Lay on Hands or familiars with wands are more my favored style of healing, but Quick Channel could work too.
Familiars with wands had not occurred to me. OTOH, it's been many years since I actually played. Would not these familiars require opposable thumbs? I know there are familiars that have them (monkey comes to mind) but not all do. Can the stereotypical black cat handle a wand?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It keeps up depending on the GM. If I throw an APL+9 fight at a party the healing will not keep up.I think it's interesting that the two examples we've had to prove that "healing is necessary" were both massively over CR: 5 trolls (roughly a CR 9 encounter) against 4 level 4 PCs, and an "an APL+9 if not APL+10 or higher encounter."If healing is useful - even necessary - in massively over CR encounters, that implies healing is powerful (and therefore easily powerful enough for easier battles, if not so necessary). Which is odd, because you wouldn't think it would 'keep up' in those situations.
Same. If I threw an APL+9 encounter at my group, it would likely be a TPK even with the finest of healers. In fact, they'd probably die faster with healers because there's no way that healing would keep pace with incoming pain, but the enemies would be up longer and thus more incoming pain over more rounds.
Example. You're fighting 8 enemies who are each dealing about 10 damage per round. Disabling/killing an enemies results in -10 damage per round. Casting cure moderate wounds spends 1 round to heal around 12 damage. So you've only negated 1 enemy's single round worth of damage in exchange for your resources and your round's worth of actions, whereas disabling/killing the enemy prevents more damage and likely leaves you free to do more stuff on the following turn.
That said, I do think that healing could be good if the mechanics supported it. I've been dying to play a Vitalist because it looks like healing done right. It has effective means of proactive healing (temporary HP), real healing, and cool mechanics (like the ability to disperse excess HP through the party). Soooo anxious to play one.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
On a side note, while a dedicated healer is often a bad idea, a dedicated support is a much better idea. Support is kind of what I imagine when I think of a healer. A big part of this is because there's always more to do than just heal, and that includes preventing damage, removing bad conditions, buffing, etc. Healing is one tool in the doctor's bag, so to speak.
What is a Vitalist?
Ah. Thanks, Caedwyr.
What is a Vitalist?
Awesome. (^_^)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you aren't doing some "dismissing" of your own?
Am I? I never accused anyone of being a "theorycrafter" who doesn't play the game or who plays the game wrong.
All I did was to mention that no one's gaming experience has any more weight than that of anyone else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the first ... That is pretty much what WAS said in implying that its somehow unfair to present opponents that cause you to have to do in combat healing by altering the opponent mix.
Before we go any further is "altering the opponent mix" changing the original encounter to entirely new creatures?
If so that is not a problem, and not what I was getting at.
I was speaking of situations where the monsters are presented, and due to tactics devised to reduce healing needed, the GM adds hit points, fudges saves, attack rolls, and so on to prolong the fight and/or force* damage to take place.
*or increase
If the current tactics don't work against encounter X that is fine. That is different from making sure the party takes damage by using your power as GM to ensure it happens.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the first ... That is pretty much what WAS said in implying that its somehow unfair to present opponents that cause you to have to do in combat healing by altering the opponent mix.
In that case I strongly suggest you quote the post instead of paraphrasing it, since I haven't seen a single post that said anything like what you described earlier.
As for the second ...in combat healing is a tactic, same as any other. To to make it not be is a false dichotomy.
You misunderstand me - I'm not saying combat healing is not a tactic. I'm saying any encounter that requires the use of one specific tactic (healing or otherwise) to be beatable is a bad encounter.
For instance, let's say I want to make an encounter that favors healing: I design an undead "boss" creature with good saves, decent damage output, high but not unbeatable Damage Reduction, and I make it Vulnerable to positive energy damage - it takes double (or even triple) damage from Channel Energy, CXW, or Lay on Hands. I also throw in a small group of lesser enemies that will constantly regenerate until the boss creature dies, or they're killed by positive energy. In my opinion that has the potential to be a good encounter in that while it favors and rewards one particular approach (using positive energy damage), it can still be beaten by using other tactics - the minions can be neutralized by control spells and the "boss creature" can be defeated by dedicated focus firing to overcome its damage reduction.
If I instead made the "boss creature" immune to all kinds of damage except positive energy damage, it's no longer a good encounter because it is impossible to solve unless the party has a specific set of class features, and that those class features have available charges and spell slots.
Again, any encounter that can only be solved by using a single, specific approach is generally a bad encounter.
To take it back to the World of Warcraft parable: A 5-man boss fight that rewards good use of crowd control abilities is a good encounter, a 5-man boss fight that requires the use of Mind Control (a priest-only spell) is not.
