|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aasimar Life Oracle. The Aasimar favored class bonus can add 1/2 level to 1 revelation which should be channel. By level 5 you channel like a 7th level cleric, plus charisma is all you really need so not MAD like a cleric.
Take Fey Foundling at 1st level for an additional +2 heal to yourself for every dice rolled and life link revelation and you will be a beast. Hands down best healer. Take a curse that adds some damage spells like Blackened and you can do more than just heal.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Healers suck in Pathfinder" is a false oversimplification, derived from two true statements:
- Most people don't like playing a character that only serves to heal the other characters.
- Spending actions in combat casting healing spells when it's not necessary is a poor tactical choice.
.
To me, a good healer is one who contributes to the party's success in other ways when healing isn't needed, and can deliver healing when it is needed.
- An oracle or cleric can fight, buff, and blast, as well as heal.
- A bard or inquisitor has a huge list of abilities and spells, in addition to healing magic.
- A paladin with a decent charisma can tank and deal damage with the best. He can also Lay on Hands, Channel Energy, and use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.
So what I have been reading healers in pathfinder suck, so if we do need a healer, what race would be best????? and suggested setup
It is not so much that healers suck, but healing in combat is usually a poor choice. Damage far outpaces healing. An example, two 3rd level spells, fireball and cure serious wound, they both cure/damage around 17 HP at CL 5, but one is area effect (and usually the worst choice for a spell at that level, at least without metamagic). And any fighter at that level should easily far out-damage that, and that is not a limited resource.
Healing is important, but it is best done outside of combat. Done in combat, with pretty much anything but Heal, is usually just a waste of a turn. And healing outside of combat can be done by many characters, Summoners, for example, can be rather decent healers (Infernal Healing, Creatures from the Summon Good Monster summoning list, Cure Light Wound from a wand via UMD). It's not that you don't need healing, you just don't necessarily need an Oracle or a Cleric for the job (both are very powerful classes though).
This is not so much a Pathfinder problem, but a D20 problem. 3.0 and 3.5 both had the same problem.
This is not so much a Pathfinder problem, but a D20 problem. 3.0 and 3.5 both had the same problem.
The healing conundrum is older than d20.
This is not so much a Pathfinder problem, but a D20 problem. 3.0 and 3.5 both had the same problem.The healing conundrum is older than d20.
True,but it's been so many years since I played the original D&D, I wasn't certain if the problem was as clear then.
"Healers suck in Pathfinder" is a false oversimplification, derived from two true statements:
- Most people don't like playing a character that only serves to heal the other characters.
- Spending actions in combat casting healing spells when it's not necessary is a poor tactical choice.
.
To me, a good healer is one who contributes to the party's success in other ways when healing isn't needed, and can deliver healing when it is needed.
- An oracle or cleric can fight, buff, and blast, as well as heal.
- A bard or inquisitor has a huge list of abilities and spells, in addition to healing magic.
- A paladin with a decent charisma can tank and deal damage with the best. He can also Lay on Hands, Channel Energy, and use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.
So the best healer is not a healer?
Anyways, best healer is a life oracle if you want to go straight healing, imo. Misfortune if you happen to get dual cursed is also lots of fun. Mischief beat me to suggesting it though, and that assimar healer will likely hold the party and himself for longer than your average cleric channeler. Channel can fall behind later on, due to its scaling.
"Healers suck in Pathfinder" is a false oversimplification, derived from two true statements:So the best healer is not a healer?
- Most people don't like playing a character that only serves to heal the other characters.
- Spending actions in combat casting healing spells when it's not necessary is a poor tactical choice.
.
To me, a good healer is one who contributes to the party's success in other ways when healing isn't needed, and can deliver healing when it is needed.
- An oracle or cleric can fight, buff, and blast, as well as heal.
- A bard or inquisitor has a huge list of abilities and spells, in addition to healing magic.
- A paladin with a decent charisma can tank and deal damage with the best. He can also Lay on Hands, Channel Energy, and use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.
