|
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.
While I'd hope that's true, whenever I play PFS, if someone mentions the word "cleric", there's always at least one person at the table that says "Oh good, a healer". It's like people's minds are programmed to think cleric=healer, even though many clerics have other things that they specialize in, rather than healing.
About the paladin tangent that I inadvertently started, my point was agreeing with Redward that when you're built for healing, you don't worry about avoiding damage as much. I was comparing a similar fighter and paladin, as far as damage output, but the fighter handled damage by avoidance (better AC and reflex saves), while the paladin handled it by healing himself.
It's similar to Jiggy's comment that the need for healing is sometimes proportional to how much you have available. If you build to avoid the damage, then the healer isn't as necessary.
And like I said earlier, as long as there's always a wand or two of CLW, and people who can use them, I consider that enough healing at any PFS table. Any available healing above and beyond that is gravy. Every one of my PCs has a wand, even if they can't use it, but most of them can use it.
I've built and played a grand total of 3 clerics in my gaming career. This isn't to say I don't like them I just haven't had much need to play them and the ones I have played I've reused a few times when I have because those were the types of clerics I needed at the time. the first was an IK dwarven cleric focused on efficient healing, a necessity of the setting, who spent plenty of time shoulder to shoulder on the front line bashing away with the warhammer of choice. The second was an elf not suited for the front line, but she contributed by sending arrows at the enemy as often as a useful spell for the situation. The last and most favorite is a front line combat monster with a big 2 handed hammer thru most fights. this is an older character, most effective in his first existence in a VERY high magic game with lots of toys making it work.
I know this isn't exactly on the topic, but reading thru all this arguing brought in memories of these fine and helpful types and how they each contributed to their respective parties they have attended. Just remember, adjust your tactics to fit in place the best you can.
PSY
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.
Healing someone just enough to bring a PC conscious just makes it more likely someone will kill them the next time they are hit. They are an active threat again and you know they will be easy to take down again.
I'm surprised some of the encounter write-ups state to finish-them-off. I hope the rewards are enough to pay for the likely raise dead. Even then it widens the gap between those who have done well (didn't spend money on raise dead so they have better equipment) and those who didn't.
|
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.
Jiggy has mostly covered anything I was going to say in response to that.
But yes, my NPCs do not bother with downed foes when the rest of the PCs are still threatening them.
Will a ghoul drag an unconscious PC away to feast in my games? Yes, if he thinks he can escape with his prize.
Will a mindless vermin begin to feast on a downed PC in my game? Yes, if the party doesn't molest it first.
Will a fanatical assassin strike his unconscious target at the risk of his own life? Yes, but those kinds of foes are rarely encountered in my games considering the ease of returning from the dead.
The best example I could see was during a recent 7-11 PFS scenario where our Summoner had gone unconscious and was being threatened by the cultist we were fighting. He told us to leave or he'd kill him. My wife's Witch responded "Go ahead. See how that works for you."
After the CdG, my Life Oracle stepped over, defensively cast breath of life on the Summoner, and told the cultist "I am Pharasma's agent on this plane. No one here enters the Boneyard without my permisson." I then remarked to my fellow players that I could do that twice more before resorting to first aid gloves.
The GM responded by having the enemy babau full-attack the Summoner with claw-claw-bite instead of CdG, yelling "DO IT AGAIN! DO IT AGAIN!"
I certainly couldn't argue with that tactic, although he was nice enough not to go through with it just to get a cheap kill at the end of the scenario.
It did remind me to be a little more humble, even at 11th level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"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.
And being at negatives means you aren't playing. D&D is a Game, the object of a Game is to have Fun. Lying there bleeding out for a couple rounds while the other members of the party have fun killing the monsters is generally not "Fun".
|
|
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.
One of my more favorite GMs made sure to point out that PCs will get a reputation based on their actions, and that reputation will be returned in kind.
Become known for killing downed foes and showing no mercy, and no quarter will be asked or given of you.
Stabilize enemies and use less-than-lethal tactics, and mercenaries will be more open to parley or surrender.
I tell my players much the same thing. Anything you do becomes fair game for my NPCs to do.
| 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'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.
Right or (e)- they are attacking out of more or less mindless anger or hunger.
Why would a hungry animal or a swarm or a black pudding or a undead thirsting for life energy stop?
Why would a hungry animal or a swarm or a black pudding or a undead thirsting for life energy stop?Because the other PCs are in its face cutting it to ribbons, preventing it from feasting in peace.
Sure. But when there's one animal per PC, and the other PC's are busy with there own creatures..
And mindless things like swarms, etc don't "think".
