|
When I sit down at a PFS table, I just make sure we have at least one person who can use a wand of CLW, at least one wand between us, and a potion as backup in case the wand user goes down. That's all the healing you really need, though having additional for in combat use can be nice once in a while.
But again, people build heal capable PCs that are focused on things other than healing all the time.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hmm, I know you have a lot of experience Jiggy, but so do I, and mine is opposite yours.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.
It occurs to me that it's possible we're talking about different things; I was only speaking in the scope of Pathfinder, whereas if you were speaking of the entire history of the hobby all rolled up together, that'd be a whole different ball of wax.
If you were speaking just of Pathfinder games, such that your experience is that most of your Pathfinder combats involve at least a little in-combat healing, then I'd have to return to my previous assertion: I think your experience (again, just your experience with Pathfinder) might potentially be more "niche" than the "norm".
That is, and you can correct me if I'm wrong here, my understanding is that your experience (at least with Pathfinder) is almost entirely home games, presumably with a limited number of people over a long period of time. The scope of my comment, however, was the idea of what the "norm" is—that is, how most people experience the game. And for that, it's more relevant to see how large numbers of people from very different backgrounds experience the game, rather than how a smaller group of people continue in the long haul. As such, I'm more inclined to go with data gathered broadly rather than deeply for answering that one particular question.
Or to put it more succinctly: To know how most people play, we have to look at as many people as possible, rather than focusing on a handful of tables over time.
Do note that a healing cleric isn;t in every party, sometimes it's a oracle, and even a Hospitaler Paladin.
Indeed, I was including those in my recollection of in-combat healing being so rare.
Hmm, I know you have a lot of experience Jiggy, but so do I, and mine is opposite yours.
It occurs to me that it's possible we're talking about different things; I was only speaking in the scope of Pathfinder, whereas if you were speaking of the entire history of the hobby all rolled up together, that'd be a whole different ball of wax.
If you were speaking just of Pathfinder games, such that your experience is that most of your Pathfinder combats involve at least a little in-combat healing, then I'd have to return to my previous assertion: I think your experience (again, just your experience with Pathfinder) might potentially be more "niche" than the "norm".
That is, and you can correct me if I'm wrong here, my understanding is that your experience (at least with Pathfinder) is almost entirely home games, presumably with a limited number of people over a long period of time. The scope of...
True, I was talking about D&D in it's total history. Yes, most of my PF experience is with home games, but there's three of them.
Now the devs also claim they use in-combat healing... but again, in their "home games".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, I'm certainly not qualified to comment on the net average experience of the entire D&D legacy, so I'll take your word for it. :)
As for Pathfinder-only, I've definitely gathered experience from a much broader pool than three tables (both in numbers of people and likely in variety of personalities/playstyles), and almost definitely more than whatever set of tables you're referring to when you say "the devs' games".
I think in-combat healing is kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy. When you rely on it you find yourself needing it. When you build your character with the assumption that you won't be getting healed, you make a lot more choices that will help you avoid taking damage in the first place (focusing on Saves/AC/miss chance/fortification/control/preventive offense).
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you were speaking just of Pathfinder games, such that your experience is that most of your Pathfinder combats involve at least a little in-combat healing, then I'd have to return to my previous assertion: I think your experience (again, just your experience with Pathfinder) might potentially be more "niche" than the "norm".
Is PFS "niche" or "norm"?
Most combats in PFS are easy. It's only when we run into a hard combat that my Life Oracle (my "healer") has to heal in combat. Per your definition above, it sounds like "niche" means harder games and "norm" means easier games.
Do I play a Healer or Not-A-Healer?
Obviously if you design your character for healing to be their primary schtick (or one of their primary schticks), that'll change things. People should do what they're good at.
For instance, I've played alongside a cleric that was built as a healer/buffer. Guy had a slogan of "No one dies on MY watch!" In games with him, healing was done in probably half of combats, possibly more. Do what you're built for, right?
Similarly, I've seen a paladin with 7 or 8 DEX, who was built around the assumption of getting hit consistently: he was liberal with self-use of LoH and hero's defiance, and got adamantine full plate for the DR. He healed (himself) almost every fight (though he did so without spending turns on it).
