Math showing why you cant heal faster then opponents can dish out damage
Basically this is the issue, by mid levels you arent really playing a game of attrition, you are playing rocket tag. No healing spell can cure more hit points then an enemy can put out in 1 round of hits. Thats why the conception of 'healer' being a 'sometimes' job is false. In order for in combat healing to actually accomplish anything, the 'healer' needs to be casting healing spells before people are near death, delaying the endangered characters colapse, instead of helping them recover. That is likely several rounds of actions instead of just 1, and several rounds is pretty much a whole encounter, so the 'healer' was just a walking bandaid.
Or you just heal enough that he is unlikely to be taken down by one round of attacks and let the glass cannon fire, taking out the threat himself.Cure critical wounds will, at say 10th level, heal 4d8+10 HP, averaging about 28 HP of healing. Or if I channel, it's 5d6, averaging about 18 HP of healing. If I have Quick Channel, then for the cost of 2 channels and a 4th-level spell, I can heal him for about 46 HP.
Now, you said "just heal enough that he is unlikely to be taken down by one round of attacks". So you're suggesting that in this situation, a round of attacks is likely to deal 46 HP or less.
If we're looking at a monster or NPC with two attacks, that means we're assuming 23 damage or less per hit. Even less if it's a monster with claw/claw/bite, but we'll go with two attacks from a single creature.
Consulting the Monster Statistics by CR chart, that means the monster dealing 23 or less damage per hit is likely about CR 5-7 (depending on whether we use the High or Low damage column).
So your example of a good time to heal is when the "glass cannon" is managing to get near death against a single enemy with a CR about 3-5 levels below his own level, and I need to spend a 4th-level spell and two channels to do it.
Sorry, but if the "glass cannon" couldn't take down an enemy with a CR of APL-5 before getting to the point of needing healing to survive another round, he needs to turn in his "cannon" title and just be "glass".
No ... Because if you are tying to prevent him going down it means he isn't down, so its your 46 plus the hp he still has ...
|
Jiggy, minor problem, you read the Average Damage column as per hit.
This is the average amount of damage dealt by a creature of this CR if all of its attacks are successful. To determine a creature's average damage, add the average value for all of the damage dice rolled (as determined by Table: Average Die Results) to the damage modifier for each attack.
So it's not 30-22 damage per hit on a CR 7, it's an average of 30-22 damage per round if all attacks hit. Which changes your math a bit.
Now, how accurate these totals are is another issue....
Anyway, to go back to the OP. The real problem is not whether you are playing the a cleric "appropriately" or "effectively", it's that some mouthbreeder on your table felt it suitable to inform you he thought you were a terrible cleric. There's two answers to that:
1. Tell the Gm it's you or him.
2. Bite down and stop playing characters with the ability to heal.
Good luck.
Synthesist Summoner here we go. hahaha
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, minor problem, you read the Average Damage column as per hit.
This is the average amount of damage dealt by a creature of this CR if all of its attacks are successful. To determine a creature's average damage, add the average value for all of the damage dice rolled (as determined by Table: Average Die Results) to the damage modifier for each attack.So it's not 30-22 damage per hit on a CR 7, it's an average of 30-22 damage per round if all attacks hit. Which changes your math a bit.
Now, how accurate these totals are is another issue....
Whoops, thanks for the catch. That does change it.
@Arssanguinus — Valid point. Even so, that still puts a narrow "band" of HP values where the healing is a good idea. For instance, if you're expecting about 45 incoming damage and can heal about 45, then the glass cannon needs to have enough HP that a low-ish roll from you and/or a high-ish roll from the enemy won't make it all for naught. (That is, if he has 5 HP left, you heal him to 48, then the enemy hits for 49, then all you've done is waste resources.) So if your buddy has less HP than the variance in healing/damage, healing is a bad idea.
If he has enough HP that he won't go down until next round, then you're again better off doing something else than healing; it would be better to see if he drops it this round, do your part to help make that happen (attack, use a blast or buff/debuff, etc), then re-evaluate the situation next round. So if your buddy has more HP than the expected damage, healing is again a bad idea.
So there's a narrow band of HP values, between "too low to matter" and "high enough we might finish this round anyway so let's wait and see", where healing is actually a good idea.
Actually, I take that back: there's a narrow band of HP values where healing accomplishes anything at all.
Even within that HP band, we still have to weigh whether what it accomplishes (another attack from your ally) is worth the cost (spell slots, channels per day, actions that could have been used in other ways). What 4th-level spell did I just give up for that cure? How much would the team, after combat, have benefitted from a second channel instead of spending it to speed up the one? What if a full-attack from me (the cleric) could have done the last 40 damage and dropped the enemy for free?
That's a lot of questions that need very specific answers before healing the glass cannon goes from "technically accomplishes something" to "is actually a good idea".
In my experience (granted, with my cleric built as a melee character), such conditions have been exceedingly rare. That's why I commented earlier that the more often healing is the best thing the cleric can do, the more likely it is that the player isn't very good at building clerics.
