Am I the only one that likes healing?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

501 to 535 of 535 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

In my opinion the idea that healing can't keep up with damage dealt to PCs by monsters may be a myth.

I made a record of the damage inflicted on my character (and the other PCs) through a series of combats in two separate campaigns and the pattern is always the same. What I expected was to see damage cluster around an average roughly equal to the DPR calculation of the monster faced, but that wasn't what happened. When I looked at the actual numbers the most common amount of damage received in a round, regardless of level, is zero. When damage is actually inflicted low numbers are much more common than high numbers. The probability distribution is not a normal curve like a bell curve, it is highly skewed towards low numbers. Where PCs run into problems is with critical hits and other high damage events, which while relatively rare will kill a character off unless they are not close to maximum hit points.

Now it could be that our table is unusual, I wouldn't think we were that different as we often use published APs. I am curious to see if anyone else has gone through the same exercise and found the same or a different result.


JulianW wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
JulianW wrote:
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)

previous post I made

This post has examples of things a cleric can do. I mentioned summoner monster and then went into general things.

If you want something more specific, they can buff themselves if they are built for melee combat with things like divine might.

Spritual Ally, and Spiritual Weapon work for additional damage.
Summon monster is explained in the link I just gave.

Blessing of Ferver has an option that is very much like haste, and has a huge impact on damage out.

Your domains can give you other features and spells which vary by domain.

The spells that protect against elemental damage, and have a great impact on an enemy spell such as fireball. There is also a communal version, so you only have to burn one spell slot.

Protection from <insert alignment> boost your AC and can shut some spells down. There is also a communal version, so you only have to burn one spell slot.

There are other spells too, but these stop more damage on average than a healing spell or a channel can cure.

PS: Summon Monster also prevents land based bad guys from being able to charge into the wizards, sorcerers, archers, and other people who tend to hide in the back since you can't charge through an occupied square in most cases..


Boomerang Nebula wrote:

In my opinion the idea that healing can't keep up with damage dealt to PCs by monsters may be a myth.

I made a record of the damage inflicted on my character (and the other PCs) through a series of combats in two separate campaigns and the pattern is always the same. What I expected was to see damage cluster around an average roughly equal to the DPR calculation of the monster faced, but that wasn't what happened. When I looked at the actual numbers the most common amount of damage received in a round, regardless of level, is zero. When damage is actually inflicted low numbers are much more common than high numbers. The probability distribution is not a normal curve like a bell curve, it is highly skewed towards low numbers. Where PCs run into problems is with critical hits and other high damage events, which while relatively rare will kill a character off unless they are not close to maximum hit points.

Now it could be that our table is unusual, I wouldn't think we were that different as we often use published APs. I am curious to see if anyone else has gone through the same exercise and found the same or a different result.

It is not a myth. That math has been done. There are some healing builds that are very optimized, and may be the exception, but the typical healing based cleric is not going to keep up if the monster is landing his attacks.

When you do these calculations it is better to use an average number for the dice since rolling, even in a random dice generator can have extreme results towards one direction or the other. That is how the DPR calculations are done to negate luck.

If you are getting hit by a Fire Giant healing spells(outside of cure) and channels are not going to keep up. However you only have so many heal spells, and since heal removes a LOT of status effects, that is a waste of the spell. A better option would be to try to prevent the damage. Sheild Other might be a better option. By cutting the damage in half a channeling energy is a lot more useful because it wont have to heal as much damage. Also if you help put the fire giant down faster that completely stops incoming damage.


JulianW wrote:


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)

As someone who is a fan of glitterdust I can tell you that it wrecks martials. If he is not blind he takes less damage, and he can also kill whatever is attacking him. Just casting cure serious is not nearly as useful, if he is hurt and blind.

PS: If he is near death then it could be a judgement call.


wraithstrike wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:

In my opinion the idea that healing can't keep up with damage dealt to PCs by monsters may be a myth.

I made a record of the damage inflicted on my character (and the other PCs) through a series of combats in two separate campaigns and the pattern is always the same. What I expected was to see damage cluster around an average roughly equal to the DPR calculation of the monster faced, but that wasn't what happened. When I looked at the actual numbers the most common amount of damage received in a round, regardless of level, is zero. When damage is actually inflicted low numbers are much more common than high numbers. The probability distribution is not a normal curve like a bell curve, it is highly skewed towards low numbers. Where PCs run into problems is with critical hits and other high damage events, which while relatively rare will kill a character off unless they are not close to maximum hit points.

