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.
You've got to be aware of the situation and think like an experienced combatant:
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.
Cure 4d8+7 (25 hp on average) or summon 1d3 Aurochs to trample through your enemy's formation?
But will that next hit actually hit? And are the PC's aware that one hit will kill the foe?
True.
If the foe fails his save, yes.
Summons is a Full Round casting. So, very situational.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using "never heal in combat" is essentially a straw man, obviously, you do not want to lose a party member. People who want to emerge victorious from a one sided internet argument will hold it up as if that has been the discussion all along.
The reality is that hit points are a thing, and using almost all of them is the same as using none of them. There is no reason to heal up damage that won't kill someone.
Using "never heal in combat" is essentially a straw man, obviously, you do not want to lose a party member. People who want to emerge victorious from a one sided internet argument will hold it up as if that has been the discussion all along...
My point was that it used to be a fairly/somewhat common view point. But that people do NOT usually hold that position any longer.
There was a time when anyone who mentioned wanting to consider having the capability to heal in combat was solidly berated and insulted.
There are a couple of people in this very thread who seem to be coming close to this. They even wrote to let the other guy die and he'll bring back a better guy next time. But you can't read tone of voice and they may be exaggerating for effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Experience and circumstance will guide a cleric or oracle when a good time to heal is, and when a good time to perform another action is.
As for the OP - it's alright to try limiting yourself to not heal during combat as a learning experience, yet there are times when it can be helpful every now and then. Healing after combat, very much worthwhile.
Spellcasting tends to leave a PC vulnerable, and healing allies at low levels tends to pull clerics closer to the fray. On the other hand, a cure spell is occasionally the difference between keeping an ally in the ring or needing to bring an ally back from the dead.
There are a lot more useful spells to assist a group in combat from time to time, yet sometimes circumstance forces a cleric to heal.
My two cents - Learn not to resort to combat healing as your first method to deal with a fight, yet keep it an open option in case something bonkers happens. It should still be on the options list.
Something like the following (and certainly not written in stone)
Plan A - Buff spell
Plan B - Apply weapon to opponent's face
Plan C - Heal nearly dead ally (it's at least the third round, if you're still fighting then it's serious)
Plan D - Summon something to cover group's retreat
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."In addition to the spells gained by oracles as they gain levels, each oracle also adds all of either the cure spells or the inflict spells to her list of spells known (cure spells include all spells with “cure” in the name, inflict spells include all spells with “inflict” in the name). These spells are added as soon as the oracle is capable of casting them. This choice is made when the oracle gains her first level and cannot be changed."
Sorry, I'm missing the point you're trying to make. Should I also have pointed out that non-good clerics get inflict instead if cure? This being a thread about healing, I didn't think that was necessary.
Oracles don;t have to take Cure spells at any levels. They are spontaneous casters and Cure spells are automatically "known' to them.
|
Oracles don;t have to take Cure spells at any levels. They are spontaneous casters and Cure spells are automatically "known' to them.
An evil Oracle would have to learn the Cure spells from their limited number of spells they get. They get Inflict spells because they're Evil, but not Cure spells, and vice versa for Good Oracles.
If they were like Clerics, where they knew all Divine spells, yes, they would have both. But Oracles have to pick their spells, like a Sorcerer.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
20 bucks says I can prove otherwise. :P
Damage you take exceeds healing you can pump out even including all that, unless your GM's dice are ice cold.If you are playing a barbarian with crap AC.
If, however, your AC is 20-30 points above APL, the need for healing will be minimal and will exceed damage incoming when required.
20 bucks says I solo tanked 6 advanced mummies in a 9-11 tier scenario a couple of weeks ago for 5 rounds, with a level 8 character, while the rest of the party was paralyzed. I got hit exactly once.
The only way you're going to reliably hit a character with a solid defense is to massively exceed the suggested values in the CR charts. That would prove nothing other that that the GM can arbitrarily kill characters.
|
Sorry, I'm missing the point you're trying to make. Should I also have pointed out that non-good clerics get inflict instead if cure? This being a thread about healing, I didn't think that was necessary.
You appear to have missed that his text was from the oracle class writeup, not the cleric.
An evil Oracle would have to learn the Cure spells from their limited number of spells they get. They get Inflict spells because they're Evil, but not Cure spells, and vice versa for Good Oracles.
No, they don't. Oracles don't have the alignment language in their class description that clerics do.
Emmit quoted the entirely of the text regarding an oracles choice of cure or inflict spells.
20 bucks says I can prove otherwise. :P
Damage you take exceeds healing you can pump out even including all that, unless your GM's dice are ice cold.If you are playing a barbarian with crap AC.
