healing adds strategy more than mechanics (ie life-meter contest) would be preferable
4. I'd prefer to avoid the OP problem of healers (group with most healers wins).
5. Perhaps healing leaves healers v vulnerable/exhausted after a heal? Or they require certain conditions to heal eg a player disengaged for x seconds can then start receiving a heal transfer?
6. more emphasis on prevention than cure?

Goblin Squad Member

Good points AvenaOats.

When I left WoW healing was incredibly strong because healers with the right gear never went OOM and could simply spam groupheals even while under heavy fire.

That is boring.

In DAoC as a caster you could do nothing if under fire. This created an interesting mechanic as it was important to position yourself right, to prevent damage by kiting and it also ment everyone assist on one target wasn't always the best choice. It also balanced ranged and melee quite well.

I would like such choices in combat and especially in healing.

Goblin Squad Member

Ruse wrote:

From what I've read they're already planning a lot of ways to make Chaotic Evil less appealing, though. Higher town upkeep, which leads to higher training costs, people being able to attack YOU without alignment loss, etc.

I agree it should definitely have its downsides ... but I don't think in a battle of good vs. evil (assuming relatively equal numbers/skill), good should win just because evil can't have healers. Or worse yet, if the same thing happened in good vs. neutral.

That depends entirely on how powerful healing is. It could be a make or break thing, but it could be just a minor advantage. I know healing is pretty much a requirement in most games but that may not be the case here. Also is 100% of healing alignment dependent? Can bards or druids heal if they are neutral or evil? I would almost bank on the fact druids can or else the only druid healers would be neutral-good.

Anyway equal numbers isn't what I had in mind. I am hoping most companies will be good or neutral. Just because you are good doesn't mean you can have a difference of opinion that leads to war with another good faction.


this also means LE will be well respetcted as it is hard to maintain. Maybe if healing gets important I will see a sign that reads: the man standing beside me sells healing.

1gold cure light wounds
100gold mass heal
2500 ressurection during a battle.
you guess the rest.
pay me or go away.

I say this because I have played with said such character. does a warrior charge per swing of his sword?
does an assasin .. wait a minute. Blaringr where are you when I need you. I want to buy a muffin for this over paid cleric.

Goblin Squad Member

I've played games previously where each character had a 'healing bank'. Basically, you could only be healed up to your healing bank until a specific cool down was reached (which was s few minutes). In this way, sure healers were powerful and wanted, but they were not the single most important determining factor in victory.

Goblin Squad Member

If healing is a selection of spells, won't it be limited to a certain number of times per day anyway? So you'd have to use it strategically, regardless of which class it is.

Personally I'd like to see enough diversity within PCs and Classes that we don't have a trinity because the classes don't specifically fit into a single niche role, so it's more shared out between various classes, so you have several working at being DPS or a Tank at different times for shorter periods generally with one or two in the party having a few healing spells available in emergencies.

You know, people picking up the slack while one recovers a little, then jumps back in. Particularly with melee combat I'd like to see various stances such as offensive, defensive and balanced/opportunistic stance for characters to switch between while in combat, so if you're against some powerful thing or player that's launching a heavy flurry of attacks, you switch to defensive mode, working on dodging and parrying their blows, giving ground, but holding the aggro for a while, then someone else can take over for a while and you can switch back to a more attacking stance, while whoever has some healing or rejuvenating abilities gives you a boost to keep you in the fight.

More dynamic that way, makes use of strategy and thinking about your combat encounters.

Goblin Squad Member

Out of combat

If you survive an encounter, you should have means to recover lost HP (as well as other combat resources) without having to retreat to town, use services of a healer etc. Serious injuries etc. might still require the use of the services of a professional healer.

Most "realistic" way to implement such a recovery might be setting up camp for a (short) rest, during which time the player / group would be (more) vulnerable to sneak attacks. This would make the decision on when and where rest a more tactical one compared to just having (high) automatic out of combat regenaration.

In combat

The role of in combat healing will probably depend on the general pace of combat, i.e. whether combat is intended to be fast and brutal or more attrition based.

I personally would prefer to see a more tactical combat, where the amount of available healing would be limited on the basis of

a) Choices made by the players during character creation (i.e. classes / skills the player has decided to invest)

b) Choices made during setting up the skill bar (i.e. how many and what skills/spells the player has decided up stury/equip to his/her skill bar for the encouter)

c) The size of the available (limited) resource pool

d) Decisions on how to use those limited resources during an encounter (forcing the player to decide whether to use the limited resources fpr healing, (additional) dps, CC, buffs, debuffs etc.)

Healing needs to be strong enough to be a viable choice during the character creation, setting up your skill bar and allocating limited resources during an encounter.

I do not see the need for "pure" healers in the sense that players choosing to specialize in healing (i.e. wanting to have access to be most powerful healing skills/spells) should not be able contribute anything meaningful in other areas, but on the other hand there should be a freedom for players to build their characters as they wish.

Healing is just one part of an enjoyable combat experience. To me healing represets the possibility to recover from a setback and to turn the tide of the battle (primarily thinking of PvE here, as PvP tends to be a little bit of a different animal due to more effective focus fire etc.).

[Having said that, there is nothing wrong with a well implemented whack-a-mole either, though it would probably be extremely difficult to implement without basically resorting to a full trinity based (PvE) combat system.]

1 to 50 of 80 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Healing in PFO, powerful or just an add on? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.