Yes, there are people that think exactly that. I've had people on these forums and in person tell me I don't know what I am doing and that my whole group is stupid to ever need it because I was playing a life oracle and sometimes was healing people in combat.Then just to be clear, let me point out that I'm not in the camp that thinks there's never a time for in-combat healing.I don't anyone thinks that. Every single time I have seen this come up, it seems like that sort of accusation is thrown out purely to exaggerate the "other side's" point of view so that theirs sounds reasonable by comparison, and generally involves ignoring things the other person says and twisting their words.Well, let's remember that the use of hyperbole and exaggeration is typical in public debate. That said, a great amount of what is posted or referred to on these forums is based on theorycrafting, and as a result it is based on "everything working perfectly against an average", as opposed to actual experience. As a result you get a lot of folks assured by their hypothetical evidence that their position is the RIGHT one, and they tend to argue in extremes and absolutes.
Kinda why you should take everything on an internet forum with a healthy grain of salt.
Just a few posts later in this very thread and you have people posting that it is wrong to heal in combat (didn't quite say no matter what in this instance, but close) and you have people posting that if you're a cleric and you don't heal in combat you are being a selfish player that is not welcome at their table.
|
It's usually better for me to attack at +16/+11 for 1d8+15 each and still have holy smite or dismissal or air walk or restoration prepped than it is for me to give up one of those spells to heal 4d8+9 HP back to the guy attacking at +18/+10 for 2d6+19.
I'm pretty sure that this belief is not equivalent to DrDeth's examples of PCs simply bowing out of the action.
Even within that HP band, we still have to weigh whether what it accomplishes (another attack from your ally) is worth the cost (spell slots, channels per day, actions that could have been used in other ways). What 4th-level spell did I just give up for that cure? How much would the team, after combat, have benefitted from a second channel instead of spending it to speed up the one? What if a full-attack from me (the cleric) could have done the last 40 damage and dropped the enemy for free?
How much does a Raise Dead cost? You forget, not healing could mean your buddy is DEAD, not just out for a round. And, it well could be several other attacks from your ally, not just one.
Of course, if someone is gonna play a glass cannon he needs to discuss this with the group first to see if they want to support that tactical style.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
How much does a Raise Dead cost? You forget, not healing could mean your buddy is DEAD, not just our for a round. And, it well could be several other attacks from your ally, not just one.
Even within that HP band, we still have to weigh whether what it accomplishes (another attack from your ally) is worth the cost (spell slots, channels per day, actions that could have been used in other ways). What 4th-level spell did I just give up for that cure? How much would the team, after combat, have benefitted from a second channel instead of spending it to speed up the one? What if a full-attack from me (the cleric) could have done the last 40 damage and dropped the enemy for free?
You're acting like "not healing" means "I do nothing on my turn". If I finish off the monster instead of casting a cure spell, I've still dodged the cost of a raise dead, but I'm up a spell slot (probably a high-ish level one).
Jiggy, minor problem, you read the Average Damage column as per hit.
This is the average amount of damage dealt by a creature of this CR if all of its attacks are successful. To determine a creature's average damage, add the average value for all of the damage dice rolled (as determined by Table: Average Die Results) to the damage modifier for each attack.So it's not 30-22 damage per hit on a CR 7, it's an average of 30-22 damage per round if all attacks hit. Which changes your math a bit.
Now, how accurate these totals are is another issue....
Whoops, thanks for the catch. That does change it.
@Arssanguinus — Valid point. Even so, that still puts a narrow "band" of HP values where the healing is a good idea. For instance, if you're expecting about 45 incoming damage and can heal about 45, then the glass cannon needs to have enough HP that a low-ish roll from you and/or a high-ish roll from the enemy won't make it all for naught. (That is, if he has 5 HP left, you heal him to 48, then the enemy hits for 49, then all you've done is waste resources.) So if your buddy has less HP than the variance in healing/damage, healing is a bad idea.
If he has enough HP that he won't go down until next round, then you're again better off doing something else than healing; it would be better to see if he drops it this round, do your part to help make that happen (attack, use a blast or buff/debuff, etc), then re-evaluate the situation next round. So if your buddy has more HP than the expected damage, healing is again a bad idea.
So there's a narrow band of HP values, between "too low to matter" and "high enough we might finish this round anyway so let's wait and see", where healing is actually a good idea.
Actually, I take that back: there's a narrow band of HP values where healing accomplishes anything at all.
Even within that HP band, we still have to weigh whether what it accomplishes (another attack from...
No again. Myou are altering the odds. If you make it go from a thirty percent chance he stays up to a fifty percent chance you have done something. Luck might strike against you, but then you couls also roll a one on your to hit roll or minimum damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I look at it this way. All battles have a 'tipping point', at which it's obvious which side is going to win.
Healing is the 'trying not to lose' option, trying to keep your opponent from moving the tipping point to his side.
Attacking/buffing is the 'trying to win' option, pushing the tipping point to your side.
In my experience, the latter is both more fun and more effective. This is part of what made the 4e Warlord so much fun; yeah, he could heal a bit, but mostly, he assisted in face-smashing.
You're acting like "not healing" means "I do nothing on my turn". If I finish off the monster instead of casting a cure spell,...How much does a Raise Dead cost? You forget, not healing could mean your buddy is DEAD, not just our for a round. And, it well could be several other attacks from your ally, not just one.
