In my opinion the idea that healing can't keep up with damage dealt to PCs by monsters may be a myth.
I made a record of the damage inflicted on my character (and the other PCs) through a series of combats in two separate campaigns and the pattern is always the same. What I expected was to see damage cluster around an average roughly equal to the DPR calculation of the monster faced, but that wasn't what happened. When I looked at the actual numbers the most common amount of damage received in a round, regardless of level, is zero. When damage is actually inflicted low numbers are much more common than high numbers. The probability distribution is not a normal curve like a bell curve, it is highly skewed towards low numbers. Where PCs run into problems is with critical hits and other high damage events, which while relatively rare will kill a character off unless they are not close to maximum hit points.
Now it could be that our table is unusual, I wouldn't think we were that different as we often use published APs. I am curious to see if anyone else has gone through the same exercise and found the same or a different result.
This post has examples of things a cleric can do. I mentioned summoner monster and then went into general things.A lot of comments here that healing clerics aren't worth it.Bolded to emphasize what they mean. Healing is deemed as sub-par because the actions it takes does not net you a higher hp. While you cast a healing spell, the enemy full-attacks for more damage than you healed. Clerics can do a lot more stuff than cast healing spells, which is often the optimal choice, compared to healing.I completely get that, but my question still stands. Or perhaps to narrow it down a little, what sort of spells would you prefer from your cleric?
Oh - and on a related note - that's very true when just talking about healing hp damage - does it change when it comes to condition removal?
(e.g. remove blindness on the barbarian vs casting a cure serious on them)
If you want something more specific, they can buff themselves if they are built for melee combat with things like divine might.
Spritual Ally, and Spiritual Weapon work for additional damage.
Summon monster is explained in the link I just gave.
Blessing of Ferver has an option that is very much like haste, and has a huge impact on damage out.
Your domains can give you other features and spells which vary by domain.
The spells that protect against elemental damage, and have a great impact on an enemy spell such as fireball. There is also a communal version, so you only have to burn one spell slot.
Protection from <insert alignment> boost your AC and can shut some spells down. There is also a communal version, so you only have to burn one spell slot.
There are other spells too, but these stop more damage on average than a healing spell or a channel can cure.
PS: Summon Monster also prevents land based bad guys from being able to charge into the wizards, sorcerers, archers, and other people who tend to hide in the back since you can't charge through an occupied square in most cases..
In my opinion the idea that healing can't keep up with damage dealt to PCs by monsters may be a myth.
I made a record of the damage inflicted on my character (and the other PCs) through a series of combats in two separate campaigns and the pattern is always the same. What I expected was to see damage cluster around an average roughly equal to the DPR calculation of the monster faced, but that wasn't what happened. When I looked at the actual numbers the most common amount of damage received in a round, regardless of level, is zero. When damage is actually inflicted low numbers are much more common than high numbers. The probability distribution is not a normal curve like a bell curve, it is highly skewed towards low numbers. Where PCs run into problems is with critical hits and other high damage events, which while relatively rare will kill a character off unless they are not close to maximum hit points.
Now it could be that our table is unusual, I wouldn't think we were that different as we often use published APs. I am curious to see if anyone else has gone through the same exercise and found the same or a different result.
It is not a myth. That math has been done. There are some healing builds that are very optimized, and may be the exception, but the typical healing based cleric is not going to keep up if the monster is landing his attacks.
When you do these calculations it is better to use an average number for the dice since rolling, even in a random dice generator can have extreme results towards one direction or the other. That is how the DPR calculations are done to negate luck.
If you are getting hit by a Fire Giant healing spells(outside of cure) and channels are not going to keep up. However you only have so many heal spells, and since heal removes a LOT of status effects, that is a waste of the spell. A better option would be to try to prevent the damage. Sheild Other might be a better option. By cutting the damage in half a channeling energy is a lot more useful because it wont have to heal as much damage. Also if you help put the fire giant down faster that completely stops incoming damage.
Oh - and on a related note - that's very true when just talking about healing hp damage - does it change when it comes to condition removal?
(e.g. remove blindness on the barbarian vs casting a cure serious on them)
As someone who is a fan of glitterdust I can tell you that it wrecks martials. If he is not blind he takes less damage, and he can also kill whatever is attacking him. Just casting cure serious is not nearly as useful, if he is hurt and blind.
PS: If he is near death then it could be a judgement call.
In my opinion the idea that healing can't keep up with damage dealt to PCs by monsters may be a myth.