Now it could be that our table is unusual, I wouldn't think we were that different as we often use published APs. I am curious to see if anyone else has gone through the same exercise and found the same or a different result.

It is not a myth. That math has been done. There are some healing builds that are very optimized, and may be the exception, but the typical healing based cleric is not going to keep up if the monster is landing his attacks.

When you do these calculations it is better to use an average number for the dice since rolling, even in a random dice generator can have extreme results towards one direction or the other. That is how the DPR calculations are done to negate luck.

If you are getting hit by a Fire Giant healing spells(outside of cure) and channels are not going to keep up. However you only have so many heal spells, and since heal removes a LOT of status effects, that is a waste of the spell. A better option would be to try to prevent the damage. Sheild Other might be a better option. By cutting the damage in half a channeling...

I think you misunderstand my point. Damage inflicted in actual games does not appear to validate DPR calculations. PCs have too many damage avoidance and mitigation options so the most common amount of damage taken in a round is zero followed by low numbers. Instances of monsters realising their average calculated DPR are rare not common.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Boomerang Nebula wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Boomerang Nebula wrote:

In my opinion the idea that healing can't keep up with damage dealt to PCs by monsters may be a myth.

I made a record of the damage inflicted on my character (and the other PCs) through a series of combats in two separate campaigns and the pattern is always the same. What I expected was to see damage cluster around an average roughly equal to the DPR calculation of the monster faced, but that wasn't what happened. When I looked at the actual numbers the most common amount of damage received in a round, regardless of level, is zero. When damage is actually inflicted low numbers are much more common than high numbers. The probability distribution is not a normal curve like a bell curve, it is highly skewed towards low numbers. Where PCs run into problems is with critical hits and other high damage events, which while relatively rare will kill a character off unless they are not close to maximum hit points.

Now it could be that our table is unusual, I wouldn't think we were that different as we often use published APs. I am curious to see if anyone else has gone through the same exercise and found the same or a different result.

It is not a myth. That math has been done. There are some healing builds that are very optimized, and may be the exception, but the typical healing based cleric is not going to keep up if the monster is landing his attacks.

When you do these calculations it is better to use an average number for the dice since rolling, even in a random dice generator can have extreme results towards one direction or the other. That is how the DPR calculations are done to negate luck.

If you are getting hit by a Fire Giant healing spells(outside of cure) and channels are not going to keep up. However you only have so many heal spells, and since heal removes a LOT of status effects, that is a waste of the spell. A better option would be to try to prevent the damage. Sheild Other might be a better option. By cutting the

...

I understand you point perfectly well. In addition to these calculations, people's real life experiences are how the idea actually came up in a post a while ago. The math just backs it up.

I've also seen it happen. If the PC is very optimized and/or the party works very well together he may not take much, but in that case* the healer(hit point healing) based character won't be needed.

*I had this happen in a game, which I partially described earlier when I was shutting down the enemies, and the party would kill them. The healer hardly ever got to heal anyone, especially in combat.

If the party is taking damage consistently, then the healing falls behind more and more at higher levels.

Basically the info is not just based on a math chart and theory craft.


JulianW wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
JulianW wrote:
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)

I tend to play evil clerics, and bad touch everyone. maybe animate a few corpses.


JulianW wrote:

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

BS. In AD&D 1e and in BECMI, there is not even a standard party size, let alone a standard combination of classes. Many adventures were written for only one or two PCs. Your "classic concept of an adventuring party" came about much later.

I'll admit I don't know much about 2e.
The 3.0 DMG firmly standardized the normal party size at four PCs, and then...sorta-kinda- hinted about what potential class combinations could be, with Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard being one possibility. 4e reversed it by making five PCs the standard, and didn't specify any one combination of classes as the "classic" party. 5e is really the first time WotC emphasized the fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard combination as being "standard."

Quote:

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?

Well, I don't play PFS, but ignoring that part of your question: a big part of the beauty of Pathfinder is that there is no single combination of classes that must be used in all circumstances. There are a heck of a lot more than four classes in Pathfinder, and far more ways to combine them in a group than you seem to want there to be.