I love playing clerics, but I consider Quick Channel, and Reach Spell (rod or feat) to be critical, because they prevent me from having to spend all my actions running around the battlefield, provoking attacks of opportunity, trying to land healing spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Healers suck in Pathfinder" is a false oversimplification, derived from two true statements:
- Most people don't like playing a character that only serves to heal the other characters.
- Spending actions in combat casting healing spells when it's not necessary is a poor tactical choice.
.
To me, a good healer is one who contributes to the party's success in other ways when healing isn't needed, and can deliver healing when it is needed.
- An oracle or cleric can fight, buff, and blast, as well as heal.
- A bard or inquisitor has a huge list of abilities and spells, in addition to healing magic.
- A paladin with a decent charisma can tank and deal damage with the best. He can also Lay on Hands, Channel Energy, and use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.
Healers also become vastly more important if magic items are scarce. If on average no one in the group has a wand, you'll be glad someone is playing an actual healer or TPKs are going to be frequent (probably around the 3rd fight of any given day).
Healers also become vastly more important if magic items are scarce. If on average no one in the group has a wand, you'll be glad someone is playing an actual healer or TPKs are going to be frequent (probably around the 3rd fight of any given day).
It also can be read as forcing someone to play a cleric(or oracle, or whatever healer you want.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Healers also become vastly more important if magic items are scarce. If on average no one in the group has a wand, you'll be glad someone is playing an actual healer or TPKs are going to be frequent (probably around the 3rd fight of any given day).It also can be read as forcing someone to play a cleric(or oracle, or whatever healer you want.)
More to the point if you are dying around the third fight of the day my question is; why are you fighting three fights a day?
If anything, low magic should force you to consider tactics other than run in and take loads of damage.
Healers also become vastly more important if magic items are scarce. If on average no one in the group has a wand, you'll be glad someone is playing an actual healer or TPKs are going to be frequent (probably around the 3rd fight of any given day).It also can be read as forcing someone to play a cleric(or oracle, or whatever healer you want.)More to the point if you are dying around the third fight of the day my question is; why are you fighting three fights a day?
If anything, low magic should force you to consider tactics other than run in and take loads of damage.
That's true of course. What I was trying to say is that a lack of healing classes can acerbate the "5 minute work day" problem significantly.
|
I have seen one really impressive healer and it was a Merciful Healer Cleric with Quick Channel and Healer's Touch.
That said, it's usually good for a healer to have a backup plan and remember that good protective buffs can prevent a lot of damage. Resist Energy Communal is a favourite of mine.
A bard or inquisitor has a huge list of abilities and spells, in addition to healing magic.
I cannot in good faith recommend this as a group's primary healer, especially in a low-wealth or low-magic game where you don't have a decent stock of wands and scrolls. I have been in that position and I routinely felt like I was not keeping up. I spent a lot of resources on healing in terms not just of spell slots but spells known (unlike the oracle, you don't know cures for free) and often struggled with condition removal because I didn't get access to those spells until a few levels behind the cleric. Bards are even worse because they don't have a few key spells like Restoration at all. You can get by, especially if your group is good at avoiding combat or injury. But for a normal party it's not a great idea. It's easier to build a cleric or oracle who can heal solidly while also being competent at something else than it is to build a bard or inquisitor who is a comfortably good healer.
If you're not interested in those the witch with the healing patron and healing hex is about as good as a cleric, and a Samsaran druid can steal a couple of missing spells from the cleric list (again, Restoration) and be almost as good (you still lack channel). A Hospitaler paladin is also a solid option if you're not too worried about being unable to personally cast Restoration or Raise Dead (and for the latter, there's Ultimate Mercy).
Healers also become vastly more important if magic items are scarce
I cannot in good faith recommend this as a group's primary healer, especially in a low-wealth or low-magic game where you don't have a decent stock of wands and scrolls.
Whoa there, Nobody said anything about low-wealth or low-magic.
A bard or inquisitor has a huge list of abilities and spells, in addition to healing magic.I cannot in good faith recommend this as a group's primary healer. . .
