| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have had some friends getting me into pathfinder for the better part of a year now and finally decided to get serious about playing it. The problem is that I like being a healer, I am an old school mmo'er and actually loved 4th edition (if only I hadn't moved from my old group that loved it too.) I googled a question and found myself in this deep rabbit hole of vitriol regarding healers and people who enjoy that particular style of gaming.
So my question is: Should I just accept that Pathfinder isn't my kind of game and just move on, or is it possible to play a healing character without 40 people telling me how I am ruining combat speed and am a waste of space?. It isn't even like I am just trying to healbot, I want to focus on buffing but have a hard time playing the character I want to roleplay when I am all but forced to get a clw wand and shut up.
thank you
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd think that a lot of groups would be very happy to have somebody willing to play a healer. If you wanted to come pump hit points into my PC that would always be welcome. That said, you'd be better off just playing an enjoying your PC than trying to get folks on the message boards to approve of it.
What sort of character do you want to roleplay? If you're focused on buffing have you considered a Bard? They generally participate a lot in roleplaying, and they're great at buffing the party. Clerics and Oracles can do so too depending on what you're going for.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have had some friends getting me into pathfinder for the better part of a year now and finally decided to get serious about playing it. The problem is that I like being a healer, I am an old school mmo'er and actually loved 4th edition (if only I hadn't moved from my old group that loved it too.) I googled a question and found myself in this deep rabbit hole of vitriol regarding healers and people who enjoy that particular style of gaming.
So my question is: Should I just accept that Pathfinder isn't my kind of game and just move on, or is it possible to play a healing character without 40 people telling me how I am ruining combat speed and am a waste of space?. It isn't even like I am just trying to healbot, I want to focus on buffing but have a hard time playing the character I want to roleplay when I am all but forced to get a clw wand and shut up.
thank you
The issue that generally gets brought up is that, in-combat, healing is a very inefficient use of your actions. Sometimes it's super-necessary! Every now and again you just NEED a heal. But as a general rule, cure vs. haste or slow, the buff/debuff wins the Being Useful contest.
As a result, many concepts involving being a dedicated healer are seen as being less useful than being a buffer, debuffer, or damage-dealer; actions that have higher efficiency.
That said, if third-party content is allowed then you might want to look into the Vitalist by Dreamscarred Press. They don't just make healing viable, they also fill the buff role so that you always have something to do in combat. Out of combat they don't precisely slouch about either.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As terrible as it sounds I want to be the healer but not the party face, so charisma based character are gonna be hard. I suffer from anxiety and while I love the roleplay aspect, being in the spotlight so much would nearly kill me.
That said I was thinking more cleric, so I can take extra channeling instead of having to put too much into charisma (and thus be shuffled into being the face).
As fars as the character I want to play, I just kinda want to be a gruff but compassionate healer that while a jerk does his best to save those around him, focusing more on healing conditions. Being able to cure the blind little orphan in game, or tend to those that are suffering. Stuff like that.
The reason people say that healing in combat is a waste of time is that, for one, it's reactive, so you have to wait for someone to get hurt before you can start to heal, and two, it's far more effective to use your actions to reduce the total damage the enemy will inflict throughout the battle.
Buffing, on the other hand, is proactive and quite powerful if you're doing it right. It suffers in shorter combats where you won't get time to get the benefit of the buffs, however.
If you want to be exclusively a healer/buffer, and not doing anything to damage enemies, I recommend focusing on being a good buffer first and healer second.
All that being said, you need to make sure your character concept is well developed and you have good roleplaying reasons for what you're doing. If you are frequently standing around waiting to heal, giving up actions to do nothing, or buffing unnecessarily then your party is going to start wondering why they brought you along. They might wonder why they brought you instead of the grizzled warrior-cleric who can do your job and smash skulls at the same time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As terrible as it sounds I want to be the healer but not the party face, so charisma based character are gonna be hard. I suffer from anxiety and while I love the roleplay aspect, being in the spotlight so much would nearly kill me.
That said I was thinking more cleric, so I can take extra channeling instead of having to put too much into charisma (and thus be shuffled into being the face).
As fars as the character I want to play, I just kinda want to be a gruff but compassionate healer that while a jerk does his best to save those around him, focusing more on healing conditions. Being able to cure the blind little orphan in game, or tend to those that are suffering. Stuff like that.
Are you playing House?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Understand that Pathfinder is a GM vs Players kind of game, not System vs Players. While there is such thing as a global maxima for damage, it is a purely theoretical issue. When playing in a specific game, there are so many other considerations beyond pure damage, including the style of the GM, the skill level of the other players, the goal of group, the type of game they want to play, and the group dynamics. A lot of people who theorycraft the "best Whatever ever!" forget this point as a matter of course.
Most of what you'll read about healing is that it drops group damage output and in-combat healing is a waste of time. That is technically accurate. Taking a round to move to a wounded PC and heal him for what is about a single attack's worth of damage (maybe 2 attacks if you're good, though if you roll poorly then it may be even less) is usually a bad thing from a "win the battle in the fastest way possible" kind of consideration. But getting a gold medal in the 500m monster slaughter event isn't what the game is about.
True healing specialized classes focus on group healing options like Channel Positive Energy and Life Link, as well as feats to make healing spells do more, cast more quickly, and without threat to the caster. A non-"combat healer" type healer is more than useless in a fight because they are probably better off doing something else. A "combat healer" class is very good at what it wants to do.
