Cleric NOT healing in combat

[Fencer_guy]

So I have come across this a few times in random threads. What I have been wondering is how would this work? I think from what I have read it seems interesting but I would like to know me.

Thanks

[Thomas Long 175]

Attacking is useful, even at low levels. With self buffs later on you keep relevant in the to hit and damage categories.

Spells, either buffing or debuffing, are always appreciated.

The cleric does have some Save or sucks, even at low levels, that really change the course of a battle.

[Arikiel]

Yep. Focus heavy on buffing/debuffing. In short fights you won't have time to fully power up your party but in longer battles you can really stack the buffs to impressive levels.

[EvilPaladin]

Well, quite simply, you don't heal in combat.

Less simply, you don't use Channel Energy, Cure x Wounds, Breath of Life, etc. in combat, instead focusing on using spells like Divine Favor, Bless, Blessing of Fervor, etc. to buff the entire party and end the fight quicker, pulling out a few spont-cast cures and maybe a wand after the fight, or in the fight if it is needed[as in, the guy you are healing will die if you don't heal him, or will end the fight in one round if you do heal him, or both]. Or you focus on debuff spells like Murderous Command and Bestow Curse to make it easier for the frontliners to end the fight.

The philosophy behind this is that if you burn your actions in combat healing, you will keep fighting at the same rate, with the 3-7 other players doing what they are doing to end the encounter, and you healing them up. But if you burn actions in combat making the enemies less powerful offensively you can prevent damage, and if you make the enemy less powerful defensively or make your friends more powerful offensively, the fight ends quicker, preventing the damage taken, meaning that you save resources either way.

EDIT:I sense Ninja's nearby...

[Fake Healer]

There are people on the boards that will tell you how healing in combat is bad, a wasted action, and scales horribly with the damage being dished out at the levels in question....I am not one of them. I have seen healing in combat be the difference in keeping a Barbarian doing his excellent melee damage. I have seen healing in combat be the difference where I could see that if one guy fell the rest of the party would topple soon after.
The trick is not wasting too many resources and getting shoe-horned into a totally heal-bot role.

Incidentally I have also seen the effectiveness of a blaster caster even though they are supposed to be totally horrible and a drain on the party according to the messageboards. The messageboards are full of people who theorycraft and DPR themselves into stupidly restrictive roles in the name of some supposed "effectiveness equation".
Don't listen to them and do what you think is best in your game.

[Fencer_guy]

I was playing on Friday and the actual Heal spell seem worthwhile to cast on the martial but the Cures didn't seem to do much. When the bad guys hit for 70ish+ dmg a 30ish cure doesn't seem to do much.

I want to bring up to the cleric we have in our group but I couldnt quite remember what the arguments where about.

To be honest though I don't think it would do any good.

[Nearyn]

Healing can be just fine. As can buffing, debuffing or doing anything else really.

Last gamesession my Asmodean Cleric used Command to give the Halt-command to an enemy, meaning he planted his feet firmly on the floor and just stood there wasting his action, while my party beat the snot out of him. I didn't have to do anything else, but I was ready to.

-Nearyn

[lemeres]

Lets not forget summoning too. Putting more bodies on the field (particularly expendable ones, since they are going to disappear in 2 minutes anyway) lets you both kill things faster and keep the pressure off of your allies so they do not even need the in battle healing.

It is definitely worth keeping at least a few of those spells around and popping them off at the start of a fight. Heck, the ability to do this (as well as healing out of battle and melee in battle, particularly with reach to do AoO while you cast) is one of the reasons why one could conceivably do a solo campaign as a cleric.

[LazarX]

EvilPaladin wrote:

Well, quite simply, you don't heal in combat.

Less simply, you don't use Channel Energy, Cure x Wounds, Breath of Life, etc. in combat, i

Let me hear this straight. You wouldn't take a chance at bringing back a fallen combat with Breath of Life? It's what the spell is for after all.

It's amazing how far someone will take a "No In-Combat Healing" stance.... almost with a religious fanaticism.

[Suichimo]

LazarX wrote:

EvilPaladin wrote:

Well, quite simply, you don't heal in combat.