There's a difference between "a healer", "only healer", and "primary healer". I wouldn't want to have a 5-person adventuring party with nobody but a bard to supply healing, but that doesn't mean a bard isn't "a healer".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I look at it like this: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
What are you preventing? Damage. Why? So you don't have to cure it.
So to me a good healer is a good buffer, with access to healing magic to handle whatever does manage to hurt the party. It's not a matter of playing a healer; it's a matter of playing smart. Clerics, oracles, druids, hospitaler paladins...there are plenty of options for healers. It's what you do besides that which matters.
|
|
Healers also become vastly more important if magic items are scarceI cannot in good faith recommend this as a group's primary healer, especially in a low-wealth or low-magic game where you don't have a decent stock of wands and scrolls.Whoa there, Nobody said anything about low-wealth or low-magic.
There's a difference between "a healer", "only healer", and "primary healer". I wouldn't want to have a 5-person adventuring party with nobody but a bard to supply healing, but that doesn't mean a bard isn't "a healer".A bard or inquisitor has a huge list of abilities and spells, in addition to healing magic.I cannot in good faith recommend this as a group's primary healer. . .
I understand that, but your previous post discussed both primary healers (clerics and oracles) and secondary healers (bards and inquisitors) without pointing out the difference, so I thought I'd better do so. I also thought it was important to point out that the difference becomes especially important in low-wealth games, low-magic games, and high-combat games, given that the OP didn't indicate whether any of these situations was a factor.
It's not that I don't think you know the difference, but that I have no idea whether the OP knows the difference and since I've in the past struggled with trying to promote a "secondary healer" to "only healer" in a low-wealth, high-combat game, I want to make sure the OP doesn't make the same mistake due to incomplete information. (Notably, a bard worked fine as the only healer in a high-wealth, low-combat game, so it really depends on what kind of game you're in.)
I think I'd almost rather have been a Battle Cleric simply because while the cleric suffers a bit from having more MAD stats between Str Con Wis and Cha to cover all it's options it also has the huge advantage of not having limited spell access so alot of those useful but not immediately necessary spells like say remove disease/poison or the restoration spells tend not to fill in those very limited spell known slots for oracles or result in spending a load of money on "in case" scrolls.
Also a big problem for my Inquisitor.
If anything, low magic should force you to consider tactics other than run in and take loads of damage.
But g*@&+!n did we need tactics. Every round of every fight could be lethal, so every action really did count.
So what I have been reading healers in pathfinder suck, so if we do need a healer, what race would be best????? and suggested setupIt is not so much that healers suck, but healing in combat is usually a poor choice. Damage far outpaces healing. An example, two 3rd level spells, fireball and cure serious wound, they both cure/damage around 17 HP at CL 5, but one is area effect (and usually the worst choice for a spell at that level, at least without metamagic). ..
Healing is important, but it is best done outside of combat. .
This all depends on how you play your games. Are your PC's "toons" so that when one dies, you just bring in another, no worries? Are your combats are game of "rocket tag" that are over in 2-3 rounds? If so, then healing during combat is usually bad.
But if you play like the mainstream, like my group and the way James Jacobs sez he plays, then every PC is critical. You'd NEVER let your buddy die. And, a combat might last 10 rounds.
In those cases, yes you DO need to heal during combat. You need to heal when the next hit will drop you buddy- maybe dead but at least down. If he's down he can't continue to do his share, and if he's dead then one of your boon companions is gone. The meme of "don't heal during combat" is sooo 3.5.
Healing can certainly keep up with damage (unless you play "rocket tag" PF). Take Fireball, his example. Fireball has a save, which most PC's will make 50% of the time (and maybe one will Evade). It also has SR and ER. Healing (done on a ally) has none of that- it is always full value. If we're talking about Party damage then Channel will often keep up with Fireball on a one-to-one basis, assuming decent saves, etc.
Not to mention some of the best healers get their spells empowered for free, etc.
One other great healing option is Channeling, esp later when you can Quick Channel. It's SU, so no AoO. They also use no Spell slots.
Of course, one has to use the best tactics, round by round, and until one of your party is close to dropping, then buffing or other spells are a better choice. My healers almost alway open with a party buff spell, maybe two. It is usually a poor option to "top off" during combat, altho certainly a Channel may do that anyway.