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Why would a hungry animal or a swarm or a black pudding or a undead thirsting for life energy stop?Because the other PCs are in its face cutting it to ribbons, preventing it from feasting in peace.Sure. But when there's one animal per PC, and the other PC's are busy with there own creatures..
And mindless things like swarms, etc don't "think".
Mindless things still have WIS scores, which includes self-preservation.
As for swarms, well, swarms are swarms. I find it's less often the player of an unconscious PC saying "heal me before I die" and more often the player of a still-fully-conscious PC saying "CAST THE BURNING HANDS CAST IT NOW CAST IT CAST IT!"
;)
Healing in combat only seems to work in my lower-level games. No, it doesn't restore you to full HP but usually between 1-4 level even the big bad is only, say, one hit from your fighter away from dying so getting the lug back on his feet for one more swing is more effective than the cleric taking it.
However at a certain point it becomes rocket tag and either your party novas and destroys the enemy or they pick off one of you. Healing in combat at that point is just sort of prolonging the inevitable. I don't know EXACTLY when this happens by the math of the game but the only time I ever saw it in my homebrew (that's only ever made it to 7-8 level) was at around 5th level characters.
I don't play enough PFS to know how it works there. I also don't always have a cleric doing the healing in my games, in or out of combat. But I've always looked at clerics as being the bards of the divine.
They have 3/4 BAB; not the best, not the worst. They can wear some armor and cast in it, so they can be front linters. However they can also build to be debuffers and have a lot of spells for that, so therefore might be battlefield control. They also get channels and spont healing conversion (some anyway) so there's that too. In short: they do a little of everything, but you have to build them a certain way to be great at one of them.
So if you want a heal-bot, go somewhere else. If you want a generalist, call a cleric.
|
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.
Insect swarms, vermin, oozes, ghouls that are after a meal.
Most intelligent opponents are more worried about active threats.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Insect swarms, vermin, oozes, ghouls that are after a meal.
Most intelligent opponents are more worried about active threats.
I could see swarms and maybe oozes focusing on the downed guy, but any time I've come across a bug or critter that was eating something, it's been very interested in defending itself (even if by fleeing) when threatened, rather than sticking to its meal. Seriously, I don't get where people come up with this idea that unintelligent creatures will ignore threats to their safety.
Also, since you seem to put ghouls and "intelligent opponents" into separate categories, I would point out that ghouls are smarter than most non-Lore Warden fighters.
|
|
Also, since you seem to put ghouls and "intelligent opponents" into separate categories, I would point out that ghouls are smarter than most non-Lore Warden fighters.
I don't know where this myth of the stupid fighter comes from. I just started a new fighter in PFS with 12 int for skills and 12 wis for will saves. That puts both of them at double his 6 charisma.
Don't people know that charisma is the dump stat of choice for fighters? :P
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Also, since you seem to put ghouls and "intelligent opponents" into separate categories, I would point out that ghouls are smarter than most non-Lore Warden fighters.I don't know where this myth of the stupid fighter comes from. I just started a new fighter in PFS with 12 int for skills and 12 wis for will saves. That puts both of them at double his 6 charisma.
That wasn't a way of saying "fighters are dumb", it was a way of saying "ghouls are smart". Even your example is less intelligent (and less wise!) than a ghoul.
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.
Healing someone just enough to bring a PC conscious just makes it more likely someone will kill them the next time they are hit. They are an active threat again and you know they will be easy to take down again.
I'm surprised some of the encounter write-ups state to finish-them-off. I hope the rewards are enough to pay for the likely raise dead. Even then it widens the gap between those who have done well (didn't spend money on raise dead so they have better equipment) and those who didn't.
Well, the theory is that then they are at least mobile and can try to get away or possibly still survive a single hit. As opposed to helpless for a CdG certain death.
..
...
Also, since you seem to put ghouls and "intelligent opponents" into separate categories, I would point out that ghouls are smarter than most non-Lore Warden fighters.
I think that is a legacy thing. I believe earlier editions used to say that ghouls would immediately begin feeding on a downed victim or immediately drag them off for later feeding.
I don't think PF has that anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And being at negatives means you aren't playing. D&D is a Game, the object of a Game is to have Fun. Lying there bleeding out for a couple rounds while the other members of the party have fun killing the monsters is generally not "Fun"."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.
It's a team game. I'd much rather sit stable at negative HP and succeed as a group than yo-yo up and down, draining party resources and actions and risking our survival.
But I think what you're saying is indicative of the mentality of a lot of the "heal me now" crowd. For some, the front liner is the real hero of the story, or at least the hero of that player's personal story. And they can't be the hero if they're unconscious, even if that's the best place for them to be right now for the good of the group.