As to your third point ... It isn't any different, at all. That is the entire point.
Then I really don't know why you're having a go at people for saying that combat healing isn't necessary in a party?
He... Kudaku made me remember of a battle where my players had forgotten that a NPC had mentioned that the "boss" of the dungeon was vulnerable to positive energy.
It took a lot of self-contorl for me not to laugh at their efforts to specifically avoid including the boss on the AoE of Channel Energy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is not playing heal focused builds playing A healer?Sure, but "generally speaking" to me is in the context of any given round. Round 1? Of course you'd buff. Maybe R2, or even R3. So "generally" is such a weasel-word here.Then you are missing the point. Barring heal focused builds you can normally(better than 50%) do something better than heal hit points.
My point was that if you can heal, then you still normally do something to help that is better than healing. However if your build is focused around healing then there might be an exception to that.
Being able to heal and making a character whose primary goal in the game is to heal(cure hit points) can have a substantially different outcome with regard to how effective they are at healing. However it is normally better for the purpose of preserving resources to stop the incoming damage than to try to heal it.
Haste or Blessing of Fervor can shorten a combat. If the monster is up for a round it might do 50(random number) points of damage. That is at least one cure serious spell which is also a 4th level spell, and likely a cure light or cure moderate wounds also. If you decide to not use the other spells to top off then you could still likely have had those 50 points which were lost.
Now I know neither spell stops a crit so if that happens you may need to heal in combat, but that is far different than planning to heal as the primary option.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Allow you to take advantage of your own tactics"? So it somehow isn't tactics if you are put in situations where you have to use in combat healing? The fact that the battle is arranged so that in combat healing is required is merely another tactical element to respond to. Just because the combat isn't set up so you can use all of your resources , ever an only in e manner you most optimally want to ...
... doesn't mean that it isn't 'tactics' somehow. It's just different tactics. If anything, having to account for in combat healing because its adding another element you normally try not to consider, necessitates MORE tactics ...
Okay, let's consider two parties. The composition is identical except one party (A) has a support-focused cleric, the other party (B) has a control-focused wizard.
Next, think of control-spells as "preemptive healing" - instead of healing up damage in reaction to taking damage, you're using spells to stop damage from happening to your players by hindering or controlling the source of that damage.
If party A and B both have a pool of 100 resources (encompassing healing, spell slots, wands, channel energy, the works), party A would use 25 "resources" in a given fight to reactively heal up damage in the form of healing, while party B uses 25 "resources" to preemptively stop damage in the form of control spells.
What Wraith was referencing is when a GM looks at party A and party B, notices that B takes less "visible" damage (since they have additional control) and ramps up his damage output in the form of more dangerous monsters, extra HP, better saves etc to close the gap. But taking less damage is the logical result of how they've distributed their resources, so he's effectively punishing them for "taking advantage of tactics" when both parties have entirely valid and reasonably play styles.
I think me and you will get along swimmingly.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now I know neither spell stops a crit so if that happens you may need to heal in combat, but that is far different than planning to heal as the primary option.
It should be noted however that there are spells that can negate a crit. Namely any that can grant miss chances.
Control spells in particular can actually negate enemy attacks altogether.
A lot of times when I hear about groups needing lots of combat healing I ask what the wizard was doing.
Now I know neither spell stops a crit so if that happens you may need to heal in combat, but that is far different than planning to heal as the primary option.It should be noted however that there are spells that can negate a crit. Namely any that can grant miss chances.
Control spells in particular can actually negate enemy attacks altogether.
A lot of times when I hear about groups needing lots of combat healing I ask what the wizard was doing.
Indeed. I've played with several wizards/sorcerers over the years who almost exclusively used blasting spells (without optimizing for them via metamagic/class features). I've known way too many players who believe that Magic Missile is the only first level wizard spell worth memorizing/casting.
I think Kudaku’s breakdown is helpful:
Combat Healing - I’ve rarely encountered anybody willing to play this style of healer. I think this is the healing the boards tends to frown upon. However, I sometimes supply myself with a little of it in the form of a “healing backpack” such as an invisible Imp who uses a wand of CMW or CSW. Sometimes my Monk/Summoner also feels like a healing backpack for his combat focused eidolon. A combination of good defenses and what amounts to something like Fast Healing 10-20 seems to work really well for me. In games with Leadership a combat healer Bard or Cleric seems to be a common role for a cohort (helpful to the party not so "in your face" so that the DM just squashes it)
Emergency Healing - I think that parties are best off having at least this level of healing available. Pretty much all divine casters can handle this by default...unless they refuse to. Sometimes this need can be satisfied by multiple PCs or pets with lesser healing ability that can be combined to save somebody if needed.
