I've seen healers done right, and it's scary. As long as you have enough damage-dealing classes in the party you can heal without dropping too much, especially if said healing is done via Channeling as a move action (Swift Channel) in addition to spellcasting. There are plenty of ways to make healers contribute outside of healing as well, such as the many channel feats (Fateful Channel is a favorite of mine - granting rerolls is really strong). I can say from experience DMing a high-level campaign (we're talking 18-20 here) that regardless of what spells and defenses you put up you can't be prepared for everything. Most fights saw the melee contenders getting killed multiple times (Breath of Life is another "healing" ability that is severely underrated - just make sure to have a familiar of some sort using a wand of Spectral Hand and deliver the touch through that instead). If someone was using Shield Other in addition to spells like Mass Heal and high-level Channels I guarantee the extra round would've been enough time to put all enemies into the ground.
The same concept applies to a more toned down extent at earlier levels - if your damage dealers are not unconscious or dead they will typically deal damage, and the longer they stay alive the more damage they can deal. "Healing" in Pathfinder implies more than just dealing with HP damage - you need to be able to remove conditions and prevent damage as well. One player in a Wrath campaign I ran played a Witch Doctor Life Shaman, using Shield Other (via FCB) and multiple Channel pools to mitigate damage while casting buffs and debuffs when appropriate - all before they even hit their first mythic tier. It worked, it kept them alive far longer than they would've normally lasted, and the player had fun doing it.
The combats I run for my party rarely only go three or fewer rounds. I fear that for combats to be consistently this short, a GM must be going terribly easy on the party.
In groups with optimized PCs, you get things like ranged attacks of +29/+29/+29/+24/+19 1d8+26 by level 12 (picking someone at random from a DPS discussion thread). With a couple of martial characters doing a couple of hundred damage a round between them, and a couple of support characters making sure the enemy can't counteract that in any way, they're going to mow down even 'epic' CR opposition within three rounds under normal circumstances. Sure, GM's can counteract the PCs by tripling the number of enemies or whatever, but not every GM wants to do that.
Oh sure, I've had fights where it seems everyone misses for 2 rounds straight, but even those wrap up long before 6 rounds. The math of the game doesn't really support fights going past 5 rounds without something strange going on or sub-par (not merely below average) characters. I'd be immediately suspicious of fudging in all cases of a fight going past 6 rounds. I'd love to hear the details of a fight going past 6 rounds with no fudging involved or one of the above noted exceptions.It's actually really easy.
The monsters use the same level of tactical and strategic planning and execution as the players, depending upon the intelligence level of the monsters in question, of course.
If the encounters charge straight in and let themselves get pounded, then the combat isn't going to last very long. If they use cover and concealment, maneuverability, their own magical abilities to SoS the party, work in coordination to direct attacks at a single important party member to neutralize that opponent, etc., then combats can (and should) last far more than 3 rounds, though I think that 10+ rounds would be a relatively rare thing.
This is largely true.
However this also means that long fights are not a mathematical anomaly but a tactical thing.
Essentially when you're doing things to avoid taking the damage or dealing the most without getting the same in return fights tend to take a bit longer.
However, this same philosophy is exactly why combats can be shorter as well. When the group is acting in congress, focuses its fire and learns to handle secondary threats fights can go fairly quick even if you're not taking it easy.
|
The math of the game doesn't really support fights going past 5 rounds without something strange going on or sub-par (not merely below average) characters. I'd be immediately suspicious of fudging in all cases of a fight going past 6 rounds. I'd love to hear the details of a fight going past 6 rounds with no fudging involved or one of the above noted exceptions.Recently I had a battle with a Will O Wisp - that went on for quite a few rounds because the group couldn't hit its Armor Class even when they could see it, but they had a wand of Cure Moderate Wounds that could negate the damage it inflicted.
No one had max ranks in bluff? Will O Wisp is one of the few enemies which is worth using Feint on as a standard action. (makes them SO MUCH less annoying)
No one had max ranks in bluff? Will O Wisp is one of the few enemies which is worth using Feint on as a standard action. (makes them SO MUCH less annoying)
No-one in my group had sufficient system mastery to realise that was a solution. As you say, it's rarely a good idea to feint if you're not super-specialised in it, so it's not something most people would even consider.
