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.
I have played with several groups and this has come up on the boards. Normal fights are about 3 to 4 rounds. A boss fight might be anywhere from 4 to 10. Each dev does not even run the game the same way. Some optimize more than others etc etc, so there is no "dev" standard.
I will go find quotes later because we are getting different information, not that I consider the dev preference the standard.| 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.
I have to agree with DrDeth on this one. Unless I ramp up the difficulty the AP's get stomped, and as a player I often have to hold back so the GM does not spend free time adjusting the AP too much.
I wouldn't mind sitting at your table one day to see how this happens.
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.
I make them a little harder, but not enough to force them to heal. I do try to make boss fights more challenging though.
I let them have the easier fights because me ramping things up for every fight defeats the purpose of them optimizing.
This does explain our differences though, and why your fights last 6 rounds, as opposed to only my boss fights only lasting 6 rounds or more.
I have to say though... Even with a basic group, in combat healing is very poorly matched up to damage...
I mean, lets compare th base CSW vs Fireball at caster level 5...
A CSW at CL 5 is 3d8+5= 18.5 to one target on average.
A BASIC Fireball is 5d6=17.5 damage in a 30 ft radius on average.
So CSW can heal 1 more damage than a naked fireball to one guy. But that is a naked fireball with no rods, no meta-magic, no dips.
So, since the fireball is subject to SR, ER, Evasion and especially a save, the damage is then usually MUCH less than healing, since CSW is subject to none of those.
And of course you can add a Metamagic feat to Fireball. But CSW also comes with those boosts, in fact the Heal Domain and Life Oracle adds such-like for free.
That is precisely the problem that the OP ran into and the main issue in this thread. Optimization and DPR Olympics do not represent the realities of what happens on the tabletop. It has an important place on the boards, and optimization can help players learn the system and make their own characters stronger and more fun to play.
IMO, it does not and should not reflect the 'reality' of actual gameplay.
Right. Theorycrafting is a valuable tool, but it does not necessarily represent IRL table-top gaming. Theorycrafting is a valuable TOOL, but it should not make your gaming decisions for you. Run what's fun for you, and useful for YOUR group.
Design Manager
|
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.
I have to agree with DrDeth on this one. Unless I ramp up the difficulty the AP's get stomped, and as a player I often have to hold back so the GM does not spend free time adjusting the AP too much.
I wouldn't mind sitting at your table one day to see how this happens.
I've found that the AP in question, the particular party make-up, and the tactics and knowledge of the GM have way more impact than point buy or allowing expanded materials. Rise of the Runelords and Reign of Winter in particular were brutal for our group, despite the fact that we used a 25 point buy and were very open in what material was allowed.
I believe our RotRL campaign included a Fighter (Viking), Warlord from Dreamscarred Press' Path of War, a Void Wizard, a Cleric focused on buffing and healing, and a skill monkey that died literally every other game until we finally ended up with an Oread Terracotta Monk so defensively focused that it would have required some absolutely extreme circumstances to kill him. I think the Void Wizard and the Viking were the only members who didn't at least flirt with death a little in almost every session.
I'm always amazed when i here people say how a long combat for them is 3 or 4 rounds
To me that would be a quick to average combat as we find 6-8 rounds more the norm for my group .
And where not optermizers but our characters are good at there roles and we work well as a team so think there must be some combs of feats and spells that are just to OTT
I will give a breakdown of this in a later post of how a fight is 3 to 4 rounds against a non-boss fight. This post is just a reminder for me to do so.
I think most parties would welcome a healer in their ranks.
It is not that we don't like healers. We just think most parties won't need healing after every fight so building someone who primary focus is healing is often not needed.
I have to say though... Even with a basic group, in combat healing is very poorly matched up to damage...
I mean, lets compare th base CSW vs Fireball at caster level 5...
A CSW at CL 5 is 3d8+5= 18.5 to one target on average.
A BASIC Fireball is 5d6=17.5 damage in a 30 ft radius on average.
So CSW can heal 1 more damage than a naked fireball to one guy. But that is a naked fireball with no rods, no meta-magic, no dips.
So, since the fireball is subject to SR, ER, Evasion and especially a save, the damage is then usually MUCH less than healing, since CSW is subject to none of those.
And of course you can add a Metamagic feat to Fireball. But CSW also comes with those boosts, in fact the Heal Domain and Life Oracle adds such-like for free.
Cure Serious wounds does have SR on it. So unless you want them to spend a standard action on their round lowering it (not to mention can't even do that while down) you do in fact have to contend with cure. There are saves on it as well.
Not to mention, as pointed out fireball is for every opponent in a rather large area. Cure you have to be touching them and even then its for a single person.
Furthermore CL 5 is the worst level you can have fireball at. At level 10 that basic fireball with a dual blooded sorcerer hits for 10d6+20 (55 damage on average, 27.5 on save) while cure serious has ramped up to 22.5 on average.