Downtime Healing - I think this is crucial. Channel Energy can be used for this, as can high level Summoner SLAs (Bralani, Lillend, etc). Most often in our groups the need is filled via wands though. I was the first to institute a “Wand Tax” while playing a Druid back in 3.5. PCs had to contribute a cut of their treasure to the Wand Fund if they wanted downtime healing from the Druid since he had better things to use his spells on.
No Healing - My rare experiences with this style of play have been very negative. We might have this in an upcoming campaign where folks have decided that having an Evil alignment means not helping people and therefore not healing people. That game also apparently won’t have anywhere to buy magic items. I guess either the DM will relent and let us buy some potions and such or we’ll have a very short campaign.
Ya, because it seems to be restated (about 3 or more times a page) the kind of healing that is considered sub-par (because mathematically it is) is combat healing. Until you get Heal, damage received outpaces the healing you get from the cure line or channeling (especially if you have less healers then the number of enemies). Also, actions wasted on in combat healing could be better directed to battlefield control spells that work as sort of "preemptive" cures by preventing the enemies from dealing damage in the first place, or reducing the amount of damage they can deal.
Emergency healing can at times be an unfortunate necessity. It's never an action you *want* to have to take, but when it needs done it needs done. Ideally, the enemy should dead/controlled enough that this scenario does not occur, but it's not a waste of action to emergency cure an unconscious member back to consciousness and thus back to action contribution town.
Down time healing is what is the most mathematically optimal form of healing. It's extremely cheap and allows your entire party to be at full strength for their next encounter. Superior because it takes 0 in combat actions and is the smallest drain on resources.
No healing. You have made a mistake. A terrible mistake. I'd say you'll live to regret it, but odds are against you living at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No Healing - My rare experiences with this style of play have been very negative. We might have this in an upcoming campaign where folks have decided that having an Evil alignment means not helping people and therefore not healing people. That game also apparently won’t have anywhere to buy magic items. I guess either the DM will relent and let us buy some potions and such or we’ll have a very short campaign.
I know this is off-topic that has nothing to do with evil, and is a silly idea. Being does not mean you never do anything good, nor does it make you any less human. It is just your outlook on life that you will do what you have to do in many cases to achieve your goal, even at the expense of others. Being evil, you would still recognize the need to work with others to achieve goals. You may even become friends with them. You could not have certain villain tropes if evil people had no feelings, or they were too stupid realize the importance of cooperation. By helping the other person you are helping yourself.
Are they also going to not buff each other because that is helping someone else?
PS: I realize we likely have the same outlook. I would suggest you make a self sufficient character, and be ready to escape when the battle turns against you.
PS2: Is the entire world evil? Why would there be no healing magic anywhere, not that I think it is a good excuse. I am just curious.
@wraithstrike - I don't think that Evil PCs should refuse to heal. I'd already rolled up a Barbarian by the time this pronouncement came forth though. We're playing a campaign which will start out with We Be Goblins, and the DM has said that as despicable goblins who live in a swamp we'd probably have a very tough time finding anybody willing to sell us magic items. We'll each get a free item crafting or Skill Focus feat to help us be self-sufficient, but that won't help much at 1st level.
@Anzyr - If you agree that emergency healing can be a necessity that seems fairly reasonable. I suspect that actually healing can keep pace with damage dealt in a game where CR stays close to APL and the party (or at least the front liner) focuses on defense. High AC and or Mirror Image can greatly reduce the amount of damage coming in. Maybe you'd consider healing the high defense PC when the dice "go wrong" to be emergency healing though. I prefer to relegate it to pets or swift actions as much as possible, but Quick Channel seems decent to me too (sure, it has a feat cost, but so does Improved Familiar)
I think me and you will get along swimmingly.
That is probably in part because my thinking has been greatly influenced by your strategy guides. :)
@Lemmy
Do you know of anyone who's tried to seriously optimize healing? Dr Deth mentioned healing optimization earlier but I can't think of a writeup off the top of my head.
Did a little doodling and this is the best I could come up with:
Feats:
1. Selective Channel
3. Extra Channel
5. Quick Channel
7. Open, Fateful Channel might be nice
9. Empower Spell
Revelation: Channel
Revelation: Combat Healer
7d6 (Channel energy) +7d6 (quick channel) +4d8+10 (quickened CCW via combat healer) = 49 + 42 = 91 total healing per round, 49 AoE and 42 personal.