I made a record of the damage inflicted on my character (and the other PCs) through a series of combats in two separate campaigns and the pattern is always the same. What I expected was to see damage cluster around an average roughly equal to the DPR calculation of the monster faced, but that wasn't what happened. When I looked at the actual numbers the most common amount of damage received in a round, regardless of level, is zero. When damage is actually inflicted low numbers are much more common than high numbers. The probability distribution is not a normal curve like a bell curve, it is highly skewed towards low numbers. Where PCs run into problems is with critical hits and other high damage events, which while relatively rare will kill a character off unless they are not close to maximum hit points.
Now it could be that our table is unusual, I wouldn't think we were that different as we often use published APs. I am curious to see if anyone else has gone through the same exercise and found the same or a different result.
It is not a myth. That math has been done. There are some healing builds that are very optimized, and may be the exception, but the typical healing based cleric is not going to keep up if the monster is landing his attacks.
When you do these calculations it is better to use an average number for the dice since rolling, even in a random dice generator can have extreme results towards one direction or the other. That is how the DPR calculations are done to negate luck.
If you are getting hit by a Fire Giant healing spells(outside of cure) and channels are not going to keep up. However you only have so many heal spells, and since heal removes a LOT of status effects, that is a waste of the spell. A better option would be to try to prevent the damage. Sheild Other might be a better option. By cutting the damage in half a channeling...
I think you misunderstand my point. Damage inflicted in actual games does not appear to validate DPR calculations. PCs have too many damage avoidance and mitigation options so the most common amount of damage taken in a round is zero followed by low numbers. Instances of monsters realising their average calculated DPR are rare not common.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...In my opinion the idea that healing can't keep up with damage dealt to PCs by monsters may be a myth.
I made a record of the damage inflicted on my character (and the other PCs) through a series of combats in two separate campaigns and the pattern is always the same. What I expected was to see damage cluster around an average roughly equal to the DPR calculation of the monster faced, but that wasn't what happened. When I looked at the actual numbers the most common amount of damage received in a round, regardless of level, is zero. When damage is actually inflicted low numbers are much more common than high numbers. The probability distribution is not a normal curve like a bell curve, it is highly skewed towards low numbers. Where PCs run into problems is with critical hits and other high damage events, which while relatively rare will kill a character off unless they are not close to maximum hit points.
Now it could be that our table is unusual, I wouldn't think we were that different as we often use published APs. I am curious to see if anyone else has gone through the same exercise and found the same or a different result.
It is not a myth. That math has been done. There are some healing builds that are very optimized, and may be the exception, but the typical healing based cleric is not going to keep up if the monster is landing his attacks.
When you do these calculations it is better to use an average number for the dice since rolling, even in a random dice generator can have extreme results towards one direction or the other. That is how the DPR calculations are done to negate luck.
If you are getting hit by a Fire Giant healing spells(outside of cure) and channels are not going to keep up. However you only have so many heal spells, and since heal removes a LOT of status effects, that is a waste of the spell. A better option would be to try to prevent the damage. Sheild Other might be a better option. By cutting the
I understand you point perfectly well. In addition to these calculations, people's real life experiences are how the idea actually came up in a post a while ago. The math just backs it up.
I've also seen it happen. If the PC is very optimized and/or the party works very well together he may not take much, but in that case* the healer(hit point healing) based character won't be needed.
*I had this happen in a game, which I partially described earlier when I was shutting down the enemies, and the party would kill them. The healer hardly ever got to heal anyone, especially in combat.
If the party is taking damage consistently, then the healing falls behind more and more at higher levels.
Basically the info is not just based on a math chart and theory craft.
A lot of comments here that healing clerics aren't worth it.Bolded to emphasize what they mean. Healing is deemed as sub-par because the actions it takes does not net you a higher hp. While you cast a healing spell, the enemy full-attacks for more damage than you healed. Clerics can do a lot more stuff than cast healing spells, which is often the optimal choice, compared to healing.I completely get that, but my question still stands. Or perhaps to narrow it down a little, what sort of spells would you prefer from your cleric?
Oh - and on a related note - that's very true when just talking about healing hp damage - does it change when it comes to condition removal?
(e.g. remove blindness on the barbarian vs casting a cure serious on them)
I tend to play evil clerics, and bad touch everyone. maybe animate a few corpses.
The strategy of our main martial in Eyes of Ten, pretty much relied on his getting hurt and having massive healing to back him up. I believe his AC was 15 or 16 at the most.