Well, yes, but SR for PC's is not very common. And of course you don't make a save vs friendly spells.
Sure. But Channel is a area, and 3D6 of channeling will often heal more than 5d6 of fire does, due to saves, ER, etc.
Yes, Fireball can ramp up, but so can healing. Heal Domain has all Cure spells empowered for FREE.
To be fair, when people say that combat lasts 3-4 rounds often what they mean is "3-4 rounds where things are really intense, then another 2 rounds of mopping up debuffed/battlefield controlled/outnumbered enemies."I'm always amazed when i here people say how a long combat for them is 3 or 4 rounds
To me that would be a quick to average combat as we find 6-8 rounds more the norm for my group .
And where not optermizers but our characters are good at there roles and we work well as a team so think there must be some combs of feats and spells that are just to OTT
I really meant 3 to 4 actual rounds.
I have to say though... Even with a basic group, in combat healing is very poorly matched up to damage...
I mean, lets compare th base CSW vs Fireball at caster level 5...
A CSW at CL 5 is 3d8+5= 18.5 to one target on average.
A BASIC Fireball is 5d6=17.5 damage in a 30 ft radius on average.
So CSW can heal 1 more damage than a naked fireball to one guy. But that is a naked fireball with no rods, no meta-magic, no dips.
So, since the fireball is subject to SR, ER, Evasion and especially a save, the damage is then usually MUCH less than healing, since CSW is subject to none of those.
And of course you can add a Metamagic feat to Fireball. But CSW also comes with those boosts, in fact the Heal Domain and Life Oracle adds such-like for free.
That fireball does that damage to several targets. Healing generally cures one person at time, and most PC's don't have SR.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qcgs?How-many-rounds-encounters#1
"OK for the Pathfinder Devs the number of rounds range seems to be 3-10, average 6, mean is 5.
For posters;
# of rounds average is 5 (about the same as the devs)
The big variance is number of rounds. Runs from 2-10 average.
This is important I think. There’s a big debate about healing in combat. Well, if you run only 3 rounds, then sure, you’d hardly ever heal during combat. If you’re running 10 rounds, then heck yeah, you need healing!
Which means to me, you need to know what sort of game a OP is talking about before we weigh in on "healing is useless'."
I will give a breakdown of this in a later post of how a fight is 3 to 4 rounds against a non-boss fight. This post is just a reminder for me to do so.I'm always amazed when i here people say how a long combat for them is 3 or 4 rounds
To me that would be a quick to average combat as we find 6-8 rounds more the norm for my group .
And where not optermizers but our characters are good at there roles and we work well as a team so think there must be some combs of feats and spells that are just to OTT
This works across different levels. I am just choosing level 7.
You have 4 CR 3's as opponents. Drop and AoE
The main DPR guy kills one, and the 2nd DPR guy kills another.
Round 2. Two enemies left.
Caster can use a less damage spell or do nothing.
Depending on positioning the DPR guys focus on taking one guy out or finishing another.
Round 3. 1 guy left
He is killed.
If you had used 1 CR 7 or two CR 5's the result is the same.
If this was pushed up to an APL +2 the casters would have to use higher level spells but it can still be done in 3 to 4 rounds, and notice I only used one caster in the above example.
When you get a charging build who can fly at higher levels difficult terrain is no longer a limiting factor on charges.
I'm always amazed when i here people say how a long combat for them is 3 or 4 rounds
To me that would be a quick to average combat as we find 6-8 rounds more the norm for my group .
And where not optermizers but our characters are good at there roles and we work well as a team so think there must be some combs of feats and spells that are just to OTT
It will always depend on the characters, player style and what each character chooses.
The game expects:
Guy who fights and does good damage - fighter
Guy who sort of fights and does some damage but mostly casts divine spells - cleric
Guy who sort of fights and sneaks about, does good damage but not all the time - rogue
Guy who mostly doesnt do damage - wizard
However that dynamic is no longer a requirement.
You could have:
Guy who does intense amounts of damage to one bad guy - paladin
Guy who can turn into a bear and eat your face and also has a bear buddy who eats face - druid
Guy who channels a whole heck of alot of electricity through a sword swing - magus
guy who fights pretty well himself and also buffs all those other guys at the same time - combat focused bard.
The second example also can do most or all of the things the first group can do, but will tear through encounters alot faster. The paladin and fighter are sort of a wash (paladin has higher peak damage, fighter has better average damage). The combat focused druid and his companion will do WAY more damage then anything but the most battle optimized cleric. The magus is going to do more damage then a wizard ever considered, and the bard will no only add a fair amount of damage themselves (more conistently then the rogue as well) but also greatly increase the effectiveness of everyone else.
The second party will probably kill all opponents in the same encounter twice as fast as the first party. Particularly if you account for things like the druid and his companion having pounce (full attack the first turn). Obviously environmental effects, and other circumstances will alter this, but if you are just facing a bunch of bad guys in open space, the paladin, druid, magus and combat bard will end encounters WAY faster then the traditional fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue.
