Cleric NOT healing in combat


Advice

201 to 250 of 418 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

TOZ wrote:
TarkXT, can I get a copy of that spiel? I didn't screencap it before it was deleted.

Second.

Scarab Sages

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Sometimes 1 point is life or death.
Are we building toward the outliers now?

Actually, I'm talking about the last time I played Ulflafa. Good damage, lousy AC. She wound up being the "tank" due to being the highest level and having the most HP (I usually avoid taking a central position with her). She also wound up dropping to -13 during the final encounter. The cleric throwing a heal instead of attacking is the only reason she survived, even if the heal did not wake her up.

The scenario she played in before that had exploding skeletons. Simply attacking would have done nothing except kill the already unconscious person adjacent to the remaining skeletons.

So if by edge case you mean my regular play experience, then sure.


Athaleon wrote:
TOZ wrote:
TarkXT, can I get a copy of that spiel? I didn't screencap it before it was deleted.
Second.

Thirded

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Artanthos wrote:
So if by edge case you mean my regular play experience, then sure.

My wife's rogue also ended up one point away from -Con once. That doesn't make it more than an edge case.


andreww wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
TOZ wrote:
TarkXT, can I get a copy of that spiel? I didn't screencap it before it was deleted.
Second.
Thirded

Forthed


JoeJ wrote:
But using the boom stick isn't going to make the downed character able to retreat with everybody else. Getting him up to at least 1 hp will.

In that case, yes, you'd heal. I mentioned my stance on this earlier on in the thread. I am firmly in the camp of "don't heal in combat unless you absolutely need to".

Artanthos wrote:

Actually, I'm talking about the last time I played Ulflafa. Good damage, lousy AC. She wound up being the "tank" due to being the highest level and having the most HP (I usually avoid taking a central position with her). She also wound up dropping to -13 during the final encounter. The cleric throwing a heal instead of attacking is the only reason she survived, even if the heal did not wake her up.

The scenario she played in before that had exploding skeletons. Simply attacking would have done nothing except kill the already unconscious person adjacent to the remaining skeletons.

So if by edge case you mean my regular play experience, then sure.

No one in this thread has said, while being serious, not to heal your character in that situation, though. Absolutely your character should have been healed at that point, she was 1 HP away from dying.

If you were at -7, however, I wouldn't bother with healing you. You are still several rounds away from dying due to bleeding out and you may just stabilize on your own. That is enough time to take out the enemies and get you the help you need.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Suichimo wrote:
If you were at -7, however, I wouldn't bother with healing you. You are still several rounds away from dying due to bleeding out and you may just stabilize on your own. That is enough time to take out the enemies and get you the help you need.

Hell, even then I would throw a stabilize their way if I felt I could spare an action. It's a close ranged spell, so I don't even need to go into harms way.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Suichimo wrote:
If you were at -7, however, I wouldn't bother with healing you. You are still several rounds away from dying due to bleeding out and you may just stabilize on your own. That is enough time to take out the enemies and get you the help you need.
Hell, even then I would throw a stabilize their way if I felt I could spare an action. It's a close ranged spell, so I don't even need to go into harms way.

Although if the GM is not telling anybody exactly how many hit points they lost until they finish the combat, that changes the situation tremendously. It's not all that common (primarily because it makes more work for the GM) but I have seen that done.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, we run it where the player doesn't announce hit HP total, to keep that mystery. Unless they are obviously past saving.

Grand Lodge

I can heal you for 1d8+2 (average = 6.5)

Or thump the bad guy at +8 to hit, for 2d6+8 (average = 16)

That's at second level, the discrepancy only gets bigger from here.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, we run it where the player doesn't announce hit HP total, to keep that mystery. Unless they are obviously past saving.

I could actually do it that way. Instead of telling the player how much damage they take from a hit, I can just write it on a scrap of paper and give it to them. Players would not be permitted to use "game speak" to tell each other how badly wounded they are. (And once they go unconscious they obviously can't tell anybody anything.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Whisperknives wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Dark Immortal wrote:
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.

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...

1. Dedicated healers are even more pointless, again better to not take the damage to heal it. You are building a character to fix a problem instead of building a character to prevent a problem.