However, unless someone is about to die, healing during a fight isn't necessary. You generally don't have to keep everyone topped off because it is decidedly rare to see the kind of burst damage that can kill someone outright. You still need to be able to contribute offensively to a battle.
I agree with Devilkiller's point: most players would love to have a healer. It makes everyone's lives easier and longer. Bards are good for buffing the party; they get so many uses of bardsong that you can generally use it every single fight, and they have a lot of out of combat utility as well. They can heal, but you're better off using wands instead of spells.
The current "best combat healer build" in Pathfinder, which is to say the one most capable of casting in combat and dropping AOE heals and not dying from a single glance by an enemy, is called the Oradin (Oracle of Life/Paladin). It has the strong healing of the Oracle and the survivability of the Paladin; it can even do some good in a fight.
Still, even with a great healer class, you want to use Wands of Cure Light Wounds for all out of combat healing; it is the most cost effective post-combat recovery option.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics work fine. They're great at removing conditions since they have the right spells on their list. If you're really into the idea of always having just the right solution to the problem at hand you might consider taking Scribe Scroll or Craft Wand so that you can have the various condition removal spells handy. Wands of CLW and CMW are great too.
I think using the Evangelist archetype could be really nice since you get Inspire Courage like a Bard. Your Channel Energy would cure less damage, but you could always increase that with a magic item, and if you summoned monsters they'd get the bonuses from your Inspire Courage. You could kind of call in vengeful angels to set things right. Of course Perform (Oratory) might seem odd for a gruff and generally quiet guy. Maybe when the only time he talks much is when he's preaching but then it is really compelling. Of course there are a bunch of other archetypes.
I'm also a fan of the Animal Domain, which gives you an animal companion. It can be quite powerful if you take the Boon Companion feat. In fact, it could do the fighting for you while you concentrate on healing and other spells. A gruff old guy with a fierce Wolf or some other deadly beast might fit the image you're looking for. Maybe the animal starts following him after he heals it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to play a healer, then power to you.
However, I might suggest looking at some of the alternative channeling powers available. Buffing and healing at the same time is hardly something to sniff at, after all!
A lot of groups don't have the optimization necessary to play without a healer. Nearly all of our parties always have a dedicated healer.
Recently we had a tough fight when our healer could not come. So we made the best we could and all did the damage we could with one of our oracles throwing in a cure now an then. So I do see the benefits of not having a dedicated healer but normally we have one.
I'll be playing my first healer soon. But what I build for that purpose is an dwarf inquisitor with the healing domain and some favoured class bonuses used to buff his healing judgement. Together with shared judgement his heals should be enough while allowing him to still deal decent damage when healing is not top priority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My paladin is the party healer, and it works out pretty well. I can be the face (which I know you don't want to do), but I can also tank and, since paladins have a lot immunities and resistances, I can also be the breach/guinnea pig. If you don't want to be the face, you can just Charismatic and quiet. ;-)
Clerics are a lot of fun, too. Very versatile. You can specialize in healing, but also do a lot of other things. A LOT of other things. We have an oracle (consider Life mystery if you want to channel a lot!), and he has this amazing 1st level spell called murderous command. If his target fails its Will save, it attacks another target for 1 round. It's flippin' sweet!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ the op just play how you want to and have fun , don't worry about what other people on this board are saying it's your character just play what you want a good healer is always welcome in my games so do what you want to
Oh and Murphy's paradox a game should never be players vs Gm EVER ! The Gm must remainnneutral at all times and in all things game related
I used to like playing the healer, and buff up the party as well. And then I started playing a life oracle in Wrath of the Righteous. I chose life oracle because I figured mythic creatures would be absurdly powerful and tear through the party something fierce, but that hasn't been true in about 10 levels (just started book 5). It's actually the opposite (party shreds the opponents in 1-2 rounds, thanks to their over-optimization), and I have taken to casting more damagey spells like Holy Word and such, just so I don't feel like a waste of space. We don't even need any buffs, really. And the prevalence of +stat items, makes spells like bull's strength and owl's wisdom a waste of space as well, since the spells and items both give enhancement bonuses.
If you play with people who don't optimize the hell out of their characters, then playing a healer would be fine. If the others do optimize the hell out of their characters, playing a healer (instead of just a character that has access to healing spells) will be excessively boring and you may as well just go for damage or debuffing. And the cleric spell list isn't the best for damage dealing spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its nice to see that the community isn't as negative as the threads had made it seems. Thanks everyone for your comments and advice.
@WatersLethe: Kinda like house I guess, but far less confrontational. As far as the buffing over healing, I am fine with this but I still want to have all the healing stuff at the same time. Its a holdover from my 4e days of being able to buff and heal with the same powers most of the time. The trade off is hanging me up.
@DevilKiller: I look at a lot of the ideas you suggested and I really like them but I was just told by my friend that I have to own the book in order to use the feats,spells, etc (which seems to negate him saying pathfinder was free, but I get that in order to make content paizo has to get paid)I already bought the core rulebook, and might buy ultimate magic or the apg, but thats a lot of money to put into something I am not sure of right now.
Am I setting myself up for failure only having the core book? I seem to need a least a few more to do most of the stuff people have suggested
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its nice to see that the community isn't as negative as the threads had made it seems. Thanks everyone for your comments and advice.
