No kidding? Those people are crazy. Healing has it's place. I'm not sure it's the most effective thing a Cleric can do, but it has it's place.*takes a picture before he flees back into the forest*
Pretty much all I've said ever.
Now that is interesting. Are you saying you would never cast a healing spell in combat as a Cleric regardless of the situation? What would be your reasoning?
This thread is still going and the most interesting part seems to be a post of TarkXT's that got deleted before I saw it, I'm disappointed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Damage must be spikier in the group I play with regularly than in the "there's usually something better than healing you can do" camp's games.
When I play, bad guys don't tend to hit pc's every round. In the rounds between successful strikes, a cleric could heal that character or a cleric could swing their weapon (and likely miss). If the cleric heals the character, it adds up over the course of those rounds meaning the character is in good shape to take another wallop by the time the bad guy hits him next. OTOH, if the cleric swings his weapon instead and misses, the bad guy is no closer to dead than he was the last time he hit my fellow party member and my fellow party member is still just as wounded as he was the last time he was hit, meaning the cleric has basically wasted those rounds.
This is not the same as the straight DPR race that combat gets treated as when discussing it here under sterile, theorycrafting conditions. A healer has time to catch up to the damage dealt under most live conditions that I've experienced and a healer misses more often than not when swinging their weapon--especially when I am the cleric/healer because the dice seem to have an extra hate-on for me :D
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You entire post falls apart once you get rid of the assumption that the cleric is any more likely to miss than the fighter. No one* has ever claimed that the kind of cleric who would probably miss should attack instead of keeping the fighter up a few rounds longer. Rather, what people are saying is that a cleric who's built to put on just as much hurt as a fighter would (often) be serving the team better by continuing to attack rather than healing someone.
Nobody* is saying "Take that cleric you've already got, who's built for healing and sucks at fighting, and have him fight instead of heal." What we're saying is "If instead you build your cleric from the get-go to be better at fighting than healing, then lo and behold, fighting (the thing he's built for) will typically be a better option than healing (the thing he's not built for)."
Now that is interesting. Are you saying you would never cast a healing spell in combat as a Cleric regardless of the situation? What would be your reasoning?
No kidding? Those people are crazy. Healing has it's place. I'm not sure it's the most effective thing a Cleric can do, but it has it's place.*takes a picture before he flees back into the forest*
Pretty much all I've said ever.
Er, no? I was agreeing with the statement you presented. Because it's literally all I've said ever. In fact I doubt very much there are more than a few people who claim all healing is bad.
Now that is interesting. Are you saying you would never cast a healing spell in combat as a Cleric regardless of the situation? What would be your reasoning?
No kidding? Those people are crazy. Healing has it's place. I'm not sure it's the most effective thing a Cleric can do, but it has it's place.*takes a picture before he flees back into the forest*
Pretty much all I've said ever.
My read is that he thinks most of the time, healing in combat is no good, less than best, our a wasted action, and over-investing resources is a poor choice. Ex. Better to hold person the bad guy than to use a cure mod.
But I thought he was agreeing that it has its place.
It seems that most folks acknowledge that you need to combat heal on occasion, aside from a few strongly opinionated folks.
Jiggy, correct me if I'm wrong but your contention is that there is almost ALWAYS something better to do than cure or channel, but that doesn't mean you NEVER EVER heal!!!!!!
And quick channel doesn't seem like a terrible idea to me. Sure, it's 2 feats (cause you need selective to combat channel) but at 5th you can deal average 9hp to everyone (mitigating a fireball that was saved against) totaling 45 damage healed and still getting to attack or cast.
It's better for a sacred summoner cause you are healing more creatures each heal and hiding in the back already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
JIGGY threw the MASTER BALL!
Pffft. Legendary or not a Grass/Fighting type just gets trashed by the first Flying type it comes across.
No thanks.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, correct me if I'm wrong but your contention is that there is almost ALWAYS something better to do than cure or channel, but that doesn't mean you NEVER EVER heal!!!!!!
It is my contention (at least, currently) that the frequency with which you have something better to do than heal is directly proportional to how hard you try to be good at things other than healing.