2. Short of the spell Heal, the enemy will cause more damage than you heal in one round past the low levels.

3. See answer 2.

4. Read what I said. The enemy now has 2 people standing within reach of each other 1 is a healer, 1 is hurt. Any smart enemy will throw an area spell against you, if they are not a caster, then they will definitely have the offense to kill him before he gets up and may have an attack or 2 left for you.

Golden rule: Play to prevent damage, not to heal it.


andreww wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
TOZ wrote:
TarkXT, can I get a copy of that spiel? I didn't screencap it before it was deleted.
Second.
Thirded

I'd like to see it as well.

If the new moderation policy is destroying real content there's a serious problem.


Just to throw out a different perspective for a moment, if I'm the GM and a PC cleric completely blows off buffing, debuffing, damage, party tactics, and everything else rational to rush forward and cast a Cure spell on the fighter who just dropped "because that's my wife, damn it!", they'll be getting a significant xp bonus.

(Hopefully they'll be playing well enough that this won't happen all the time, however.)


JoeJ wrote:

Just to throw out a different perspective for a moment, if I'm the GM and a PC cleric completely blows off buffing, debuffing, damage, party tactics, and everything else rational to rush forward and cast a Cure spell on the fighter who just dropped "because that's my wife, damn it!", they'll be getting a significant xp bonus.

(Hopefully they'll be playing well enough that this won't happen all the time, however.)

I am perfectly fine with roll playing your way through a combat.

I think I have died more times from role playing my character as his personality fits, more than from normal combat.

Scarab Sages

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, we run it where the player doesn't announce hit HP total, to keep that mystery. Unless they are obviously past saving.

I don't typically announce my hit points.

All I say is, it looks like she's getting ready to go down.

If there are other melee, she'll 5' step back and heal herself. With rage and no Raging Vitality, she has a very narrow window of unconscious before dying.


Raglum wrote:

I can heal you for 1d8+2 (average = 6.5)

Or thump the bad guy at +8 to hit, for 2d6+8 (average = 16)

That's at second level, the discrepancy only gets bigger from here.

+8 to hit as a 2nd level cleric? Pretty impressive. And 8 to damage, too? Wanna run that out for me?


DrDeth wrote:
Raglum wrote:

I can heal you for 1d8+2 (average = 6.5)

Or thump the bad guy at +8 to hit, for 2d6+8 (average = 16)

That's at second level, the discrepancy only gets bigger from here.

+8 to hit as a 2nd level cleric? Pretty impressive. And 8 to damage, too? Wanna run that out for me?

Hmm. Fate's Favored, Divine Favor, 18 STR, masterwork weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Raglum wrote:

I can heal you for 1d8+2 (average = 6.5)

Or thump the bad guy at +8 to hit, for 2d6+8 (average = 16)

That's at second level, the discrepancy only gets bigger from here.

+8 to hit as a 2nd level cleric? Pretty impressive. And 8 to damage, too? Wanna run that out for me?
Hmm. Fate's Favored, Divine Favor, 18 STR, masterwork weapon.

Throw in one more level and you can add another +3 damage from power attack.

If you threw out a bless that's another +1 to attack.

If you're an evangelist you can get another +1 to attack and damage from Inspire Courage.

Since we're apparently clerics of gorum go ahead and chuck out +1 damage from smiting if you so desire.

Damage is actually pretty easy for clerics to get.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Dark Immortal wrote:
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.

Yes, the healing itself is guaranteed to go off.

But the reason you healed him was so that he could attack, which is every bit as likely to miss as the attack you were comparing the healing to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Dark Immortal wrote:
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.

Yes, the healing itself is guaranteed to go off.

But the reason you healed him was so that he could attack, which is every bit as likely to miss as the attack you were comparing the healing to.

Hopefully the person you're healing has a better attack bonus than you.

But, really, this is an example of ignoring the opportunity costs of "being a healer" that you were talking about earlier: It's not a question of that one attack verses that one Cure spell that we should really be looking at. It's all the actions in the fight cumulatively leading up to a lower probability of needing to heal at all.

Build to do damage and you've taken that one attack once or twice already in the fight. Build to cast and you've had a chance to land that one spell a couple times as well. Build to mitigate damage and everyone will have several more chances at that one attack before the damage gets to the critical point, or use In Harm's Way to prevent more damage than most cure spells would have healed to the main target by blocking the Claw that would have led to a Rend, or taking the Bite + Grab in place of the Barbarian, leaving him free to full attack with his Greatsword.