Mind you this also doesnt include things like save or lose effects from optimized casters which can literally end encounters before they start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not that we don't like healers. We just think most parties won't need healing after every fight so building someone who primary focus is healing is often not needed.I think most parties would welcome a healer in their ranks.
I would agree that I would encourage a player wanting to be a divine caster to be capable of more then just healing. But generally its almost no effort to also be a good buffer (memorize bless and sheild of faith, mission accomplished). Not to mention I personally dont like playing divine casters most of the time, so I am always happy when someone in my group says 'I'll play a cleric/oracle'. I just dont want them to think of themselves as nothing more then a giant bandaid.
|
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
First off, I would love to play with that character anytime
Second, stop listening to random internet dude/dudette and play whatever you want
I would agree that I would encourage a player wanting to be a divine caster to be capable of more then just healing. But generally its almost no effort to also be a good buffer (memorize bless and sheild of faith, mission accomplished). Not to mention I personally dont like playing divine casters most of the time, so I am always happy when someone in my group says 'I'll play a cleric/oracle'. I just dont want them to think of themselves as nothing more then a giant bandaid.It is not that we don't like healers. We just think most parties won't need healing after every fight so building someone who primary focus is healing is often not needed.I think most parties would welcome a healer in their ranks.
I am playing my first cleric now, as a PC. I am good enough to keep the party alive, but I only have 2 channels per day. However I do buff, and I try to keep dispel magic and the occasional status remover available, and/or I leave slots open. You never known when a disease or curse will show up.
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
This is a good role to play. My question is what do you after you have buffed everyone?
PS: This is a role that is actually valued even if you dont build a fighting cleric.
The other thing you have to rememeber is that you can have Wayang Spell Hunter and Magical Lineage (Fireball) and Spell Perfection (Fireball) no problem. This, combined with Rods, allows you to Meta-Magic quite a bit for free and still be extremely viable (meta-magic fireball being the staple blaster spell).
Cure Spells don't have that luxury. There is no "MIN-MAX ME!" spell. The cure spells are very quickly capped and just replace one another. Getting "SPell Perfection: CSW" is a very poor choice... Add in, on top of that, there is no way to hyper ramp the damage like with blast spells and dipping into Crossblooded.
With the combination of Traits and Spell Perfection, the Caster cna easily have a Intesified, Elemental, Dazing Fireball with a 3rd level spell slot and use a Rod of Lesser Empower... less damage than putting Maximize on it but they can now daze you if you fail a Refelx save... which tends to be the weakest save all around.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you can min-max fireball. And it isn't uncommon among players. But from my experience, normal fireballs, maybe with 1 metamagic feat is more common among the badguys. Because, from my experience, the game is about telling the story and not killing the PC's. At the level the Wizard could be throwing out 3rd level Intensified Elemental Dazing Maximized Fireballs, he probably will instead be using less min-maxed spells because those would kill the PC's and quite possibly create an anti-climactic end to the campaign. Maybe if the wizard was the final BBEG of the campaign, where you can go all out, but probably not much before that.The other thing you have to rememeber is that you can have Wayang Spell Hunter and Magical Lineage (Fireball) and Spell Perfection (Fireball) no problem. This, combined with Rods, allows you to Meta-Magic quite a bit for free and still be extremely viable (meta-magic fireball being the staple blaster spell).
Cure Spells don't have that luxury. There is no "MIN-MAX ME!" spell. The cure spells are very quickly capped and just replace one another. Getting "SPell Perfection: CSW" is a very poor choice... Add in, on top of that, there is no way to hyper ramp the damage like with blast spells and dipping into Crossblooded.
With the combination of Traits and Spell Perfection, the Caster cna easily have a Intesified, Elemental, Dazing Fireball with a 3rd level spell slot and use a Rod of Lesser Empower... less damage than putting Maximize on it but they can now daze you if you fail a Refelx save... which tends to be the weakest save all around.
Well, yes, but SR for PC's is not very common. And of course you don't make a save vs friendly spells.
Sure. But Channel is a area, and 3D6 of channeling will often heal more than 5d6 of fire does, due to saves, ER, etc.
Yes, Fireball can ramp up, but so can healing. Heal Domain has all Cure spells empowered for FREE.
Yes, but the 5d6 fire damage targets what is often the PC's weak save [it's the wizard's weak save, the cleric's weak save, and the fighter's weak save, so 3/4 of the iconic 4-man party, and quite a few of the fighter/cleric/wizard replacement's weak saves], and often ER is not all that common among PC's [although I suppose that fire is the most common of the ER's for players]. And the 5d6 fire will be dealt on top of the wizard's hired bodyguards/minions/mooks doing a fair amount of damage.