The negativity is usually not towards someone who wants to be a healer, but the idea that it is required. There is a long history in many groups of someone geting 'forced' into playing the 'cleric' because either the dm, or the group thing its an absolute necessity. And in general, pathfinder is a game where people shouldnt be forced into such strict 'roles'.
If you play a buffing/healing cleric, you would be welcome at just about every table that plays pathfinder. For example, I play a witch in one of my groups campaigns. Primarily he is a buff/debuff character. But I also took the healing hex, because sometimes, the best thing I can do is keep out barbarian up for one more round. The key is I dont JUST heal, its not possible for instance to come close to matching enemy's damage output with healing. But a few choice moments, its generally a good idea to have someone who can heal in combat (and certainly out of combat). The big thing for someone who wants to be in that kind of support role is to do more the just heal. As you mentioned, you can be a very good buffer as a cleric. And often buffing is among the best use of your actions as a caster.
@WatersLethe: Kinda like house I guess, but far less confrontational. As far as the buffing over healing, I am fine with this but I still want to have all the healing stuff at the same time. Its a holdover from my 4e days of being able to buff and heal with the same powers most of the time. The trade off is hanging me up.
Well pathfinder has introduced a number of mechanisms that means you dont have to choose between the two in terms of character options. Particularly with channel, you have a pure healing resource, and you can prepare your spells with buffs, and if needed spontaneously cast them as cure spells.
You wont get the same kind of action economy you got in 4E. You have to choose between the two in most cases.
@DevilKiller: I look at a lot of the ideas you suggested and I really like them but I was just told by my friend that I have to own the book in order to use the feats,spells, etc (which seems to negate him saying pathfinder was free, but I get that in order to make content paizo has to get paid)I already bought the core rulebook, and might buy ultimate magic or the apg, but thats a lot of money to put into something I am not sure of right now.
Unless you are playing pathfinder society, there is no requirement to own the book. The PRD is freely available to all. I assume this a is a home game. In which case unless the dm requires it, you dont need to have a physical copy with you.
Am I setting myself up for failure only having the core book? I seem to need a least a few more to do most of the stuff people have suggested
A cleric is the core book is perfectly servicable. But in general more options to choose from mean its easier to get the things you want done done. For instance a lot of 'healer' characters are life oracles instead of clerics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The core book is really good to have. It has all the basics. Anything more, can be gotten from the SRD or you can invest in a book later.
And cleric is core, so most of its rules are in the CRB. Also, the CRB is really big, so you will also increase your upper body strength when you read it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Life Oracles are excellent healers.
The thing that's different in PF healing to 4e healing is the action cost.
It's taking you a standard action (you can quicken channel, but it'll eat up usage even faster), which means you aren't doing anything else, and the Cure spells are quickly out scaled by incoming damage (until you learn Heal itself).
In 4e, Leaders get to heal as a swift action, then use a power anyway (which may well have a healing rider), and the healing is percentage HP based. The game is designed for in-combat healing to be an effective tactic which doesn't use your entire turn like it did in previous editions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I googled a question and found myself in this deep rabbit hole of vitriol regarding healers and people who enjoy that particular style of gaming.
So my question is: Should I just accept that Pathfinder isn't my kind of game and just move on, or is it possible to play a healing character without 40 people telling me how I am ruining combat speed and am a waste of space?. It isn't even like I am just trying to healbot, I want to focus on buffing but have a hard time playing the character I want to roleplay when I am all but forced to get a clw wand and shut up.
thank you
Who the hell are saying these things to you? How horrible! Was it on these boards? If so, point them out and we will run them out of here (well, not really, but we will report them). We don't need scum like that running off new players and putting such a crappy face on Pathfinder.
It is possible that "In combat healing is not a mathematically effective option, because damage out paces the healing for many levels (til Heal) and it is more effective to simply take an enemy out of the fight, because that prevents more damage then curing potentially many cure spells worth." is being confused for vitriol?
I guess it depends on the GM's style. In most campaigns I've played in, if there wasn't healing during combat, there would only be the one combat, followed by rolling up new PCs. :-P
Granted, some encounters are push-overs, but they've mostly led to over-confident PCs that suffer big time in later encounters.
To be honest, damage is caused at a faster rate that healing, but I've never been in a party that thought it had too much healing.
And anyways, you should play what you think is fun. It's a game, after all. :-D
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is possible that "In combat healing is not a mathematically effective option, because damage out paces the healing for many levels (til Heal) and it is more effective to simply take an enemy out of the fight, because that prevents more damage then curing potentially many cure spells worth." is being confused for vitriol?
I think this may be an issue.
The OP mentioned he is a MMO player, where the Healer is part of the holy trinity. That game design is not a part of pathfinder.In MMOs, a healer is needed because without on it impossible to survive as damage is far greater than can be absorbed by defenses AND enemy HP is so large that it is impossible to kill the mobs before they get off hits.
Pathfinder uses a different design. Enemy Damage is far greater than can be healed by in-combat heals, and enemy HP is low enough that killing them first is a more mechanically sound strategy.
Heals are still welcome, but doing so in combat is usually a wasted action, because the enemy is going to just cause more damage next round. Unlike MMOs, you do not have unlimited resources for healing in fight, and when you run out of spells or channels, you can't simply rest for a minute and regain full mana.