Less simply, you don't use Channel Energy, Cure x Wounds, Breath of Life, etc. in combat, i

Let me hear this straight. You wouldn't take a chance at bringing back a fallen combat with Breath of Life? It's what the spell is for after all.

It's amazing how far someone will take a "No In-Combat Healing" stance.... almost with a religious fanaticism.

It would do you well to actually read someone's entire comment BEFORE you say something like this:

Quote:

or in the fight if it is needed[as in, the guy you are healing will die if you don't heal him, or will end the fight in one round if you do heal him, or both].

Yes, if a fallen ally needs a Breath of Life. Do it, do it now. No one has said don't. EvilPaladin's point is that the you can mitigate far more damage by ending the fight early by helping with the offense than you can by healing while everyone else is fighting.

[ChainsawSam]

Buffing is good, debuffing is good, and hitting things is good.

Summons are absurdly good.

A flank bonus in the right place is usually as good as most buffs you could provide while doing damage.

A couple of summons can be as good as a wall spell. A summoned wall that does damage and has attacks of opportunity.

Summons take damage that nobody cares about. No one will weep for your fallen hound archon and that's a load of damage an actual party member didn't have to take.

Finally, summoning is practically a swiss army spell. Even by mid-level the summoning lists are diverse enough to handle an awful lot of situations. Flight, battlefield control, maneuvers, buffs, touch attacks...

[EvilPaladin]

LazarX wrote:

EvilPaladin wrote:

Well, quite simply, you don't heal in combat.

Less simply, you don't use Channel Energy, Cure x Wounds, Breath of Life, etc. in combat, i

Let me hear this straight. You wouldn't take a chance at bringing back a fallen combat with Breath of Life? It's what the spell is for after all.

It's amazing how far someone will take a "No In-Combat Healing" stance.... almost with a religious fanaticism.

As Suichimo said, I was referring to using Breath of Life just to heal someone[who was still alive], not bringing someone back to life. It may seem silly, but I have seen people use BoL for just healing HP damage, and not restoring people's life.

[Zhayne]

Very early in the game, the damage you take is way in excess of what a cleric can heal, so all you're doing is, at best, delaying the inevitable.

Dealing damage and KOing foes is like healing in advance; if your contribution drops an enemy a round before he'd normally get to act, then that's damage you'll never have to heal.

[wraithstrike]

Fencer_guy wrote:

So I have come across this a few times in random threads. What I have been wondering is how would this work? I think from what I have read it seems interesting but I would like to know me.

Thanks

Before this goes to far the message is NOT "never heal" anyone.

The message is do everything you can to avoid healing someone until they are really in trouble. :)

I am in a game right now. I only have 2 channels per day, and I am above level 10. I try to make sure the party does not take too much damage by buffing them so they can end the fight faster, or debuffing the bad guys do they are less effective.

[wraithstrike]

Fake Healer wrote:

There are people on the boards that will tell you how healing in combat is bad, a wasted action, and scales horribly with the damage being dished out at the levels in question....I am not one of them. I have seen healing in combat be the difference in keeping a Barbarian doing his excellent melee damage. I have seen healing in combat be the difference where I could see that if one guy fell the rest of the party would topple soon after.

The trick is not wasting too many resources and getting shoe-horned into a totally heal-bot role.

Incidentally I have also seen the effectiveness of a blaster caster even though they are supposed to be totally horrible and a drain on the party according to the messageboards. The messageboards are full of people who theorycraft and DPR themselves into stupidly restrictive roles in the name of some supposed "effectiveness equation".
Don't listen to them and do what you think is best in your game.

This is bad information.

First of all barring a corner case you are not keeping up with a barbarian, and unless you are a dedicated blaster you are not blasting anyone into oblivion.

I am sure you if you post your examples in detail they are subject to some abnormal case, and don't fit the norm.

[Artanthos]

EvilPaladin wrote:

Well, quite simply, you don't heal in combat.