To the OP:Healing is not an ineffective combat role if you have another combat role to fill with moderate effectiveness, like buffing[which you mentioned in the first post]. It won't always be efficient to heal in-combat, but this doesn't mean that spec'ing your character to be able to do that is a bad thing or that you should just buy a wand. The only advice I could give would be to make sure to have a buff spell prepared/learned at each level, for the fights or even just the couple of rounds when you shouldn't heal because of whatever reason. The low-Cha cleric w/Extra Channel, or the Life Oracle with the Wasting Curse are both very effective characters that I've never once seen a table that wouldn't want to have.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
While it's hard to speak with confidence on the posts you've been reading since I don't know if I've read the same posts, a lot of the vitriol related to healing goes back a long time:
For a very long time D&D (Pathfinder's predecessor) was based around the assumption that the party was made up of four characters: the fighting man who hit things, the arcane spellcaster who cast fireballs, the divine spellcaster who healed injuries, and (added slightly later) the "skillsy" guy who handled traps and the like - traditionally the fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue. If the party didn't have all of the above, they'd be in trouble. Because of this limitation players would frequently be "forced" into playing specific classes or character concepts despite not actually wanting to do so - "we need a rogue" or "great, you can play the healer" was a common statement when a new member joined a party. Unsurprisingly, this could cause a bit of resentment.
In (3.x) and Pathfinder, that model doesn't really hold up anymore - generally speaking the classes (with a few exceptions) have enough resources and options available that you're no longer "forced" into the traditional role for your class. A wizard who specializes in summoning spells can do much of the same job as a fighter (frontlining), a bard can help out with healing on the side when necessary and so on. 4 players usually have enough resources and flexibility to split and cover areas between them as needed. Because of this the "we need a healer" attitude has grown more rare, but you'll still run across it from time to time. I think a lot of the vitriol around healing is a counterpoint to that attitude, to prove that "in combat healing" is no longer a necessity.
Let's consider two example parties:
Party A
Oath of Vengeance bow paladin (archer artillery, manages downtime healing with wands, handles conditions via LoH)
Bruiser Spellsundering Barbarian (Greataxe)
"GOD" wizard/Evangelist (focuses on controller spells, splits skills with the bard)
Cheerleader Bard (buffs, TWF with butterfly sting, serves as face)
Party B
Defender Paladin (Tower Shield, focuses on high AC and saves, uses LoH to keep himself topped off, serves as face)
Life Oracle (Focuses on defensive buffs and channel energy)
Trickster Dervish Dance Ninja (tries to line up sneak attacks with the fighter, handles skill work)
Blaster Sorcerer (general damage output)
Party A would focus on "bursty" tactics - they'd use control and aggressive buff spells and (very) high initial damage to destroy their opposition as fast as possible. They'd typically rely on killing whatever they're fighting before the enemy kills them, then heal up using wands during downtime. I would expect their fights to be brief, brutal, and "swingy". If they can't down the enemy fast or bite off more than they can chew they will probably run into some trouble, since they don't really have the stamina for an extended fight.
Party B is the opposite and would likely focus more on "grinding down" the enemy over time. With a life Oracle and a defensive paladin they're incredibly well equipped to withstand damage, but a sorcerer and a ninja won't have the greatest damage output (barring extreme optimization) and they have essentially no crowd control. Their fights will generally be a bit more predictable but they'll expend more resources to get from A to B. They'll also be in trouble if they're ever in a 'timed' fight or if they're working against a deadline.
The key here is that neither party is doing it wrong. Pathfinder's great in that it is flexible enough to encompass multiple styles of playing. If you want to have a defensive tank and a primary healer that's great, we have that covered. If you don't want to have a defensive tank and a primary healer you can do that too!
The thing to look out for is GMs who doesn't necessarily understand this - he might look at party A and go "my monsters are all dead by round 3! I have to give them more HP", or look at party B and go "they just heal right back up! My monsters have to deal more damage!" This is bad, since you're essentially punishing your players for specializing and doing well. I speak from experience here, since I did just that in the first game I GMed in 3.x.
TL;DR
Generally speaking I find that the (reasonable) arguments against healing in Pathfinder are more "you don't need a guy that heals all the time" and less "healing is horrible forever and always and you're bad if you ever heal". The vitriol enters because quite a few players are traumatized from being forced to play "the bandaid guy" when they really didn't want to, and they're lashing back at the old school attitude.
In my experience a character who uses healing is a useful and helpful addition to the party and will be welcome at any table, PFS or otherwise. That said, make sure that the character is able to contribute in other ways than "just" healing. Band aids are nice, band aids and buffs/CC/damage/skills/summons/whatever are better. If you join a party that doesn't need large amounts of healing, you should still have a way to make yourself useful.
For a very long time D&D (Pathfinder's predecessor) was based around the assumption that the party was made up of four characters: the fighting man who hit things, the arcane spellcaster who cast fireballs, the divine spellcaster who healed injuries, and (added slightly later) the "skillsy" guy who handled traps and the like - traditionally the fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue. If the party didn't have all of the above, they'd be in trouble. Because of this limitation players would frequently be "forced" into playing specific classes or character concepts despite not actually wanting to do so - "we need a rogue" or "great, you can play the healer" was a common statement when a new member joined a party. Unsurprisingly, this could cause a bit of resentment.