If you only look at the moment a heal is needed, you're missing the whole picture. Sometimes the smart tactic will be to drop a healing spell, but that will be much rarer if build with something else as your focus and everyone plays moderately smartly.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Akerlof wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Dark Immortal wrote:
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.

Yes, the healing itself is guaranteed to go off.

But the reason you healed him was so that he could attack, which is every bit as likely to miss as the attack you were comparing the healing to.

Hopefully the person you're healing has a better attack bonus than you.

But, really, this is an example of ignoring the opportunity costs of "being a healer" that you were talking about earlier: It's not a question of that one attack verses that one Cure spell that we should really be looking at. It's all the actions in the fight cumulatively leading up to a lower probability of needing to heal at all.

Bingo.

I think a lot of the "Healing in combat is rarely the right action" crowd might be better identified as the "STOP TELLING ME TO HEAL YOU WHEN I'M THE REAL TANK HERE!" crowd. When I show up to the table with the highest AC, highest to-hit, solid damage, and the only weapon that's getting through DR; but then the guy who's not all those things sees "cleric" written on my sheet and defaults to thinking my best action is to keep HIM swinging... well, it's a bit nonsensical.

Imagine if there were two fighters side-by-side, and the one who was contributing less asked the one who was contributing more to stop what he was doing and use an oil of sure serious wounds on the less-effective one instead of full-attacking again.

Or if the fighter said the same thing to the wizard, thinking that oil was going to be more helpful than casting another DC forgetaboutit game-changer.

We don't get threads full of fighters saying "Why aren't the ranger or wizard healing me in combat with their oils of CSW?" But when a cleric is built such that he's doing the same damage as a fighter or the same tier of spellcasting as a wizard, with the same healing capacity as a dude with an oil, we get people asking exactly that.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Scavion wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Raglum wrote:

I can heal you for 1d8+2 (average = 6.5)

Or thump the bad guy at +8 to hit, for 2d6+8 (average = 16)

That's at second level, the discrepancy only gets bigger from here.

+8 to hit as a 2nd level cleric? Pretty impressive. And 8 to damage, too? Wanna run that out for me?
Hmm. Fate's Favored, Divine Favor, 18 STR, masterwork weapon.

Throw in one more level and you can add another +3 damage from power attack.

If you threw out a bless that's another +1 to attack.

If you're an evangelist you can get another +1 to attack and damage from Inspire Courage.

Since we're apparently clerics of gorum go ahead and chuck out +1 damage from smiting if you so desire.

Damage is actually pretty easy for clerics to get.

With both bless and divine favor, you've spent two rounds buffing.

The typical fight is over in three.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:


I think a lot of the "Healing in combat is rarely the right action" crowd might be better identified as the "STOP TELLING ME TO HEAL YOU WHEN I'M THE REAL TANK HERE!" crowd.

Most likely. A character built to tank or DPR is usually best when performing those functions. Until somebody is getting ready to die, then you do what you have to do.

That same crowd should shut up and walk away when somebody shows up with a character designed to heal. You have no more right to dictate their build than anyone else has a right to dictate your characters build.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Artanthos wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Scavion wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Raglum wrote:

I can heal you for 1d8+2 (average = 6.5)

Or thump the bad guy at +8 to hit, for 2d6+8 (average = 16)

That's at second level, the discrepancy only gets bigger from here.

+8 to hit as a 2nd level cleric? Pretty impressive. And 8 to damage, too? Wanna run that out for me?
Hmm. Fate's Favored, Divine Favor, 18 STR, masterwork weapon.

Throw in one more level and you can add another +3 damage from power attack.

If you threw out a bless that's another +1 to attack.

If you're an evangelist you can get another +1 to attack and damage from Inspire Courage.

Since we're apparently clerics of gorum go ahead and chuck out +1 damage from smiting if you so desire.

Damage is actually pretty easy for clerics to get.

With both bless and divine favor, you've spent two rounds buffing.

The typical fight is over in three.

