| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Because improving the rogue without making it overpowered requires deciding how strong it is right now.
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.
Well this thread is about healing and why it is perceived unfavorably, so it is unlikely that the issues surrounding Fighters/Rogues and Casters will come up. As to other posts and threads, the issues surrounding Fighters/Rogues and Casters are underlying issues of the system and will likely come up in context at some point in the future. Anyway, could I see some examples of campaigns where the average fights go past 5+ rounds. I'm very convinced that there must be some interesting houserules in place for that to occur as given even unoptimized damage outout (unless you consider STR + Greatsword optimized).
|
Because improving the rogue without making it overpowered requires deciding how strong it is right now.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?
Exactly, but this is off topic for the thread so I'm stopping here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assumed that was a typo, and he meant incompetent.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 dunno, I've met people who do something blazingly stupid, then get all 'okay, come heal me, that's your job'.
"We need you to play a healer, because I've got the tactical sense of a stoned ferret."
|
|
I assumed that was a typo, and he meant incompetent.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 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 dunno, I've met people who do something blazingly stupid, then get all 'okay, come heal me, that's your job'.
"We need you to play a healer, because I've got the tactical sense of a stoned ferret."
As long as they know that that's why they need a healer :)
I had a group where the healer (played by yours truly) was around specifically because the group had a lot of fun with their wildly incompetent leader but were really looking for someone to help soften the consequences of his colossally poor decisions. Somewhat strangely that was also the first group I ever actually played a game all the way from one to twenty with....
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.
The foes can use tactics, they can have better defenses, buff spells, etc. If the guy with a greatsword has issues hitting or getting to where he can hit, then those 13 points wont come into play as often.
It's a matter of DM style to a extent. Many DM's and players enjoy longer combats. This is quite common, as was shown in my poll. Rocket-tag seems to be the exception, not the rule.
The foes can use tactics, they can have better defenses, buff spells, etc. If the guy with a greatsword has issues hitting or getting to where he can hit, then those 13 points wont come into play as often.
Hoever, if the group is also using tactics well then the damage the enemy does also won't come into play too often.
The trouble here is the equating of long combat to necessary healing when you've just pointed out why that's not necessarily true. There can be any number of reasons for long combats from position jockeying, to turtle fights (i.e. low damage, high defense enemies), combats started at long distances, combats with lots of low cr enemies, in environments that preclude or stifle straight forward offensive pushes.
True, long combats don't mean necessary healing, it's just more likely. But two round combats will not require any in-combat healing.
|
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.
This seems unlikely to work, and possibly not even a good idea (I feel like informing new players that some people feel underpowered as a Rogue or Fighter is useful information to impart).
I'm perfectly happy not to derail threads not devoted to it with that particular debate, though. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just looking for examples, because generally in our group two "damage dealers" attacking someone successfully is enough to down them. Now like I said, 3-4 is just the average for my group. Sometimes even with a high chance to hit, the dice just don't come up in the PCs favor and combat goes another turn or two. At low levels, cures are used more to get an unconscious ally back into the fight or to prevent potential death from a successful attack. I should note that at high levels I'm not counting "Wait until the enemy(ies) we mazed returns and gets wombo-comboed by everyone" as rounds towards that 3-4 average.
The foes can use tactics, they can have better defenses, buff spells, etc. If the guy with a greatsword has issues hitting or getting to where he can hit, then those 13 points wont come into play as often.
Hoever, if the group is also using tactics well then the damage the enemy does also won't come into play too often.
The trouble here is the equating of long combat to necessary healing when you've just pointed out why that's not necessarily true. There can be any number of reasons for long combats from position jockeying, to turtle fights (i.e. low damage, high defense enemies), combats started at long distances, combats with lots of low cr enemies, in environments that preclude or stifle straight forward offensive pushes.
Not to mention the eternal fickleness of the dice gods. I've seen plenty of combats that lasted an extra round or two because all the damage dealers were just rolling terribly.
|
|
Not to mention the eternal fickleness of the dice gods. I've seen plenty of combats that lasted an extra round or two because all the damage dealers were just rolling terribly.
The foes can use tactics, they can have better defenses, buff spells, etc. If the guy with a greatsword has issues hitting or getting to where he can hit, then those 13 points wont come into play as often.
Hoever, if the group is also using tactics well then the damage the enemy does also won't come into play too often.
The trouble here is the equating of long combat to necessary healing when you've just pointed out why that's not necessarily true. There can be any number of reasons for long combats from position jockeying, to turtle fights (i.e. low damage, high defense enemies), combats started at long distances, combats with lots of low cr enemies, in environments that preclude or stifle straight forward offensive pushes.
Yes, but that is mitigated by the x4 modifier scythe crits.
I assumed that was a typo, and he meant incompetent.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 dunno, I've met people who do something blazingly stupid, then get all 'okay, come heal me, that's your job'.
"We need you to play a healer, because I've got the tactical sense of a stoned ferret."