Another was a life oracle was of the "Does anyone need healing...? I delay." variety. :/
And then the cleric who would still use his crossbow and (in combat) wand of CLW at subtier 8-9 while everyone else contributed. Wizard got bulette-pounced in the surprise round, from full HP to single digits. Cleric healed her of a meaningless amount, then she did a quickened vanish, then a fly, then took no more damage the rest of the fight and patched up with a wand afterwards.
So out of years of gaming with hundreds of people, I've seen two instances of "heal in combat because I'm built for it", two instances of "heal in combat because I don't understand the game very well", and then a bajillion instances of "I *can* heal in combat if necessary, but it's been incredibly rare".
I saved a character from death in the Siege of the Diamond City by having Life Link up while manning a catapult. That was a 5 hit point close shave with death.
Oh, I played that scenario! Played it with my cleric, in fact. Almost managed to plane shift a [REDACTED] to Heaven with my teeth. ;)
Not a single healing spell was used that session.
I hope GenCon 2014 will bring just as fun memories as GenCon 2013!
I certainly hope so as well!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well Jiggy, I have been playing Pathfinder (both society and home games) for about 2-3 years now. In one state with maybe 7 relatively distinct groups of people. I played 3.5 much longer and in several states across the US.
In both games, I have always seen in-combat healing and also found it needed far more often than you seem to be giving it credit.
I am not saying it was needed in each adventure, or even once out of three, but it comes up often enough, even with experienced players. The facts remain: no matter how powerful the player, they can roll a 1 on a save, use a reroll and get another 1. They can roll a 1 on that 'healing in combat is useless when the cleric can just attack and kill the monster' turn. It's happened. Monsters can still roll 20's on the dice. And you know, enemies and players can always just be lucky and not roll 1's or 20's but still roll well or poorly enough to still not or succeed. And quite a few encounters require only good or bad rolls in order to succeed.
Your statement suggests that despite the variables present, you and your party just always have consistent enough dice rolls and well synchronized initiative rolls and enemies either don't get lucky, aren't capable enough to surpass your preservative tactics or you guys all have so many HP that if an enemy can't land a crit or two with a x4 multiplier, high Str and plenty of extra dice, you won't be phased.
All of the above seem like heavy bias against the idea of in-combat healing and are generally out of the scope of expected (and real) gameplay. One thing I seem to be noticing is that many experienced players who claim to never use in-combat healing or never need it also seem to run with groups of other experienced players. Whatever those groups are doing is apparently fitting the details I gave above in a very consistent manner and this defies the variable nature of the d20 with the sole exception of a group of players with superbly organized tactics, high HP players and phenomenal perception scores or backups to counter being surprised or ambushed. These are groups who by necessity must have dark vision, low light vision, high initiative, no fewer than two (probably even 3) ale save or suck effects on different members and at higher levels the ability to quicken them. These players must all have optimized or nearly optimized primary casting stats, have melee characters with similar capabilities built to work with the offensive game plan, a backup in case an enemy or group lands in the midst of the party if somehow a perception check fails or an enemy goes first. Etc.
And sometimes, these parties exist. But this is not even common amongst experienced players not by a long shot and certainly isn't an option at all levels of play for all classes. The more you attempt to find the party that consistently fits this description and yet still is subject to poor dice rolls, the less likely the concept is to actually exist, though statistically, somebody has to have this dream team party that cannot ever be harmed meaningfully.
If that is you, then well, awesome. I wish I could see it in action- though I don't think I would be able to gm for a group like that for long before the amusement wore off. Still, I would like to see that.
We are facing a demon who typically does half our primary tanks HP in a round. A crit will outright kill him. The fighter avoids most attacks but the 1-2 that get through simply hit that hard. The inquisitor can't take more than two hits. He has decent hp but decent is good enough against the demon. The fighter has amazing hp. We have to pass the demon and he is in a big empty room. He has spell resistance and we're not high enough to beat it without rolling pretty high. He comes with a suit of resistances and has great saves. So- when the fighter drops to fewer than half HP on any given round and has an assortment of buffs precast to give him the needed ac along with combat expertise, etc, what do we do? We could follow the 'let's avoid combat healing guys' philosophy. But that means a dead fighter. If the inquisitor gets targeted, it's the same deal. Just more dire since he is generally an aoo away from death. Our martials aren't consistently hitting the threat and when they so the damage is OK but not enough to matter since this is the kind of fight that is easily threatening to burn -all- of our resources. Every spell prepared, every spell slot for spells known, every potion and scroll that is applicable and in our possession. And we still might lose one-possibly two people. We've escaped because the dice rolls promised us a loss and showed us a losing battle before that loss. We used in combat healing every round. We had to or we'd see at least two new characters being rolled up. Sure, I tried nuking. I really did. But I couldn't beat the spell resistance with non-mystery spells, and when using mystery spells I rolled something terrible. The one time I did beat the SR with a mystery spell I rolled almost all 1's across 5 dice and he made his save and took no damage thanks to resistances.