For instance, if you build a melee cleric like you're actually building a melee character (putting all your feats toward combat, taking the same starting STR and similar gear as a fighter, etc), then the value of "do something other than heal" (in this case, attack) is pretty high, so it takes some pretty exceptional circumstances to make healing have a higher value.
If instead you buy into the (all too common) assumption that being a cleric somehow requires you to spend character resources on healing, such that your so-called "melee cleric" has STR about 2-4 points lower than the fighter and not enough DEX for a decent AC so you could have 14 CHA and you took Selective Channel and Extra Channel and Fast Channel... Well, then the value of attacking is going to be so low that it won't take much to push the value of healing higher than the value of attacking.
That's my contention.
Unfortunately, folks who build "real" melee clerics keep running into folks who can't seem to grasp that possibility, think a "melee cleric" is always built as the second example, and are bewildered by what they think is a claim that THAT cleric should be attacking instead of healing, and go "Wow, your games must be weird/too easy/etc".
Which is ridiculous.
You entire post falls apart once you get rid of the assumption that the cleric is any more likely to miss than the fighter. No one* has ever claimed that the kind of cleric who would probably miss should attack instead of keeping the fighter up a few rounds longer. Rather, what people are saying is that a cleric who's built to put on just as much hurt as a fighter would (often) be serving the team better by continuing to attack rather than healing someone.
It's situational. How confident am I that my melee cleric will drop the foe in one hit? Will a solid Cure spell bring the fighter back into the combat or just make him get dropped again?
Even with a tanky cleric, it's sometimes better to heal that hit. Esp if you have to move, so the heal as a std, then be in position for a full attack next round.
I think we both agree that a buffer/healing build like a Life Oracle can be a great benefit to a party (esp a large party, like ours) and yes, almost always they would be better off healing than hitting. (Even there i will only say "almost always").
Also, roleplaying has to be part of your decision, and how likely your buddy is going to die without healing and how costly or unlikely bringing him back will be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You entire post falls apart once you get rid of the assumption that the cleric is any more likely to miss than the fighter. No one* has ever claimed that the kind of cleric who would probably miss should attack instead of keeping the fighter up a few rounds longer. Rather, what people are saying is that a cleric who's built to put on just as much hurt as a fighter would (often) be serving the team better by continuing to attack rather than healing someone.
Nobody* is saying "Take that cleric you've already got, who's built for healing and sucks at fighting, and have him fight instead of heal." What we're saying is "If instead you build your cleric from the get-go to be better at fighting than healing, then lo and behold, fighting (the thing he's built for) will typically be a better option than healing (the thing he's not built for)."
** spoiler omitted **
Of course characters are better at doing what they're built for than they are at what they're not built for. This does not mean that it is suboptimal to build for healing, it means it's suboptimal to do a thing you are not built to do.
It is my contention (at least, currently) that the frequency with which you have something better to do than heal is directly proportional to how hard you try to be good at things other than healing.For instance, if you build a melee cleric like you're actually building a melee character (putting all your feats toward combat, taking the same starting STR and similar gear as a fighter, etc), then the value of "do something other than heal" (in this case, attack) is pretty high, so it takes some pretty exceptional circumstances to make healing have a higher value.
If instead you buy into the (all too common) assumption that being a cleric somehow requires you to spend character resources on healing, such that your so-called "melee cleric" has STR about 2-4 points lower than the fighter and not enough DEX for a decent AC so you could have 14 CHA and you took Selective Channel and Extra Channel and Fast Channel... Well, then the value of attacking is going to be so low that it won't take much to push the value of healing higher than the value of attacking.
That's my contention.
Unfortunately, folks who build "real" melee clerics keep running into folks who can't seem to grasp that possibility, think a "melee cleric" is always built as the second example, and are bewildered by what they think is a claim that THAT cleric should be attacking instead of healing, and go "Wow, your games must be weird/too easy/etc".
Which is ridiculous.
Look we agree!
A cleric optimized for melee should more often hit rather than heal.
A divine caster optimized for healing should often heal rather than hit.
Both can be a substantial asset to a party. However, if there's already a tank in the party, the melee cleric player should discuss his role with the party.