Less simply, you don't use Channel Energy, Cure x Wounds, Breath of Life, etc. in combat, instead focusing on using spells like Divine Favor, Bless, Blessing of Fervor, etc. to buff the entire party and end the fight quicker, pulling out a few spont-cast cures and maybe a wand after the fight, or in the fight if it is needed[as in, the guy you are healing will die if you don't heal him, or will end the fight in one round if you do heal him, or both]. Or you focus on debuff spells like Murderous Command and Bestow Curse to make it easier for the frontliners to end the fight.

The philosophy behind this is that if you burn your actions in combat healing, you will keep fighting at the same rate, with the 3-7 other players doing what they are doing to end the encounter, and you healing them up. But if you burn actions in combat making the enemies less powerful offensively you can prevent damage, and if you make the enemy less powerful defensively or make your friends more powerful offensively, the fight ends quicker, preventing the damage taken, meaning that you save resources either way.

EDIT:I sense Ninja's nearby...

In the last couple of scenarios I played, following your advice would have resulted in a few TPK's.

Sometimes it is better to make sure the front line continues to stand. Those behind the front lines may not fare so well if it falters.

[Artanthos]

Fake Healer wrote:

There are people on the boards that will tell you how healing in combat is bad, a wasted action, and scales horribly with the damage being dished out at the levels in question....I am not one of them. I have seen healing in combat be the difference in keeping a Barbarian doing his excellent melee damage. I have seen healing in combat be the difference where I could see that if one guy fell the rest of the party would topple soon after.

The trick is not wasting too many resources and getting shoe-horned into a totally heal-bot role.

This exactly describes the last two scenarios I played.

It was a choice between keeping the barbarian up or the cleric attempting to take her spot as the groups only front-line character after she died.

[EvilPaladin]

Artanthos wrote:

EvilPaladin wrote:

Well, quite simply, you don't heal in combat.

Less simply, you don't use Channel Energy, Cure x Wounds, Breath of Life, etc. in combat, instead focusing on using spells like Divine Favor, Bless, Blessing of Fervor, etc. to buff the entire party and end the fight quicker, pulling out a few spont-cast cures and maybe a wand after the fight, or in the fight if it is needed[as in, the guy you are healing will die if you don't heal him, or will end the fight in one round if you do heal him, or both]. Or you focus on debuff spells like Murderous Command and Bestow Curse to make it easier for the frontliners to end the fight.

The philosophy behind this is that if you burn your actions in combat healing, you will keep fighting at the same rate, with the 3-7 other players doing what they are doing to end the encounter, and you healing them up. But if you burn actions in combat making the enemies less powerful offensively you can prevent damage, and if you make the enemy less powerful defensively or make your friends more powerful offensively, the fight ends quicker, preventing the damage taken, meaning that you save resources either way.

EDIT:I sense Ninja's nearby...

In the last couple of scenarios I played, following your advice would have resulted in a few TPK's.

Sometimes it is better to make sure the front line continues to stand. Those behind the front lines may not fare so well if it falters.

I have been in those situations as well, and its important to know when those situations arise, but I've also been in cases where a cleric channeled where he could finished the fight right then and there with one spell or strike, and I come across those more often. Which is why I said to pull out spontaneously cast cures in combat as needed, but also emphasized other tactics.

[NOG the Demoralizer]

I introduce my fire cleric as a sorcerer when sitting down at tables with people I don't know as the class is built for damage. The channels and occasional heals are a nice surprise for them when it is absolutely necessary.

[Scavion]

I find the parties who espouse combat healing often have GM's who "ensure" the party is drained of resources after so and so encounters.

[Gwen Smith]

I tend to use the same tactic with healing that I do with poker: I estimate how many more hands/rounds I can last before going broke/going down.

As long as I can last at least two more rounds, I stay on the offense. Once I'm at two rounds left, I play/fight more defensively. If I'm under two rounds I buy in again/take some healing.

From the cleric's perspective, if the party can easily survive the nest round, I keep fighting. If one party member is in danger of going down, I can decide whether to fight or heal. If half of the party is in danger of going down, a good channel will buy most of them one more round, which might be all we need.

Note that this kind of action-economy estimation doesn't apply to life link or shield other where you can heal comrades without taking an action.