Personally, I enjoy all-sorcerer parties where no two PC sorcerers learn any of the same spells. It's certainly not optimal, and you could improve it by swapping one or two of the sorcerers out for a cleric, or an oracle, or a shaman, or a paladin, or a psychic, or possibly even a barbarian if you plan well.

IIRC, Anzyr has expressed a preference for a party consisting of a druid, shaman, summoner, and sorcerer if he is shooting for high optimization (EDIT: here and here.) Ashiel wrote about an all wizard party (again, not optimal, as you could eliminate some redundancy by swapping one or two of the wizards for something.)

So, to answer your question, there is no single viable party. There are a lot of possibilities. If you limit yourself to only parties consisting of clerics, wizards, fighters, and rogues, then that's on you.


Typical adventuring party consisted of martial class usually fighter, An arcane class, wizards or another full caster. A rogue or older systems an assassin someone to deal with traps. The last class was a cleric. The cleric ad rogue were usually designed to back the fighter up in melee combat. Cleric would cast bless and shield of faith then go in swinging. Rogues would move to flank for sneak attack damage. Wizard stayed at range usually being a blaster more then anything. Clerics can if good switch out any spells memorized for cure.
Healing in combat is not something our party did unless the damage especially at low levels started dropping PCs down to one or two HP. Low levels is when healers are often needed. At mid levels it's about status damage. At high levels healing is not much of a concern in combat and a smart cleric even a oracle are buffed for other uses to the party.
I often play a divine class usually as the groups healer. Life Oracle being the best. I once played a Flame Oracle in one campaign still serving as the group healer. By mid levels I was also the blaster of the group since we didn't have any arcane classes in our group. Never was I useless sitting around waiting for the party to be damaged. Any character that is useless in combat weakens the party as a whole.


The strategy of our main martial in Eyes of Ten, pretty much relied on his getting hurt and having massive healing to back him up. I believe his AC was 15 or 16 at the most.

He was however absolutely devastating in combat, and we made it through.


137ben wrote:
JulianW wrote:

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

BS. In AD&D 1e and in BECMI, there is not even a standard party size, let alone a standard combination of classes. Many adventures were written for only one or two PCs. Your "classic concept of an adventuring party" came about much later.

yeah! where my acrobats at?


137ben wrote:
JulianW wrote:

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

BS. In AD&D 1e and in BECMI, there is not even a standard party size, let alone a standard combination of classes. Many adventures were written for only one or two PCs. Your "classic concept of an adventuring party" came about much later.

Also, it wasn't at all rare for a party to have a number of henchmen or hirelings along. When there are six crossbowmen trailing along behind the Fighter shooting bolts at his foes, the Cleric is trailed by a reformed thief follower, and the Magic User has a trained war dog and an apprentice, that party of three characters does a lot more than a typical four-person "classic adventuring party". Let alone the 1e Ranger and their menagerie.

Quote:
Well, I don't play PFS, but ignoring that part of your question: a big part of the beauty of Pathfinder is that there is no single combination of classes that must be used in all circumstances. There are a heck of a lot more than four classes in Pathfinder, and far more ways to combine them in a group than you seem to want there to be.

This is also one of the fundamental problems, in that the ability to perform in multiple roles isn't spread between the classes. No one brings a Fighter along to throw healing around without expecting them to be unreliable; but you can bring a Cleric or Druid along to 'tank' if that's what you need - they can even swap in and out of that by selecting different spells each day.


wraithstrike wrote:

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.

To expound on this...

Someone building a "healer" that can't do anything else has nothing to do with healers or healing being bad. It has only to do with the player creating a sub-optimal healing character. Being a good healer is not just about healing hitpoints or even removing status effects.

Being a good healer requires being able to handle some healing in combat, mitigate some status effects, being able to do something else meritous when healing isn't required, and knowing when to do each. That last is the most important part.

It is mathematically proven that healing can keep up in combat. The game designers have added nice options to do so. It does require resources, just like all worthy builds. That said, healers can't keep up with all damage all day long. No character can burst all day long.


