Cleric with Healing domain has a free empowered CCW. 45pts. Then a Channel for 17 pts as a Move action. 62 pts. Or a Rod of Quicken on a empowered CSW, which is 37 pts+ those 45 for 82pts.The lesser quicken rod costs 35000gp. Level 10 WBL is 62000gp. That is more than 50% of your available wealth. I don't see that happening.
Half that if you craft.
Half that if you craft.Cleric with Healing domain has a free empowered CCW. 45pts. Then a Channel for 17 pts as a Move action. 62 pts. Or a Rod of Quicken on a empowered CSW, which is 37 pts+ those 45 for 82pts.The lesser quicken rod costs 35000gp. Level 10 WBL is 62000gp. That is more than 50% of your available wealth. I don't see that happening.
Yeah, but crafting rods is not normal, so in addition to quick channel you are taking craft wand, and likely extra channel for a build like that. You can go this route to specialize in healing, and you will be able to do more burst healing but it still can't be sustained.
It also still does not change that the average(with regard to healing) cleric/oracle/etc is not going to compete with that arrow damage, not even for short periods of time.
edit: changed "craft wand" to "craft rods"
|
Do rods take Craft Wand? For some reason I thought they were Craft Wondrous Item, in which case I'm actually with DD on this one in that I almost never build a caster whoe doesn't pick up CWI at some point, since it really is a resource multiplier.
**EDIT**
It's Craft Rod, which is a fair resource expenditure for any caster.
Do rods take Craft Wand? For some reason I thought they were Craft Wondrous Item, in which case I'm actually with DD on this one in that I almost never build a caster whoe doesn't pick up CWI at some point, since it really is a resource multiplier.
**EDIT**
It's Craft Rod, which is a fair resource expenditure for any caster.
That was a typo on my part. I mean to say rods if I typed wands. I will go back and edit it.
Rory I am going to ask a simple question.
Are you really trying to say a healer is going to keep up with an archer?
Heavens no!
I am only saying that most people don't bat an eye at how many feats and other resources are dumped into archery but have real heartburn over spending even a feat or two on healing. It's kind of crazy.
People say Channel Energy "sucks", and then compare it to a healing spell in the most disadvantageous way possible. That's a terrible method to argue. Channel Energy is a good ability, but you have to know when, why and how to use it. Spending some resources on it is crucial to making it good, but even without resources, it's still decent. It doesn't suck at all like so many people are saying.
Channel Energy is fabulous in the hands of a good healer. Channel Energy is NOT fabulous in every situation. That is an important distinction.
ok.. I see your point now.. :)
Your fireball deals 21.5 damage with a save for half. Half is 10.75 and you round down to 10. A 3d6 channel is 10.5 round down and they both negate each other. The wizard used his standard action to cast a spell, the cleric used his standard action to counter the effects of the spell, the party kills the wizard that just made himself known.
Yes... they can cancel out.. if the targets FAIL their save... and if the caster is a dumb caster who is throwing fireballs naked...
You know who throws out naked fireballs at 5th level? People who do not know how to play casters.
On top of that, you are only MATCHING his damage IF THE TARGETS PASSED THEIR REFLEX SAVE. Guess how people things have poor reflex? Give you a hint, A LOT.
Remember that Quick Channel uses twice as many uses of Channel Energy, and Charisma is a dump stat. :PCertainly for Clerics it may as well be. Life Oracles can pick it up but its still not a particularly great use of their actions.
My Life Oracle used it. Though, it was primarily so I could buff/debuff on top of curing the group from an AoE. Or if I really wanted to cover that major AoE we just got hit with (double channel in one round, for the cost of 3 channels).
It helped that I was using shield other (from a ring of friendship) and life link to pull damage from others to myself as well. I think we had someone else pulling damage from another as well, or giving damage? Witch spell maybe?