I cheesed off a party at 1st level once and they nearly destroyed the ruined temple needed to complete the adventure.
The PCs come to said temple. In the rafters lurks a single choker. The creature hides in the rafters where it has an escape route out to the canopy outside. He waits for the last PC to enter (the sorceress) and attacks, hitting hard enough to instantly knock her into negatives.
The chase begins.
The choker races through the beams above with it's prey. The rogue misses with a crossbow bolt, the paladin throws a dagger and misses, and the cleric lets fly with a firebolt that misses and starts the rafters on fire. Round 2 the rogue hits and the paladin (with 17 str) hurls a broken pew partially blocking the escape. The cleric decides to firebolt the pew lighting it on fire now too.
The choker realizes it can squeeze through the opening past the fire but can't bring it's meal. In frustration it throws the sorceress and flees, the poor arcanist nearly dying from the fall. The roof is now beginning to catch on fire and soon enough the whole place is going to collapse. They pick up the unstable sorceress, find the wall with the ritual they need, cure an animal companion of a deadly disease and the cleric and paladin make a hole through a crumbling window wall nearly killing themselves in the effort.
In all only the rogue was fine; the other 3 PCs either took damage or were actively dying, including the cleric. The players were happy that they survived and won the scenario, but they were really peeved they almost died to one CR 2 monster and a building.
Granted, a firebolt doesn't necessarily light anything on fire but I rolled with it anyway.
The only thing this has to do with the thread is this: the Choker grabbed his food and ran. Sure, he could've choked out the sorceress, dropped her in the surprise round, then moved on to the rogue and taken him down too, but why? He had an unconscious meal in his hands and besides the rogue he was facing 2 heavily armed and armored opponents. Why risk it?
I guess that's how I play intelligent monsters. They'll weigh the pros and cons of attacking, retreating or whatever just as well as would a PC.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I treat this as a game where people want to have fun. If I can heal and someone drops I weigh whether getting them back up and in the fight is a good idea based on their typical ability to contribute. Many times I will make sure to heal them into consciousness so they can participate. This happens in the longer fights more often than short ones.
When the above situations aren't warranted, I usually don't heal until combat is over. However, about 50 post above someone argued about proactive vs reactive and how healing was not reliable.
Healing is -FAR- more reliable than an attack roll that can miss. Your healing won't. What matters is positioning, amount you can heal for and value of doing a guaranteed action over one that is not certain to succeed. I noticed how they skipped over the variable part of the situation. Most other forms of contribution are not automatic successes and if they are spells with a save they aren't guaranteed to go off. Sure, maybe you have an awesome spell that could end the fight. But that doesn't mean it will. You cast and it says will or fort negates and they save, well you just skipped your turn. If you had used a sufficiently potent healing spell you'd have two people up and running on the following round two do their fight ending actions which may not suceed but it does open up more beneficial choices: the enemies have another target to deal with which divides damage dealt. You have more action, overall to contribute rather than fewer and this increases the chance that any one or combination of those actions will result I'm victory.
So let's not act like healing is second fiddle to other options. It's not. It is just as good in the same number of situations as other choices can be. The real issue is to make sure you know when and how to do it and to know your reasons why. Healing for the wrong reasons? You're probably wasting an action.
Healing is a powerful and useful resource. You want to do it out of combat when you can because it streamlines your actions to defeat foes as efficiently as possible. Buffing follows similar rules. You'd much rather buff before a fight than during one. But when two enemy wizards win initiative and each cast fireball, dropping two party members and leaving the rest in the 'teens or low to mid 20's, if you take the 'offense is the best defense so you can end the battle sooner' option, you will end combat sooner just not the way you think. Heal, dummy. :)
As far as killing downed foes goes, usually it is not worth an action. However, if you know the enemy has a healer who can/will bring fallen enemies back into the Frey, this becomes a very valid tactic. It is a useful option for some builds when in a prolonged engagement (my cleric loves Death Knell). It can be useful for triggering some abilities that operate on the death of an enemy though none immediately come to mind. Typically, if you are going to kill a target doing it after the battle is best.
Enemies on the other hand tend to be just as strong or stronger than an individual party member or are wild or unintelligent creatures. As a result, smart foes with multiple attacks can readily forego their weakest one to kill a PC who is in range without it impacting their ability to kill a current threat. Unintelligent and wild enemies behave as is appropriate to their type or description. You can justify their killing a KO'd PC or not killing it. That's a gm call based on what they feel is appropriate for that particular creature/encounter.
[
And being at negatives means you aren't playing. D&D is a Game, the object of a Game is to have Fun. Lying there bleeding out for a couple rounds while the other members of the party have fun killing the monsters is generally not "Fun".