7d6 Channel Energy = 24,5
Channel Energy x2 = 49
Empowered Quickened Cure Critical Wounds = 42
Outside of 3rd party content there is surprisingly little feat support for actively improving the healing granted by Channel Energy. Quick Channel was the only thing I could find.
I included a phylactery of positive channeling and Magical Lineage to reduce the metamagic cost for CCW (which is perhaps being overly generous). The above uses 2 out of 4 5th level spell slots and 3 out of 11 Channel Energy charges.
@Devilkiller
There are some options that make "combat healing" more viable. It usually entails healing while doing something else at the same time - the Oradin is an example of this (using Life Link and swift actions to soak and heal damage) and your clever use of a "healing backpack" is another.
One thing I neglected to mention in my writeup is that "emergency healing" can be done by just about any class at low levels as long as they have a potion on hand, but Cure Serious Wounds potions (average healing of 18.5) will get outpaced by level 6 if not sooner.
I think Kudaku’s breakdown is helpful:
Combat Healing - I’ve rarely encountered anybody willing to play this style of healer. I think this is the healing the boards tends to frown upon. However, I sometimes supply myself with a little of it in the form of a “healing backpack” such as an invisible Imp who uses a wand of CMW or CSW. Sometimes my Monk/Summoner also feels like a healing backpack for his combat focused eidolon. A combination of good defenses and what amounts to something like Fast Healing 10-20 seems to work really well for me. In games with Leadership a combat healer Bard or Cleric seems to be a common role for a cohort (helpful to the party not so "in your face" so that the DM just squashes it)Emergency Healing - I think that parties are best off having at least this level of healing available. Pretty much all divine casters can handle this by default...unless they refuse to. Sometimes this need can be satisfied by multiple PCs or pets with lesser healing ability that can be combined to save somebody if needed.
Downtime Healing - I think this is crucial. Channel Energy can be used for this, as can high level Summoner SLAs (Bralani, Lillend, etc). Most often in our groups the need is filled via wands though. I was the first to institute a “Wand Tax” while playing a Druid back in 3.5. PCs had to contribute a cut of their treasure to the Wand Fund if they wanted downtime healing from the Druid since he had better things to use his spells on
Amusingly, my new vampire (incredibly toned down version, not the Pathfinder version) vitalist will pretty much have all three of these on lockdown. She's going to be healing frequently in combat, generally proactively by granting allies small HP bubbles. Instead of trying to scape the smear that was my ally off the floor post orc-crit, I'll have given them 5-10 HP to survive the hit in the first time.
Out of combat (or in maybe even in combat at low levels), I have a tiny bit of fast healing which can be redirected to a nearby ally, which pretty much covers noncombat healing.
As for emergency healing, I'll have a bit of that too. Enough to stabilize or bring up a near-dead player if needed. It's going to be fun.
|
This character is largely built around healing (Life Oracle, channel revelation, extra channel feat) but it is almost impossible to build a Life Oracle who is not good at buffing/debuffing. Spells like Forbid Action, Hold Person, Magic Circle and Bless help ensure that the party won't need healing in the first place.
But I have already said this. I'll stop posting now.
@Kudaku - The 7d6(24.5) from Quickened Channel sounds pretty good to me since it only takes a move action. This might be a better strategy for a Cleric than an Oracle in some ways since they get Channel Energy “for free”. If you think of a wand more like Fast Healing it might seem a little nicer. I’m generally just looking for kind of a healing “shock absorber” for those times when the DM sneaks an unexpected amount of damage through my defenses.
I’m generally much more likely to play a Bard than a Cleric or Oracle, but I’ve just written up a build for a Lawful Evil Undead Lord focused on Channel Energy and Sacred Summons though. We’ll be playing a campaign set in Cheliax, so this guy is a likely backup PC. I wish there were a better way to include other PCs in the healing from my Channel than spending a standard action on Death's Kiss.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ashiel: The Vitalist seems to be designed from the ground up to be the in-combat healer. Considering DSP's track record, it's not surprising they pulled it off :)
Indeed. IMHO, they set the gold standard for good mechanics and balanced gameplay. <3 DSP. :D
I think group composition really defines whether in-combat healing will be required or be an overall viable option.
I mean, if you were in a group with a lot of ranged damagers, and/or control-types (preventing damage/attacks/actions), then healing probably won't come up often, and it'd be better to boost the group's current actions.
However, if you have at least a couple melee-centric characters designed to take the brunt of the damage (keeping it from others) allowing others to deal with ending the fight, then healing almost becomes necessary.