In (3.x) and Pathfinder, that model doesn't really hold up anymore - generally speaking the classes (with a few exceptions) have enough resources and options available that you're no longer "forced" into the traditional role for your class. A wizard who specializes in summoning spells can do much of the same job as a fighter (frontlining), a bard can help out with healing on the side when necessary and so on. 4 players usually have enough resources and flexibility to split and cover areas between them as needed. Because of this the "we need a healer" attitude has grown more rare, but you'll still run across it from time to time....
Very good post. This also holds true with the Fighting man today and the Thief/rogue. Both niches/roles can be handled by other classes, thus vitriol is dumped upon those classes "as they are not needed anymore' or "other classes can do the job better". However, there are even substitutes for the wizard- not only the Sorcerer, but the Witch and even the Magus, Summoner, Bard etc if you play right. By no means is the Wizard now "useless', however.
PF, with it's dozens of classes, has no "niche protection" and a lot of overlap. This doesn't mean any niche is "bad' or "useless" just that there are now many options. No one HAS to play "the band-aid" or 'the trapfinder".
And what you said about tactics is also true. Know your table.
Very good post.(...)
PF, with it's dozens of classes, has no "niche protection" and a lot of overlap. This doesn't mean any niche is "bad' or "useless" just that there are now many options. No one HAS to play "the band-aid" or 'the trapfinder".
And what you said about tactics is also true. Know your table.
Thank you :)
This also holds true with the Fighting man today and the Thief/rogue. Both niches/roles can be handled by other classes, thus vitriol is dumped upon those classes "as they are not needed anymore' or "other classes can do the job better". However, there are even substitutes for the wizard- not only the Sorcerer, but the Witch and even the Magus, Summoner, Bard etc if you play right. By no means is the Wizard now "useless', however.
I don't strictly agree with your analogy for fighters/rogues v wizards. The key is that while the wizard role "arcane caster" can be filled by other classes, they do so in different ways - the witch relies on hexes to make up up for her limited spell slots, the sorcerer is a spontaneous caster with a fixed spell list, the bard uses bardic performance and so on. The witch, the wizard and the sorcerer can all play a "controller caster" about as well as a wizard, but the way they go about doing so is different and helps make the classes feel distinct and unique.
In comparison the fighter can play "the frontliner", but that's all he can do and (IMO) he doesn't do it in a particularly interesting way - the paladin plays very similar to the fighter, but he also has a host of other class features (spells, divine grace, LoH, mount etc) that makes him feel "fresh", unique and more versatile. However I'm not entirely opposed to the fighter as he currently is - the class is very easy to play, and I kind of like the idea of having one combat class that's "no frills". There are no resource pools or charged abilities, no complicated abilities to keep track of - you can slap together a fighter of basically any level in 10 minutes and you're good to go. I would like to see a few things tweaked (feat that makes Bravery apply to all Will saves?), but overall I don't think the fighter is as bad as I see people complain he is.
The rogue can play "the skill monkey" and do an OK if not stellar job in combat but he doesn't really get anything unique to the class that helps him distinguish himself in either role. It probably doesn't help that a lot of the rogue class features have been outsourced. The bard/alchemist/urban ranger/replacement of your choice can do most if not all of the same things, but they typically also have other things going on (bard: performance and spells, alchemist: bombs, mutagen, extracts, urban ranger: favored enemy, animal companion, yet more spells) that the rogue can't do. I really do think the rogue needs some help.
TL;DR
The fighter and the rogue aren't targeted because they're replaceable - every class in the game can be replaced by another class. Instead I think it is because the fighter and the rogue doesn't actually distinguish themselves or separate themselves "from the pack" while doing the tasks they're meant to be good at.
This is also part of why so many people were expressing concern about the Arcanist in the Advanced Class play test - it does just about everything the sorcerer does, only better, and other things besides. While I'm currently play testing the Arcanist and I don't find it particularly overpowered compared to other arcane casters, I am hard-pressed to find a reason to play a sorcerer instead of an Arcanist.
TL;DR
The fighter and the rogue aren't targeted because they're replaceable - every class in the game can be replaced by another class. Instead I think it is because the fighter and the rogue doesn't actually distinguish themselves or separate themselves "from the pack" while doing the tasks they're meant to be good at.
Indeed. The fact that there are multiple ways of filling any given niche in the party is a good thing for keeping the game fresh and interesting. The problem people see with Fighters and Rogues is that most of your other options for filling the role of Frontliner and Skills Guy are, more often than not, just flat-out better at the role. The Paladin can hit almost as hard as the Fighter (and harder while smiting) while also having superior saves, self-healing, spells, and some amazing auras. The bard eventually gets more effective skill points than the rogue by way of Versatile Performance, while also having a very solid spell list and class abilities that turn him into the best buffer in the game.
|
Design Manager
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to attempt and do us all a favor.