Healing is always welcome, but it's best done after combat except in an emergency to keep someone alive. In combat, you are usually better served by Buffing, Debuffing, or doing direct damage. It's actually a lot like playing a Defender was in City of Heroes. You could heal, but you were more effective if you were doing buff/debuff/damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP:
Don't mind the theorycrafters. I am playing PF for some years and until now I have to find a group who lacks a cleric or an oracle.
Healing is not only curing hitpoint damage. Often, even more important is the removal of status effects and there are an awful lot of them in the game. You can cast remove fear, remove blindness, break enchantment,...
You know your enemy before the fight because of good investigation? Cast Communal Resist Energy (Fire) if you are going to face a red dragon. In another case, delay poison might be a good pre-combat buff.
Your top-buff spell comes online somewhat late but it is a no-brainer then: Blessing of Fervour.
With good armor, a shield and the Combat Casting feat you can even stand in the midst of combat (e.g. provide flanking) and cast spells.
After the battle everyone loves you because of Lesser Restoration (prepare more than one per day).
What happens on the boards and what happens in personal experience are two very different things.
Personally, I like healer characters. I played in groups that always had a player or two make very, very bad decisions before and leave me to be happy with anyone that actually performs an action, however small, that is helpful to the party. Seen too many bozos that perform meaningless actions (I buff myself and stay out of the fight until I am happy, oh wait, fights over. Or I perform a dance just to show how high my AC is. Or, I backstab the PC holding all the loot, grab it and run. Or, I don't know what to do - I'll just hold my action; every round.).
I will take healers, or even people that use aid another any day of the week before trusting the above examples.
As for the action economists, they might not appreciate healing in direct combat, yet I'm sure they see healers as vital when the fight is over.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not you. It's the Internet forum environment.
Given a large enough size, RPG game forums of the Internet (others too, but I'm narrowing to avoid TOO much generalization) tend to develop a small number of dead horses that various posters love and cherish. These posters have opinions about whatever topic, and will take any opportunity they can to express that opinion... oftentimes loudly. For these forums, some of the biggies include Rogues, Monks, Fighters, and healing in combat.
One of the things that I had to learn as a neophyte forum viewer was that many of the opinions posted on the boards do not reflect reality. The members of these forums (and other major RPG forums) are only a small microcosm of the Pathfinder players that are out there enjoying the game. About half the groups that I've encountered local to my area actively discourage players from reading internet forums because of the opinions and attitude that young players tend to encounter. Even in groups of players who actively read the forums, the opinions are not not necessarily shared or agreed with. I spent a great deal of time developping and maximizing a frontliner bard for a home group which ended up receiving quite the frosty welcome. When that character was retired from the campaign, I switched to a vanilla wizard who primarily uses spells found in the core rulebook. Everyone's been much happier with it. At least half of the group is composed of regular or semi-regular forum attendees who will very likely read this thread... hi guys!... but that doesn't mean they agree with the prevailing opinions expressed in the advice forum.
In the end, people will play their Rogues and Monks and Fighters, and people will heal in combat. And people will have fun doing it. Then they'll come to the forums and have much discussion and only occassionally mention what actually goes on in their 'real life' games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was playing an inquisitor in a party with an oracle, fighter, and psion, with some warrior henchmen. 15 point buy, gritty, 2nd Editiony feel. The oracle (dark tapestry) and my inqusitor did the healing, but at level 1 or 2, I only had 2 or 3 CLWs per day, and we were doing 5 or 6 encounters a day. At 3rd level, we one-rounded an owlbear, got overconfident, and when we encountered two owlbears, and I became owlbear chow.
So I made a vanilla paladin, but specialized in healing (Fey Foundling and Exta Lay on Hands, 16 Cha), and now the party is doing great! The oracle can use his spells for non-healing (I'm LOVING murderous command) and I can still tank but not out-shine the fighter. I'm even great at breaching, since I have good saves and a bunch of immunities and resistances. We just hit level 5, and now I have Mystical Healing http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/3rd-party-feats/rite-publishing/general-feats ---3rd-party---rite-publishing/mystical-healer, so now I'm REALLY good at healing.
I googled a question and found myself in this deep rabbit hole of vitriol regarding healers and people who enjoy that particular style of gaming.
Ignore the vitriol. There are several styles of gaming here in PF. One, which seems to be the mainstream (and by that it's the way the devs play): in this in combat healing is necessary and occurs often. My tables play that way.
A dedicated healer/buffer, such as a Life Oracle is a HUGE addition to a party and contributes a lot. Sure, you should Buff the party first, in the early rounds, and yes, "topping off" is a poor use of precious rounds during combat. But if a PC is one hit away from dropping or has been taken down by some condition- often the best choice is to heal or remove that condition.
Note a dedicated healer/buffer can even heal at range, gets more & better heals, and can even heal as a Move or swift action.
Now, that being said there are two other styles that occur:
Rocket Tag, where a combat will only last three rounds.
and "toon" style, where no one really cares that much about their PC and has a stack of newer/better PC's already done up and ready to drop in.
At those tables, in-combat healing is not very useful.
It's actually the opposite (party shreds the opponents in 1-2 rounds, thanks to their over-optimization), and I have taken to casting more damagey spells like Holy Word and such, just so I don't feel like a waste of space. We don't even need any buffs, really.