If, however, your AC is 20-30 points above APL, the need for healing will be minimal and will exceed damage incoming when required.
20 bucks says I solo tanked 6 advanced mummies in a 9-11 tier scenario a couple of weeks ago for 5 rounds, with a level 8 character, while the rest of the party was paralyzed. I got hit exactly once.
The only way you're going to reliably hit a character with a solid defense is to massively exceed the suggested values in the CR charts. That would prove nothing other that that the GM can arbitrarily kill characters.
Wow the whole party died except you since you boosted your ac?
|
|
An evil Oracle would have to learn the Cure spells from their limited number of spells they get. They get Inflict spells because they're Evil, but not Cure spells, and vice versa for Good Oracles.No, they don't. Oracles don't have the alignment language in their class description that clerics do.
Emmit quoted the entirely of the text regarding an oracles choice of cure or inflict spells.
"In addition to the spells gained by oracles as they gain levels, each oracle also adds all of either the cure spells or the inflict spells to her list of spells known (cure spells include all spells with “cure” in the name, inflict spells include all spells with “inflict” in the name). These spells are added as soon as the oracle is capable of casting them. This choice is made when the oracle gains her first level and cannot be changed."
Emphasis mine. If what you're saying is that it's not actually based on alignment, I will agree with that on a second read-through. But it still means that an Oracle will only have one or the other unless they go out of their way to get it by spending their precious spells known.
|
And yet my battle oracle with Power Attack, 21 strength, and a +1 longsword usually has something better to do in combat than cast his known Cure Moderate Wounds spell. And even if he can't get to the enemies to bash them with a sword, it's usually not worth giving up the spell slot that would be used to cast the spells I actually picked for him because they're more useful than that.
In an emergency, I'll cast a Cure spell. But I think he's actually done so maybe once or twice in 5 levels, while going through a wand of Cure Light Wounds along the way.
Sorry, I'm missing the point you're trying to make. Should I also have pointed out that non-good clerics get inflict instead if cure? This being a thread about healing, I didn't think that was necessary.You appear to have missed that his text was from the oracle class writeup, not the cleric.
An evil Oracle would have to learn the Cure spells from their limited number of spells they get. They get Inflict spells because they're Evil, but not Cure spells, and vice versa for Good Oracles.No, they don't. Oracles don't have the alignment language in their class description that clerics do.
Emmit quoted the entirely of the text regarding an oracles choice of cure or inflict spells.
No, I didn't miss that fact. I was asking why it was relevant. In my original post I also didn't mention that non-good clerics don't automatically spontaneously cast cure spells because that also wasn't relevant to a thread about healing. See?
|
|
No, I didn't miss that fact. I was asking why it was relevant. In my original post I also didn't mention that non-good clerics don't automatically spontaneously cast cure spells because that also wasn't relevant to a thread about healing. See?
I don't see any mention in your original post that you were talking about spontaneous inflict oracles. All you said was that oracles were forced to take cure spells, which is only true for those that choose to gain inflict spells for free. My Life oracle has never been forced to take a cure spell as they are part of her spells known for free.
|
Many people who played MMOs before traditional RPGs have the preconceived notion that healing is necessary to complete a fight. Often times healing is useful, but it shouldn't be necessary.
If the 'tank' can't survive w/o more than an emergency heal for the length of time it takes to resolve the encounter, the problem is elsewhere besides the Cleric that is 'refusing' to heal. The first culprit to look at is the 'tank's' own survivability. (which is more than just AC and HP)
However it could easily also be a group-fail responsible by rest of the party.. if the fight's not over by round 4 or 5 it's not the guy getting hit's fault that he can't keep getting hit indefinitely. Indeed, the Cleric that's "refusing to heal" can address that group-fail by doing non-healing stuff like, bringing down the baddies before anyone dies. Healing can always be done after the fight, so long as you win the fight first.
No, I didn't miss that fact. I was asking why it was relevant. In my original post I also didn't mention that non-good clerics don't automatically spontaneously cast cure spells because that also wasn't relevant to a thread about healing. See?I don't see any mention in your original post that you were talking about spontaneous inflict oracles. All you said was that oracles were forced to take cure spells, which is only true for those that choose to gain inflict spells for free. My Life oracle has never been forced to take a cure spell as they are part of her spells known for free.
Which is what I meant when I said oracles are forced to take cure spells.