[Phithis]

There's nothing wrong with in-combat healing, but there are "classes" that are more efficient about it, like Oradins. That being said a cleric built correctly can definitely keep a party up. Now, as far as non-healing clerics there are definitely good ways to go. Off the top of my head take 1st level as a cross-blooded sorcerer dip. Go Elemental (water)/Dragon or Orc. Take Magical Lineage as one of your traits choosing Fireball. If Human take Wayang Spellhunter (also fireball). Take Rime spell and eventually Dazing spell. For your cleric levels take Theologian with the Fire domain. Now, go blow up and control stuff.

[Raymond Lambert]

Many of the regulars I play with have combat monstrosities. they can over kill so much that a fourth player of offense is not needed. Especially in the pre year four PFS games. Consider the make up and system mastery of your party before choosing your spells and action.

I find so many PCs never bother with a shield and or heavy armor. This often gives them more offense in the form of extra damage or speed but leads them closer to being vulnerable themselves and more appreciative of healing. Heavy AC groups might prefer more liberal casting of offensive buffs over spells held in reserve for healing, or that you swing yourself. Again, look at the table when deciding what spells to prepare/learn and what actions to execute round to round.a heavy AC will not care about a single hit confident only half the next full attack might hit later but the light AC will want more consistent healing fearingeveryswing of the next full attack.

[Scavion]

Heavy Armor isn't always better than medium or light armor even from an AC standpoint.

A Shield likewise can be useful but having a good ac without one is still attainable as well.

There are few classes who can afford to tank their AC for more offense and it's usually because they have some other feature to back it up. Paladins have swift action heals and Barbarians have huge DR and loads of health for example.

Keeping AC up is usually just a matter of system mastery. Jingasa, Dusty Rose Prism, maintaining a good dex(I can't stand not having atleast a 14 Dex), actually upgrading your armor because it's way cheaper, Ring of Protection and Amulet of Natural Armor...

[nate lange]

never be afraid to heal in combat- you're probably not going to match the fighter/barbarian/whatever-combat-monster in damage, so keeping him from dying is more damage output than you attacking and letting him drop... that said, situations where you need to play as (or even more so, build as) a devoted healer are rare. i've been playing with a group where there are several highly-optimized damage dealers and a controller, we regularly fought CRs that were APL+3 or more and we needed an optimized healer (it wasn't uncommon to face things that could drop a party member in 2 rounds, or cause truly crippling status effects with a very difficult DC), but that is an extreme case.

most of the time a cleric can play whatever build/style you prefer and just provide a little triage care when necessary in combat. the last game i played, i made a Wisdom based, negative energy channeling, melee cleric of Gorum (using the guided hand feat)- he had the DCs to use some save-or-suck spells and really good melee ability (drop a couple party buffs-- or just the quickened divine power that he took magic lineage and fate's favored for-- and then jump in stacking channel smite and the domain smites from ferocity and rage); i just memorized a handful of cure spells 'just in case' and made sure i had a cure wand for out of combat healing and he worked great. sometimes healing is necessary and there's no need to shy away from that, but sometimes a well-timed Command or Hold Person can be even more effective (and sometimes wrecking something with your great works out perfectly too, lol).

[Artanthos]

nate lange wrote:

that said, situations where you need to play as (or even more so, build as) a devoted healer are rare.

I agree.

My barbarian/battle oracle IS a dedicated combat monster, and usually the highest DPR at the table. Even so, if it comes to a choice between attacking or saving another characters life, I'm going to toss a heal.

Hell, my wizard's been know to toss the occasional heal, if needed, to stabilize a bleeding character.

[DrDeth]

Fake Healer wrote:

There are people on the boards that will tell you how healing in combat is bad, a wasted action, and scales horribly with the damage being dished out at the levels in question....I am not one of them. I have seen healing in combat be the difference in keeping a Barbarian doing his excellent melee damage. I have seen healing in combat be the difference where I could see that if one guy fell the rest of the party would topple soon after.

The trick is not wasting too many resources and getting shoe-horned into a totally heal-bot role.

Don't listen to them and do what you think is best in your game.

Right, but it's absolutely true that until healing is NEEDED then Buffing, battlefield control etc is a better use of your actions.