Remember also that "Healing" isn't only Hit Points, that a wand of CLW can't heal Conditions or Ability damage.
The best healers are Clerics with the Heal Domain, and all three Channel feats. Life Oracle is likely even better.
And for those who want more of a combat role, a Hospitaler Paladin with a couple of the Channel feats can do a darn good job.
Mind you, a wand of CLW is a good investment, no doubt.
|
|
As a point unless you can far exceed the damage suffered in a round generally you end up trading actions. And in the case of a monster with a nasty breath weapon well you did just clump up and start throwing curative magic on the threat he just got rid of so you'd better hope the ko'd guy doesn't take too much damage from the aoe or he'll just be dead again.
Trading actions isn't always a bad thing. If the healer is good enough to negate the enemy's entire attack for at least a few rounds, it's absolutely worth the trade because in that case it's enemy effective turns: 0, party effective turns: 3 and the party gets a chance to put some serious hurt on the enemy while it's running in place.
As a point unless you can far exceed the damage suffered in a round generally you end up trading actions. And in the case of a monster with a nasty breath weapon well you did just clump up and start throwing curative magic on the threat he just got rid of so you'd better hope the ko'd guy doesn't take too much damage from the aoe or he'll just be dead again.Trading actions isn't always a bad thing. If the healer is good enough to negate the enemy's entire attack for at least a few rounds, it's absolutely worth the trade because in that case it's enemy effective turns: 0, party effective turns: 3 and the party gets a chance to put some serious hurt on the enemy while it's running in place.
The actual scaling of healing isn't that great though. Usually you heal less than your group just took. Mitigation and control are much more valuable in that respect, which is part of the reason healing is looked down upon. I guess if your fighting one big boss you can destroy him with action economy, but pathfinder is awful about balancing that sort of thing.
The actual scaling of healing isn't that great though. Usually you heal less than your group just took. Mitigation and control are much more valuable in that respect, which is part of the reason healing is looked down upon. I guess if your fighting one big boss you can destroy him with action economy, but pathfinder is awful about balancing that sort of thing.As a point unless you can far exceed the damage suffered in a round generally you end up trading actions. And in the case of a monster with a nasty breath weapon well you did just clump up and start throwing curative magic on the threat he just got rid of so you'd better hope the ko'd guy doesn't take too much damage from the aoe or he'll just be dead again.Trading actions isn't always a bad thing. If the healer is good enough to negate the enemy's entire attack for at least a few rounds, it's absolutely worth the trade because in that case it's enemy effective turns: 0, party effective turns: 3 and the party gets a chance to put some serious hurt on the enemy while it's running in place.
More than that in terms of action economy healing spells are terrible.
Trading one action for one action? Terrible.
Spells are about trading one action for many future actions. This is why people drool over battlefield control and summoning spells.
This all depends on how you play your games. Are your PC's "toons" so that when one dies, you just bring in another, no worries? Are your combats are game of "rocket tag" that are over in 2-3 rounds? If so, then healing during combat is usually bad.
But if you play like the mainstream, like my group and the way James Jacobs sez he plays, then every PC is critical. You'd NEVER let your buddy die. And, a combat might last 10 rounds.
How on earth did you come to this conclusion?
As long as damage outpaces healing, it will be better to keep your buddies standing.I'm not sure what you mean by "rocket tag"?
In those cases, yes you DO need to heal during combat. You need to heal when the next hit will drop you buddy- maybe dead but at least down. If he's down he can't continue to do his share, and if he's dead then one of your boon companions is gone. The meme of "don't heal during combat" is sooo 3.5.
Unfortunately, that isn't so.
Healing can certainly keep up with damage (unless you play "rocket tag" PF). Take Fireball, his example. Fireball has a save, which most PC's will make 50% of the time (and maybe one will Evade). It also has SR and ER. Healing (done on a ally) has none of that- it is always full value. If we're talking about Party damage then Channel will often keep up with Fireball on a one-to-one basis, assuming decent saves, etc.