This is a real game, real events. We steamroll things pretty hard with good tactics, great stats in our areas of strength, etc. But this demon is like us. He is not wrecking our day but he will win the fight without us finding a new solution to deal with a creature we all failed knowledge checks about. The fact your party has never encountered anything as threatening or which could hurt someone (and did) as badly as this guy is hurting us somewhat baffles me. We are only level 5/6.
FYI: flame oracle (Sorceror cheese dip), unbreakable fighter (60+ hp at lvl 5 and 30ish ac when total defense/fighting defensively and buffed), Inquisitor, cleric. Demon uses a greatsword, has a bite that goes with it, possibly two other natural attacks. Resistance of probably 10 to electicity and fire but no apparent sla's or has not found us worth using them on).
To get away without dying we relied on fighters ac and oracles lingering burning hands to mitigate landed hits. Used every spell the cleric had prepared and 1/3 of all spells on oracle (he has a lot). Even a few from the inquisitor. Current plan is to go back but use the newly acquired shield other spell on fighter or inquisitor. Channel with cleric and maybe find a scroll to help us. My personal suggestion was to hire freshly recruited gladiators for an upcoming team we were sponsoring (yay bluff) and to have them enter the demons room for an 'interview'. The room starts out dark. Once they enter we rush in behind, close the door and run past demon to the door behind him (where our objective is), complete our mission and run out as he uh, accepts his sacrifice. ;) If he comes for us, then we do the shield other thing and see how it goes. We're still working out the details.
We don't need in combat healing often, but we do need it sometimes. This is one of those times.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Your statement suggests that despite the variables present, you and your party just always have consistent enough dice rolls and well synchronized initiative rolls and enemies either don't get lucky, aren't capable enough to surpass your preservative tactics or you guys all have so many HP that if an enemy can't land a crit or two with a x4 multiplier, high Str and plenty of extra dice, you won't be phased.
No, it really doesn't suggest that at all.
As a matter of fact, when I started Pathfinder, I came into it assuming that the ability to heal damage would be a powerful thing. Probably came from past experience with RPGs on Super Nintendo or even my D&D "Order of the Griffon" game on TurboGrafx, where if someone goes down, things get out of hand FAST.
So I went into Pathfinder assuming healing needed to play a large role. Bought lots of potions, etc.
But over time, I kept finding (even as a newbie!) that when my turn came up, assessing the situation almost always pointed to something more useful to do with my actions than healing (and again, not in the context of a character made to be a "healer").
I learned this all on my own, and became quite successful with this "only in emergencies, usually do something else" approach. It came out naturally, across a wide variety of party makeups, not because of this very specific situation you describe.
Whatever those groups are doing is apparently fitting the details I gave above in a very consistent manner and this defies the variable nature of the d20 with the sole exception of a group of players with superbly organized tactics, high HP players and phenomenal perception scores or backups to counter being surprised or ambushed. These are groups who by necessity must have dark vision, low light vision, high initiative, no fewer than two (probably even 3) ale save or suck effects on different members and at higher levels the ability to quicken them. These players must all have optimized or nearly optimized primary casting stats, have melee characters with similar capabilities built to work with the offensive game plan, a backup in case an enemy or group lands in the midst of the party if somehow a perception check fails or an enemy goes first. Etc.