LOL true, but they dont often know they are incompetent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LOL true, but they dont often know they are incompetent.I assumed that was a typo, and he meant incompetent.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 dunno, I've met people who do something blazingly stupid, then get all 'okay, come heal me, that's your job'.
"We need you to play a healer, because I've got the tactical sense of a stoned ferret."
I'm pretty sure they are the background radiation that led to CODZILLA!
|
|
LOL true, but they dont often know they are incompetent.I assumed that was a typo, and he meant incompetent.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 dunno, I've met people who do something blazingly stupid, then get all 'okay, come heal me, that's your job'.
"We need you to play a healer, because I've got the tactical sense of a stoned ferret."
On Free RPG Day I got to use the warpriest pre-gen's srcoll of CMW on the Swashbuckler pre-gen because they decided to charge the BBEG while the rest of us were engaged with the zombie sphinx and got dropped to -6. Good times.
In my experience it is often the first few rounds of combat when my PC gets hurt and could really use some healing. If you lose initiative and get mugged or maybe get blasted by some big area damage you're not prepared for it can be nice to have an insurance policy.
I'm just looking for examples, because generally in our group two "damage dealers" attacking someone successfully is enough to down them. Now like I said, 3-4 is just the average for my group. Sometimes even with a high chance to hit, the dice just don't come up in the PCs favor and combat goes another turn or two. At low levels, cures are used more to get an unconscious ally back into the fight or to prevent potential death from a successful attack. I should note that at high levels I'm not counting "Wait until the enemy(ies) we mazed returns and gets wombo-comboed by everyone" as rounds towards that 3-4 average.
I have the same experience. Sometimes difficult terrain comes into play, but for the most part 3 to 4 rounds is all it takes.
On Free RPG Day I got to use the warpriest pre-gen's srcoll of CMW on the Swashbuckler pre-gen because they decided to charge the BBEG while the rest of us were engaged with the zombie sphinx and got dropped to -6. Good times.
LOL true, but they dont often know they are incompetent.
I have had players do similar things.
I sometimes gave the "Is that what you REALLY want to do?"/GM is saying "Don't do that" warning.They did it anyway.
|
|
Dwarf cleric with Healing Domain. Use the other domain for something buff-related, and keep your strength high since you get proficiency with good martial weapon and you can get HAP for very little.
Gruff? Check. Low charisma? Check. Efficient healer? Check. Capable of contributing in other ways? Check.
I'm pretty sure they are the background radiation that led to CODZILLA!
That's the second such reference I've seen lately. As the Japanese would say, "Nan desu ka?"
|
|
LeeeeeeEEEEEEEeeeeRRRRoooooooyyyyy Jeeeeennnnnkiiiiinnnnnssss!!!!
Weird that he was actually the party healer. It's why Paladin healers got such a bad rap :P
****
I like using hit point juggling with healers, using spells like shield other or even classes like Dreamscarred Press' Vitalist to use cheap or non-cost resources to move damage from one character to another, and use Channel Energy or other abilities to go in for the big fixes after the fact. I've had entire "healing chains" set up in parties to redirect damage to either a Paladin who'd be swift actioning it away with Lay on Hands or a Barbarian whose high con and d12's made him a nice hit point sink that we just needed to refresh every now and then.
I'm pretty sure they are the background radiation that led to CODZILLA!That's the second such reference I've seen lately. As the Japanese would say, "Nan desu ka?"
Cleric or Druid-Zilla. From a 3.5 post on how powerful the divine casters were. While they are less so in PF, they are still quite capable of smashing campaigns while breathing radioactive fire. And summoning tigers.
Cleric or Druid-Zilla. From a 3.5 post on how powerful the divine casters were. While they are less so in PF, they are still quite capable of smashing campaigns while breathing radioactive fire. And summoning tigers.I'm pretty sure they are the background radiation that led to CODZILLA!That's the second such reference I've seen lately. As the Japanese would say, "Nan desu ka?"
Mostly but not entirely theorycrafted Melee clerics (or druids, but those were more real) that focused on Self-buffing. For this reason, many self-buff spells were nerfed.
But combining Divine metamagic (persistent)along with the doubtful idea of spamming Nightsticks (these gave you addl turnings- but can you use more than one? Didn't say you couldn't so....) you could cast all those spiffy self-buff spells and have them last all day long (until a foe dispels them, of course!).
The complaint being they were better tanks than martial classes, and could still cast.
A guy played one for a brief time in our super-high level Age of Wyrms 3.5 game, but when the foes started tossing Mordenkainers Disjuction, the fun faded fast.
But yes, this was used and did work.
TLDR: Having the ability to heal is great, focusing solely on healing is bad, and when you say you want to play a healer it's important to make sure everyone understands which of those you mean.
From 1974 on, in D&D when someone said they were "gonna play the healer" this was always considered a Cleric (etc) who would carry a good stock of healing spells, but ALSO party buffs and condition removal.
So "Healer" has never meant a guy who could cast only Cure spells- the buffing and condition removal was just left unsaid.