I think he was just listing all the different reasons that DrDeth's skepticism of a melee-capable cleric was misplaced. We already saw that only one buff, not two, was needed for a moderate melee cleric to reach the attack/damage specified.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artanthos wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


I think a lot of the "Healing in combat is rarely the right action" crowd might be better identified as the "STOP TELLING ME TO HEAL YOU WHEN I'M THE REAL TANK HERE!" crowd.

Most likely. A character built to tank or DPR is usually best when performing those functions. Until somebody is getting ready to die, then you do what you have to do.

That same crowd should shut up and walk away when somebody shows up with a character designed to heal. You have no more right to dictate their build than anyone else has a right to dictate your characters build.

No, not that same crowd, but rather a very tiny group of "extremists" who think there's no place for in-combat healing ever. That is not the same group as the "stop telling my equal-or-better tank to heal your equal-or-lesser tank" group.

For instance, only in one combat in 11 levels has "heal someone" been the best action my cleric could take, but I've also not complained when someone showed up who was built to make the table immortal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


I think a lot of the "Healing in combat is rarely the right action" crowd might be better identified as the "STOP TELLING ME TO HEAL YOU WHEN I'M THE REAL TANK HERE!" crowd.

Most likely. A character built to tank or DPR is usually best when performing those functions. Until somebody is getting ready to die, then you do what you have to do.

That same crowd should shut up and walk away when somebody shows up with a character designed to heal. You have no more right to dictate their build than anyone else has a right to dictate your characters build.

No, not that same crowd, but rather a very tiny group of "extremists" who think there's no place for in-combat healing ever. That is not the same group as the "stop telling my equal-or-better tank to heal your equal-or-lesser tank" group.

For instance, only in one combat in 11 levels has "heal someone" been the best action my cleric could take, but I've also not complained when someone showed up who was built to make the table immortal.

Then the phrase should be that healing is rarely the best option ... For YOUR character.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


I think a lot of the "Healing in combat is rarely the right action" crowd might be better identified as the "STOP TELLING ME TO HEAL YOU WHEN I'M THE REAL TANK HERE!" crowd.

Most likely. A character built to tank or DPR is usually best when performing those functions. Until somebody is getting ready to die, then you do what you have to do.

That same crowd should shut up and walk away when somebody shows up with a character designed to heal. You have no more right to dictate their build than anyone else has a right to dictate your characters build.

No, not that same crowd, but rather a very tiny group of "extremists" who think there's no place for in-combat healing ever. That is not the same group as the "stop telling my equal-or-better tank to heal your equal-or-lesser tank" group.

For instance, only in one combat in 11 levels has "heal someone" been the best action my cleric could take, but I've also not complained when someone showed up who was built to make the table immortal.

Then the phrase should be that healing is rarely the best option ... For YOUR character.

Which seems to fit perfectly with another recent post of mine where I talked about how the more you build toward being a healer, the more necessary it will be, and vice-versa.

The more I discuss this healing issue, the more I think that's really it: you need to do the thing you built toward. You built a healer? Your combats are going to need healing. You built a melee guy? Your combats are going to need you to mix it up in melee. You built a control caster? Your combats are going to need you to be casting control spells.

Which would then leave the only "issue" to be when someone doesn't realize your class can be built the way it is ("You're a cleric? Oh good, a healer!") or doesn't realize that your in-combat needs as a party will vary based on what you're all built to do ("Of course you need healing!"/"Healing is never a good idea!").

I think I've learned something in this discussion. Yay! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Scavion wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Raglum wrote:

I can heal you for 1d8+2 (average = 6.5)

Or thump the bad guy at +8 to hit, for 2d6+8 (average = 16)

That's at second level, the discrepancy only gets bigger from here.

+8 to hit as a 2nd level cleric? Pretty impressive. And 8 to damage, too? Wanna run that out for me?
Hmm. Fate's Favored, Divine Favor, 18 STR, masterwork weapon.

...

If you threw out a bless that's another +1 to attack.

If you're an evangelist you can get another +1 to attack and damage from Inspire Courage.

...

Damage is actually pretty easy for clerics to get.

With both bless and divine favor, you've spent two rounds buffing.

The typical fight is over in three.

I think he was just listing all the different reasons that DrDeth's skepticism of a melee-capable cleric was misplaced. We already saw that only one buff, not two, was needed for a moderate melee cleric to reach the attack/damage specified.