Not to mention some of the best healers get their spells empowered for free, etc.
One other great healing option is Channeling, esp later when you can Quick Channel. It's SU, so no AoO. They also use no Spell slots.
Of course, one has to use the best tactics,...
Okay, let's take Fireball again. If you have PCs that all can make a DC 16, about as low as one can expect, Ref save at level 5, then that is a bit of a strange group, though not impossible. But lets say that it works like that. Unoptimized Fireball, a downright terrible option, against an unoptimized Cure Serious Wound. How many people would you say it would hit? 4? Then it, by far, outpaces healing, even if they all make their save, and one have Evasion, it is still better.
Sure you can optimize healing, but you should be able to optimize damage as well, or you could just choose to use something more worthwhile than just a fireball.Even if you could keep up with damage, you would just be exchanging turns.
At level ten, you can make an Eidolon that can expect to do 130+ damage each round. You will never be able to keep up with that. (5 levels later, you can make one that does more than 300 each round).
Sure healing can be used in combat, and there are even some times when it is not a bad idea.
I'm not sure what you mean by "rocket tag"?
Rocket tag is a style of gameplay that usually occurs at the higher levels much more often than the lower levels. The goal becomes dealing as much damage as possible and fast so first hit to land is the last. Not a big fan of it myself. Factors such as healing not keeping up/being economy friendly tend to be a part of the issue. Its usually not something you have to worry about though.
I'm not sure what you mean by "rocket tag"?Rocket tag is a style of gameplay that usually occurs at the higher levels much more often than the lower levels. The goal becomes dealing as much damage as possible and fast so first hit to land is the last. Not a big fan of it myself. Factors such as healing not keeping up/being economy friendly tend to be a part of the issue. Its usually not something you have to worry about though.
Thanks, now I think I understand his post.
This whole "healers are worthless" seems to me more theorycraft than anything. Yes, theoretically having a strong offense as your defense (killing them before they drop you low) is great, but that's often not the case.
What about when you're fighting something of a higher CR than the group and he clocks one player down to 3 in two rounds? What about the many times that everyone in the group is rolling total s&#!? It's nice to have that guy that heal you without you having to waste a round drinking something or taking an AoO for doing it..or when the cleric uses an area of effect heal to get everyone back in the game.
Let's analyze these situations a bit.
Scenario 1: High CR guy clocks guy down to three in two rounds.
My Thoughts: Withdraw action, use a potion/good self heal, make sure caster gives me some kind of good hard miss chance buff because I ain't going back if he's hitting that hard and that fast.
I mean why on earth am I sticking around to get killed in round 3? Or worse, why am I going to get my cleric/oracle up here adjacent to me to touch me within smackdown range of said guy?
Scenario 2: Rolling like crap.
My Thoughts: HEaling won't save you if you are rolling crap while the GM has just won the lottery about three times this game.
Scenario 3: Cleric AoE heal. I assume you mean channel. Ho boy. Yeah boy-o it's actually not that great. Don't get me wrong. IT's practically free and it's better than nothing. But the best thing they ever did for that was give me a feat that let me do it as a move action and an alternate form of channeling that let me pass out buffs. I've yet to see a good numerical boost to that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Healing is important, but it is best done outside of combat. . .But if you play like the mainstream, like my group and the way James Jacobs sez he plays, then every PC is critical. You'd NEVER let your buddy die. And, a combat might last 10 rounds.
In those cases, yes you DO need to heal during combat. You need to heal when the next hit will drop you buddy- maybe dead but at least down. If he's down he can't continue to do his share, and if he's dead then one of your boon companions is gone. . .
This is a great example of the debate over healers and healing getting out of hand. The argument, "You need to heal when the next hit will drop your buddy" is used by both sides in the debate.
The argument for healing recognizes that:
- Nobody wants PCs to die.
- An incapacitated party member doesn't help win the fight.
- A party with healing available is more able and willing to take risks, and therefore gets more done.
The argument against healing recognizes that:
- It is easier to deal damage than to heal damage.