I played a Kingmaker campaign, which allowed approaching combat from a myriad of methods, and our group ended up being a Charge-focused Cavalier, my Life Oracle, and a Summoner + rotating 4th person (over the course of the campaign).
Between sharing damage across multiple characters and group healing effects, a knight who threw himself at the enemy with wild abandon, drawing most of the attack actions towards himself (and protecting the more glass-cannon built allies), made for an effective combination.
What was best though, was that a lot of healing options ended up being free/quick so I'd still be able to throw out buffs and debuffs as needed.
The only drawback to the Oracle was the delayed/limited spell access, though once you could get few levels in you could afford scrolls to cover your bases.
.
That extreme might be fairly unique of an experience (healing was definitely a lot less prevalent in pretty much the rest of my gaming experience).
A strong buffing class that can drop some nice healing or damage off-loading is probably the more universally useful character.
A songhealer bard always seemed kind of a neat idea. Couple it with Geisha too and you could play a near-pacifist type character. Go total knowledge/social skills and party buffing, utility spell style of character.
Combat Healing: This is a character that uses his action economy and healing resources to predominantly to heal and "top off" characters - he will start healing as soon as people start getting injured using a mix of high and low level spells, channeling charges and consumables. The Merciful Healer cleric and the Life Oracle can be examples of this approach. Emergency Healing: This is a character that uses his action economy on other tasks than healing, but has the potential to drop a CXW or a Heal when the situation calls for it. He will usually only use healing spells when the lack of healing probably means another character will fall unconscious or die, and even then only if he does not feel confident that a different action can end the encounter. Oath of Vengeance Paladins, Fighter/Clerics, and CC/blaster Oracles can be examples of this approach.
Pretty much, we do combat healing only when another hit will drop a party member. Sure, once in a while, a PC with good channeling will fire one off if everyone is say, half down- but even tho I am a supporter of in-combat healing, there are usually better options. Even at Low level, a Bless is usually better than a top-off CLW.
Ya, because it seems to be restated (about 3 or more times a page) the kind of healing that is considered sub-par (because mathematically it is) is combat healing. Until you get Heal, damage received outpaces the healing you get from the cure line or channeling (especially if you have less healers then the number of enemies). Also, actions wasted on in combat healing could be better directed to battlefield control spells that work as sort of "preemptive" cures by preventing the enemies from dealing damage in the first place, or reducing the amount of damage they can deal.
As we have said over and over, this is high;y disputed. Cure spells usually work all the time, while attacks have to go against miss chances, AC, DR, ER and what-not.
But yes, buffing is better than topping off. Save the healing until the math seems to show the next hit will drop a party member.
And you aren't doing some "dismissing" of your own?Am I? I never accused anyone of being a "theorycrafter" who doesn't play the game or who plays the game wrong.
All I did was to mention that no one's gaming experience has any more weight than that of anyone else.
True, and I never said otherwise. Generally, it's based on Theory that healing can't outpace damage.
IRL, that's often not true, at least in my games. But since others don't often present their gaming experiences, just theories, yes, I think IRL gaming is a better test than theorycraft.
I'd happily listen to posters who say that they have tried optimized healers with in-combat healing, and it didn't work.
Few have presented such experiences. Please present yours, I'd love to hear them. However, please reduce the personal attacks and animosity.
And I have conceded that Rocket tag games, where combat lasts 2-3 rounds is not really conducive to In-combat healing. Rocket tag is NOT "playing the game wrong" but is *IS* playing the game different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ya, because it seems to be restated (about 3 or more times a page) the kind of healing that is considered sub-par (because mathematically it is) is combat healing. Until you get Heal, damage received outpaces the healing you get from the cure line or channeling (especially if you have less healers then the number of enemies). Also, actions wasted on in combat healing could be better directed to battlefield control spells that work as sort of "preemptive" cures by preventing the enemies from dealing damage in the first place, or reducing the amount of damage they can deal.As we have said over and over, this is high;y disputed. Cure spells usually work all the time, while attacks have to go against miss chances, AC, DR, ER and what-not.
But yes, buffing is better than topping off. Save the healing until the math seems to show the next hit will drop a party member.
Cross posting from other thread, even though your last sentence appears to concede your side of the argument.
If you are in a situation where AC, miss chance, DR, ER and so on are doing their job, then that's even less of a reason to heal. If they aren't doing their job, then we are in the situation where healing will not keep up with damage. See how that works?