Yeah, this does occur. If the DM tries matching a standard out of the box AP vs a group of 20-25pt "allow anything on the PFSRD" Characters, there will be little challenge.
The AP's are mostly designed vs 15 pt Core & APG PC's.
Personally, I like more of a challenge, but if everyone is having fun....
YANA ;) (the doctor)
I'm so excited to play a Shelyn oracle of life/bard. It's build around the Divine expression feat.
Its no good in melee and loses a caster level but it can heal, buff and inspire, so more the party's back bone really.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have had some friends getting me into pathfinder for the better part of a year now and finally decided to get serious about playing it. The problem is that I like being a healer, I am an old school mmo'er and actually loved 4th edition (if only I hadn't moved from my old group that loved it too.) I googled a question and found myself in this deep rabbit hole of vitriol regarding healers and people who enjoy that particular style of gaming.
So my question is: Should I just accept that Pathfinder isn't my kind of game and just move on, or is it possible to play a healing character without 40 people telling me how I am ruining combat speed and am a waste of space?. It isn't even like I am just trying to healbot, I want to focus on buffing but have a hard time playing the character I want to roleplay when I am all but forced to get a clw wand and shut up.
thank you
It is not really hate, but if you get in a group where it is not needed you will be bored.
Real life example:
One of my friends loves clerics, and he likes healing people. In many of his old groups his buddies rushed in blindly, got beat up, and he got to heal them.
Our group had two main GM's, myself and another guy, who never got to play together. One day we finally got to play a game together because someone else offered to run a campaign. I had explained to my friend before that myself and the other GM would likely result in the party not needing to be healed too much so he can play a character that can heal, but he should not build a character focused around healing this time. He chose to do so anyway. We did not even get hit some fights, and when we did it was not enough to justify a clw spell. He was kept asking do we need a heal, and we just asked him to save the spells. When we finally got down to about half hit points which was after a few encounters, and several real life hours he healed us. Then things resumed as normal. I could tell by the look on his fact that he was bored.
My point is this: Be ready to buff and fight, and heal as needed unless the group is always getting beat up. There is no need to build someone whose primary goal is to heal in most groups.
edit: I was referring to healing hit points in my above statement. Clerics are really good at removing bad status affects such as being diseased, which comes in handy. :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who the hell are saying these things to you? How horrible! Was it on these boards? If so, point them out and we will run them out of here (well, not really, but we will report them). We don't need scum like that running off new players and putting such a crappy face on Pathfinder.I googled a question and found myself in this deep rabbit hole of vitriol regarding healers and people who enjoy that particular style of gaming.
So my question is: Should I just accept that Pathfinder isn't my kind of game and just move on, or is it possible to play a healing character without 40 people telling me how I am ruining combat speed and am a waste of space?. It isn't even like I am just trying to healbot, I want to focus on buffing but have a hard time playing the character I want to roleplay when I am all but forced to get a clw wand and shut up.
thank you
While I wouldn't necessarily use those words to describe my feelings on the topic, I agree with Ravingdork's thoughts. As we all know, the internets attract negativity, and encourage otherwise calm and reasonable people to be aggressive and rude when expressing their ideas. The world of character optimization is no exception.
I suggest that you always play precisely the character that you want to play, and play it the way that you want to play it.
As far as resources go, the CRB is all you need to accomplish your stated goal. A cleric with the Healing Domain and Extra Channeling feat can be a very effective healer, if played carefully.
It is true that healing in combat has its limitations as a primary strategy, but it is still very useful. Especially so when things get hairy and damage stacks up in a nasty fight.
I'm a huge fan of the Quick Channel feat in Ultimate Magic. That book has some pretty decent Cleric spells too. The Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Combat have some great Cleric spells in them.
Core Clerics can be effective at a variety of things. They can be awesome melee combatants, healers, buffers, and both blasting and controlling casters.
Most people might say 'pick two to be good at,' but it's your character.
Read over the character optimization guides for suggestions and then build it however you want.
We just hit level 5, and now I have Mystical Healing http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/3rd-party-feats/rite-publishing/general-feats ---3rd-party---rite-publishing/mystical-healer, so now I'm REALLY good at healing.
I still have to find a GM who allows this feat.
If ever I find one I'll build an half-orc oracle of flame with the firegod's blessing and the glorious heat feat eventually taking a dip into life necromancer.Every time I deal fire damage I heal 1+mystical healer, every time I cast a divine fire spell I heal spell level + mystical healer + possible again the same for life necromancer.
Or else I build a half-orc barbarian with firegod's blessing, mystical healer and the celestial totem, lesser rage power with a flaming weapon.
Every round I deal fire damage I heal myself for 1+char level + mystical healer.
To the OP:
Don't mind the theorycrafters. I am playing PF for some years and until now I have to find a group who lacks a cleric or an oracle.
Just because you have not experienced it, that does not make it a theory, but with that said I do think clerics and oracles make the group better than not having one of them around.
Ignore the vitriol. There are several styles of gaming here in PF. One, which seems to be the mainstream (and by that it's the way the devs play): in this in combat healing is necessary and occurs often.
.....Rocket Tag, where a combat will only last three rounds.
Define often.
If you mean every fight then you are incorrect. If you mean enough that having a cleric around is VERY convenient then you are correct.