(...)However, if there's already a tank in the party, the melee cleric player should discuss his role with the party.
...Why is there a problem to have a battle cleric in a party that already has "a tank"?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Also, roleplaying has to be part of your decision, and how likely your buddy is going to die without healing and how costly or unlikely bringing him back will be.
Interestingly, the same cleric of mine that I mentioned only doing in-combat healing once in his career, has on two separate occasions offered his life in place of his comrades.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Of course characters are better at doing what they're built for than they are at what they're not built for. This does not mean that it is suboptimal to build for healing, it means it's suboptimal to do a thing you are not built to do.
And yet your post assumed that if the cleric attacked, he would probably miss anyway, which you used as an argument for why the cleric should be healing instead.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, I think most people here agree with each other and are chasing the phantoms of other more extreme positions that are certainly real ones expressed by some forum posters, but not yet in this thread.
Jiggy, the phantom of the extreme position standing behind your post
It is my contention (at least, currently) that the frequency with which you have something better to do than heal is directly proportional to how hard you try to be good at things other than healing.
For instance, if you build a melee cleric like you're actually building a melee character (putting all your feats toward combat, taking the same starting STR and similar gear as a fighter, etc), then the value of "do something other than heal" (in this case, attack) is pretty high, so it takes some pretty exceptional circumstances to make healing have a higher value.
which you are not saying is the following:
"And if you build for healing and support, you are being foolish, as the melee build I just described contributes far more to the party's survival by being proactive and killing the enemies than your lousy healer ever could. I guess some people might like playing a healer, if they like terrible suboptimal choices"DrDeth, the phantom standing behind your post
Look we agree!
A cleric optimized for melee should more often hit rather than heal.
A divine caster optimized for healing should often heal rather than hit.
Both can be a substantial asset to a party. However, if there's already a tank in the party, the melee cleric player should discuss his role with the party.
which you are not saying is the following:
"Healing is a role that someone should have covered, so if the fighter is handling melee beatstick, the cleric should have built for healing to cover more bases, regardless of what the cleric's player enjoys playing. Take one for the team or you are both being selfish and making a terrible suboptimal choice."
The fact that no one is saying the things that these phantoms are saying is heartening. I think it means that almost everyone on this thread actually agrees at heart, just every poster is seeing one of those two phantoms without their presence in the thread, and the discourse is directed past the posts in the thread and towards the respective phantom.
But good news! I brought a healer, so I can try to channel positive energy to harm the phantoms. Let's see if it works!
(...)However, if there's already a tank in the party, the melee cleric player should discuss his role with the party....Why is there a problem to have a battle cleric in a party that already has a melee character?
Roles. The ideal 4 member party has a tank, a arcane caster (battlefield control is best but...) a divine caster and a skilled person.
Having multiple tanks usually means one of the other roles isn't filled.
But that doesn't mean you could not have a melee cleric as your tank and still a another martial class:
Melee cleric (tank), archer ranger, Life oracle, Wizard: is a nice combo.
If I had a melee cleric I'd want another class that could do some back up buff/healing, like a bard, inquisitor or alchemist.
Guys, I think most people here agree with each other and are chasing the phantoms of other more extreme positions that are certainly real ones expressed by some forum posters, but not yet in this thread....
I think it means that almost everyone on this thread actually agrees at heart, just every poster is seeing one of those two phantoms without their presence in the thread, and the discourse is directed past the posts in the thread and towards the respective phantom.
This is a fantastic post, and I bow in your direction, sir.
There is definitely a values disagreement there. I
I've played with one Healbot cleric in a game, but it was in an undead heavy game and her channels were DEVASTATING to undead, and she was spec-ed out hard for it. It was also a large group with players of questionable attendance rates, but her channeling healed at least 6 people most nights, and she was nothing compared to our Monk, Paladin, Rogue, frontliners. It was also full of over-leveled outsiders with mad SR and really high saves, so it usually was better to spend two turns to keep out front up than wasting those actions to miss SR and if she rolled high deal with a made save.
it's a very corner case kind of game tho. Most of the others have been neg channelers, channel-smiters, heavies or our current Reach-Evangelist
This is a fantastic post, and I bow in your direction, sir.Guys, I think most people here agree with each other and are chasing the phantoms of other more extreme positions that are certainly real ones expressed by some forum posters, but not yet in this thread....