Ya, because it seems to be restated (about 3 or more times a page) the kind of healing that is considered sub-par (because mathematically it is) is combat healing. Until you get Heal, damage received outpaces the healing you get from the cure line or channeling (especially if you have less healers then the number of enemies). Also, actions wasted on in combat healing could be better directed to battlefield control spells that work as sort of "preemptive" cures by preventing the enemies from dealing damage in the first place, or reducing the amount of damage they can deal.As we have said over and over, this is high;y disputed. Cure spells usually work all the time, while attacks have to go against miss chances, AC, DR, ER and what-not.
But yes, buffing is better than topping off. Save the healing until the math seems to show the next hit will drop a party member.
Cross posting from other thread, even though your last sentence appears to concede your side of the argument.
If you are in a situation where AC, miss chance, DR, ER and so on are doing their job, then that's even less of a reason to heal. If they aren't doing their job, then we are in the situation where healing will not keep up with damage. See how that works?
Concede? That's been my point for a couple years here on this board. Topping off is usually a waste, but saving your buddy isn't.
Yep they do their job maybe 50% of the time. So when your bestest buddy gets hit and the next round- IF he gets hit- will drop him, do you take that 50% chance with his life or no?
Ya, because it seems to be restated (about 3 or more times a page) the kind of healing that is considered sub-par (because mathematically it is) is combat healing. Until you get Heal, damage received outpaces the healing you get from the cure line or channeling (especially if you have less healers then the number of enemies). Also, actions wasted on in combat healing could be better directed to battlefield control spells that work as sort of "preemptive" cures by preventing the enemies from dealing damage in the first place, or reducing the amount of damage they can deal.As we have said over and over, this is high;y disputed. Cure spells usually work all the time, while attacks have to go against miss chances, AC, DR, ER and what-not.
But yes, buffing is better than topping off. Save the healing until the math seems to show the next hit will drop a party member.
Cross posting from other thread, even though your last sentence appears to concede your side of the argument.
If you are in a situation where AC, miss chance, DR, ER and so on are doing their job, then that's even less of a reason to heal. If they aren't doing their job, then we are in the situation where healing will not keep up with damage. See how that works?
Concede? That's been my point for a couple years here on this board. Topping off is usually a waste, but saving your buddy isn't.
Yep they do their job maybe 50% of the time. So when your bestest buddy gets hit and the next round- IF he gets hit- will drop him, do you take that 50% chance with his life or no?
Crosspost Combo! Two Hits!
If it would only drop him, no definitely not. If he does get hit and goes unconscious, next round I would use healing to get him back into the fight, since my action this turn could be better spent making the enemy unable to/less likely to hit, or just plain finishing it off. Now, if he was doing to die from a successful hit that's another story, since the resources required to return him from death are costly. Though that second scenario falls under "emergency healing" above. It's never an action you *want* to take, its just sometimes unfortunately required to prevent resource soak.
If healing is sometimes "required" (or even just "advantageous") then it probably makes sense to be sure that somebody in the party can contribute a meaningful amount of healing at the opportune time. If you've got a "healer" PC in the party you're in luck. If not you might be out of luck.
For instance, a party of Rogues and Barbarians who handle all of their healing needs via wands of CLW probably aren't going to be very good at saving people during combat. I guess that Emergency Healing is really Combat Healing except that you don't need to do it very frequently. This might be why Treantmonk feels that a Battle Oracle who can pop out a Quickened Cure a few times per day should work well and maybe a Life Oracle could be overkill (or overheal).
I think the Life Oracle could be fun and could imagine the party Kaisoku described being quite effective. I'd generally shy away from rushing into combat with a low AC and letting monsters beat on me, but maybe I'd feel differently if there was somebody there to fix me up, and I suspect the DM would have lots of fun since the monsters would get to hit more often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Kudaku - The 7d6(24.5) from Quickened Channel sounds pretty good to me since it only takes a move action. This might be a better strategy for a Cleric than an Oracle in some ways since they get Channel Energy “for free”. If you think of a wand more like Fast Healing it might seem a little nicer. I’m generally just looking for kind of a healing “shock absorber” for those times when the DM sneaks an unexpected amount of damage through my defenses.
The Life Oracle is in a unique position since both spellcasting and channel energy charges are based on Charisma, so you get extra Channels "for free" while progressing your main stat - in comparison a cleric who wants to use lots of channeling has to sacrifice Wisdom to maintain a high charisma. I'm starting to think you could make a fairly good Control/Debuff Life Oracle using Quick Channel on the side as long as you're willing to take life mystery and give up two feats (Quick Channel and Selective Channel). The spell list isn't quite as good as the arcane one though. It might be a fun character to play, I'll see if I can knock up a trial build.
For what it's worth I'm starting to think that DrDeth and Anzyr broadly agree on the practical application of healing in encounters...