So, heal when needed, do the 'top off healing" only after combat.

[DrDeth]

Zhayne wrote:

Very early in the game, the damage you take is way in excess of what a cleric can heal, so all you're doing is, at best, delaying the inevitable.

Not true, healing can be boosted just like damage. And incoming damage is subject to AC, miss chances, ER, DR and etc.

[Thomas Long 175]

DrDeth wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Very early in the game, the damage you take is way in excess of what a cleric can heal, so all you're doing is, at best, delaying the inevitable.

Not true, healing can be boosted just like damage. And incoming damage is subject to AC, miss chances, ER, DR and etc.

Once again, it has been proved time and again damage even against considerable defenses can reach into the thousands per round.

Healing cannot.

Lets not get into it again. Everyone here knows it is completely possible to 1 shot people with a correct leveled encounter.

[Scavion]

DrDeth wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Very early in the game, the damage you take is way in excess of what a cleric can heal, so all you're doing is, at best, delaying the inevitable.

Not true, healing can be boosted just like damage. And incoming damage is subject to AC, miss chances, ER, DR and etc.

If the amount of damage coming in is capable of being dealt with through healing, its quite simply not likely to be that much of a threat to begin with.

Theres really only one or two builds that manage combat healing well and neither of them involve the cleric whom is quite awful at it.

Breath of Life and Heal are exceptions of course and useful most of the time.

[Fromper]

I have a cleric character in PFS that I don't introduce as a cleric. He's a pirate. The fact that the pirate goddess gives him spellcasting and a couple of domains is very useful. But I don't want people getting the idea that he has more healing available than his wands of Infernal Healing and Cure Light Wounds, because he doesn't.

He channels negative energy, and he can only do that once per day, because he's so ugly and rude. And he only prepares spells that defeat enemies faster.

Once he's high enough level for Breath of Life, I may consider prepping that, too, but it'll be a while. He's only level 4, and I have so many PCs that I don't play him that often.

[Simon Legrande]

In the end it all comes down to anecdotal evidence vs anecdotal evidence with both sides claiming to have proof that their way is the right way. The best thing for you to do as a healing-enabled caster is to play with your group. After a few sessions you'll have an idea of where you fall on the spectrum. Then you'll have your own anecdotal evidence to rely on.

As a side note, since clerics can spontaneously cast cure spells, it does no harm to prep other spells and swap them out as needed. Oracles are forced to take the cure spell at every spell level so they will also have a heal on hand.

[Jon Otaguro 428]

When I play clerics, my friend knows that I won't be a heal first cleric. However, if someone is in danger of going down, I will heal them.

Though this does bring back a memory of playing this AP that had giants. I was a bard and my friend was a druid. This guy makes a 7th level barbarian with a 14AC. He dies in the first battle. This brings up all the notions of AC doesn't matter and healing not mattering. We told him - what did you expect, we had a bard and druid healing the party.

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

There used to be a bunch of extreme fanatics on the boards that would practically foam at the mouth while screaming to NEVER HEAL IN COMBAT OR YOU ARE %$^#&#*&!

That is not nearly as much the case anymore. There are still a couple of those fanatics around and one might still drop into the thread and insult anyone and everyone for even possibly considering healing in combat.

Most people will agree that healing in combat is usually not your most advantageous move. There is usually something else that a cleric or an oracle can do that is better. Plus, as mentioned, there is the danger that some few players will take for granted that you will stand behind them and cure all the damage that they take from their own stupidity.

Having said that, there are times it is a good idea.

Don't want him to die because raise dead is quite expensive...

Want to keep the only/last martial standing up between you and the green thing with teeth...

For whatever reason, none of the spells your PC has remaining are useful in situation X and your PC can't fight worth crap...

Finally have the heal spell. Ok, this one is fairly often useful in a tough fight, since you can probably bring a friend from near dead to completely fine in 1 round. But that's still a high level spell.

[Zhayne]

DrDeth wrote:

Zhayne wrote:

Very early in the game, the damage you take is way in excess of what a cleric can heal, so all you're doing is, at best, delaying the inevitable.