Basically.. the primary two melee folks taking the brunt of damage was offloading a bunch onto others in the group (primarily myself), which magnified how much a channel was actually healing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, without a single feat spent it's still a 1d8 weapon with a x3 crit and a range of 100 feet, which doesn't require additional feats in order to make multiple ranged attacks in combat.A level 10 fighter with zero resources spent into the longbow is shooting two times for 1d8 damage. At least the level 10 cleric is channeling for 5d6. Just saying...
Longbows have many more upgrade options, but realize that is spending resources. Spending 5+ feats to make the longbow the best weapon in the game while not allowing even 2 feats to be spent for Channel Energy is a one-sided argument. Avoid that.
Bear in mind those two feats for channeling (selective and quick) still do nothing to boost the overall effectiveness of the channel.
I will say the longbow comparison overall is silly, because the difference being if I shot my longbow I don't accidentally shoot all my party members within my bows first range increment. This is a real risk when using channel to heal, damage, or do anything really.
I also tend to play switch hitters over primary archers making the point about guys in my face provoking an AoO moot to me at least. So bring your big guy up into my sword's reach so I can show you why rangers are beast. :D
You do not have to boost the amount of damage to boost effectiveness.
When you're playing for numbers then yes, yes you do.
In fact three of the feats pointed out (weapon focus, spell focus, spell penetration) directly increase numbers. Attack, Spell DC, and punching through SR are all a part of getting to deal that damage. They're taken into account in dpr formulas purely because they directly affect how much damage you can do. These are the sorts of feats that channeling needs.
Precise shot (was that what you meant?) and elemental spell are there with selective channeling in that they serve to eliminate a weakness of an ability (with precise shot being a clear winner in that it's "free"). So that feat exists.
Quicken spell and quick channeling both serve to improve action economy at great cost (4 spell levels and 2 channels respectively).
However numbers serve actions (who serves positioning but that's a different topic) having those two feats for channel (and being the only two of real relevance) is sort of the equivalent of a weapon finnesse fighter with 10 str who took all the two weapon fighting feats, weapon focus and greater weapon focus, but didn't bother with weapon specialization, two weapon rend, power attack, or any of the other feats that directly boost the results of a hit attack. Sure, they hit all the time. But given they may as well be wielding a pair of warm lettuce leaves the fact that they hit a moot point.
If we had a feat, just one, that said something along the lines of "+2 healing per die" to channeling or "+4 healing per die but spend two channels" then I'd be singing a different tune. But, paizo has not printed those feats. Yet.
|
Lets see here, there is Quick Channel, Selective Channel, Extra Channel, Channeled Revival, and Channeled Shield Wall for a set of feats. Of them, we can toss Channeled Shield Wall, as it will not stack with the common Ring of Protection, Protection from Evil[or whatever is appropriate]. Life Oracle would probably be the class to go with, due to higher charisma, and while we are at the optimization front, why not go with a Half-Elf to get the Elf favored class bonus to channel and to get Paragon Surge[still a decent spell after the nerfs to it].
For gear, a Phylactery of Positive Channeling will help with the channeling, along with Rod of Splendor, giving 2 more uses of channel energy, and an extra 2d6 healing with it.
At Tenth level, a 24 charisma after the Rod isn't too outrageous, with Quick, Selective and Extra Channel, Channeled Revival, and any other feat [we may as well say Fey Foundling], you have Ten or 11 channels[depending on your trait], each one healing Tend6, so you can drop Twentyd6 each round, for 3 rounds each day. Twentyd6 is an average of Seventy healing to everyone, and then One-Hundred and Ten to you and anyone else with Fey Foundling. Now, One-Hundred and Ten points of healing is nothing to laugh at, and Seventy isn't exactly sneeze-worthy either, but keep in mind you will be doing average 35 points, or 55 to yourself most of the time, because burning 3 channels a round is pricy.