Not really. BAB is +1. I have grave doubts for a str of 18, since the std guides on the class suggest a 16 after racial, with a 15 pt build.

But let's go with it. That's +4. Total +5, with a MW makes it +6 and +4 to damage.

Not gonna be a combat cleric and evangelist, since you lose a domain, and are limited to light armor and no shield.

Spells? Bogus. You can cast 2-4 spells total as a 2nd level cleric, so using Bless and Divine Favor, means you have blown your spells for the day in one combat out of 4. But let's give you Fate's Favor & Divine Favor for one buff spell. That does get you to +8 to hit, but only +6 to damage.

This means you get that for 1/4 of your encounters and have no pluses in DEX, Con, INT or CHA, your stats are 18,10,10, 10, 14, 10. Really? Still doesnt get you to +8 to damage.

But I asked how *HE* got to +8 to hit and damage. Maybe Raglum can respond?


Jiggy wrote:
Dark Immortal wrote:
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.

Yes, the healing itself is guaranteed to go off.

But the reason you healed him was so that he could attack, which is every bit as likely to miss as the attack you were comparing the healing to.

Generally, a Martial has better to hit and damage than a divine caster. Of course, with many self-buffs, the divine caster can change this, but...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

So apparently clerics aren't allowed to wield two-handed weapons (and they're weird if they take typical frontliner STR) in DrDeth's games. ;)

In other people's games, taking pretty standard melee STR and casting one buff spell makes +8/2d6+8 pretty easy.


Jiggy wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Scavion wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Raglum wrote:

I can heal you for 1d8+2 (average = 6.5)

Or thump the bad guy at +8 to hit, for 2d6+8 (average = 16)

That's at second level, the discrepancy only gets bigger from here.

+8 to hit as a 2nd level cleric? Pretty impressive. And 8 to damage, too? Wanna run that out for me?
Hmm. Fate's Favored, Divine Favor, 18 STR, masterwork weapon.

Throw in one more level and you can add another +3 damage from power attack.

If you threw out a bless that's another +1 to attack.

If you're an evangelist you can get another +1 to attack and damage from Inspire Courage.

Since we're apparently clerics of gorum go ahead and chuck out +1 damage from smiting if you so desire.

Damage is actually pretty easy for clerics to get.

With both bless and divine favor, you've spent two rounds buffing.

The typical fight is over in three.

I think he was just listing all the different reasons that DrDeth's skepticism of a melee-capable cleric was misplaced. We already saw that only one buff, not two, was needed for a moderate melee cleric to reach the attack/damage specified.

Correct.

Heck, even a wizard can have quite a respectable attack bonus at this low level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Dark Immortal wrote:
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.

Yes, the healing itself is guaranteed to go off.

But the reason you healed him was so that he could attack, which is every bit as likely to miss as the attack you were comparing the healing to.

Generally, a Martial has better to hit and damage than a divine caster. Of course, with many self-buffs, the divine caster can change this, but...

Many of those buffs could instead have been out on the martial, in which case ... Just sayin'

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

RDM42 wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Dark Immortal wrote:
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.

Yes, the healing itself is guaranteed to go off.

But the reason you healed him was so that he could attack, which is every bit as likely to miss as the attack you were comparing the healing to.

Generally, a Martial has better to hit and damage than a divine caster. Of course, with many self-buffs, the divine caster can change this, but...
Many of those buffs could instead have been out on the martial, in which case ... Just sayin'

Actually no, some of the best ones (like divine favor) are Personal range and therefore only work on the cleric.

EDIT: Or they affect multiple targets, so both the fighter and the cleric have them in equal share.


Is 'many' the same as all?


Jiggy wrote:
Actually no, some of the best ones (like divine favor) are Personal range and therefore only work on the cleric.

Pretty much this. I always get confused when people say you should buff the martials instead of the cleric when the vast majority of the single target buffs are all personal. Divine Favour, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Frightful Aspect etc etc.


Jiggy wrote:


Which would then leave the only "issue" to be when someone doesn't realize your class can be built the way it is ("You're a cleric? Oh good, a healer!")

Absolutely a party should be well balanced and roles should be determined during set up.

I would not expect a dedicated tank cleric to stop bashing in order to heal my PC... unless it was life or death. I would expect some after combat cures, but likely from a party wand.