Not true, healing can be boosted just like damage. And incoming damage is subject to AC, miss chances, ER, DR and etc.

Damage you take exceeds healing you can pump out even including all that, unless your GM's dice are ice cold.

[Kane Elish]

EvilPaladin wrote:

Or, you will still be a cleric who is capable of healing, but just enjoys bashing peoples skulls in with a Morningstar when its not needed.

Truly, you are a man after my own burning heart sir!

[Green Beard the Pirate]

Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

Having said that, there are times it is a good idea.

Don't want him to die because raise dead is quite expensive...

Want to keep the only/last martial standing up between you and the green thing with teeth...

"HEY!!! Whatdya got agains' green guys wit' teeth???"

[Lincoln Hills]

Since having to stand back up from prone puts a real crimp in warriors' effectiveness, I've never had an objection to slapping a quick cure on the front lines. And channeling, despite the relatively low number of hit points it restores, is one of the most economical ways to soften the effects of area-of-effect attacks.

I'd say that a cleric who never heals is deliberately crippling himself... and a cleric who does nothing but heal is deliberately crippling himself.

[Sierra Heartward]

Lincoln Hills wrote:

I'd say that a cleric who never heals is deliberately crippling himself... and a cleric who does nothing but heal is deliberately crippling himself.

Well said, sir. As my lady's agent, I must be able to both prevent untimely entrance to the Boneyard, as well as hasten those who are overdue in their travels.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a few posts/responses. If it's not advice, don't post it.

[Akerlof]

As a GM, I've seen so many people extend encounters, often resulting in PCsd getting knocked out, because they chose to heal instead of take a swing at that enemy with single digit hit points. It happens pretty regularly in PFS sub tier 1-2 games, where cold dice can extend combat for several rounds and most enemies will go down in 2-3 hits even if you don't have a Str bonus (and you're pretty close to 50/50 on hitting them even with a +0 attack.) But I also see it going on up at the 6th and 7th level tables as well.

You've got to be aware of the situation and think like an experienced combatant:
-- How hard is the enemy hitting your allies? Are they hitting weakly enough that an ally can take several hits before going down? Are they hitting so hard that your own healing has a low chance of keeping the ally up?
---- Also, if you bring an ally back up into the single digit hit points, is the enemy hitting hard enough to put him past negative con with one solid swing? Sometimes the safest place to be is stable on the ground.

-- How difficult is it to hit your enemy? Are the full BAB, high Str murder hobos having trouble hitting? Or are the rogues hitting on rolls lower than 10?

--What's your party composition and build? Are you in the traditional Cleric, Fighter, Magic User, Thief group; or do you have a Slayer, a Fighter, Two Gunslingers and an Oradin along for the ride? Are you a 16 Str core Cleric, or are you a 5 Str Gnomish Heaven's Oracle, and are you facing a horde of Undead or a single Human Barbarian enemy?

-- How much damage have the enemies taken? Have they taken a couple solid hits/full attacks? Have they only been hit once or twice, or by weak attacks?
-- How much damage has it taken to kill similar enemies?
----(Most enemies within about 1 CR of APL won't last more than two rounds worth of full attacks by a full BAB character built to do damage and two 3/4 BAB characters who do damage as their secondary focus, that's just how the game is designed.)

-- What tactical options do you have? You can often do more than one thing a round, like draw an AoO to allow another character to cast or move, as well as attacking or casting a spell yourself. Things to consider:
---- When will the enemy act next relative to the members of your party?
---- Is there a way to position yourself, your party members, or the enemy to mitigate damage, control when that damage comes in, or redirect the enemy's targeting?
---- What are all your options? Attack (physically), heal, cast an offensive spell, cast a buff, drop caltrops, any of dozens of other things?
---- Is the enemy intelligent; attacking key targets, or do they just pick whatever is in front of them or focus on whatever piqued their interest first?
---- Example: A Barbarian and a Battle Cleric are frontlining against a difficult enemy. The Barbarian has already eaten one full attack and is likely to be dropped in the next round but the Battle Cleric can take at least 1 full attack before getting dropped. Both act before the enemy: The Barbarian delays, the Battle Cleric moves to draw the AoO and then attacks. The Barbarian then attacks and moves back to a point where he cannot be full attacked. The enemy now has two options: Full attack the Cleric and face a Barbarian next round or forego its full attack, draw an AoO from the Cleric, and move up to the Barbarian.