I have a gnoll (feral soul) oracle who I adore
She can basically do anything

She has a couple fire spells, but mostly her spells are used for healing and summoning
She just got a rod of reach (lesser) styled in the shape of a pimp cane with a snake head

She's hilarious to play but she can do healing, melee, summons (snakes and other reptiles only) or blasts (fire only) depending on what combat (or her whims) require


Rory wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

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.

To expound on this...

Someone building a "healer" that can't do anything else has nothing to do with healers or healing being bad. It has only to do with the player creating a sub-optimal healing character. Being a good healer is not just about healing hitpoints or even removing status effects.

Being a good healer requires being able to handle some healing in combat, mitigate some status effects, being able to do something else meritous when healing isn't required, and knowing when to do each. That last is the most important part.

It is mathematically proven that healing can keep up in combat. The game designers have added nice options to do so. It does require resources, just like all worthy builds. That said, healers can't keep up with all damage all day long. No character can burst all day long.

Where is this math outside of a few niche builds, which has already been admitted to be able to keep up? All the math I have seen has shown the opposite.

Many times in these discussions the healers just focus on healing which is why I made it clear which healers are not considered a good fit. A character that "can heal"(such as a generic cleric) is not what the forums refer to when we speak of "healers".

Most people here know the power of a cleric.


Think healing in combat would happen more often if every class had options to "cast from hit points?" Things like the powerful physical attacks from modern SMT games which all cost a set amount of HP to use. Not like burn (which I'm still fine with BTW) but something you either had to be careful with unless there's a life oracle or something in the party.


wraithstrike wrote:


Where is this math outside of a few niche builds, which has already been admitted to be able to keep up? All the math I have seen has shown the opposite.

Start with the "few niche builds" and build from there.

wraithstrike wrote:


Many times in these discussions the healers just focus on healing which is why I made it clear which healers are not considered a good fit. A character that "can heal"(such as a generic cleric) is not what the forums refer to when we speak of "healers".

There is a difference between a "healer" and a "good healer".

That's the part that I was attempting to help you point out.


HyperMissingno wrote:
Think healing in combat would happen more often if every class had options to "cast from hit points?" Things like the powerful physical attacks from modern SMT games which all cost a set amount of HP to use. Not like burn (which I'm still fine with BTW) but something you either had to be careful with unless there's a life oracle or something in the party.

It would happen in combat more often if healing scaled better. Say Channel Energy were 1d6/level and the Cure Line of spells didn't exist, instead being a flat Cure spell that healed 4d6 per level of the spell slot in which it is cast [with a simple 'mass spell' metamagic available, increasing spell level without benefits by 2]


Rory wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Where is this math outside of a few niche builds, which has already been admitted to be able to keep up? All the math I have seen has shown the opposite.

Start with the "few niche builds" and build from there.

wraithstrike wrote:


Many times in these discussions the healers just focus on healing which is why I made it clear which healers are not considered a good fit. A character that "can heal"(such as a generic cleric) is not what the forums refer to when we speak of "healers".

There is a difference between a "healer" and a "good healer".

That's the part that I was attempting to help you point out.

So basically you are saying the same thing that I am. Only certain builds can keep up. I think we agree then, but most people's build are not good enough to keep up, which goes back to my point about preventing damage being the better option.

When that fails you try to be good enough to bring emergency healing.

The people who need to be convinced are those who are trying to heal first, and be reactive and instead of proactive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
So basically you are saying the same thing that I am.

Correct. I was emphasizing a certain point you made to help drive it home.

Being a good healer requires being able to handle some healing in combat, mitigate some status effects, being able to do something else meritous when healing isn't required, and knowing when to do each.

That bolded part puts the "good" in "good healer". :-)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

First, I agree that a cleric can do so much more than heal. AND they're great healers.

The question of whether the act of healing is a mathematically optimal choice in combat is one of supreme indifference to me. Squeezing every ounce of efficiency out of a character creates a boring character. I wouldn't want to read a novel that contained such a character and I wouldn't want to GM for such a character. The Mary-Sue kill-everything, know-everything, nothing's-a-challenge-because-I've-got-it-all-covered characters are easy to make and godawful, weepingly dull.

I vastly prefer the interesting, the flawed, the quirky and the story-driven.