DrDeth, don't defend the Fighter and Rogue. We've had that conversation. Chengar, Anzyr, etc. walk away from this particular direction of thought. We all have disagreements on that particular subject and it's not relevant beyond what's already been said. This is about healing, and playing a healer.
***Edit***
I know Anzyr actually hasn't been involved in this particular conversation at all, but I'm pretty sure he has a bat signal that automatically activates whenever the words Fighter and problem are posted together, so I thought I'd try and head off the confrontation that history has told us is inevitable and which we know ends in thread-locks.
I can't tell you of a single game that I've been in where our party healer hasn't saved our bacon big-time at least once per night. Same goes for any campaign that I personally GM.
Now, that saying, a good GM will balance around whether or not the party has a healing-oriented character or simply an "out-of-combat-healer." That said, in Pathfinder the most effective "healing" strategy is something like the Fistweaving build in World of Warcraft: be good at healing, but also make sure that you aren't 100% specialized in it. Tunnel some feats into some offensive options, because the party isn't always going to need healing.
In a nutshell: specialize in healing and be a healer, but also make sure you've got some backup stuff to do if no one needs your healing.
I'm going to attempt and do us all a favor.
If only I could favorite this twice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to attempt and do us all a favor.
DrDeth, don't defend the Fighter and Rogue. We've had that conversation. Chengar, Anzyr, etc. walk away from this particular direction of thought. We all have disagreements on that particular subject and it's not relevant beyond what's already been said. This is about healing, and playing a healer.***Edit***
I know Anzyr actually hasn't been involved in this particular conversation at all, but I'm pretty sure he has a bat signal that automatically activates whenever the words Fighter and problem are posted together, so I thought I'd try and head off the confrontation that history has told us is inevitable and which we know ends in thread-locks.
To the Anzyrmobile! Err... ah.. ok. Anyway on to the Healing discussion, I would really like to repeat my request for some examples of how combat gos past lets say 5 rounds as the norm for a campaign. I mean really bad rolls on our damage dealers part can extend combat, but outside of a really large number of enemies (that are still CR appropriate) or bad rolls or something. Because again... Level 1 even a non-optimized character using a Greatsword with an 18 STR (super easy in any point buy) is dealing an average of 13 damage. That number only balloons as you go up in level. And pretty much nothing survives a higher then average hit from that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think a lot of the debate over the whole healing issue is really just a product of folks lumping each other into extreme strawman groups. I think most people would agree with general idea that clerics, life oracles, and other healing classes are all useful, but that playing them as nothing but a heal-bot is a poor use of the class's many abilities.
However, going off how the two sides in the debate are portrayed by the other, you would think it's a debate between "Never heal even if it's the only way to prevent a TPK!" and "Clerics should only heal or hold action to heal in combat!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think a lot of the debate over the whole healing issue is really just a product of folks lumping each other into extreme strawman groups. I think most people would agree with general idea that clerics, life oracles, and other healing classes are all useful, but that playing them as nothing but a heal-bot is a poor use of the class's many abilities.
However, going off how the two sides in the debate are portrayed by the other, you would think it's a debate between "Never heal even if it's the only way to prevent a TPK!" and "Clerics should only heal or hold action to heal in combat!"
People hear what they want to hear. I made a topic specifically saying that "never heal" was not what was meant and someone still tried to tell me I was saying that anyone that heals was wrong. O.o
An important point about healing in combat:
Not all in combat healing is a massive drain on action economy.
A cleric/life oracle can use quickened channel, an inquisitor can use shared judgement + healing judgement. All of them can use shield other to distribute damage. In the inquisitor's case that means he can shield other one party member, share judgement on another and use healing for himself and the other one.
That way he takes half of guy1's damage and passively heals himself and guy2. With the right favoured class bonus he can even buff the healing judgement to be stronger.
Inquisitor: Add +1/2 to the inquisitor's level for the purpose of determining the effects of one type of judgment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are always a few people who will take the extreme viewpoints. "Healing in combat is essential in the vast majority of games [and there's no way to compensate for less healing by greater offensive capacity]" or "healing in combat is a waste of an action [and I do not acknowledge any exceptions]."
And always some people who assume that everyone who disagrees with them holds one of those extreme viewpoints.
I think what I find offensive about the "it's a waste of time" position is the automatic assumption that I'm competent. Maybe I didn't build a character who was optimized for offense because I wanted my cleric to have good knowledge and social skills? Maybe I chose the wrong spells today? Maybe in-combat healing is the least worst option I've got left?
Reality is situational. For example:
Player decides to play a healer - fails to understand that you can make a healing domain cleric who is good at other stuff as well. Player then participates in a non-challenging game session. By this I mean one where the group could have overcome these challenges if you did nothing at all. In this situation, healing isn't needed - and neither is anything else. But if you made a character who could do modest melee damage, you could still 'contribute', even though your contribution is completely unnecessary.