That is assuming that the enemie offensive is as highg as his defense.Ya, because it seems to be restated (about 3 or more times a page) the kind of healing that is considered sub-par (because mathematically it is) is combat healing. Until you get Heal, damage received outpaces the healing you get from the cure line or channeling (especially if you have less healers then the number of enemies). Also, actions wasted on in combat healing could be better directed to battlefield control spells that work as sort of "preemptive" cures by preventing the enemies from dealing damage in the first place, or reducing the amount of damage they can deal.As we have said over and over, this is high;y disputed. Cure spells usually work all the time, while attacks have to go against miss chances, AC, DR, ER and what-not.
But yes, buffing is better than topping off. Save the healing until the math seems to show the next hit will drop a party member.
Cross posting from other thread, even though your last sentence appears to concede your side of the argument.
If you are in a situation where AC, miss chance, DR, ER and so on are doing their job, then that's even less of a reason to heal. If they aren't doing their job, then we are in the situation where healing will not keep up with damage. See how that works?
No it isn't. It's assuming that if your defenses are working you shouldn't have to heal. And that if your defenses aren't keeping up then again, we are in the situation where healing can't keep up with damage (because again, as established your defenses aren't working).
Pretty much, we do combat healing only when another hit will drop a party member. Sure, once in a while, a PC with good channeling will fire one off if everyone is say, half down- but even tho I am a supporter of in-combat healing, there are usually better options. Even at Low level, a Bless is usually better than a top-off CLW.
Combat Healing: This is a character that uses his action economy and healing resources to predominantly to heal and "top off" characters - he will start healing as soon as people start getting injured using a mix of high and low level spells, channeling charges and consumables. The Merciful Healer cleric and the Life Oracle can be examples of this approach. Emergency Healing: This is a character that uses his action economy on other tasks than healing, but has the potential to drop a CXW or a Heal when the situation calls for it. He will usually only use healing spells when the lack of healing probably means another character will fall unconscious or die, and even then only if he does not feel confident that a different action can end the encounter. Oath of Vengeance Paladins, Fighter/Clerics, and CC/blaster Oracles can be examples of this approach.
I think we may have been talking past each other the entire time. :)
I like playing the healer role too, but it can be sub optimal without access to third party supplements or 3.5 feats. Even when limited to core rules i have found ways to make it work, and adding buffing and crafting can help depending on your group and setting/ adventure.
If you can use it in your situation I highly recommend:
Undefeatable 2: Clerics (PFRPG)
@Kudaku - I agree that the Life Oracle is set up pretty well for Channel. I was just trying to consider Treantmonk's concerns about the Life Oracle "giving up" some stuff to gain Channel.
@Anzyr - I think I see what you're trying to say about failed defenses invalidating healing, but when the DM rolls unusually high for a round or a PC gets caught unbuffed and flat footed it can sometimes create an "emergency healing" situation. Once the PCs have a chance to act their defenses will be better, and the DM probably won't roll multiple nat 20s the next round too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, and I never said otherwise. Generally, it's based on Theory that healing can't outpace damage.And you aren't doing some "dismissing" of your own?Am I? I never accused anyone of being a "theorycrafter" who doesn't play the game or who plays the game wrong.
All I did was to mention that no one's gaming experience has any more weight than that of anyone else.
No, it's based on math. It doesn't even require you to be an expert on the game in the least. You just have to have a fight at pretty much any level.
Here's an example. A hobgoblin slaps you with a greatsword for 2d6+4 points of damage. That's 5-16 points of damage on a successful hit. Meanwhile, at the same level your cleric casts cure light wounds to heal 1d8+1 points of damage. That's 2-7 points of damage, and you cannot critically hit with it without risking a miss on your touch, whereas the hobgoblin could crush for 10-32 points of damage.
This is pretty consistent as well. Damage scales quickly. It's not until you get spells like heal that healing really manages to keep up and start looking nice. Healing is similar to casting daze. You are trading your action for a chance to maybe negate somebody else's action, and unlike daze you're also expending a resource to do it.
Unfortunately, since healing usually has to be done re-actively, it's also quite easy for a healer to simply not matter, especially if the victim suffers a lot of burst damage suddenly, as it could just render them dead before you ever have a chance to heal them. Feeling pretty proud of your 3d8+5 cure serious wounds spell? Okay, well Timmy McTim Tim just got critically hit by the ogre for 4d6+12 and went from "I'm feeling fine," to "I'm missing a spine" as he's dropped to -15 HP. Oops, he's dead Jim. Heal that.