Added to that, you can spend 3 uses of Channel to cast Breath of Life with a Thirty-ft range, which is a very handy ability in an emergency. Not terrible. Still, there is probably a better way for a 9-level Spellcaster to spend 4 feats, a trait, and 2 magic items of a combined cost of 36k gold.
Also, for anyone interested, I made a thread about Optimizing Cure Spells.
Remember that Quick Channel uses twice as many uses of Channel Energy, and Charisma is a dump stat. :PCertainly for Clerics it may as well be. Life Oracles can pick it up but its still not a particularly great use of their actions.
Oh yeah, absolutely. Channel Energy is a whole lot more functional for Oracles than it is for Clerics. If they dedicate resources to it, a Life Oracle can keep people on their feat through some pretty savage beatings.
Quick Channel still blows through your resources really quickly though, using it often means you're probably not getting a lot of channels in a day.
@Flawed
The downside with that list is that most of those feats are keyed to a single deity, making them mutually exclusive. Only worshippers of Pharasma (or a deity of death or graves, as PFSRD has refluffed it) can take Fateful Channel, for example.
** spoiler omitted **This is similar to Kudaku's experiments, but this is ignoring spells and revelations that could boost non-channel healing.
Also, for anyone interested, I made a thread about Optimizing Cure Spells.
I think the problem I'm running into is that making healing via channeling worthwhile is really feat-intensive. You can do some cool things (such as Fateful Channel), but you need to invest a lot of feats in it. It's also kind of unfortunate that unless you're facing heavy AoE damage, a lot of channel healing is going to waste.
An option to let you "focus" the channel on a single target and treat it as Empowered or perhaps even Maximized might be interesting.
Also, thanks for linking the Optimizing healing thread! I never would have thought to use the alchemist as a base for a healer and I think the pacemaker alchemist has a lot of potential. :)
|
|
@Flawed
The downside with that list is that most of those feats are keyed to a single deity, making them mutually exclusive. Only worshippers of Pharasma (or a deity of death or graves, as PFSRD has refluffed it) can take Fateful Channel, for example.
** spoiler omitted **This is similar to Kudaku's experiments, but this is ignoring spells and revelations that could boost non-channel healing.
Also, for anyone interested, I made a thread about Optimizing Cure Spells.
I think the problem I'm running into is that making healing via channeling worthwhile is really feat-intensive. You can do some cool things (such as Fateful Channel), but you need to invest a lot of feats in it. It's also kind of unfortunate that unless you're facing heavy AoE damage, a lot of channel healing is going to waste.
An option to let you "focus" the channel on a single target and treat it as Empowered or perhaps even Maximized might be interesting.
Also, thanks for linking the Optimizing healing thread! I never would have thought to use the alchemist as a base for a healer and I think the pacemaker alchemist has a lot of potential. :)
Yeah, I was mainly trying to see how much pure healing could be gotten out of it. Figured that a portion of it would probably be wasted, and wouldn't try a channel-focused character like this, as it would be too narrowly focused.
@Coltron - In response to your original post, you're certainly not the only one who likes healing, but there are a bunch of folks on the boards who feel compelled to point out why they feel it isn't an optimal choice. I'd imagine that most groups who haven't perused the boards at length might appreciate having somebody who is willing to take on the sometimes thankless, admittedly required, but frequently despised job of healing. Even some who are aware of (or possess) the disdain for healing held by those who claim system mastery might be glad to know they've got an insurance policy for when a routine encounter goes pear shaped and their PC is about to die needlessly.
It is probably good advice to be sure you're capable of stuff other than healing. High DC "Save or Lose" spells can be very effective but strike some groups as cheesy or boring. Summoning monsters can also be fun and effective, but once again some groups really hate it since it can make the player's turn too long (though you can mitigate that by being organized and summoning just one monster at a time). Making yourself a viable melee or ranged combatant is generally a safe bet. Communication within the party can be helpful too. You might want to ask Frank the Fighter if he'd rather have you cast Cure Insignificant Wound or whack the monster with an axe. One the other hand, if he's always charging into combat without decent armor on and getting stabbed you might want to warn him that you can't spend all your time restoring his squandered hit points.