When you reach the point of "For anyone to have that opinion, surely they must be doing [insert absurdity here]", that's a good time to consider whether you've stopped really trying to understand the people around you and switched over to closed-minded preaching.
|
|
I've learned enough having played a Cleric that TPK's have been avoided primarily by being a smart and resourceful healer. If you aren't healing, you could be aiding with spells. If you aren't doing that, you could be readying an action. Even going through a few wands of Cure Light Wounds was more resourceful than running out of Channels or spells where the scenario only gives you one day.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, just remembered an interesting recent anecdote: My wife occasionally plays PFS with me. She likes for people to do well, and gets nervous when people start taking damage. (Yes, this means she gets nervous a lot!) She's also not very experienced, and generally needs me next to her to help her with rules, including her own PC's capabilities.
Recently, for the first time she played without me at the table. She was playing at subtier 1-2 with her new fighter/cleric archer. Afterwards I asked her how it went, and she said it was a table mostly full of fellow newbies. She recounted how she was a little annoyed that one fellow player, upon reaching ~half HP, started to panic a little, pestering my wife for healing.
My wife had this to say (going from memory):
|
|
Heh. I do tend to worry a little when people drop to half HP at 1st level. At that level, a single crit from an average enemy can drive you down through your negative con score. But taking down the enemies faster is still a safer route than healing most of the time, depending no positioning and everything.
Once you hit 2nd level, it's not such a big deal, unless you're fighting a BBEG that does huge damage per round.
|
|
I think in-combat healing is kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy. When you rely on it you find yourself needing it. When you build your character with the assumption that you won't be getting healed, you make a lot more choices that will help you avoid taking damage in the first place (focusing on Saves/AC/miss chance/fortification/control/preventive offense).
This statement actually reminds me of two of my PFS characters, who have a lot in common, but completely different approaches to taking damage and healing themselves.
Both of them are front line martial characters with 18 starting strength, two handed weapons, planning to get Power Attack by level 3, d10 hit dice, 14 constitution, and full plate armor by level 2, with no shield.
The fighter is investing some of those fighter bonus feats and a trait into armor class to make himself untouchable, and has a 14 starting dex to go with his fighter Armor Training and bolster his reflex save, once again to avoid taking damage. And I'll probably boost that dex with magic items around the time that his fighter Armor Training lets a +3 bonus count in full plate. But as a fighter, potions are his only available self-healing.
The paladin, on the other hand, only has 10 dex, no feats or traits that help with armor class, and expects to take a lot more damage. But he's got high charisma to go with his Lay on Hands ability, and Fey Foundling for extra healing whenever he uses it. So he's intentionally designed to take hits, then swift heal himself and keep going.
I tend not to play my PFS characters until they get enough GM credit to be 2nd or 3rd level for just that reason.
Also, I GM too much.
Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of 1st level play, either.
And then the cleric who would still use his crossbow and (in combat) wand of CLW at subtier 8-9 while everyone else contributed. Wizard got bulette-pounced in the surprise round, from full HP to single digits. Cleric healed her of a meaningless amount, then she did a quickened vanish, then a fly, then took no more damage the rest of the fight and patched up with a wand afterwards.
haha, guilty as charged. In my defense I still have my original wand of CLW from level 1 (level 10 now) so I don't really do that move that often.
And on the brightside, if I played the 'right' way, you wouldn't remember me at all. But now you have the great story of the horribly played cleric.
I play clerics in tabletop the same as I do in MMOs. I buff and I heal, I do what the party needs me to do at the time. I really think that "only heal in combat" or "never heal in combat" is all just as another person said, theorycrafting (and I hate theorycrafting in RPGs especially MMOs, just cause it looks good on paper doesn't mean it works in reality) and that both in tabletop and MMOs, you should do what works best for you and your party.
|
|
I see that you addressed some of my statements just prior to my post Jiggy.
No, I was not being narrow minded but was approaching your statement based on what you were claiming (but I hadn't seen your last post prior to mine). My argument conceded that it was possible for you to have a perfect or lucky playgroup that in combat healing just never was needed. Because if it never was needed out of the course of that many games over that long a period of time, then *something* incredibly out of the ordinary was happening with you and your groups. And I was not discounting that but giving examples of the kinds of things that become necessary to make the concept of 'you don't need to heal in combat' work. And those examples were based on a quick list of things that could readily force any party without an ability to heal to lose members or tpk. Failed a perception check? Well, combats started and you're flat footed. The monster goes before you and attacks your lowered ac. He hits; twice. You'll be taking 29 damage. What's your cmd? OK, well you're grabbed and he bites. Oh, let me see if he confirms- yep. OK, you take 42 damage. And now you're swallowed. How's your health?