Nudging us back topic-wards, I've noticed a close overlap between the opinions 'Clerics have to be dedicated healers' and 'I don't want to play a cleric'. I'm not sure which statement is the cart and which statement is the horse in this situation. It's hard to claim clerics are "just" healers these days (even the most strongly focused healer gets a whole other domain to play with.)
Back in OD&D days, before Spontaneous casting, many clerics had to fill nearly all their spell slots with Cure spells. Indeed, this could be rather boring.
I have seen poorly built parties and poorly built clerics, where the party is a Fighter, a BBn, a Ranger, two rogues and one lone cleric where the martials go charging off into battle without a thought for defenses or tactics, so yeah, the cleric gets stuck being a 'heal-bot".
But if the party is well balanced with two spellcasters (cleric & wizard for example)doing battlefield control and buff spells, then yes- only emergency healing is needed. Usually that's once a battle, near the end. So in a five round combat, the "healer' might cast one Cure spell, and maybe channel once in response to a area effect spell. Rest of the time he's buffing or supporting or even laying down some hurt.
So I'd have to say that "in combat healing is necessary" but it's usually only maybe once, while the tank is laying down the a FAO on the BBEG and the BBEG is doing the same back. Running around for 5 rounds going "here's a CLW for you, and a CLW for you, and a ..." is a poor use of resources. Maybe that's what so many folks think of as "in combat healing".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Usually that's once a battle, near the end. So in a five round combat, the "healer' might cast one Cure spell, and maybe channel once in response to a area effect spell. Rest of the time he's buffing or supporting or even laying down some hurt.
I agree with most of what you said, but regarding the above, even that goes significantly beyond my own experience.
Can't remember if I already posted this, but my own cleric has only been in one combat out of 11 levels of gameplay where he's needed to heal in combat. The vast majority of times I've played alongside other clerics (or other healing-capable PCs), the experience has been about the same, with most combats going by without any healing until afterwards.
And given the volume of different people I've played with, covering the spectrum of ages, backgrounds, experience/skill, etc; and have consistently had the same experience, I'd venture a guess that this is the "norm" and that maybe the "need a heal in most fights" dynamic may be specific to a certain type of niche playstyle.
The issue isn't one of a cleric not healing in combat. Its a number of clashing parDigm. Your expectations pf him for being a cleric. His for what he wants being different and esther anyone can recognise what the best choice is.
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...
This is in fact one of the problems with clerics.
It's HARD to know how to build one well.
I've seen two clerics played in my "career" as a GM and player. They both sucked. I've also had a few cleric NPCs when I ran original adventures. They sucked.
|
|
I agree with Ganryu on this one. Some classes are really easy to optimize, which is why people complain they're overpowered - the optimized builds are pretty much the default, so everyone who plays the class does it well. Clerics are most certainly NOT one of those classes.
The default cleric build is pretty good at a few things, but not particularly great at anything. They do healing, buffs, some offensive/control spells, and maybe some weapon combat. But they'll never be great at all 4 of those things. You pretty much have to pick 2 (at most) and specialize if you want to build a really good cleric. And it's not intuitively obvious how to do that for people new to making clerics.
My own first cleric in PFS is pretty weak because I tried to do everything with her. For my second cleric, I backed off trying to use weapons, so I could dump strength and have more points for wisdom and charisma to specialize in casting and healing. And most of the casting is buff focused. He's intentionally a support build.
Then there's my third PFS cleric - the "I don't do healing" build. Literally. High wisdom offensive caster who isn't built to do anything else. Sure, he could prepare buff and/or healing spells, but he doesn't. He has a couple of wands and scrolls for that stuff, but that's not his role in a party. He's built for offensive casting, and touching enemies with his debuff domain power (Chaos domain). As a backup plan, he punches people with his cestus, or occasionally tries a trip or disarm with a whip from 10-15 feet away. Since he's a negative channeler, he couldn't spontaneously cure if he wanted to. His role is on the front line, touching enemies with offensive magic, including the occasional spontaneous inflict when he's out of other ideas.
|
Cleric's are not too bad, but with how badly Paizo has treated them since 3.5, they really could use some cool options. I would say that it's less an issue that the Cleric is hard to optimize as it is that even optimized, it's just not that great, but t's really hard to get the class to do what you feel like it should be able to do, regardless of optimization. With the way the Warpriest is looking, this is my greatest hope from the ACG nowadays, some cool Cleric options.