I think it means that almost everyone on this thread actually agrees at heart, just every poster is seeing one of those two phantoms without their presence in the thread, and the discourse is directed past the posts in the thread and towards the respective phantom.
Jiggy helped me realize that this was an important thing to post the other day, when he asked me a question about this with no context, I posted pointing out that I really don't like "Phantom Heal Hater Bully", and he thought I was talking about him, when I actually really agree with and respect where he is coming from about battle cleric builds. I thought to myself--"Man, this is probably 90% of what is going on in that other thread". So thanks for helping me figure that out Jiggy!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought he was agreeing that it has its place.
Ahhh, that would make much more sense.
A cleric optimized for melee should more often hit rather than heal.
A Cleric optimized for melee should do what is tactically appropriate for the situation. Agreed that it is more likely to be attacking most of the time. However, Clerics have healing built into their abilities, naturally there are times that healing is a good option for any Cleric.
A divine caster optimized for healing should often heal rather than hit.
Well, if you've optimized your Cleric for healing:
1) Why? Clerics are good at healing without any optimization in healing.
2) Clerics not made for melee definitely shouldn't be wading into melee (normally), but that doesn't mean that healing is the only remaining option. Even if you are "optimized" for healing, you can still probably cast combat spells, buffs, etc. Probably, more often than not, there are spells that would aid combat more than a cure wounds spell, no optimization required (except perhaps your memorization list)
Both can be a substantial asset to a party. However, if there's already a tank in the party, the melee cleric player should discuss his role with the party.
Most parties would probably benefit substantially more from a second melee character who can heal when it's needed than a "primary healer" character. All positive-energy Clerics are good at healing, if that's what you focus on with your build, you end up reducing the versatility of your character.
Of course, melee-Cleric is just one option. What about Summoning cleric? Archery Cleric? Enchantment Cleric? Mobility-tactical Cleric?
They're all healing-clerics, they can just do things that are better than healing most of the time.
You can purposely make a Cleric can't contribute anything except healing to the party, just as you can make a Rogue who isn't good at anything besides opening locks, but why?
|
|
Them eidolons can be pretty smart if you build them right.
But that doesn't mean you could not have a melee cleric as your tank and still a another martial class:
Melee cleric (tank), archer ranger, Life oracle, Wizard: is a nice combo.
Interesting enough, my run of Eyes of the Ten currently has the following party makeup:
Melee cleric/fighterMelee bardbarian
Archer ranger
Blaster sorcerer
I'm considering who I want to add in as the fifth man, but the best choice among my group right now appears to be the gunslinger...
|
(...)However, if there's already a tank in the party, the melee cleric player should discuss his role with the party....Why is there a problem to have a battle cleric in a party that already has a melee character?Roles. The ideal 4 member party has a tank, a arcane caster (battlefield control is best but...) a divine caster and a skilled person.
Having multiple tanks usually means one of the other roles isn't filled.
But that doesn't mean you could not have a melee cleric as your tank and still a another martial class:
Melee cleric (tank), archer ranger, Life oracle, Wizard: is a nice combo.If I had a melee cleric I'd want another class that could do some back up buff/healing, like a bard, inquisitor or alchemist.
The idea of roles is precisely why tabletop RPG's are better than video games RPG's in every way: WE DON'T NEED THEM.
The most successful games I've ever seen have defied role constraints, mostly because the players built their characters to be good at things, not to fill niche roles. You can build the tankiest fighter there is, but that doesn't make it a strong character: a strong character contributes to the party on a number of fronts, not just one. This is why you see classes like Cleric, Bard, Ranger, Druid, Wizard, etc. succeed so frequently at the hands of a skilled player: they have versatility built into them that allows the to succeed in a variety of circumstances.