I'm at 15.
Well at the start of the next round you'll be taking crushing damage from his stomach and acid damage as well.
Something like this happened in an actual game on the surprise round in pfs, dropping two people on the first round and nearly killing my monk. By the end of round two I think one or two characters had above 20 HP and one was fleeing (hooray for fly).
This wasn't a case of poor tactics or play on our part, we got ambushed by three...things. Did we use some in combat healing? Yes! A heck of a lot because without it half or more of the group would have been dead for certain. So I use things like perception checks, ambushes, critical hits and the like when making my argument against the probability of rarely or never needing to heal in a fight.
Now in light of your last few responses I can see that your stance is that if there is a better action to take than healing, you should do it because it ends the battle more quickly and can very likely prevent you from needing to heal at all: agreed!
And if you are in a situation where you should probably heal or you need to heal and you're in a fight, then go ahead and heal. While it is more efficient to heal out of a combat encounter, you should judge carefully when the risk of not healing outweighs the benefits of simply doing so.
Agreed!
And I know I am putting words in your mouth here so allow me to say this is my take on what you mean to say. :D
In my example given above, that's the kind of judgment call where you probably want to use a channel, every round until people stop being at the point where a round of not being healed kills them. And we did. The second half of the fight went better once we killed one of the enemies and were dealing with less damage being received. But we were still healing, just not as much because fewer people needed it and we could devote !ore resources to ending the fight faster to mitigate the amount of healing that would be needed.
I don't often encounter those kind of situations (because my characters have good perception scores now) but those aside I've needed healing from enemy crits alone and so far, the one time I didn't get healed my character died. But that was due to horrible initiative placement relative to everything (me, enemy, enemy, player with heal, player with heal) and I was the only tank/primary melee.
One thing I do enjoy is playing in a group that is used to healing that has to go without. They are so much more interested in talking tactics and playing like it is a multiplayer game instead of a one man show and I am a team player at heart. I love me some tactics and cool combat strategy. Having a healer on and tends to typically remove those options (but not always).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The paladin, on the other hand, only has 10 dex, no feats or traits that help with armor class, and expects to take a lot more damage. But he's got high charisma to go with his Lay on Hands ability, and Fey Foundling for extra healing whenever he uses it. So he's intentionally designed to take hits, then swift heal himself and keep going.Paladin self-healing isn't really healing. Since there's no real action cost* it's really having an extra pool of HP.
* except that you can't use swift action lay on hands the round after you use an immediate action spell. I don't think Paladins have much in the way of other swift action uses.
Paladin self healing is most definitely healing. It is just free and very effective. He has to use an ability with a limited number of charges to heal his HP.
It is just better than any other healing in the game is the only difference.
Yeah, the big difference with Paladin self-healing is that it doesn't stop the Paladin from still making his full contribution in combat. If the cleric could heal in combat without sacrificing his ability to attack, buff, or cast offensive/battlefield control spells, in-combat healing wouldn't be nearly so contentious.
That said, the whole debate over in-combat healing has always struck me as a false dichotomy. Nobody who knows the system actually advocates the "NEVER heal" or "Clerics should only heal-bot" positions that are constantly argued against by both sides. I think 99% of knowledgable Pathfinder players would agree that a cleric has many viable combat options, and which one is best to use is going to depend on the circumstances.
It also never hurts to mention that table/encounter design variance is going to have an impact on how useful healing is. If the GM designs battles to be a long slugging match, in-combat healing gains value.
"I don't understand why she was so worried. I mean, healing her wasn't going to end the fight any sooner, especially when I could be shooting the bad guys. Besides, even if she did go down, we'd just patch her up after the fight. If she wouldn't last that long, I could just stabilize her from across the room and then heal her later. I mean, being at negatives isn't really THAT dangerous, so why was she so upset that she was down half?"
If you go into negatives, in my experience, you're usually dead next round. Either no-one heals you, and you get attacked again next round and die, or someone heals you, you stand up, take an AoO, and go down again and then die. That's why I value non-emergency healing.
|
The #1 problem with healing is that healing is primarily reactionary. Reactionary actions will never be as safe as proactive actions (i.e., defeating your opponents before they can defeat you). Now, that doesn't mean that healing is "bad", it just means that preventing damage in the first place is more effective and important.