I did notice that the SRD has changed the wording that's printed for these in the Inner Sea Gods, but it still doesn't negate them being useful by being mutually exclusive. Your typical cleric has 10 feats total and if you're trying to make better effect of your channels you'll lose feats to Quick Channel, Selective Channel, Extra Channel, and Fated Channel for this example. That's 40% of your feats to make a single ability good which accounts for maybe 15-20%(being generous) of your overall effectiveness as spells take up the bulk of your classes effective potential and some combat prowess and skills takes up the rest. By level 10 this is all but one of your feats and most casters like crafting feats so throw in CWI and you've spent every feat from 1-10 to make channel more potent. Trying to take any more feats will now just hinder your spell casting, combat, or skills further. If you do want more than that you can discuss the SRD versions that are more broad as it's your table, your game, your rules.@Flawed
The downside with that list is that most of those feats are keyed to a single deity, making them mutually exclusive. Only worshippers of Pharasma (or a deity of death or graves, as PFSRD has refluffed it) can take Fateful Channel, for example.
I absolutely agree that Channeling is very feat-intensive, I just wanted to make sure no one thought you could combine all those feats - combining Liberation Channel and Fateful Channel, for example.
I've read several posts stating healers are useless. They go on to state carry a crate load of wands, and potions. My question has always been how can low level parties afford them.
...
Then let me give an answer right now.
Level 1 - they can't afford them, a cleric has barely any casts so they aren't particularly useful either. 1st level sucks (and 2nd if you don't get a chance to stock up on healing). There just aren't enough resources to mitigate HP damage when a single serious fight can deal 2-8 castings worth and the party has 2 CLW potions and maybe 3 healing spells between them if they are lucky. It becomes a matter of hoping that the dice and your HP hold out until you rest...or that the GM takes pity and doesn't throw serious threats at you.
Level 2 - a 4 man party has 4kgp WBL. They can afford dropping a 5th of that to make all their HP woes go away forever (so long as they remember to drop small chunks of change periodically to the HP God for more CLW wands). HP attrition has now become a non-issue. Spell slot based healing is now strictly a minor gold saver/combat/non-damage focused ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I quite enjoyed 4E as well, I found the classes and races in that edition much more flavorful than the ones in PF. However, I believe PF is a superior game overall and quite enjoy it as well.
I hate playing the healer in PF, but interestingly, I loved playing healers in 4E. Mostly because Warlord was an awesome class. The big difference I found is that in 4E, you can heal as part of another action, like an attack. In PF, healing is your entire action. That is, I think, the reason people hate healing so much in PF.
To the OP: the reason people get on your case about healing, and I don't agree with them about it (I think people should just play how they want), is that if you're a Cleric/Oracle, the group is better served if you cast a buff spell or two, or if you cast an attack spell of the "save or suck" variety. Those options tend to end combats faster, whereas just waiting around for someone to need healing tends to prolong combat.
Well, the recommendation of CLW wands is based on several assumptions:
* The GM / campaign provides them at all, either as loot or shop item.
* There is someone capable to use them. Usually a given, but not guaranteed. An UMD check vs. 20 is not auto success on low level.
* The party is not endangered during their slow healing up after battle.
Depending on the player's attitude, such a wand might be seen as taking away a part of his role or as a relief to focus more on other things.
Finally, the rogue in me objects to blasting away 15g per heal, given you could usually get it for free (as a regular spell).
My current group didn't get any such wand, because the cleric enjoys healing. I provided a few to my previous group (they just had a druid), but then the bard (different player than the current cleric) showed interest in healing and did ok. Personally, I don't count cure wands to WBL anymore once they are used up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I've met anyone who 'hates' healers. It's more people I see who are frustrated that they're so... not great. In fact I know a lot of people who love healers who lament at how underwhelming the playstyle is in PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main use of healers is that several Paizo bad guy tactics blocks have them target the healer first. So always have one to ensure the least combat effective character goes down first.