Filling a single role in a 4-man party is silly. Being the absolute best possible person in your role means you suck at everything else, which means you're just going to drag your group down when it comes to other tasks. Don't be a "tank": be the frontline expert with tactical military knowledge and a bit of a scout's eye. Don't be a "divine spellcaster/healer": be a party face, combat support, field medic all rolled into one. The second you start putting people in roles, you get 4e syndrome, where you start reducing character options to fit iconic standards.
Them eidolons can be pretty smart if you build them right.
But that doesn't mean you could not have a melee cleric as your tank and still a another martial class:
Melee cleric (tank), archer ranger, Life oracle, Wizard: is a nice combo.Interesting enough, my run of Eyes of the Ten currently has the following party makeup:
Melee cleric/fighter
Melee bardbarian
Archer ranger
Blaster sorcererI'm considering who I want to add in as the fifth man, but the best choice among my group right now appears to be the gunslinger...
Utility or battlefield control caster. You gots two ranged damage dealers already. I'd say make it a divine caster- Heavens?. A witch might be nice, however.
|
|
If you're going optimized healing you are pretty much going Life Oracle with FCB to boost your channel to ridiculous levels.
Utility or battlefield control caster. You gots two ranged damage dealers already. I'd say make it a divine caster- Heavens?. A witch might be nice, however.
I have to take what I can get from my player pool, and I'm lucky to have a single divine caster among them. :) The only other one I can think of is my brother's heavens oracle, but he is already bringing the bardbarian.
I have seen a 15th-level cleric who could channel for 40d6, having spent one feat (Quick Channel) and the phylactery (she did grab more channels because she felt like it, but it wasn't necessary). The other choices she made had no real trade-off, since those were choices she wanted anyway for her many non-healing contributions, and one of them actually literally cost nothing.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you're going optimized healing you are pretty much going Life Oracle with FCB to boost your channel to ridiculous levels.This is still pretty unimpressive. At level 10 you are looking at 8d6 for an average of 28hp and you lose out on the extra spells known FCB.
Then you max out your CHA, take Extra Channel, and then spend that huge Channeling pool on Fast Channel ("Quick Channel"?) to do it twice in a round for 16d6, or an average of (trusting your math) 56HP. That's not a bad way to completely reset the enemy's progress.
I have seen a 15th-level cleric who could channel for 40d6, having spent one feat (Quick Channel) and the phylactery (she did grab more channels because she felt like it, but it wasn't necessary). The other choices she made had no real trade-off, since those were choices she wanted anyway for her many non-healing contributions, and one of them actually literally cost nothing.
Do you remember any more details about the cleric build? Dropping 40d6 channels without Selective Channeling seems... Well, potentially kind of counter-productive. I experimented with channel/healing output a few months back and I got some decent (but not amazing) numbers. I found some really cool feats (Fateful Channel is awesome), but not many items that support the play style. It's unfortunate that the Phylactery of Channeling takes up the same slot as the headband of charisma.
(...)However, if there's already a tank in the party, the melee cleric player should discuss his role with the party....Why is there a problem to have a battle cleric in a party that already has a melee character?Roles. The ideal 4 member party has a tank, a arcane caster (battlefield control is best but...) a divine caster and a skilled person.
Having multiple tanks usually means one of the other roles isn't filled.
But that doesn't mean you could not have a melee cleric as your tank and still a another martial class:
Melee cleric (tank), archer ranger, Life oracle, Wizard: is a nice combo.If I had a melee cleric I'd want another class that could do some back up buff/healing, like a bard, inquisitor or alchemist.
I try really hard not to force my players to pick "roles" the way you outline above, saw too much like it back in AD&D and early 3E and I found that being forced into a "niche" you don't want to play sucks.
Generally speaking I find that most parties will get along OK without having a character dedicated to one of those roles as long as the players are aware of the shortcoming and take steps to meet it - skilled can easily be divided up between different characters, for example.
That said, the archer fighter/ TWF fighter/sword and shield fighter/THF fighter party will probably have a rough time.
Have you seen Tark's alternate approach that breaks the party down into anvils, arms and hammers? If yes, what did you think of it?