I remember in the first Guild Wars video game one of the most popular builds for Monk (the game's healer class) was the Protection Monk, which focused on constantly buffing allies with spells that directly prevented and reduced incoming damage. It was liked because some nukes hit so hard they could almost one-shot people, which meant that someone missing any amount of health could go down almost instantly. With protection abilities, you could cut the nuke in half or more, where you would have had to hope that a party member didn't drop before.
This principle is why combat healing is generally rejected. It's not a BAD thing, but the name of the game is "outnumber your enemies" and "have more HP than they do", and the easiest way to have more HP is to never lose it in the first place.
This is why protection spells are generally the best form of "healing". Shield of Faith, Command, Sanctuary, Protection from Energy, and the like are all the safest, most consistent ways of preventing damage, and some (like Command) can directly counter the damage an enemy could have inflicted in the first place.
tl;dr
Healing has its place, but damage prevention is better than reactionary action 100% of the time.
Finishing off adjacent unconscious PCs? It's not unreasonable for an enemy to kill a helpless PC because (a) they're a pitiless undead creature, (b) they're an assassin, here to make sure the PCs die, (c) they have a spare action, (d) they're aware that in-combat healing is a thing and want to make sure their enemy doesn't start attacking them again.
It's hard to say how regular it really is - the objective as I see it is to avoid getting into a situation where you have to rely on the GM being kind enough not to kill you when they easily could.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have GM'd for groups of various playstyles. I do not fudge dice to extend encounters or add hit points if I think the bad guys will die.
The players who played to avoid getting hurt generally did not need to be healed unless the dice gods interfered. Those that played less carefully needed it more often.
Having GM'd various playstyles and being a GM who tries to stay neutral with regard to if you die not has a strong influence on my opinion that playing to "not need a heal" can be done in most fights, assuming the GM does not force you to heal.
edit: changed wording
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finishing off adjacent unconscious PCs? It's not unreasonable for an enemy to kill a helpless PC because (a) they're a pitiless undead creature, (b) they're an assassin, here to make sure the PCs die, (c) they have a spare action, (d) they're aware that in-combat healing is a thing and want to make sure their enemy doesn't start attacking them again.
It is unreasonable when there are still enemies to deal with. Ensuring the mortally wounded pass on is a task for after the fighting stops.
I think the strategy of a coup de grace and how good of an idea it is varies by situation. When I play I don't bother with downed enemies because it would slow me down. If they had a healer, then the group would likely focus fire on him to make sure none of his buddies fought again that day.
Finishing off adjacent unconscious PCs? It's not unreasonable for an enemy to kill a helpless PC because (a) they're a pitiless undead creature, (b) they're an assassin, here to make sure the PCs die, (c) they have a spare action, (d) they're aware that in-combat healing is a thing and want to make sure their enemy doesn't start attacking them again.It is unreasonable when there are still enemies to deal with. Ensuring the mortally wounded pass on is a task for after the fighting stops.
Well, let's hope the zombie / ninja / raging orc barbarian / giant scorpion shares your philosophy.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, let's hope the zombie / ninja / raging orc barbarian / giant scorpion shares your philosophy.Finishing off adjacent unconscious PCs? It's not unreasonable for an enemy to kill a helpless PC because (a) they're a pitiless undead creature, (b) they're an assassin, here to make sure the PCs die, (c) they have a spare action, (d) they're aware that in-combat healing is a thing and want to make sure their enemy doesn't start attacking them again.It is unreasonable when there are still enemies to deal with. Ensuring the mortally wounded pass on is a task for after the fighting stops.
Spoken like someone who's never tried to approach a dog while it was eating.
Even for the simplest of creatures, "defend yourself" tends to be a higher priority than "eat" or whatever else they might want to do. Even mindless undead have WIS scores.
So outside of NPCs who have some very... specific motivations (i.e., "I want that particular person dead, even if it costs me my own life"), or some very contrived circumstances, then attacking downed PCs while other threats exist is typically a sign of a metagaming GM.