I have an oracle of life who doesn't carry a weapon. All he does in combat is heal. His motto is "no one dies on my watch." He loves pies and talks to invisible spirits. His best friend is a half-mad half-Orc. It's interesting. Being optimal isn't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I vastly prefer the interesting, the quirky, the flawed and story-driven... Who don't fail at the drop of a hat.


Tarondor wrote:
I have an oracle of life who doesn't carry a weapon. All he does in combat is heal.

Do you ever buff allies, debuff foes, cast spells, etc. in combat?

My life oracle has pretty much the same motto as yours, but he also makes his friends superstars as well. Or debuff foes here and there.

His best friends are a fiery halfling who is deathly afraid of moonflowers, a rogue who can hit the broad side of a barn, and a ranger that was a barbarian in a prior life. His favorite past time is feeding a raging badger to convince it to follow him instead of his inquisitor master. He also has delightful buffing competitions with his wizard ally while he tries to convince the wizard to polymorph himself into a quadruped.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarondor wrote:

First, I agree that a cleric can do so much more than heal. AND they're great healers.

The question of whether the act of healing is a mathematically optimal choice in combat is one of supreme indifference to me. Squeezing every ounce of efficiency out of a character creates a boring character. I wouldn't want to read a novel that contained such a character and I wouldn't want to GM for such a character. The Mary-Sue kill-everything, know-everything, nothing's-a-challenge-because-I've-got-it-all-covered characters are easy to make and godawful, weepingly dull.

I vastly prefer the interesting, the flawed, the quirky and the story-driven.

I have an oracle of life who doesn't carry a weapon. All he does in combat is heal. His motto is "no one dies on my watch." He loves pies and talks to invisible spirits. His best friend is a half-mad half-Orc. It's interesting. Being optimal isn't.

Being optimal is not counter to being interesting. Both can be done.

I also don't think anyone is saying you have to create the best character ever, but the party should feel like you are contributing. That matters because your character can have an impact on whether or not someone else's character dies. In a group where the GM has the time, and is willing to adjust more this is less of an issue, but not all groups have that luxury.

What counts as contributing?

That depends on the party you are with and how they play the game.


Well, if some players optimize hard enough to make their PCs count for two or three anyway, it doesn't hurt if someone restricts himself to play 'just' a pure healer. It should work fine within an AP / official module, and it does work fine within my campaigns (due to adapting difficulty).


If I'm serving as the healer prefer an Oracle over a cleric. Get all Cure spells before picking any spells. Life Oracle gets the restorative spells a healer should be picking up. I tend to pick spells that make me the healer and buffer. Bless, Blessing of Fervor being the two best. Shield of Faith I pick for my character. I also tend to pick the Seeker archtype to serve as the locksmith and trap detector. Something else that has served me well is a level or two of a martial class usually fighter.
Something I have noticed is people have stated summoning spells over other spells to prevent combat damage. The problem is as an Oracle your spells are limited. As the healer I'm picking up the spells that heal or buff the party so my spells are pretty much picked long before I consider a summoning spell. As a Cleric I have that option but you run the risk of picking only summoning spells and nothing to cure poison disease or curse. Not all monster are going to attack the summoned monster only, it seems people assume that. Another problem I have faced is surprise attack. A surprise attack from a shadow or worse a greater shadow will wreck a party before they get that summoned meat shield out. As a GM I'm going to play the monster smart if he is. It if it can summons monsters to deal with the party or uses spells and abilities to make those summoned meat shields useless.
I'm not saying summon monsters is useless, it's not. I'm saying a well designed character and party can handle itself. Our group almost always got together and designed our group together. Our characters were our own but we tried to have someone be able to do something the others lacked in one area or another.


Derek Dalton wrote:
If I'm serving as the healer prefer an Oracle over a cleric. Get all Cure spells before picking any spells. Life Oracle gets the restorative spells a healer should be picking up. I tend to pick spells that make me the healer and buffer. Bless, Blessing of Fervor being the two best. Shield of Faith I pick for my character. I also tend to pick the Seeker archtype to serve as the locksmith and trap detector. Something else that has served me well is a level or two of a martial class usually fighter.

Spontaneous caster have to be more careful about their spell selection than prepared casters. That is no secret. Blessing of Ferver or a spell I specifically mentioned so we agree on buffing the party as a way to prevent damage.