The main use of healers is that several Paizo bad guy tactics blocks have them target the healer first. So always have one to ensure the least combat effective character goes down first.
*snigger*
Don't those same tactics blocks have moderate CR enemies chug healing potions while under fire from full attacking martials or optimized blaster casters?
Using the printed tactics blocks as advice for tactics is a terrible idea more often than not.
To be honest, dumb tactics have some element of realism. No one in Golarion has conducted a scientific study comparing wounds to how much they are healed by a potion. (If someone has, approximately no on has read it.) So the dude you just stabbed is thinking, "oh, no! I'm hurt and could die soon! Let's drink a potion to heal myself!" (Drinks potion, heals only 20% of his damage and gets stabbed extra times for his trouble, last thought before he dies is suing the Potion and Drug Administration for not mandating a warning label about this.)
To be honest, dumb tactics have some element of realism. No one in Golarion has conducted a scientific study comparing wounds to how much they are healed by a potion. (If someone has, approximately no on has read it.) So the dude you just stabbed is thinking, "oh, no! I'm hurt and could die soon! Let's drink a potion to heal myself!" (Drinks potion, heals only 20% of his damage and gets stabbed extra times for his trouble, last thought before he dies is suing the Potion and Drug Administration for not mandating a warning label about this.)
There is "I am not Admiral Thrawn Incarnate", and there is "Oh noes I was grievously wounded by a single blow from this big guy wielding a huge stick. What shall I do? I know! I am going to stand veeery still and chug a little bottle of feelgood while the big man with a stick continues to stab me reapeatedlohnoIAmDead".
One of these is reasonable. One of them isn't.
People in combat don't always make reasonable decisions.
People in combat don't always make reasonable decisions.
Standing still in combat and doing nothing particularly useful as an enormous meat tower in plate armor hacks at you with a falchion, though? We aren't talking about trying to stab the armored man man instead of running. We are talking about trying to plug gaping sword wounds with gauze while still in the process of being murdered. It is such a bizarre reaction that it should basically never happen.
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
When I'm playing Barbarian I must have healer in the group or things get very painful. Low AC and tons of hit points mean I need a healer who can actually heal decently. Healers are great.
The problem isn't that healer are bad it's that many people hate playing heal bots. I known I do but I appreciate those who do like playing healers.
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.
Play a Life Oracle instead. They are great healers and fun to play. No worries on being the party face. Even if you play cleric with decent Charisma that doesn't make you the party face. It's the skills that do that and having a good Charisma means you social skill will be better. Thing is a cleric with 2 skill point rarely has the skill points to be the party face even though they have good Charisma. So you can easily be a gruff compassionate healer just due to lacking the social skills.
To be honest, dumb tactics have some element of realism. No one in Golarion has conducted a scientific study comparing wounds to how much they are healed by a potion. (If someone has, approximately no on has read it.) So the dude you just stabbed is thinking, "oh, no! I'm hurt and could die soon! Let's drink a potion to heal myself!" (Drinks potion, heals only 20% of his damage and gets stabbed extra times for his trouble, last thought before he dies is suing the Potion and Drug Administration for not mandating a warning label about this.)There is "I am not Admiral Thrawn Incarnate", and there is "Oh noes I was grievously wounded by a single blow from this big guy wielding a huge stick. What shall I do? I know! I am going to stand veeery still and chug a little bottle of feelgood while the big man with a stick continues to stab me reapeatedlohnoIAmDead".
One of these is reasonable. One of them isn't.
have you ever played dark souls, when someone chugs at you, they're basically flipping you off.
I've read several posts stating healers are useless.
That is an extreme case, but people tend to notice the extreme post more than the more moderate ones.