Defending against a metagaming GM is not a good justification for a gameplay strategy, healing-related or not.
You have that much confidence in your understanding of the motivation of all possible enemies that your character would risk a friend's life on it?
Situation: You are fighting the crazed worshippers of a dark god. They have no fear of death, for they believe their god will preserve their souls, but they believe that slaying the enemies of the faith will earn them power in the next life.
Situation: You are fighting some bandits. It's a dangerous combat for both sides. One of the bandits is bleeding out. One of the PCs is bleeding out.
Bandit logic: My best chance of surviving this battle is if the enemy flees. The enemy is not going to flee as long as one of their allies is injured and in need of rescuing. Solution: kill the injured enemy to demoralise the rest.
Situation: You are fighting an ogre. The ogre is down to his last hit point, and has downed only one of his five foes. He is cornered and has no chance of survival no matter what he does. The only meaningful thing he can do is kill one of his enemies for the sake of vengeance before he dies.
(In my current game, PCs have fallen to negative HP and then been healed and continued fighting from the ground on multiple occasions. This may be biasing me to think of fallen characters as being significant threats.)
My last two APs were Carrion Crown and Jade Regent. I'd say at least half the enemies had that kind of motivation - either "I am evil and despise life itself" or "I will throw away my life for the sake of honor and duty."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My last two APs were Carrion Crown and Jade Regent. I'd say at least half the enemies had that kind of motivation - either "I am evil and despise life itself" or "I will throw away my life for the sake of honor and duty."
1) "I am evil and despise life itself" only produces the situation of killing a downed PC instead of furthering the fight if it's also coupled with either "There's clearly no chance of killing more people by fighting on" or "I'm too stupid to realize that taking the time to kill this one guy could cost me my chance to down everyone and get to kill them all".
2) Similar for "I will throw away my life for the sake of honor and duty"; nobody's eager to do so, they're just willing to do so if they have no other recourse. They would prefer to fulfill "honor and duty" while still surviving, if at all possible. (I say this as the player of a PC who has offered his life in place of others' on two separate occasions.)
And that still leaves all the "normal" NPCs, hungry monsters, undead, etc that are going to fight off active threats before they stop to focus on non-threats.
Besides, it's not like I'm saying being at negatives is NEVER dangerous, I'm saying that it's typically not that dangerous, especially at levels 1-2 where my wife was playing. Certainly not so dangerous that having a 1st-level PC at half health is sufficient cause to trade "attack for 1d8+3" for "top you off".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
(In my current game, PCs have fallen to negative HP and then been healed and continued fighting from the ground on multiple occasions. This may be biasing me to think of fallen characters as being significant threats.)
Also, yes, if you already tend to heal fallen PCs, then of course an intelligent enemy is going to start taking the opportunity to splatter you. But that's a situation you created yourself by using that tactic first; if instead the intelligent enemies see that the guy they dropped is still on the floor while his buddies are still coming after him full-force, then their decisions will be based on that instead.
What was someone saying earlier about a self-fulfilling prophecy?
So outside of NPCs who have some very... specific motivations (i.e., "I want that particular person dead, even if it costs me my own life"), or some very contrived circumstances,
In all fairness, a lot of the encounter write-ups I've been reading lately seem to have text saying they will finish off (or eat) downed foes.
But proudly speaking; yes, I agree it should be a bit more rare than actually seems to occur.
If I don't know the GM fairly well, I likely would heal the guy that went unconscious. Some GM's are just real big on the finishing shot to permanently put down the vulnerable.
Aw, now I feel bad. :(
It's all good,dude. The reason I read the message-boards is to learn more about the game we all love.
IN my opinion, I love when characters do the unexpected (good or bad) it can make for very memorable moments.
I still remember a certain Tien in the Hao-Jin Tapestry (accidentally?)creating a pit under some slaves who met an unfortunate end. It wasn't the smartest thing to do, but it made for a good time and good memories.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I still remember a certain Tien in the Hao-Jin Tapestry (accidentally?)creating a pit under some slaves who met an unfortunate end. It wasn't the smartest thing to do, but it made for a good time and good memories.