Even within that HP band, we still have to weigh whether what it accomplishes (another attack from your ally) is worth the cost (spell slots, channels per day, actions that could have been used in other ways). What 4th-level spell did I just give up for that cure? How much would the team, after combat, have benefitted from a second channel instead of spending it to speed up the one? What if a full-attack from me (the cleric) could have done the last 40 damage and dropped the enemy for free?
Sure. "*IF*. Attacking works half the time, healing 100%.
Thomas: Sure, but if you have the Healing Domain, that 4D8+9 is multiplied by 150%, and it’s a Domain spell too, so it’s kinda free.
Half the time? What do you think buff spells are *FOR*? To say nothing of, y'know, flanking and various other ways to get attack bonuses.
|
|
Sure. "*IF*. Attacking works half the time, healing 100%.
The healing's effectiveness relies on the recipient's attacks, so what's your point?
Thomas: Sure, but if you have the Healing Domain, that 4D8+9 is multiplied by 150%, and it’s a Domain spell too, so it’s kinda free.
4d8+9 averages to 19. Empowered, that's 29. There will be times that that's better than attacking twice for 1d8+15 each, but not many (especially if you refrain from pretending that "healing is 100%" again).
Also, I currently prep holy smite in that domain slot. Giving that up is not "kinda free".
I look at it this way. All battles have a 'tipping point', at which it's obvious which side is going to win.
Healing is the 'trying not to lose' option, trying to keep your opponent from moving the tipping point to his side.
Attacking/buffing is the 'trying to win' option, pushing the tipping point to your side.
In my experience, the latter is both more fun and more effective.
Sure. But the point is, the enemy doesn’t always spread out their damage between all four PC’s, and the bad guys get lucky hits, too. If they lump up on the Tank, it’s better to heal the tank than to have him die. Healing is the “saving your buddies life” option. And, what you guys seem to forget, while the Cleric is saving the Tanks life, the other two members of the party will still be dishing out hurt.
Sure. But the point is, the enemy doesn’t always spread out their damage between all four PC’s, and the bad guys get lucky hits, too. If they lump up on the Tank, it’s better to heal the tank than to have him die. Healing is the “saving your buddies life” option. And, what you guys seem to forget, while the Cleric is saving the Tanks life, the other two members of the party will still be dishing out hurt.I look at it this way. All battles have a 'tipping point', at which it's obvious which side is going to win.
Healing is the 'trying not to lose' option, trying to keep your opponent from moving the tipping point to his side.
Attacking/buffing is the 'trying to win' option, pushing the tipping point to your side.
In my experience, the latter is both more fun and more effective.
Except that's not how the game really works.
Developers can be using bad tactics too. Consider that.
I mostly play clerics and have for maybe 15 years. IMO, the OP is missing the point, and a lot of people don't really understand the complexity of clerics. Clerics are not intended to be major damage dealers. If you want to be the biggest, baddest DPS, take another class, and tell the other characters to find their own solutions to healing. Yes, you can tweak a cleric to do pretty substantial damage, but I would ask, why bother? If simply for roleplay, then, by all means, go for it. The reason you play this game is to have fun, remember?
Why do it? Because you like the idea of a divine powered warrior and until the release of the Advanced class guide your only option was the very restrictive paladin?
Clerics can be made to do different things and fill different roles. What difference is there from making a battle cleric as opposed to choosing to play a barbarian? Why does choosing a specfic class that can fill more then one role mean its a 'why bother?' situation if you choose anything but the archetypical role?
All in all, I like the class. It has a lot to offer. But you have to enjoy the support role or don't bother playing a cleric. Just my 2 cents' worth.
Again why? The cleric CAN be a support class, that doesnt mean it MUST be a support class. There are lots of reasons to play a non-support cleric, and choosing to be one is no different then choosing to be a wizard, fighter, barbarian or rogue. If the rest of the party feels they need to have a support character they can choose to play one.
Mind you alot of this can potentially be resolved when the warpriest is finished and live, because it will likely do a better job of being the kind of character the non-support clerics of the world are trying to be, with a clear message that says 'I'm not a support character, I'm a frontliner'.
I generally agree that healing is a suboptimal choice in battle. But if you with a focused healer, like DD is suggesting( takling the healing domains), can negate the damage that the BBEG is doing then you have effectivily negatet his actions. I realise that there is other ways to negate a BBEG and that most of them will often be better.
I realise that there is other ways to negate a BBEG and that most of them will often be better.
yeah, if you won't buff your teammates, you're better off de-buffing the bad guy. It's pre-emptive healing; you make it so he can't deal so much damage, just like smashing face is pre-emptive healing (dead=less damage).
I feel like the best thing to do is to start at the beginning. Make sure to be teaching people how to survive without a cleric by using wands or having other characters who may heal part time. Many folks can do damage so more then 1 person should be able and willing to heal atleast a little. Buy potions, make wands, fight defensively. I feel like everyone should be able to do one if not more then these.
I must say i like the fact that combat healing is less of an option than it was. It have always bothered me storywise.