But, if you just said "I'm gonna play the cleric" then I would expect combat healing when it's a good tactic, along with party buffs etc.

If you said you wanted to play a dedicated melee cleric, then I wouldn't play a martial, unless it was like a archer ranger for the skills and artillery. But then I'd expect you to act like a front-line tank.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RDM42 wrote:

Is 'many' the same as all?

No, but it also doesn't accurately describe the situation.

In fact, having just played a melee cleric through to 11th level, I can't think of ANY buffs that I typically applied to just myself that could have instead gone to the fighter.

It was generally the Personal-only stuff (like divine favor, and others) or whole-party stuff (like bless or blessing of fervor or my Aura of Heroism domain power).

What you call "many" is in practice very nearly "none".


andreww wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Actually no, some of the best ones (like divine favor) are Personal range and therefore only work on the cleric.
Pretty much this. I always get confused when people say you should buff the martials instead of the cleric when the vast majority of the single target buffs are all personal. Divine Favour, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Frightful Aspect etc etc.

Also the word could and should have different beginnings. See, a 'c' and a 'sh' are not the same ...


Jiggy wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

Is 'many' the same as all?

No, but it also doesn't accurately describe the situation.

In fact, having just played a melee cleric through to 11th level, I can't think of ANY buffs that I typically applied to just myself that could have instead gone to the fighter.

It was generally the Personal-only stuff (like divine favor, and others) or whole-party stuff (like bless or blessing of fervor or my Aura of Heroism domain power).

What you call "many" is in practice very nearly "none".

You quite sure about that? I see plenty of spells that can do one person buffs on someone other than yourself on the cleric lists.

Not saying they should have to use them, but claiming they aren't there ... You don't have to use the same buffs. The only point was that the cleric does have access to "other buffing" as well as "self buffing" and neither is wrong. You can make a cleric equal to the front liners ... Or you can make more potent front lines with other buffs. Neither is 'wrong' but both options exist.


RDM42 wrote:

You quite sure about that? I see plenty of spells that can do one person buffs on someone other than yourself on the cleric lists.

Not saying they should have to use them, but claiming they aren't there ...

Then give us some examples of ones you think are actually worth preparing in your spell slots.

I can think of two of the top of my head, Magic Vestment and Greater Magic Weapon, both of which I would be casting on myself.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
Also the word could and should have different beginnings. See, a 'c' and a 'sh' are not the same ...

Do you really think responses like this effectively communicate and argue your view on the subject?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DrDeth wrote:

But then I'd expect you to act like a front-line tank.

Fun story: in a previous thread on a similar topic over in the PFS forums, somebody was appalled at the idea that there were clerics who weren't going to prioritize healing his frontliner. I (and others) tried to explain that my (and their) cleric was built to fight.

Apparently he couldn't grasp that concept, as in addition to accusing me of not contributing to the group, he tried to threaten me with exactly what I wanted:

Him: "Fine, if you won't heal me, then we'll see how you like it when I get low on HP and withdraw to the back and let your cleric handle the front lines himself!"

Me: "Um... yes please?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
RDM42 wrote:

Is 'many' the same as all?

No, but it also doesn't accurately describe the situation.

In fact, having just played a melee cleric through to 11th level, I can't think of ANY buffs that I typically applied to just myself that could have instead gone to the fighter.

It was generally the Personal-only stuff (like divine favor, and others) or whole-party stuff (like bless or blessing of fervor or my Aura of Heroism domain power).

What you call "many" is in practice very nearly "none".

I pretty much agree, but I think that Bless is by far a better choice than Divine favor. Everyone gets the +1 to hit, it lasts longer, and it's even possible that +1 vs fear effects could come in handy.

There are some nice buffs that a cleric might well apply to the fighter instead of self, such as Greater Magic Weapon.

But in general, laying down a party-wide buff is the best choice.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:

There are some nice buffs that a cleric might well apply to the fighter instead of self, such as Greater Magic Weapon.

But in general, laying down a party-wide buff is the best choice.

Totally agree. My biggest problem with GMW/V is that when my cleric gets access to it, the fighter already has his weapon enchanted to the point where I can't increase his enhancement bonus. Since he can't count on getting the spell he spends him money on his weapon, while my cleric has been planning on using the spell and just enchanted his equipment to +1 so he could add special qualities. Quite the conundrum.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Also the word could and should have different beginnings. See, a 'c' and a 'sh' are not the same ...
Do you really think responses like this effectively communicate and argue your view on the subject?