Or: Player decides to play a cleric. A battle has been going on for a couple of rounds. Both sides have injuries. He thinks that a frontliner ally will go to negative HP in a round or two, and that a healing spell has a high chance of making the difference between 'just enough hit points to go on fighting' or 'vulnerable to coup de grace'. It works (or at least doesn't backfire). The battle is won. Player then goes on the forums and gets infuriated by someone telling him he should have done Something Else, such as casting a summoning spell, even though it would have been too late to help, or casting a buff, even though he already did that in round one, or attacking, even though his damage output is terrible.
Healing has its place as a tool in the toolbox.
Would I ever consider it a primary thing a character should do? Hell no.
From my perspective healing exists to handle bad surprises, poor decisions and simple stupid bad luck. The more you do to reduce those three things the less and less healing becomes necessary.
I'm a rare breed that quietly bites his tongue when someone mentions being the groups "healer" because they'll either be bored to tears or find the name a misnomer anyway since I endeavor to take as little damage as possible.
I think Dr. Deth doesn't realize how much he actually agrees.
Resistances, SR, and various other passive defenses are often the products of buffs given out by a groups support characters. Often, they're the same ones that whip out the wands and d8's when the fights over or when something bad happens a Kruggarr the bloodrainer loses an arm. They provide the emergency healing when it comes up because a cure critical can turn into a dead opponent in the right circumstances but knowing when and how is tricky.
Also Chendar has the right of it. There is no real extreme in the debate merely smaller nuances of how much, how often, and whether or not its worth it.
When I think of combat lasting 3 rounds it's not about from the start of initiative to the end, it's about the three phases; setup, swing, mop up.
Consider the following. In a formulaic fight between a caster and some minions where the caster and a minion or two drop on round 3 isn't that typically the point where combat is all but won? I often end fights when they get to a point where I can't drain more significant resources from a group.
Now as to the OP's question. I think you'll find that while healing exists this is not an MMO like WoW where you can literally faceroll macros and keep the maintank up(as described by a former holy priest back in the day). Damage is easier and the game favors offense in order to facilitate quicker combat by design. Healing can be welcome in some groups purely because it's really really hard to say no to not dying. However, the game favors combat medics that shoot back and take care of the wounded as they can.
If this puts you off then don't worry too much. It simply requires an adjustment of thought towards being a great support character rather than a great numbers bandaid.
I think what I find offensive about the "it's a waste of time" position is the automatic assumption that I'm competent.I kinda have to poke at this. You object to people basically assuming that the people around them are competent?
I mean we could all approach the forums like every other member is an idiot who knows literally zip about the rules but do we want every forum post to become "well these are the basics and then the here's the specifics and why don't I run you through the entirety of the relevant chapter because you probably don't know how to use it."
I guess I'm kinda maintaining that people who assume you're competent are doing it as a measure of respect by assuming you're not an idiot, a very very young child, or completely senile.
I assumed that was a typo, and he meant incompetent.
Spiritual weapon is a great spell for a healer...you are a healer with a vicious little magic holy sword.
Some parties are made up of naked Barbarians who Pounce for 200 damage. Others have AC in the 40s or 50s. How much you'll get damaged can vary a lot, so whether damage outpaces healing can vary from group to group too. Anyhow, a Channel plus a Quick Channel can probably restore most of the hit points your party would lose to a couple of Fireballs or the breath weapon of a big dragon you weren't prepared for. You might not need it every fight, but having it when you need it could be nice. I guess Quick Channel plus Communal Resist Energy might also be an effective turn in those situations.
I'd certainly advocate having some usefulness aside from healing. A Cleric who can't fight or summon can be boring indeed, especially in a game without many undead. That said, you should be able to specialize in healing and still do other things effectively.
@Coltron - I'm glad my advice seemed helpful. I think it is a little strict of your DM to insist that you own the books if he already has them, but maybe he'd be ok with you owning the more affordable PDF version and printing out the relevant pages which cover your PC. You can certainly play just fine with just the Core book though, especially since you're a relatively new player and haven't already tried all the Core options.
I'm a rare breed that quietly bites his tongue when someone mentions being the groups "healer" because they'll either be bored to tears or find the name a misnomer anyway since I endeavor to take as little damage as possible.
Quietly biting your tongue is good. :-) I'm not quite sure what to make of the rest of this, though. Are you the only other person in the group? Or are you claiming that everyone else does what you do? Or "he won't need to heal me so he's useless"?
As you say, healing is a tool. Swordfighting (or other melee capability) is a tool. Shooting arrows is a tool. Disarming traps is a tool. Casting buffs, or offensive spells, or counterspells, is a tool (or several tools, if you like). Pathfinder is a class based game. Each class is better using some tools than other tools, and each class has tools with which it is better than (some, or most, depends on the class) other classes. If a player chooses to be a cleric, then he or she is choosing a certain toolbox. Healing is a significant tool in that toolbox. I would say that if a player thinks he wants to be a cleric who concentrates on healing, more power to him. I don't think he should neglect the other tools in his toolbox, though.