The opposite of that was a Battle or melee cleric, who focused on SELF-buffing and doing damage with weapons. More or less the "tank" role. Other than wielding a wand after combat, it was assumed you were mostly going to heal yourself.
The distinction was critical- it was important to know if a guy said "I'll roll up a cleric" if he was playing "the healer" or 'the battle cleric".
First of all, not theorycrafted at all. I've played regular and DMM clerics and both times they were significantly stronger then other classes. DMM makes them significantly more powerful outside of Core 3.5 though Druids are the undisputed kings of Core 3.5 with their best armor Wild Dragonhide fullplate being in the DMG, along with all the fun of a Monk's Belt giving you WIS to AC.
DMM worked in a couple of ways. One was to get multiple pools of Turn Undead. Azurin Clerics for example could get Channel Incarnum then pick up Turn Undead from a class. Both pools would benefit from Extra Turning. Nightsticks RAW, would in fact stack since they give Extra Turning which stacks with itself. Of course there were numerous ways to buff your CL to protect them such as Ring of Enduring Arcana, Orange Ioun Stones, Death Knell, Bead of Karma (really there was a lot of CL buffs in 3.5) so your all day buffs were difficult if not impossible to dispel. And honestly, when the Mordenkainen's Disjunctions come out. I'd rather be the guy who can cast spells, then the guy whose magical gear they need to participate at all has just stopped functioning. (And/or the guy who can get contingency to avoid Disjunction)
I find it annoying acting like healing has to exactly match or exceed damage output to be useful. It has to extend the useful action of a character enough rounds for them to take out the enemy to be useful.
Or you could use that Standard action to take out the enemy or get it lower so Ally #3 can finish it off, which will prevent the enemy from dealing *any* damage. Just a thought. The problem with healing is that while occasionally healing is the right move, the option I just listed is almost always the mathematically superior option.
That is indeed AN option.
It's almost (this is a keyword... make a note of it) always the *best* action though. Because when the monster out damages your healing, putting it down quicker will prevent more damage (because it is now dead) then your cures. That's just math.
Heal spell + damage dealing barbarian still on feet = more damage.
If you mean the actual spell called 'Heal', then yes, I can agree with that.
Heal spell + damage dealing barbarian still on feet = more damage.
Assuming you mean a cure spell, that is only true if the Barbarian is unconscious. In which case, yes you should cure the Barbarian so they can continue dealing damage. Otherwise no, unless the Barbarian will be killed (not knocked out) in another successful attack. Again this is just math.
Edit:
So someone can ONLY last another round if they are completely healed to the top?
No, but you only need 1 hit point to fight at full strength.
I find it annoying acting like healing has to exactly match or exceed damage output to be useful. It has to extend the useful action of a character enough rounds for them to take out the enemy to be useful.
The idea is being efficient. You can heal someone, but if the opponent is a giant who hits very hard for their level, they can remove the previous hit points plus whatever you just healed for.
On the other hand a summoned monster may have taken some of those attacks so the PC would never be in that situation. Blessing of Fervor could have given the party enough extra attacks that the giant could have died before it got to that point. The idea is not that you should never heal. The idea is to make sure you never have to heal if it is at all possible.
However we do know sometimes damage will be taken in large amounts. In those cases it is better to heal and have to use a raise dead later on.
|
Theory A:
"If you need to heal during combat, you're doing it wrong."
Theory B:
"If you don't need to heal during combat, your GM's doing it wrong."
This character (Life Oracle) is primarily a healer, but can do many other things: buffing, debuffing, condition removal, and undead destruction. He also excels in diplomacy, and can even participate in combat (as a last resort).
This character s great fun to play.
I find it annoying acting like healing has to exactly match or exceed damage output to be useful. It has to extend the useful action of a character enough rounds for them to take out the enemy to be useful.
Because this is a game where actions very easily trump numbers.
Think about it. Why does a fighter swing his sword? Why does anyone?
To deal damage right?
What does damage do?
Nothing. As already established an opponent at 1 hit point is no more incapacitated then one at 100.
However damage that takes an opponent below 0 incapacitates him. Removing his actions from the field and thus preventing him from hurting you.
This is the goal of damage. It's the only reason to deal damage next to merely threatening to kill or incapacitate.
With this in mind remove paralysis becomes a better healing spell because it negates a condition that gives the enemy an action advantage. It simply doesn't get recognized as such because paralysis is not a condition that comes up often enough to warrant a place on every list.
Keeping this in mind you see immediately why spells that prevent, improve, or preclude damage output are considerd more efficient since they often bypass numbers altogether and work with, or through actions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Theory A:
"If you need to heal during combat, you're doing it wrong."Theory B:
"If you don't need to heal during combat, your GM's doing it wrong."This character (Life Oracle) is primarily a healer, but can do many other things: buffing, debuffing, condition removal, and undead destruction. He also excels in diplomacy, and can even participate in combat (as a last resort).
This character s great fun to play.
I prefer not really a Theory C.
"Good play and smart tactics means you won't need combat healing. But bad decisions and poor luck means you are well advised to keep it in your pocket."