IRL, that's often not true, at least in my games. But since others don't often present their gaming experiences, just theories, yes, I think IRL gaming is a better test than theorycraft.
The part you're not listening at is the point that these are experiences from RL gaming. There's a reason why lots of people don't feel that healing keeps up and it's not because some nameless dude on the internet said so. It's that people have tried to really press the healing role and found it wanting, and then found better alternatives.
And I have conceded that Rocket tag games, where combat lasts 2-3 rounds is not really conducive to In-combat healing. Rocket tag is NOT "playing the game wrong" but is *IS* playing the game different.
I don't play rocket tag and I still think healing sucks most of the time. It's generally far more productive to prevent harm from happening in the first place, at least until heal comes along. Heck, if you just made the cure/inflict spells do 10 healing in the place of the 1d8s, that'd probably help them out a lot, making them kind of like mini-heals.
CLW = 11-15
CMW = 23-30
CSW = 35-45
CCW = 47-60
That'd make 'em look better. At least the healing would generally mean something relative to the resource you were spending. And by proxy, inflict spells or cure spells used to harm undead would likewise mean something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something that we need more of is pre-healing. This is one of the reasons I'm enamored with the vitalist. Reactive healing means someone takes their turn, maybe or maybe not kills your friend, and you decide whether to heal them now and top them off, or risk letting your friend randomly snuff it where your healing doesn't matter anymore and you're down a member.
Preemptive healing in the form of Temporary HP is one of my favorite forms of damage mitigation. Most of it has a short duration, but as they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. For example, in an upcoming game, my vitalist will be able to use one power to give a friend +5 temporary hit points for 10 rounds.
The beauty of temporary HP is that she can effectively heal him before he takes damage. So if he has 12 HP, and the orc hits him for 6, he's now down to 11. Healing success! Meanwhile, while she's not in the process of healing him with her little HP bubbles, she's doing other things and being a helpful member of the party rather than hovering over him and waiting to grab him and hope to shake some life back into his dying corpse.
Now it's not all efficiency. It only lasts 10 rounds / level, so if we get into a fight and I give 'em a little juice and then he never suffers any damage then I wasted some, but my father always told me it's better to have than not need than need and not have. If your party didn't take any damage, then hurray for you anyway! :o
It also helps reduce the chance that rocket tag will work. For example, if your 3rd level party is fighting a pack of orcs with greataxes, your fighter might have around 27 HP. Now you know, if he gets hit with a 3d12+12 greataxe swing he's probably going down, but you could give him +10 temporary HP. If he doesn't get critically hit, no worries. If he does, it probably kept him standing, because it gave him a buffer so that when that big hit comes, he'll have a few HP left over.
True, and I never said otherwise. Generally, it's based on Theory that healing can't outpace damage.And you aren't doing some "dismissing" of your own?Am I? I never accused anyone of being a "theorycrafter" who doesn't play the game or who plays the game wrong.
All I did was to mention that no one's gaming experience has any more weight than that of anyone else.
No, it's based on math. It doesn't even require you to be an expert on the game in the least. You just have to have a fight at pretty much any level.
Here's an example. A hobgoblin slaps you with a greatsword for 2d6+4 points of damage. That's 5-16 points of damage on a successful hit. Meanwhile, at the same level your cleric casts cure light wounds to heal 1d8+1 points of damage. That's 2-7 points of damage, and you cannot critically hit with it without risking a miss on your touch, whereas the hobgoblin could crush for 10-32 points of damage.
Sure, it's based on "math" if you get to pick the numbers. But a Hobgoblin doesn't do "greatsword for 2d6+4".
He does= longsword +4 (1d8+2/19–20).
And 1d8+1 does not equal 2-7, it's 2-9. A 1st level cleric does 1d8+1. That's just about the same as 1d8+2.
Now, +4 to hit? A NPC Human Fighter 1 has AC of 20. "AC 20, touch 12, flat-footed 18 (+6 armor, +2 Dex, +2 shield)"
The Hobgoblin has to roll a 16+ to hit. Or, a 20% chance. Thus, healing for a 1st lvl cleric- right out of the book, healing a 1st level NPC fighter, vs a Hobgoblin right out of the book- heals four- FIVE times as much.
Yes, it's math. The math shows healing wins.
Your argument defeats itself DrDeth. IF the Hobgoblin only has a 20% chance to hit, then there's no reason to heal the guy that only has 2 HP. Instead, you should focus on downing the Hobgoblin. But when damage *IS* outpacing healing, healing can't keep up. We've been over this and you really are going to need to come up with a more persuasive argument then one that defeats itself.