- Characters operate at 100% efficiency all the way down to 1 hit point.
- A fight isn't over until the enemy is defeated.
The side for healing claims that:
- Healing in combat is necessary.
- Somebody's primary job should be healing the party.
The side against healing claims that:
- Just because somebody is wounded doesn't mean they need healing in combat.
- Every party member should contribute to defeating the enemy, not just healing the party.
Both sides use straw man arguments and allow outliers to contaminate their main. Healing is obviously different when special circumstances apply, and everyone knows it. These special cases should be left out of the main argument, and addressed only as called for:
- Unusually high or low wealth
- Unusually high or low access to magic items
- Unusually large or small party size
- Unusually hard or easy battles
Healbot vs. Paramedic
When the chaff is cut away, the real point of disagreement is fairly narrow. It can be seen in two areas, character building, and battlefield actions.
When it comes to character building, the anti-healing camp wants a cleric to invest in offense, physically (high strength score, power attack, and a two-handed magic weapon) or magically (spell penetration, dazing spell, or augmented summoning). The pro-healing camp wants resources spent to maximize healing and defense.
When it comes to battle, the difference can be illuminated with a single question. When the fighter says, "One of the two monsters is down, but I've been hit twice and I'm at 40% health." should the party's best healer cast a healing spell, or make an attack?
I'm not saying that you should never use healing in combat, it's just that it is rarely a good choice.
For example, you can, as a level 13 cleric, cast heal as a level 6 spell, or use a level 7 spell for Summon Monster 7 and get a Monadic Deva, which has Heal and 3 times Cure Serious Wounds, plus a lot of other stuff, and can work as a beatstick with 147 HP and a LOT of immunities. (Yes, I do love the new Summon Good Monster feat).
This also mean that a level 13 Master Summoner with Summon Good Monster is an awesome healer...
|
|
Interestingly enough, at my table today the group had no healer. At all. The gunslinger had a wand of cure light, but none of the monks or ninja had UMD.
They proceeded to defeat the combat encounters without losing a man until the final battle, when the boss one shotted the ninja from full to dead in a full attack.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Blue. It also warrants considering several other factors though.
Exactly! There are a great many factors impacting the decision, of course. The point of my question isn't to pose a full blown scenario, but to illuminate the type of situation that is actually in question.
Nobody thinks that a 10th level cleric who's friend took 8 points of damage during the surprise round should spend his first round of combat running over and casting Cure Light Wounds - that's a waste of an action. Nobody thinks that allies should be allowed to die rather than getting a healing spell when they're at negative HP and bleeding - that's a waste of a life (or an expensive resurrection). In combat, If you're asking questions like, "Who has the next action?" and "Is my buddy likely to die on the next round if I don't heal her?" then you are, in my opinion, displaying good tactical play.
As a point unless you can far exceed the damage suffered in a round generally you end up trading actions. And in the case of a monster with a nasty breath weapon well you did just clump up and start throwing curative magic on the threat he just got rid of so you'd better hope the ko'd guy doesn't take too much damage from the aoe or he'll just be dead again.As for comparing it with fireball ... yes? But it's widely accepted the casting fireball is a pretty crap option in combat too unless it's a swarm or a bunch of much lower level targets.
You can do so, we normally manage it.
There are numerous ways to heal from a distance.
Well, maybe. But it was the example he gave. Do you have a better one?
The actual scaling of healing isn't that great though. Usually you heal less than your group just took. Mitigation and control are much more valuable in that respect, which is part of the reason healing is looked down upon. I guess if your fighting one big boss you can destroy him with action economy, but pathfinder is awful about balancing that sort of thing.
Not true. Remember incoming damage is reduced by saves, ER, SR, etc. Healing is not so reduced.
Unfortunately, that isn't so.
Okay, let's take Fireball again. If you have PCs that all can make a DC 16, about as low as one can expect, Ref save at level 5, then that is a bit of a strange group, though not impossible. But lets say that it works like that. Unoptimized Fireball, a downright terrible option, against an unoptimized Cure Serious Wound. How...If we're talking about Party damage then Channel will often keep up with Fireball on a one-to-one basis, assuming decent saves, etc.