Two builds that I've really enjoyed are the Reach Cleric of Eristal (growth Domain, Summon Good Monster, Longspear, Combat Reflexes) and the Fire Cleric (of Sarenrae only on the character sheet, doubles up on Burning Hands and Fireball Domain spells, probably leaning towards Dervish Dance and mobility). Both place in battle healing as a last priority and tend to focus on acting like player characters rather than NPC backups played by a player.
|
|
Wow the whole party died except you since you boosted your ac?20 bucks says I can prove otherwise. :P
Damage you take exceeds healing you can pump out even including all that, unless your GM's dice are ice cold.If you are playing a barbarian with crap AC.
If, however, your AC is 20-30 points above APL, the need for healing will be minimal and will exceed damage incoming when required.
20 bucks says I solo tanked 6 advanced mummies in a 9-11 tier scenario a couple of weeks ago for 5 rounds, with a level 8 character, while the rest of the party was paralyzed. I got hit exactly once.
The only way you're going to reliably hit a character with a solid defense is to massively exceed the suggested values in the CR charts. That would prove nothing other that that the GM can arbitrarily kill characters.
No, the whole party lived. I took point and let nothing past me.
No, the whole party lived. I took point and let nothing past me.Wow the whole party died except you since you boosted your ac?20 bucks says I can prove otherwise. :P
Damage you take exceeds healing you can pump out even including all that, unless your GM's dice are ice cold.If you are playing a barbarian with crap AC.
If, however, your AC is 20-30 points above APL, the need for healing will be minimal and will exceed damage incoming when required.
20 bucks says I solo tanked 6 advanced mummies in a 9-11 tier scenario a couple of weeks ago for 5 rounds, with a level 8 character, while the rest of the party was paralyzed. I got hit exactly once.
The only way you're going to reliably hit a character with a solid defense is to massively exceed the suggested values in the CR charts. That would prove nothing other that that the GM can arbitrarily kill characters.
That sounds like quite the softball encounter. Somehow, every party member got paralyzed, you were in a position of disallowing the mummies from coup de gracing them(Why wouldn't they right?) and the Mummies didn't just retreat since plinking away for 5 rounds is a downright idiotic thing to do for intelligent undead.
|
|
I'm more surprised that they all rolled 4 on their 1d4 round of paralyzation, and then decided to just lay there for the fifth turn.
They may not have been hit with all six auras at once. If they got paralyzed in one round and then another one moved up to catch them in the aura, there could be multiple overlapping durations.
|
|
I find that any option taken by a cleric built to do that function well is a solid one. So whether it is in combat healing, bfc, debuffing, whatever.
Conversely any actions taken by a poorly built cleric tend not to be very worthwhile. Let me extend both above statements to pretty much all classes.
I've seen 1d4 and 2d4 burning hands at levels 1-2 from party members. Wasted actions.
I have cast 1d4+2 and 2d4+4, on failed save 1dmg/rnd for 1d4 rounds +1d6 for 1 round burning hands at levels 1-3.
Clerics are no different in terms of what they wish to do. Healing can look like that or better. Burning hands can look like that or better. System mastery and play style dictate the value of an action. Almost all actions have an inherent value, however.
I have been playing for a while and have seen and absolutely needed I'm combat healing on multiple occasions. Usually a lot is not needed, sometimes the cleric is burning channels to keep the remaining group members from falling.
One thing that healing has over most other options that people seem to forget is that it is reliable and grows more consistent with level. Sure, an attack may be the better choice but will it hit? What if you roll low damage and don't have a high Str, will they drop? Sure, you could cast a debuff but what if they save? Do they also have SR, if so what if you can't beat it? There are more variables in other actions than typically exist for healing (or direct damage spells for that matter). But if you're in range, your target is being healed. The amount is going to be reasonably predictable.
Blasting is the same. You know your DMG and how much it is on a save. My oracle does 5d4+15. I expect at least 10 or 20 damage on a bad day. But typically will see 12-30. Since I can heal, I have to weigh how hard teammates are being hit, how often and whether doing the damage is better than 7-21 healing or if a burning disarm or murderous command is the way to go but risking losing the action to a made save. The healing and damage will not fail. But the debuffs might. My play style is to use debuffs as a last resort.....heals come long before that and nukes come first.
On the other hand my Cleric of Urgathoa has no healing-at all. Not even a wand. He has told people he doesn't have healing capability but we have had people go through 2 encounters or so and then ask for healing and the looks on their faces and awkward table silence is quite amusing. In fact, this happened with two clerics at our table (both worshipping evil gods). We stopped adventuring and went to town to purchase a healing wand. When we needed the in combat healing (during a fight) we didn't have it and the encounter took on a very second edition struggle to avoid being hurt feel. Nobody felt very safe (except the other cleric and I because we had a trick for healing each other).