On the subject of assumed competence: in character, folks are not going to go adventuring with someone they think is incompetent, unless forced by circumstance. If your cleric is assumed to be competent, why are you (generic you, not anyone in particular) trying to tell him how to do his job? Even if you think you have that right, suggestions generally work better than "you idiot! why are you healing? Do something useful instead!" If your cleric is assumed to be, or proven to be, incompetent, just ignore him. Let him do what he wants - it won't matter in the long run anyway. And maybe he'll figure it out and become competent.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but to me, RPGs are not about min-maxing. It's not an arms race against the monsters (or the GM). I'm not great at the RP part of it, but that's what it's about. Pick a role and play that role. If you find it boring, try a different role. And don't bug other players because you think they should play some other role or that they're playing their role "wrong". That's not your call. How would you feel if somebody told you that?
I'm going to attempt and do us all a favor.
DrDeth, don't defend the Fighter and Rogue. We've had that conversation. Chengar, Anzyr, etc. walk away from this particular direction of thought. We all have disagreements on that particular subject and it's not relevant beyond what's already been said. This is about healing, and playing a healer.***Edit***
I know Anzyr actually hasn't been involved in this particular conversation at all, but I'm pretty sure he has a bat signal that automatically activates whenever the words Fighter and problem are posted together, so I thought I'd try and head off the confrontation that history has told us is inevitable and which we know ends in thread-locks.
Good point. But tell you what Anzyr,Jiggy, Deadmanwalking, et al, let's make a compact. No more "martial/spellcaster disparity" posts or threads. There has been enough of those, eh?
So no more "the rouge is teh suxxor" or "the fighting man is da bomb!" posts or threads. OK?
"How this class can be improved" would be fine, as long as there is no assumption it sucks. Every class can use some polish.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good point. But tell you what Anzyr,Jiggy, Deadmanwalking, et al, let's make a compact. No more "martial/spellcaster disparity" posts or threads. There has been enough of those, eh?
So no more "the rouge is teh suxxor" or "the fighting man is da bomb!" posts or threads. OK?
"How this class can be improved" would be fine, as long as there is no assumption it sucks. Every class can use some polish.
Good Luck with that
Quietly biting your tongue is good. :-) I'm not quite sure what to make of the rest of this, though. Are you the only other person in the group? Or are you claiming that everyone else does what you do? Or "he won't need to heal me so he's useless"?
Words. Mouth. Etc. It means that the way I play and the way I encourage others to go in a tactical sense that the person wanting to be a reactive healer will find themselves having wasted energy at best and ruining their character at worst.
That I often play a melee character, the one most often the target in any other circumstance, exasperates the problem.
Does this mean I never need healing? No. Does it mean I require a great deal of dedication towards it? Also no.
It just means that a greater balance is in demand.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to attempt and do us all a favor.
DrDeth, don't defend the Fighter and Rogue. We've had that conversation. Chengar, Anzyr, etc. walk away from this particular direction of thought. We all have disagreements on that particular subject and it's not relevant beyond what's already been said. This is about healing, and playing a healer.***Edit***
I know Anzyr actually hasn't been involved in this particular conversation at all, but I'm pretty sure he has a bat signal that automatically activates whenever the words Fighter and problem are posted together, so I thought I'd try and head off the confrontation that history has told us is inevitable and which we know ends in thread-locks.Good point. But tell you what Anzyr,Jiggy, Deadmanwalking, et al, let's make a compact. No more "martial/spellcaster disparity" posts or threads. There has been enough of those, eh?
So no more "the rouge is teh suxxor" or "the fighting man is da bomb!" posts or threads. OK?
"How this class can be improved" would be fine, as long as there is no assumption it sucks. Every class can use some polish.
I can't wait to see the overwhelming support for my "How can we improve Wizards" thread.
|
The rogue doesn't suck. With system mastery you can build one that is fun to play and effective.
But it IS the weakest PC class in the game that has six other classes that can fill it's role better than the rogue class does. New players who pick the class based on flavor will be disappointed in it's performance and would be better severed by filling the role of a rogue with another class.
Any discussion of improving the rogue that doesn't acknowledge that at this point is being willfully ignorant.
The rogue doesn't suck. With system mastery you can build one that is fun to play and effective.
But it IS the weakest PC class in the game that has six other classes that can fill it's role better than the rogue class does. New players who pick the class based on flavor will be disappointed in it's performance and would be better severed by filling the role of a rogue with another class.
Any discussion of improving the rogue that doesn't acknowledge that at this point is being willfully ignorant.
Exactly where I didn't want to go. No need to mention that, since it's highly debated and inflammatory.
I started a thread a while ago about "cool new rogue talents', and everyone agrees that they are needed, and the devs have promised them. So rather than debate how bad the rogue is, why not concentrate on how it can be improved?