Well, when the reply is written as if I had said one rather than the other, it is important to point out the very salient distinction, until they are replying based on what was actually said, what is the point?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

DrDeth wrote:
I pretty much agree, but I think that Bless is by far a better choice than Divine favor. Everyone gets the +1 to hit, it lasts longer, and it's even possible that +1 vs fear effects could come in handy.

Eh... First, bless stays at +1 while D.F. scales with level. Second, D.F. also boosts damage. At 9th level it's +3/+3 compared to +1/+0. Past the early levels, bless is barely noticeable. And this is all before we even factor in Fate's Favored.

Third, lasting longer is true in letter but false in practice. Even you, the Chief Advocate of Let's Not Play Rocket Tag, estimated combats at lasting around 6(ish) rounds. That means both spells effectively last 1 combat, so the duration difference is meaningless. Sure, bless could be a pre-buff, but then it's stacking with D.F. rather than competing with it. Both is better than either.

Quote:
There are some nice buffs that a cleric might well apply to the fighter instead of self, such as Greater Magic Weapon.

GMW is better coming from the wizard than the cleric, actually, making that one a moot point. And again, that's a pre-cast type of spell, therefore not really competing for buffing rounds.

Quote:
But in general, laying down a party-wide buff is the best choice.

All else being equal, yes. But often there's a big difference in power between Personal and party buffs. I'm not aware of any cleric spells that can give the whole party +3 to both attacks and damage. Especially not with a 1st-level slot.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
Also the word could and should have different beginnings. See, a 'c' and a 'sh' are not the same ...
Do you really think responses like this effectively communicate and argue your view on the subject?

Well, when the reply is written as if I had said one rather than the other, it is important to point out the very salient distinction, until they are replying based on what was actually said, what is the point?

And you think the manner in which you pointed it out will be effective in accomplishing that goal?


DrDeth wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Dark Immortal wrote:
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.

Yes, the healing itself is guaranteed to go off.

But the reason you healed him was so that he could attack, which is every bit as likely to miss as the attack you were comparing the healing to.

Generally, a Martial has better to hit and damage than a divine caster. Of course, with many self-buffs, the divine caster can change this, but...

Which is why reach based strategies and mass buffs are the IN thing for divine support and offensive casters. It makes use of a rather foundational rule to better the action economy.

I've got a reach melee cleric cooking up in my head that uses the Transmuter of Korada and Fate's Fortune traits together to boost some rather good buffs. At level 3 I can have a bull's strength to last 6 minutes. Which is enough time to get from one encounter to the next. So throw in a bless and activate inspire courage and it's a very very solid base of personal buffs while still providing to the group.


Jiggy wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
I pretty much agree, but I think that Bless is by far a better choice than Divine favor. Everyone gets the +1 to hit, it lasts longer, and it's even possible that +1 vs fear effects could come in handy.

Eh... First, bless stays at +1 while D.F. scales with level. Second, D.F. also boosts damage. At 9th level it's +3/+3 compared to +1/+0. Past the early levels, bless is barely noticeable. And this is all before we even factor in Fate's Favored.

Third, lasting longer is true in letter but false in practice. Even you, the Chief Advocate of Let's Not Play Rocket Tag, estimated combats at lasting around 6(ish) rounds. That means both spells effectively last 1 combat, so the duration difference is meaningless. Sure, bless could be a pre-buff, but then it's stacking with D.F. rather than competing with it. Both is better than either.

Quote:
There are some nice buffs that a cleric might well apply to the fighter instead of self, such as Greater Magic Weapon.

GMW is better coming from the wizard than the cleric, actually, making that one a moot point. And again, that's a pre-cast type of spell, therefore not really competing for buffing rounds.

Quote:
But in general, laying down a party-wide buff is the best choice.
All else being equal, yes. But often there's a big difference in power between Personal and party buffs. I'm not aware of any cleric spells that can give the whole party +3 to both attacks and damage. Especially not with a 1st-level slot.

You can't compare a plus one party wide to a plus three on one person on a one to one basis.

201 to 250 of 418 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Cleric NOT healing in combat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.