He was however absolutely devastating in combat, and we made it through.
A question to the folks saying healers are sub-optimal.
The classic concept of an adventuring party (inherited from D&D 1st and existing long before any of the powers we are weighing up here) tended to be fighter + wizard + thief (as was then) + cleric
BS. In AD&D 1e and in BECMI, there is not even a standard party size, let alone a standard combination of classes. Many adventures were written for only one or two PCs. Your "classic concept of an adventuring party" came about much later.
yeah! where my acrobats at?
I have a gnoll (feral soul) oracle who I adore
She can basically do anything
She has a couple fire spells, but mostly her spells are used for healing and summoning
She just got a rod of reach (lesser) styled in the shape of a pimp cane with a snake head
She's hilarious to play but she can do healing, melee, summons (snakes and other reptiles only) or blasts (fire only) depending on what combat (or her whims) require
With regard to "healing clerics" being able to remove status affects is a good thing, but something built around healing, and that does not do much else except trying to heal is what is suboptimal.
To expound on this...
Someone building a "healer" that can't do anything else has nothing to do with healers or healing being bad. It has only to do with the player creating a sub-optimal healing character. Being a good healer is not just about healing hitpoints or even removing status effects.
Being a good healer requires being able to handle some healing in combat, mitigate some status effects, being able to do something else meritous when healing isn't required, and knowing when to do each. That last is the most important part.
It is mathematically proven that healing can keep up in combat. The game designers have added nice options to do so. It does require resources, just like all worthy builds. That said, healers can't keep up with all damage all day long. No character can burst all day long.
Where is this math outside of a few niche builds, which has already been admitted to be able to keep up? All the math I have seen has shown the opposite.
Many times in these discussions the healers just focus on healing which is why I made it clear which healers are not considered a good fit. A character that "can heal"(such as a generic cleric) is not what the forums refer to when we speak of "healers".
Most people here know the power of a cleric.
Think healing in combat would happen more often if every class had options to "cast from hit points?" Things like the powerful physical attacks from modern SMT games which all cost a set amount of HP to use. Not like burn (which I'm still fine with BTW) but something you either had to be careful with unless there's a life oracle or something in the party.
Where is this math outside of a few niche builds, which has already been admitted to be able to keep up? All the math I have seen has shown the opposite.
Start with the "few niche builds" and build from there.
Many times in these discussions the healers just focus on healing which is why I made it clear which healers are not considered a good fit. A character that "can heal"(such as a generic cleric) is not what the forums refer to when we speak of "healers".
There is a difference between a "healer" and a "good healer".
That's the part that I was attempting to help you point out.
So basically you are saying the same thing that I am. Only certain builds can keep up. I think we agree then, but most people's build are not good enough to keep up, which goes back to my point about preventing damage being the better option.
When that fails you try to be good enough to bring emergency healing.
The people who need to be convinced are those who are trying to heal first, and be reactive and instead of proactive.
First, I agree that a cleric can do so much more than heal. AND they're great healers.
The question of whether the act of healing is a mathematically optimal choice in combat is one of supreme indifference to me. Squeezing every ounce of efficiency out of a character creates a boring character. I wouldn't want to read a novel that contained such a character and I wouldn't want to GM for such a character. The Mary-Sue kill-everything, know-everything, nothing's-a-challenge-because-I've-got-it-all-covered characters are easy to make and godawful, weepingly dull.
I vastly prefer the interesting, the flawed, the quirky and the story-driven.
I have an oracle of life who doesn't carry a weapon. All he does in combat is heal. His motto is "no one dies on my watch." He loves pies and talks to invisible spirits. His best friend is a half-mad half-Orc. It's interesting. Being optimal isn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, I agree that a cleric can do so much more than heal. AND they're great healers.
The question of whether the act of healing is a mathematically optimal choice in combat is one of supreme indifference to me. Squeezing every ounce of efficiency out of a character creates a boring character. I wouldn't want to read a novel that contained such a character and I wouldn't want to GM for such a character. The Mary-Sue kill-everything, know-everything, nothing's-a-challenge-because-I've-got-it-all-covered characters are easy to make and godawful, weepingly dull.
I vastly prefer the interesting, the flawed, the quirky and the story-driven.
I have an oracle of life who doesn't carry a weapon. All he does in combat is heal. His motto is "no one dies on my watch." He loves pies and talks to invisible spirits. His best friend is a half-mad half-Orc. It's interesting. Being optimal isn't.