So make your cleric how you want and consider that the game is built around all character functions. Just be decent (not even good) at what you want to do and you will be alright. The better you are at your goals, the less hassle you'll experience trying to execute them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cleric's are not too bad, but with how badly Paizo has treated them since 3.5, they really could use some cool options. I would say that it's less an issue that the Cleric is hard to optimize as it is that even optimized, it's just not that great, but t's really hard to get the class to do what you feel like it should be able to do, regardless of optimization. ...
Wow. I really have to disagree with this. With the archtypes, expanded domain powers, variant channeling, and versatile channeling; I think PF has done a whole bunch more for them than 3.x ever did. They are one of the more common and powerful options I see at tables. Both my home games and PFS.
Many people want a primary caster, but find it hard to get sorcerers and wizards to survive. They also don't want to be completely helpless when spells are out or just not a good choice. Yet they still want to have powerful magic. Clerics can and do give you all of that. Their magic may not be quite as powerful and versatile as a wizard's, but they are a heck of a lot less vulnerable.
I think clerics are one of the most powerful and self sufficient classes. I also think they are easier to build pretty decent then most other powerful classes.
I personally don't like playing them from an RP perspective. I find it difficult to justify in my own head the dedicated to a particular diety vs. the background for most adventuring. Just doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
That sounds like quite the softball encounter. Somehow, every party member got paralyzed, you were in a position of disallowing the mummies from coup de gracing them(Why wouldn't they right?) and the Mummies didn't just retreat since plinking away for 5 rounds is a downright idiotic thing to do for intelligent undead.
Or, possibly, they were at the end of a blocked corridor, emerging from acloves in the corridor.
The encounter was designed to limit the number of PC's that could engage the Mummies simultaneously. It wound up limiting the mummies movement.
|
|
I'm more surprised that they all rolled 4 on their 1d4 round of paralyzation, and then decided to just lay there for the fifth turn.
As for taking point, maybe if it was a 5' wide hallway?
5' hallway, with acloves. 5th turn, people needed to stand up and move into position.
Six separate DC 18 will saves. most failed 2 or 3, with the longest duration prevailing.
It was sheer luck, and a GM reroll, that I avoided paralysis (Will is my weakest save). It was a high AC and defensive spells that allowed me to survive long enough for everyone to recover.
The important thing with clerics is that (depending on attribute generation method) you usually need to decide what they're going to do in combat right from the start.
Cleric type 1 is a good damage dealer (usually with very high Strength) who uses spells like Divine Favor for extra combat power.
Cleric type 2 has maxed out Wisdom and uses 'Save Negates' spells to neutralise foes.
Cleric type 3 has decent Int & Charisma and makes a good party face. In combat they tend to buff or heal.
It's possible to make other types of cleric, blasters and so on, depending on spell domains.
The other important thing is not to take anyone's advice on in-combat healing too seriously, since its utility varies a lot according to GM style and party makeup. In my current party (core-only, lots of inexperienced players) in-combat healing seems practically essential. In my previous game (a few experienced players) it didn't.
I've seen two clerics played in my "career" as a GM and player.
Twice I have seen an entire adventuring party made of clerics. Then again, I've seen the "entire party of one class" thing a few times (All wizards, all martials - one paladin rounded out the other three fighters, all monks, etc.).
It can be fun in the short run, or if a campaign is designed specifically for an entire party of the same class. An all cleric party proved to be fairly versatile, though combat encounters against magic resistant monsters (constructs and such) tend to drag on.
Usually, I see far more "four man band" home games where one person plays a martial PC, another an arcane caster, another a skill monkey, and a fourth playing some divine caster (cleric or druid).
Usually that's once a battle, near the end. So in a five round combat, the "healer' might cast one Cure spell, and maybe channel once in response to a area effect spell. Rest of the time he's buffing or supporting or even laying down some hurt.I agree with most of what you said, but regarding the above, even that goes significantly beyond my own experience.
Can't remember if I already posted this, but my own cleric has only been in one combat out of 11 levels of gameplay where he's needed to heal in combat. The vast majority of times I've played alongside other clerics (or other healing-capable PCs), the experience has been about the same, with most combats going by without any healing until afterwards.
And given the volume of different people I've played with, covering the spectrum of ages, backgrounds, experience/skill, etc; and have consistently had the same experience, I'd venture a guess that this is the "norm" and that maybe the "need a heal in most fights" dynamic may be specific to a certain type of niche playstyle.
Hmm, I know you have a lot of experience Jiggy, but so do I, and mine is opposite yours.
Do note that a healing cleric isn;t in every party, sometimes it's a oracle, and even a Hospitaler Paladin.