I have seen a 15th-level cleric who could channel for 40d6, having spent one feat (Quick Channel) and the phylactery (she did grab more channels because she felt like it, but it wasn't necessary). The other choices she made had no real trade-off, since those were choices she wanted anyway for her many non-healing contributions, and one of them actually literally cost nothing.Do you remember any more details about the cleric build? Dropping 40d6 channels without Selective Channeling seems... Well, potentially kind of counter-productive. I experimented with channel/healing output a few months back and I got some decent (but not amazing) numbers. It's kind of unfortunate that the Phylactery of Channeling takes up the same slot as the headband of charisma.
I remember the whole build. My hint is this--in most fights, selective channeling wouldn't make a difference.
|
|
To Hit bonus
+4 str
+1 Masterwork weapon
+1 Bab
+1 divine favor (4 spells per day)
+1 fortunes favorite (+1 to any luck bonus)
To Damage
2d6 Greatsword (Cleric of gorum)
+6 Str bonus
+1 Destructive smite (5 per day) domain power
+1 Ferocious strike (5 per day) domain power
And this is for PFS so 20 point buy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess you could say there's a...
...double standard.
YYYEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH.....
To Hit bonus
+4 str
+1 Masterwork weapon
+1 Bab
+1 divine favor (4 spells per day)
+1 fortunes favorite (+1 to any luck bonus)
Ok, sounds fair, but you can only cast 3 X divine favor, maximum, right? Plus one domain spell.
This is indeed, like what Jiggy was talking about - a cleric built for melee.
Isn't that the whole point?
That you CAN be a cleric that doesn't heal? And be effective?
|
|
To Hit bonus
+4 str
+1 Masterwork weapon
+1 Bab
+1 divine favor (4 spells per day)
+1 fortunes favorite (+1 to any luck bonus)Ok, sounds fair, but you can only cast 3 X divine favor, maximum, right? Plus one domain spell.
This is indeed, like what Jiggy was talking about - a cleric built for melee.
I will cure you, if you live through the fight, 1d6 channel, 3/day.
but most people are running up to me with happy sticks, healing the cleric because they want me to keep attacking the baddies.....
To Hit bonus
+4 str
+1 Masterwork weapon
+1 Bab
+1 divine favor (4 spells per day)
+1 fortunes favorite (+1 to any luck bonus)To Damage
2d6 Greatsword (Cleric of gorum)
+6 Str bonus
+1 Destructive smite (5 per day) domain power
+1 Ferocious strike (5 per day) domain powerAnd this is for PFS so 20 point buy.
Good news, you can add +2 to your damage! Divine Favor effects both to hit bonus and damage. :)
I remember the whole build. My hint is this--in most fights, selective channeling wouldn't make a difference.
Sneaksy devses... ^^
Good news, you can add +2 to your damage! Divine Favor effects both to hit bonus and damage. :)To Hit bonus
+4 str
+1 Masterwork weapon
+1 Bab
+1 divine favor (4 spells per day)
+1 fortunes favorite (+1 to any luck bonus)To Damage
2d6 Greatsword (Cleric of gorum)
+6 Str bonus
+1 Destructive smite (5 per day) domain power
+1 Ferocious strike (5 per day) domain powerAnd this is for PFS so 20 point buy.
lol, i knew that, was late last night when i posted.
so that makes it +8 (2d6+10)
Isn't that the whole point?
That you CAN be a cleric that doesn't heal? And be effective?
At no time has anyone disputed that fact.A melee cleric is quite formidable.
Altho they almost always do healing after the battle, anyways.
As even Raglum pointed out there.
Of course characters are better at doing what they're built for than they are at what they're not built for. This does not mean that it is suboptimal to build for healing, it means it's suboptimal to do a thing you are not built to do.And yet your post assumed that if the cleric attacked, he would probably miss anyway, which you used as an argument for why the cleric should be healing instead.
Actually, all I was doing was relating how different my experience is compared to what gets discussed around here. That's why I said things like "in my game", "when I play" and "in my experience". I specifically stated that the dice particularly hate me. I don't see how any of these statements would lead you to believe that I'm talking about anything other than myself and the situations I have personally faced in game.
My only mention of optimization was to agree with your statement of the obvious that an optimized blank will be better at blank than character that is not optimized for blank.