Being optimal is not counter to being interesting. Both can be done.
I also don't think anyone is saying you have to create the best character ever, but the party should feel like you are contributing. That matters because your character can have an impact on whether or not someone else's character dies. In a group where the GM has the time, and is willing to adjust more this is less of an issue, but not all groups have that luxury.
What counts as contributing?
That depends on the party you are with and how they play the game.
Well, if some players optimize hard enough to make their PCs count for two or three anyway, it doesn't hurt if someone restricts himself to play 'just' a pure healer. It should work fine within an AP / official module, and it does work fine within my campaigns (due to adapting difficulty).
If I'm serving as the healer prefer an Oracle over a cleric. Get all Cure spells before picking any spells. Life Oracle gets the restorative spells a healer should be picking up. I tend to pick spells that make me the healer and buffer. Bless, Blessing of Fervor being the two best. Shield of Faith I pick for my character. I also tend to pick the Seeker archtype to serve as the locksmith and trap detector. Something else that has served me well is a level or two of a martial class usually fighter.
Spontaneous caster have to be more careful about their spell selection than prepared casters. That is no secret. Blessing of Ferver or a spell I specifically mentioned so we agree on buffing the party as a way to prevent damage.
Something I have noticed is people have stated summoning spells over other spells to prevent combat damage. The problem is as an Oracle your spells are limited. As the healer I'm picking up the spells that heal or buff the party so my spells are pretty much picked long before I consider a summoning spell.
In this case you may want to not pick summoning spells or only pick certain ones. Some of the summon list such as Summon Monter 8, are not that good. Others, such as the 6 and 7 are pretty good. They have utility purposes, such as summoning something with cleric levels also, not just stand there and get beat up. I don't think anyone is assuming the summoners will always get attack, but if positioned correctly they may have to be dealt with which makes them a good use of battle field control. They are also useful for flanking which also helps increase damage, and end the fight quicker. The utility of the higher summoning spells is one of their best uses.
Another problem I have faced is surprise attack. A surprise attack from a shadow or worse a greater shadow will wreck a party before they get that summoned meat shield out.
Nobody is saying they are always the right answer. Like any other spell you have to know when to use them, but they are still a great option to have, and better than reactive healing.
I'm saying a well designed character and party can handle itself. Our group almost always got together and designed our group together. Our characters were our own but we tried to have someone be able to do something the others lacked in one area or another.
I prefer to say that a well played party with good team work is in less need of a healer since they will prevent a lot of incoming damage.
Do you find the Pathfinder healing mechanics lacking the power to uphold the large Damage your PC's take?
Pathfinder Player Companion: Magical Marketplace has the anwser to your problems! Do you need a better scaling healing at level 2 ? Healing Bomb !!! The monster at CR 4 just bite your tanker PC for 2d6+10? Healing Bomb! just throw that nice and shiny bomb for 1d6+int+deadly aim + point-blank shot bomb at you guy! Healing bomb!!! The anwser to your healing needs! (Please Read this like a 60's Salesman)
Holy thread necro, Batman!
I was partial to the Life Shaman (Witch Doctor / VMC Cleric) I added as an NPC to a 1-shot for the Return To Sky module I ran for a friend the other month. Channel Strength saw some use, and the healing was significant with Quick Channel and Selective Channel plus a Phylactery of Positive Energy. Shield Other made the party barbarian all but invincible.
Oh lord, this one again?
Well, my Life Oracle is 15th level now. Still haven't lost a party member yet.
Flame Oracle level 13, almost 14 here. Lost 2 party members and in both cases they went from full HP to dead in mythic trials.
Do you find the Pathfinder healing mechanics lacking the power to uphold the large Damage your PC's take?
Pathfinder Player Companion: Magical Marketplace has the anwser to your problems! Do you need a better scaling healing at level 2 ? Healing Bomb !!! The monster at CR 4 just bite your tanker PC for 2d6+10? Healing Bomb! just throw that nice and shiny bomb for 1d6+int+deadly aim + point-blank shot bomb at you guy! Healing bomb!!! The anwser to your healing needs! (Please Read this like a 60's Salesman)
While this sounds neat, I'm fairly certain the text refers to the ally being healed as if they had drank your extract/potion. That would make it 1d8+2, same as usual. Of course, if someone could bribe convince the staff that it works your way I wouldn't complain.
Oracles have some cool options, but I've found being a level behind clerics in terms of access to status removal can really suck when it comes to being the party healer.