Quote:


Something I have noticed is people have stated summoning spells over other spells to prevent combat damage. The problem is as an Oracle your spells are limited. As the healer I'm picking up the spells that heal or buff the party so my spells are pretty much picked long before I consider a summoning spell.

In this case you may want to not pick summoning spells or only pick certain ones. Some of the summon list such as Summon Monter 8, are not that good. Others, such as the 6 and 7 are pretty good. They have utility purposes, such as summoning something with cleric levels also, not just stand there and get beat up. I don't think anyone is assuming the summoners will always get attack, but if positioned correctly they may have to be dealt with which makes them a good use of battle field control. They are also useful for flanking which also helps increase damage, and end the fight quicker. The utility of the higher summoning spells is one of their best uses.

Quote:
Another problem I have faced is surprise attack. A surprise attack from a shadow or worse a greater shadow will wreck a party before they get that summoned meat shield out.

Nobody is saying they are always the right answer. Like any other spell you have to know when to use them, but they are still a great option to have, and better than reactive healing.

Quote:
I'm saying a well designed character and party can handle itself. Our group almost always got together and designed our group together. Our characters were our own but we tried to have someone be able to do something the others lacked in one area or another.

I prefer to say that a well played party with good team work is in less need of a healer since they will prevent a lot of incoming damage.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Oh lord, this one again?

Well, my Life Oracle is 15th level now. Still haven't lost a party member yet.


Do you find the Pathfinder healing mechanics lacking the power to uphold the large Damage your PC's take?
Pathfinder Player Companion: Magical Marketplace has the anwser to your problems! Do you need a better scaling healing at level 2 ? Healing Bomb !!! The monster at CR 4 just bite your tanker PC for 2d6+10? Healing Bomb! just throw that nice and shiny bomb for 1d6+int+deadly aim + point-blank shot bomb at you guy! Healing bomb!!! The anwser to your healing needs! (Please Read this like a 60's Salesman)

Dark Archive

Holy thread necro, Batman!

I was partial to the Life Shaman (Witch Doctor / VMC Cleric) I added as an NPC to a 1-shot for the Return To Sky module I ran for a friend the other month. Channel Strength saw some use, and the healing was significant with Quick Channel and Selective Channel plus a Phylactery of Positive Energy. Shield Other made the party barbarian all but invincible.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Oh lord, this one again?

Well, my Life Oracle is 15th level now. Still haven't lost a party member yet.

Flame Oracle level 13, almost 14 here. Lost 2 party members and in both cases they went from full HP to dead in mythic trials.

Dark Archive

The 20 STR Aristocrat wrote:

Do you find the Pathfinder healing mechanics lacking the power to uphold the large Damage your PC's take?

Pathfinder Player Companion: Magical Marketplace has the anwser to your problems! Do you need a better scaling healing at level 2 ? Healing Bomb !!! The monster at CR 4 just bite your tanker PC for 2d6+10? Healing Bomb! just throw that nice and shiny bomb for 1d6+int+deadly aim + point-blank shot bomb at you guy! Healing bomb!!! The anwser to your healing needs! (Please Read this like a 60's Salesman)

While this sounds neat, I'm fairly certain the text refers to the ally being healed as if they had drank your extract/potion. That would make it 1d8+2, same as usual. Of course, if someone could bribe convince the staff that it works your way I wouldn't complain.


Oracles are in my opinion and play test supports me are the best class to play if you are a healer. That being said Oracles played well can do more then be a walking bandaid. The term Nursebot I find insulting since except for one Star Wars Saga Edition games was I ever a nursebot. In that game I was a robot doctor hence the term nursebot. Any class designed just to be a walking bandaid is a badly designed character and shouldn't be made or played.
My HalfOrc Flame mystery Oracle was the groups blaster using a Pepperbox when he wasn't using his fire spells. He buffed the party then went into combat with the rest of the group.


Oracles have some cool options, but I've found being a level behind clerics in terms of access to status removal can really suck when it comes to being the party healer.


Scrolls work fine for that. I have a level 11 healer/buffer oracle of life, and she carries 2 scrolls of every status removal spell we might need. The warpriest in the party carries 2 as well.

501 to 535 of 535 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Am I the only one that likes healing? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.