Heh. Technically an accident, but one that character is okay with, because he's a jerk. ;)
|
|
So healing was completely unnecessary then? Had a cleric also saved against paralysis and stood behind you healing she would have been spending most rounds readying an action doing nothing and the one time she did something it would be to waste a spell on something that could have been done after the fight with wand charges? That, in fact, if there'd been a non-paralyzed cleric in range to heal you she would have contributed more by poking past you with a longspear or even spamming the guidance orison much less channeling to harm undead?
Had the cleric not been paralyzed, I would have been able to play offensively instead of defensively. Playing offensively, I could have killed 3-4 mummies in that time frame instead of 1.
Even playing offensively, my damage taken would have been less than what the cleric could have healed per round, but substantially more than what I could have survived without healing. The one hit I did take was for 1/3 my total hit points.
Aw, now I feel bad. :(It's all good,dude. The reason I read the message-boards is to learn more about the game we all love.
IN my opinion, I love when characters do the unexpected (good or bad) it can make for very memorable moments.
I still remember a certain Tien in the Hao-Jin Tapestry (accidentally?)creating a pit under some slaves who met an unfortunate end. It wasn't the smartest thing to do, but it made for a good time and good memories.
A few years ago, our group was clearing our way through some weird stronghold. About 2/3 of the way through we get to this huge slave labor work force. We freed them, but since the opposition in here liked to throw fireballs and we were on a serious time crunch, we told them to run for it since we cleared everything between here and the main entrance.
We snuck forward and were stacking up at the next door, when the GM says, "You here a nearly continuous roar of explosions, crashing, and screams behind you. From the other side of the door you hear someone yelling 'What the heck is all that noise?'"
We were confused for just a second then someone says "Oh s4!%, the traps! We didn't tell them about all those freakin traps!"
Only a couple made it out alive.
We had a guy with high perception, but no one with disable device. So we just went around all the traps. Leaving them still active behind us.
Years later, we still joke about our mission fail of rescuing dwarf slaves.
|
|
Totally agree with the people who say most enemies won't attack downed foes. If they have a specific reason, they will, but more often than not, attacking the guys who are still actively trying to hurt you will take priority over finishing off the guys on the floor.
Let's put it this way: How often do the PCs attack enemies that are already at negative HP? Pretty rarely, when there are other foes still fighting back, in my experience. Intelligent enemies, and even wild animals, will think the same way.
|
|
Im in the cleric healing is necessary category. It isn't mandatory in all combats. Yet in crucial fights it keeps tpks and incidental deaths at a minimum. It depends on the table makeup all optimal or not.
Of my 3 clerics the most party friendly is also the least flexible (fire/cold domain, positive channel) The most damaging was the negative channel fire domain, but other players are sometimes unhappy to lack the heal bot. The most flexible (evangelist mystic theurge - infernal, fey bloodljne) cant keep up with mass damage but is good to bypass encounters.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im in the cleric healing is necessary category. It isn't mandatory in all combats. Yet in crucial fights it keeps tpks and incidental deaths at a minimum. It depends on the table makeup all optimal or not.
Seems to me that a party's need for in-combat healing is directly proportional to how much they invest in having it available. That is, every feat, class feature, magic item, etc that a PC invests in the effectiveness of their healing is another feat, class feature, magic item, etc that they're not investing in helping to end the encounter sooner.
And for every [whatever] that you don't invest in ending the encounter sooner, the combat lasts that much longer. And the longer combat lasts, the more chances there are for something to go wrong and get into a situation where you'll need that healing.
This would explain all the people who swear by the healer, because they look at all these encounters they fought in which at least one PC had invested resources in healing and think "Yeah, we'd have TPK'd without that healing" but don't account for how differently the encounter would have gone from the get-go had that PC been built to contribute offensively instead. They just look at the exact same party doing the exact same things until the turn where the healer did the healing, and then deciding to do something else. Of course you'd TPK like that.
But if the healer had been something else instead: if he'd not spent feats on Quick Channel and Selective Channel and Extra Channel, if he'd not spent stats on CHA to fuel that Channeling, if he'd not spent gold/slots on phylacteries and so forth, if he'd picked a different domain than Healing; then if he'd put all that toward other methods of contributing. Would the party ever have gotten into a situation in that encounter where that same level of healing was necessary to prevent a TPK? Or would just a heal or spontaneous cure have done the job because the situation was less dire to begin with? And how often would it be happening?