Many people on these boards say their combats last 3 to 4 rounds. That is the norm, not an exception, and it is not rocket tag.
Pathfinder uses a different design. Enemy Damage is far greater than can be healed by in-combat heals, and enemy HP is low enough that killing them first is a more mechanically sound strategy.
Heals are still welcome, but doing so in combat is usually a wasted action, because the enemy is going to just cause more damage next round.
Healing is always welcome, but it's best done after combat except in an emergency to keep someone alive. In combat, you are usually better served by Buffing, Debuffing, or doing direct damage.
Actually, not always. Remember, Damage comes in vs AC, Saves, ER, DR, SR etc, while healing just works. True, incoming damage can be heavily boosted via archetypes, bloodlines, feats, etc- but so can healing. Take a look at the Life oracle. Don't compare a Optimized damage dealer vs a un-optimized healer.
Yes, absolutely, a good healer/buffer should Buff during early rounds, buffing is a great use of resources.
But Direct Damage? Life oracles and dedicated heal/buff clerics are not very goo at direct damage, generally.
It is possible that "In combat healing is not a mathematically effective option, because damage out paces the healing for many levels (til Heal) and it is more effective to simply take an enemy out of the fight, because that prevents more damage then curing potentially many cure spells worth." is being confused for vitriol?
Well, you see- yes. Since:
1. That isn't trueand
2. It's generally not phrased quite as nice as that. More often "In combat healing is a complete waste of time, just buy a wand of CLW!"
Now yeah, the tank or the arcanist or any member of the party that specializes in dealing damage would be better off in attacking as opposed to stopping and swigging a potion. But a dedicated healer/buffer can make the whole party do more damage, survive longer, and his healing is so much more effective than his personal damage output, it's almost always worth healing (rather than let a party member drop) that attacking.
Ignore the vitriol. There are several styles of gaming here in PF. One, which seems to be the mainstream (and by that it's the way the devs play): in this in combat healing is necessary and occurs often.
.....Rocket Tag, where a combat will only last three rounds.
Define often.
If you mean every fight then you are incorrect. If you mean enough that having a cleric around is VERY convenient then you are correct.
Many people on these boards say their combats last 3 to 4 rounds. That is the norm, not an exception, and it is not rocket tag.
The average is around six rounds, and that's the way the dev's own games run.
To the OP:
Don't mind the theorycrafters. I am playing PF for some years and until now I have to find a group who lacks a cleric or an oracle.
Healing is not only curing hitpoint damage. Often, even more important is the removal of status effects and there are an awful lot of them in the game. You can cast remove fear, remove blindness, break enchantment,...
You know your enemy before the fight because of good investigation? Cast Communal Resist Energy (Fire) if you are going to face a red dragon. In another case, delay poison might be a good pre-combat buff.
Your top-buff spell comes online somewhat late but it is a no-brainer then: Blessing of Fervour.
With good armor, a shield and the Combat Casting feat you can even stand in the midst of combat (e.g. provide flanking) and cast spells.
After the battle everyone loves you because of Lesser Restoration (prepare more than one per day).
I'd like to point out that most of what you said in this post isn't actually about in-combat healing, hit point or otherwise. Pretty much no one is arguing against the merits of clerics or oracles, which are generally accepted to be really high up there in power (not quite as much as in their CoDzilla days, but close). But in-combat healing is still one of the most inefficient things you could do as one of those classes.
That said, OP, if you have fun playing a healer, go for it, but accept that the game isn't built around in-combat healing being very effective, so you'll probably feel frustrated if you overspecialize. Fortunately, as a cleric, if you find you are beginning to feel frustrated, you can change up your spells prepared to be more of a buffing set, and cut back a little on the healing.
It is possible that "In combat healing is not a mathematically effective option, because damage out paces the healing for many levels (til Heal) and it is more effective to simply take an enemy out of the fight, because that prevents more damage then curing potentially many cure spells worth." is being confused for vitriol?Well, you see- yes. Since:
1. That isn't trueand
2. It's generally not phrased quite as nice as that. More often "In combat healing is a complete waste of time, just buy a wand of CLW!"
Now yeah, the tank or the arcanist or any member of the party that specializes in dealing damage would be better off in attacking as opposed to stopping and swigging a potion. But a dedicated healer/buffer can make the whole party do more damage, survive longer, and his healing is so much more effective than his personal damage output, it's almost always worth healing (rather than let a party member drop) that attacking.
Damage out-scaling healing until Heal is absolutely true. Or do your monsters only roll 1d8 with no bonuses? And lets not talk about once monsters get multiple attacks a round or the fact that monsters can make multiple natural attacks even at early levels. And yes defeating an enemy prevents more damage then a Cure X Wounds will as it can no longer attack.
The more basic problem is that your allies usually begin each encounter uninjured, and if they are lucky and/or well prepared for the fight, they may get through most of the fight that way. So the question you need to answer as the party healer is what do you do until somebody needs healing?
Damage out-scaling healing until Heal is absolutely true. Or do your monsters only roll 1d8 with no bonuses? And lets not talk about once monsters get multiple attacks a round or the fact that monsters can make multiple natural attacks even at early levels. And yes defeating an enemy prevents more damage then a Cure X Wounds will as it can no longer attack.It is possible that "In combat healing is not a mathematically effective option, because damage out paces the healing for many levels (til Heal) and it is more effective to simply take an enemy out of the fight, because that prevents more damage then curing potentially many cure spells worth." is being confused for vitriol?Well, you see- yes. Since:
1. That isn't trueand
2. It's generally not phrased quite as nice as that. More often "In combat healing is a complete waste of time, just buy a wand of CLW!"