There are a lot of things Clerics, especially, can do in combat beyond just healing. Healing is resource intensive: You can almost certainly prevent more damage with a Command (Halt), Murderous Command, Hold Person, etc. than you can heal with the same level of Cure spell, and you also increase the number of actions your party gets relative to the enemy when you do the same. At low levels, Clerics don't make great pure casters but they make competent meleers. At higher levels, Clerics have a lot more magical options, (And thus the opportunity cost of a Cure spell increases: Cure 4d8+7 (25 hp on average) or summon 1d3 Aurochs to trample through your enemy's formation?) not the least of which is increasing their own combat power to keep up with other meleers. Healing in combat is a judgment call, and you need to pay attention to the whole situation and understand your options to do a good job of making that call.

Passive options like Lifelink, Shield Other, Bastion of Good, and Ablative Barrier are almost always superior options because they keep your own actions available for things like removing status conditions and casting controlling spells that can really swing the fight in your favor. And a lot of those types of effects end up mitigating more HP damage than Cure spells would be able to heal anyway.

[Thomas, the Tiefling Hero!]

Fencer_guy wrote:

So I have come across this a few times in random threads. What I have been wondering is how would this work? I think from what I have read it seems interesting but I would like to know me.

Thanks

The cleric is an interesting class; unlike many (most?) classes, it doesn't "build itself", with most characters of that class being pretty similar with just a few outliers.

I mean, if you play a fighter, your class pretty much tells you "You're going to hit things with weapons". There's mostly just two fighters: melee and archery; then if you want to be different you could do maneuvers or something.

Or if you're a wizard, your BAB prohibits you from being an effective weapon-user without trying really, really hard. Mostly all you do is cast spells, with most of your decision-making centering around what spells you decide to cast. (And even then, there's essentially two categories: buffing and offense.)

But the cleric? The cleric's base chassis sits in the middle of everything, without pushing you in one direction. You have medium BAB, so maybe you hit things, maybe not. You have medium armor, so maybe you stand in the front, maybe not. You have variable weapon proficiencies (based on deity), so maybe you can deal some damage, maybe not. You have a spell list with a mix of offense, defense, buffing, utility... And then there's domain powers...

The cleric can be built more different ways than almost any other class. One of those ways is "healer", but that's in no way a default. There IS no default cleric.

I was at a level 10-11 session just yesterday where I was one of THREE clerics in the party (alongside a barbarian, a fighter, and a gunslinger), and not a single one of us was a healer. Being clerics meant we COULD heal, but we weren't HEALERS. The best healing any of us could do was just cast a vanilla healing spell with no bells or whistles.

All three of us consistently had better things to do in combat than to heal anybody. For instance, I dismissed some demons, I trumped some magical darkness with my Nimbus of Light domain power, attacked things at +18/+13 for 1d8+17, and so forth. The others used Versatile Channeling to blast enemies (when there were large groups), or cast buff spells on everybody, etc.

Keep in mind that none of us was staunchly against EVER healing in combat. I myself had heal prepared and was carrying two scrolls of breath of life. Totally would have used them (or even spontaneous cures) if at any time that had looked like the most helpful thing I could do to help the team succeed.

It never was. I finished the scenario with that heal still prepped, and those scrolls still intact.

I'm 11th level, played up from 1st, and in all that time I can think of exactly ONE combat in which the thing to do was heal. And in that combat, I was healing myself as I tanked an alchemist on a ledge, keeping him busy until the rest of the party could get through the mooks and climb up to help.

One time, in 10 levels of play. Because despite being a cleric, I'm not a healer. Cleric =/= Healer. A cleric could choose to be a healer, and I've met a pretty effective one, but a cleric is only the thing he's built to be, and just like any other character, any option outside that purpose is going to be a backup option.

For most clerics, cure spells are like the barbarian's bow: something you pull out in exceptional circumstances where your main schtick isn't working.