The more popular position is not that healing is "useless". It is that healing is often very suboptimal, and you could be doing better things with your actions in most cases. As an example if I cast summon monster I can add offense to the party, and some of those summons will take hits that would have went to party members. I can also debuff bad guy to negate incoming damage. I can buff the party so they can end the fight quicker which also reduces damage taken. If I am cleric or druid I can also attack which helps the bad guys go down fast.
Basically negating incoming damage and ending the fight quickly is more useful than healing. I don't think most people just "stand by and heal", but there are some that like to do that.
Real life story:
I had a "stand by and heal" player(fellow party member) with me at the table before. Him not contributing to killing things put the rest of us in more danger so I upped my tactics, and chose spells to try to be sure we never needed in combat healing.
I agree that I don't have the right to tell someone how to play their character, but at the same time I will not risk my character because of how someone plays theirs. <----That is not against healers. The logic applies to anyone doing anything that could get me killed such as randomly pulling levers if we don't know what they do. I will exit the room if that starts to happen.
Another example was a paladin who loudly announce our presence to the enemies because it was "honorable".
PS: Nobody has a problem with divine casters just because they are divine.
A question to the folks saying healers are sub-optimal.
The classic concept of an adventuring party (inherited from D&D 1st and existing long before any of the powers we are weighing up here) tended to be fighter + wizard + thief (as was then) + cleric (then maybe adding an extra fighter and/or a bard as #5 & #6)
There's a lot comments that rogues aren't worth it. A lot of comments here that healing clerics aren't worth it. Curious what does make the grade as worth their seat.
So
If you and buddies where planning an optimal group of four characters to play together in PFS, what would you select? How about for six characters?
A lot of comments here that healing clerics aren't worth it.Bolded to emphasize what they mean. Healing is deemed as sub-par because the actions it takes does not net you a higher hp. While you cast a healing spell, the enemy full-attacks for more damage than you healed. Clerics can do a lot more stuff than cast healing spells, which is often the optimal choice, compared to healing.
I completely get that, but my question still stands. Or perhaps to narrow it down a little, what sort of spells would you prefer from your cleric?
Oh - and on a related note - that's very true when just talking about healing hp damage - does it change when it comes to condition removal?
(e.g. remove blindness on the barbarian vs casting a cure serious on them)
A question to the folks saying healers are sub-optimal.
The classic concept of an adventuring party (inherited from D&D 1st and existing long before any of the powers we are weighing up here) tended to be fighter + wizard + thief (as was then) + cleric (then maybe adding an extra fighter and/or a bard as #5 & #6)
There's a lot comments that rogues aren't worth it. A lot of comments here that healing clerics aren't worth it. Curious what does make the grade as worth their seat.
So
If you and buddies where planning an optimal group of four characters to play together in PFS, what would you select? How about for six characters?
In earlier D&D editions traps were really deadly so someone dedicated to the task was needed. In 3.x and Pathfinder traps are rarely deadly. They tend to cause hit point damage or apply a negative condition, but once again they are rarely deadly, and the rogue is no longer the only class that can deal with them. The slayer, archivist(bard archetype) and a few other options are just as good or better with skills than a rogue. They are also better in combat. In addition with something like a bard you also get spells. Actually even with no trapfinding feature traps can be overcome by various means.
With regard to "healing clerics" being able to remove status affects is a good thing, but something built around healing, and that does not do much else except trying to heal is what is suboptimal.
Clerics who use their versatility to negate incoming damage are much more likely to make sure the party doesn't have to heal nearly as often in combat, and therefore also prevent anyone from dying. This assumes the GM does not go out of his way to make the encounters more difficult, just to force you to heal in combat. In that case he is defeating the point of you making your character as good as it is, and that sounds like an adversarial GM to me. No, I am not saying a GM should never challenge a party. I am saying that if you know that you will force the party to heal no matter how well they play, then say so up front instead of just having "negate you build" always on, without them knowing about it.