Now yeah, the tank or the arcanist or any member of the party that specializes in dealing damage would be better off in attacking as opposed to stopping and swigging a potion. But a dedicated healer/buffer can make the whole party do more damage, survive longer, and his healing is so much more effective than his personal damage output, it's almost always worth healing (rather than let a party member drop) that attacking.
Nope. But my healer doesn't only do 1D8 with no bonus. They are Empowered (for free) and a good healer can cast a Cure spell as a std, then Channel in the same round.
Of course, defeating an enemy prevents more damage. I don;t know of many PC's that have the ability to simply kill a foe in one round, without having to roll some dices somewhere, 100%, every time, guaranteed.
You have to roll to hit, or the foe gets a save- or a save and Spell resistance. And even if you do get thru, the foe might have DR or ER and your damage is reduced. or heck- it might just be totally immune to your attack.
But heal? 100% works.
Ok, so you want to reserve healing in combat until there's a sitrep when the next hit from a foe will drop one of your party. True. Topping off isn't all that useful in combat (altho when you Channel, the other party members get topped off as a nice side benefit, and with the some healers, they get temp HP instead if they don't need healing).
So, then you have a choice:
1. Try to attack, with about a 50% chance of dropping the foe?
OR
2. Heal, with a 100% chance of keeping your buddy up- so HE can drop the foe with his next attack?
#2 is the sure thing. Works every time.
Not to mention, if you don't heal him, and your attack fails to drop the foe, there's a chance the foe's attack will be lucky and your buddy is now DEAD. That means a SIGNIFICANT loss of party resources bringing him back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Direct Damage? Life oracles and dedicated heal/buff clerics are not very goo at direct damage, generally.
True, though you can be a secondary melee guy if you build for it. There are also indirect methods.
When I built my life oracle, one of the threads I researched talked about the fun that you can have with that particular build. The thread generally encouraged players to have something else going on outside of healing. An oracle's spell selection isn't diverse enough to take both the curative/restorative spells needed to be a specialist healer while also having enough spells to be effective at offense or battlefield control. Those who were going the 'full caster' route didn't always have the right spell for the job, and it made the role less fun. Instead, the thread recommended players to stat their oracles for a secondary battle role so that they could fight when not needed to heal, or to otherwise ensure that there was something else that their character could do.
For my character, I decided the other specialty would be summoning. Balancing the feats was a bit of a challenge, but totally possible. Since the summon monster line of spells is a single spell per level, he has a secondary role while still having enough known spells to focus on buffing and restorative spells. Summoning was perfect for the character flavor, too. Xen was kidnapped from the plane of positive energy via magical mishap and shoved into a human body... so everytime he summons a celestial or good creature, it's an old friend from home.
"Hi Mitsy! Would you mind dropping down to Golarion for a minute and giving me a hand? Thaaaaaanks!"
"I summon... the great and terrible hound archon!!! Who's a good boy? Who's a good boy?!"
He was only of minimal use in battle during the first two levels, but that just gave me more screen time to come up with situational comedy. Xen spent his very first combat double moving as he ran around in circles screaming in terror. The first zombie he encountered startled him so badly that he blipped into his 'true form' (energy body) for a round.
Actually, Xen is becoming a group favorite. His summoning/healing/buffing are huge party support, while the strong character focus and oddball personality makes him very memorable.
Of course, defeating an enemy prevents more damage. I don;t know of many PC's that have the ability to simply kill a foe in one round, without having to roll some dices somewhere, 100%, every time, guaranteed.
The other problem is that if the party is defeating enemies so quickly that they don't take damage, the GM says "Huh, guess they're not being challenged enough" and ramps up the encounters until the group IS taking damage.
Then you're back to needing a healer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FYI, 'rocket tag' is 'Whichever side goes first, wins.' This is because the opening strike is a) So huge the other party perishes or b) So devastating the other party can't recover or unleash it's own alpha strike and has either got to bail or be forced to lose the fight, and the extra rounds are just spent trying to stave off certain doom.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so you want to reserve healing in combat until there's a sitrep when the next hit from a foe will drop one of your party. True. Topping off isn't all that useful in combat (altho when you Channel, the other party members get topped off as a nice side benefit, and with the some healers, they get temp HP instead if they don't need healing).
So, then you have a choice:
1. Try to attack, with about a 50% chance of dropping the foe?
OR
2. Heal, with a 100% chance of keeping your buddy up- so HE can drop the foe with his next attack?#2 is the sure thing. Works every time.
Not to mention, if you don't heal him, and your attack fails to drop the foe, there's a chance the foe's attack will be lucky and your buddy is now DEAD. That means a SIGNIFICANT loss of party resources bringing him back.
In the end all the math in the world probably doesnt matter. Because we arent playing against a computer, or a set environment (unless someone runs aps by the book with no alterations). You have to deal with the preconceptions and impressions of your dm.
And for many dms, 'hard' fights need to have in combat healing in them. What does this mean? Basically, many dms when they are looking for a fight to be 'challenging' the result they expect is for one or more members of the party to either drop to negative hit points or nearly drop to negative hit points.