Not to mention some of the best healers get their spells empowered for free, etc.
One other great healing option is Channeling, esp later when you can Quick Channel. It's SU, so no AoO. They also use no Spell slots.
Of course, one has to use the best tactics,...
1. Is too so.
2. Like I said, vs Fireball you'd Channel. The Fireball does 17 pts (5D6) of damage or 68 pts over 4 guys. BUT two of those guys would save. Thus the overall damage is 51pts. The Channel does 14 pts, no save vs the whole party of four, that's 52 pts. More or less breaks even. And the healer isn't even burning spell slots to do this, nor provoking, and if he has the right feat not even a Standard Action!
AND there are several archetypes and Domains that have your heal spells Empowered for FREE.
Not true. Remember incoming damage is reduced by saves, ER, SR, etc. Healing is not so reduced.
The actual scaling of healing isn't that great though. Usually you heal less than your group just took. Mitigation and control are much more valuable in that respect, which is part of the reason healing is looked down upon. I guess if your fighting one big boss you can destroy him with action economy, but pathfinder is awful about balancing that sort of thing.
Some of those options you listed aren't till high level or with certain exotic races. Saves do mitigate damage, but more importantly they stop status effects which can be much much more detrimental to you than another 7hp shaved off the top.
Let's analyze these situations a bit.Scenario 1: High CR guy clocks guy down to three in two rounds.
My Thoughts: Withdraw action, use a potion/good self heal, make sure caster gives me some kind of good hard miss chance buff because I ain't going back if he's hitting that hard and that fast.
I mean why on earth am I sticking around to get killed in round 3? Or worse, why am I going to get my cleric/oracle up here adjacent to me to touch me within smackdown range of said guy?
OK, your tank just burned TWO rounds and isn't up there Tanking, where he's supposed to be. Meanwhile that high CR guys is smacking a squishie, and killing him.
OR the Oracle of Life can Cast TWO (count 'em TWO) Cure spells, which are boosted. And he has a Life Link up, which also cures 5 HP. All in ONE Round, while you go Full Defense, still holding the line.
Or he burns TWO Channels, AND life links for 5 pts (which he cure on himself) and stays 35'
away from said guy.
And the oracle has already cast those buffs on rounds 1&2, of course.
I can say that having a healer in the games I've played has been a lifesaver.
If that channel can negate even half the damage of a baddie's breath weapon then it is a net benefit for the PC side as the baddie has lost half its potency for the round while the party lost a quarter.
Its not about keeping up with damage dealt, its about keeping up with enough of it that the action economy favors the PCs.
I'm not saying that you should never use healing in combat, it's just that it is rarely a good choice.
For example, you can, as a level 13 cleric, cast heal as a level 6 spell, or use a level 7 spell for Summon Monster 7 and get a Monadic Deva, which has Heal and 3 times Cure Serious Wounds, plus a lot of other stuff, and can work as a beatstick with 147 HP and a LOT of immunities. (Yes, I do love the new Summon Good Monster feat).
This also mean that a level 13 Master Summoner with Summon Good Monster is an awesome healer...
Which is indeed, Healing in Combat.
Interestingly enough, at my table today the group had no healer. At all. The gunslinger had a wand of cure light, but none of the monks or ninja had UMD.
They proceeded to defeat the combat encounters without losing a man until the final battle, when the boss one shotted the ninja from full to dead in a full attack.
Sounds like a "rocket tag" game to me. Unless of course the BBEG got a hard hit critical, like a X3.
Sounds like a "rocket tag" game to me. Unless of course the BBEG got a hard hit critical, like a X3.Two hits at 1d8+5.
What level??? How many HP for the Ninja?
Well, first level games are a bit different. Still, how did that kill the Ninja? It would have had to do 21 pts, assuming the Ninja only had a 12 Con, which means you had to roll 8 on each.
Unlikely, but still, bad luck does kill someone once in a while. So, no other PC took any damage at all for 4 or so encounters, then one guy did 21 pts in one Full attack? Weird.