It's a team game. I'd much rather sit stable at negative HP and succeed as a group than yo-yo up and down, draining party resources and actions and risking our survival.
But I think what you're saying is indicative of the mentality of a lot of the "heal me now" crowd. For some, the front liner is the real hero of the story, or at least the hero of that player's personal story. And they can't be the hero if they're unconscious, even if that's the best place for them to be right now for the good of the group.
When the tank is up he's doing damage.
The "crowd" I am talking about is the "screw you we're not a team, I wanna kill things - it sucks to be you" group- even if healing the tank is the best thing for the party.
Healing is -FAR- more reliable than an attack roll that can miss. Your healing won't.You can roll a 1 on a d20 and a d8. Healing is no more reliable than attacking.
Except when you roll a 1 on a D8 you still give healing, when you roll a 1 on a attack roll you do nothing but waste a round.
|
|
Insect swarms, vermin, oozes, ghouls that are after a meal.
Most intelligent opponents are more worried about active threats.
I could see swarms and maybe oozes focusing on the downed guy, but any time I've come across a bug or critter that was eating something, it's been very interested in defending itself (even if by fleeing) when threatened, rather than sticking to its meal. Seriously, I don't get where people come up with this idea that unintelligent creatures will ignore threats to their safety.
Also, since you seem to put ghouls and "intelligent opponents" into separate categories, I would point out that ghouls are smarter than most non-Lore Warden fighters.
Ghouls are more likely to grab the body and run. They have what they came for. Food.
Except when you roll a 1 on a D8 you still give healing, when you roll a 1 on a attack roll you do nothing but waste a round.Healing is -FAR- more reliable than an attack roll that can miss. Your healing won't.You can roll a 1 on a d20 and a d8. Healing is no more reliable than attacking.Rolling crap healing is more likely to just get the person killed one round later instead of now and you did nothing to hamper the enemy at all.
Combat healing negatives:
1. If they were taken down by melee there is a chance you will have to cast defensively, which is not as easy as it used to be.
2. When they stand up they are going to provoke an Attack of Opportunity from whatever almost killed them the first time if it is in range. Heaven forbid you are fighting many enemies at once.
3. The later in the game it goes, unless it is the actual spell Heal, your healing will not heal for enough to matter.
4. If I am a smart enemy, and I see someone healing a fallen comrade, they just became area attack fodder because now I know you are the healer and the other person is very hurt.
5. You spending a round to heal means you did not spend a round effecting the enemy. So instead of you stopping it now it has a chance to kill someone else.
I have even seen multiple times over the last 15 years where someone choosing to heal a teammate instead of dealing with the enemy has gotten the whole party killed.
D&D is not an MMO, you do not have to have a "tank" and a "healer" in the group.We nearly lost an entire group because out Fireball specialist dual blooded sorcerer could throw out a 110 - 135 damage fireball at level 8, however his will save was a 4.
1. A dedicated healer can get around this.
2. Which is why you heal before they go down.
3. Not true.
4. Great! Now you're spreading your damage out between multiple foes instead of concentrating on just one. Perfect!
5. Yes, now the person I healed can now take a FA and drop the bad guy.
15 years?!? Wow, I can only hope to have that much gaming experience.
The term "Tank" existed in D&D since it's early days, before it was used in MMO's.
Maybe, just maybe the issue here is his poor will save, not healing?
|
Except when you roll a 1 on a D8 you still give healing, when you roll a 1 on a attack roll you do nothing but waste a round.Healing is -FAR- more reliable than an attack roll that can miss. Your healing won't.You can roll a 1 on a d20 and a d8. Healing is no more reliable than attacking.Congratulations, you just stabilized a person. He/She is still contributing nothing.
The only super reliable healing spell is Heal. You're just about guaranteed to bring someone from death's door to max hp, regardless of their hit die.
Even better, "Congratulations, you just made a safe, unconscious person become conscious. Would you care to stand within reach of that Barbarian enemy, or bluff to fake death," Again, the person will still do functionally nothing, and in addition, you may have to pay for Raise Dead!
Even better, "Congratulations, you just made a safe, unconscious person become conscious. Would you care to stand within reach of that Barbarian enemy, or bluff to fake death," Again, the person will still do functionally nothing, and in addition, you may have to pay for Raise Dead!And then the raging barbarian smashes the prone target you just clearly healed because he doesn't want his kill count to be spotty. :)
Kugog the Elephant Botherer doesn't want his performance report to show his unreliability. Six more skulls and he'll get his yearly bonus.
I've said my piece and subsequently watched it deleted. I say it literally every other healing thread. A solid group that actually uses smart tactics will rarely need healing outside of the times where the dice hate you.