If this is the case, then in combat healing is a necessity. Aside from it often being useful to say keep the party damage dealer 'up' for one more round, its the simple fact that if the party needs to heal in combat it satisfies the dms phsycological need to see the party 'struggle' with a 'difficult' challenge. An experienced dm that see's his party walk over an encounter without significant damage may very well simply ramp up the difficulty of the next one. Where as if the cleric had to spend half his actions keeping the fighter alive, he'll probably either leave it alone or possibly reduce it.
So since we are dealing with a human being setting the challenges, all the theorycrafting in the world is meaningless. The dm will adjust the encounters to meet what he is looking to do. For 'important'/'tough' fights that likely means in combat healing.
Does that mean someone needs to be the 'healer'. Probably not. But it does mean someone probably needs to be able to cast divine spells and have a cure or two handy in case of emergency. And it means if someone is particularly good at healing (see life oracle) then chances are in those 'tough' fights, the party will be under less actual threat.
Essentially, the game doesnt require in combat healing, but many gms do. Which is effectively the same thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the DM tries matching a standard out of the box AP vs a group of 20-25pt "allow anything on the PFSRD" Characters, there will be little challenge.
This hasn't been our groups' experience at all. We regularly run 25-point buy characters along with the optional Hero Points system, allowing most any non-third-party product, and the official adventure paths kick our butts nearly every d@mned time.
Carrion Crown - 8 fatalities
Kingmaker - 7 fatalities
Legacy of Fire - 3 fatalities
Rise of the Runelords - 10 fatalities (ongoing, somehow)
Skull and Shackles - 4 fatalities (ongoing)
Wrath of the Righteous - 0 fatalities (ongoing)
All adventure paths that are not currently ongoing never made it past the second or third module for lack of characters that had any ties left to the ongoing story arc.
In comparison, our homebrew adventures tend to have less than half that many. Paizo writers are BRUTAL.
An Aberrant Beginning - 0 fatalities (roughly equivalent to one Paizo module)
Dragonlance - 2 fatalities (roughly equivalent to four Paizo modules)
Eltair - 3 fatalities (roughly equivalent to three Paizo modules)
Gods at War - 0 fatalities (roughly equivalent to one Paizo modules)
Guardians of Heaven - 2 retired (ongoing)
Lands of Uldvar - 1 retired (roughly equivalent to two Paizo modules)
Saving Merrygold - 0 fatalities (roughly equivalent to one Paizo module)
Waterdeep - 0 fatalities (roughly equivalent to one Paizo module; GM rage quit)
I have had some friends getting me into pathfinder for the better part of a year now and finally decided to get serious about playing it. The problem is that I like being a healer, I am an old school mmo'er and actually loved 4th edition (if only I hadn't moved from my old group that loved it too.) I googled a question and found myself in this deep rabbit hole of vitriol regarding healers and people who enjoy that particular style of gaming.
So my question is: Should I just accept that Pathfinder isn't my kind of game and just move on, or is it possible to play a healing character without 40 people telling me how I am ruining combat speed and am a waste of space?. It isn't even like I am just trying to healbot, I want to focus on buffing but have a hard time playing the character I want to roleplay when I am all but forced to get a clw wand and shut up.
thank you
Here's the thing ... if ALL you do his heal, then you're ... how to put it? ... not living up to your potential. Instead of playing a 'healer', play a 'supporter', with healing as part, but not all, of your repertoire.
Healing, by itself, doesn't really help you win, it just staves off losing. Buffing your main attackers or hosing the opponents is more effective uses of your in-combat actions. I think of it as 'pre-emptive healing'. If, because of your buffs, your fighter takes a monster down a round earlier than usual, that's a full round worth of attacks you don't have to heal.
Of course, defeating an enemy prevents more damage. I don;t know of many PC's that have the ability to simply kill a foe in one round, without having to roll some dices somewhere, 100%, every time, guaranteed.The other problem is that if the party is defeating enemies so quickly that they don't take damage, the GM says "Huh, guess they're not being challenged enough" and ramps up the encounters until the group IS taking damage.
Then you're back to needing a healer.
That's what I'd do, but apparently some DM's don't. They let the Players romp thru the AP's without a care or taking a point of damage, annihilating most of the encounters in two rounds. I guess if that's fun for all, then Ok, but....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what I'd do, but apparently some DM's don't. They let the Players romp thru the AP's without a care or taking a point of damage, annihilating most of the encounters in two rounds. I guess if that's fun for all, then Ok, but....Of course, defeating an enemy prevents more damage. I don;t know of many PC's that have the ability to simply kill a foe in one round, without having to roll some dices somewhere, 100%, every time, guaranteed.The other problem is that if the party is defeating enemies so quickly that they don't take damage, the GM says "Huh, guess they're not being challenged enough" and ramps up the encounters until the group IS taking damage.
Then you're back to needing a healer.
My difficulty progressions come as the players gain in level, not in response to their tactics. If their tactics are poor at high levels they will die repeatedly. If their tactics are good at low levels they will curbstomp encounters. What I don't approve of is things like giving monsters more hp to "draw out the fight" or artificially prolonging fights, because the DM thinks they aren't "hard". A fight at high levels should be short and brutal (for both PCs and Enemies) with people being removed from combat in a single round, simply because that is what the system expects at this level.