Finally got to see a plethora of in-combat healing myself in one of my home games. Granted, it was not the normal situation most people experience, but it happened nonetheless. Long story short, I'm in book 6 of Carrion Crown, which has more undead than you can shake a stick at. And there's a Life Spirit Guide Oracle who's taken a life wandering spirit for this particular spot. As it turns out, between the Dervish Dancer bard, the Barbarin, and the Witch setting him up, he gets to clear most of the encounters without a problem. A typical round for them goes like this:
1). Witch uses Misfortune on the things that have been identified to not be undead.
2). Barbarian and Bard charge misfortuned enemy and tear it to shreds thanks to teamwork feats, eating a few attacks of opportunity if necessary.
3). Oracle Channels and swift-casts a mass cure spell. Barbarian and Bard come out with more than their max hitpoints, and most of the undead have been heal-nuked.
4). The few enemies left generally either retreat or desperately try to kill these a*@+*##s, with very little success.
The major success from this, however, comes from the fact that the Life Oracle is healing his side while hurting the other side at the same time. Add in how good of a healer the Life Oracle is, and it comes out very well on my party's end.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finally got to see a plethora of in-combat healing myself in one of my home games. Granted, it was not the normal situation most people experience, but it happened nonetheless. Long story short, I'm in book 6 of Carrion Crown, which has more undead than you can shake a stick at. And there's a Life Spirit Guide Oracle who's taken a life wandering spirit for this particular spot. As it turns out, between the Dervish Dancer bard, the Barbarin, and the Witch setting him up, he gets to clear most of the encounters without a problem. A typical round for them goes like this:
1). Witch uses Misfortune on the things that have been identified to not be undead.
2). Barbarian and Bard charge misfortuned enemy and tear it to shreds thanks to teamwork feats, eating a few attacks of opportunity if necessary.
3). Oracle Channels and swift-casts a mass cure spell. Barbarian and Bard come out with more than their max hitpoints, and most of the undead have been heal-nuked.
4). The few enemies left generally either retreat or desperately try to kill these a#+!~%!s, with very little success.
The major success from this, however, comes from the fact that the Life Oracle is healing his side while hurting the other side at the same time. Add in how good of a healer the Life Oracle is, and it comes out very well on my party's end.
You do know that channel energy can't heal/harm at the same time, right? You choose when you channel. The mass cure would work this way, but not the channel.
You do know that channel energy can't heal/harm at the same time, right? You choose when you channel. The mass cure would work this way, but not the channel.Finally got to see a plethora of in-combat healing myself in one of my home games. Granted, it was not the normal situation most people experience, but it happened nonetheless. Long story short, I'm in book 6 of Carrion Crown, which has more undead than you can shake a stick at. And there's a Life Spirit Guide Oracle who's taken a life wandering spirit for this particular spot. As it turns out, between the Dervish Dancer bard, the Barbarin, and the Witch setting him up, he gets to clear most of the encounters without a problem. A typical round for them goes like this:
1). Witch uses Misfortune on the things that have been identified to not be undead.
2). Barbarian and Bard charge misfortuned enemy and tear it to shreds thanks to teamwork feats, eating a few attacks of opportunity if necessary.
3). Oracle Channels and swift-casts a mass cure spell. Barbarian and Bard come out with more than their max hitpoints, and most of the undead have been heal-nuked.
4). The few enemies left generally either retreat or desperately try to kill these a#+!~%!s, with very little success.
The major success from this, however, comes from the fact that the Life Oracle is healing his side while hurting the other side at the same time. Add in how good of a healer the Life Oracle is, and it comes out very well on my party's end.
Yes, I do know that. Which is why he generally saves the channel for the undead, and hits everyone with his mass cures. I like adventure paths for the work they save me, but they're not always what one could call challenging, especially if you've given your party more than a 15 point buy for stats. Perhaps I should have specified which he generally went for.
Oh sure, I've had fights where it seems everyone misses for 2 rounds straight, but even those wrap up long before 6 rounds. The math of the game doesn't really support fights going past 5 rounds without something strange going on or sub-par (not merely below average) characters. I'd be immediately suspicious of fudging in all cases of a fight going past 6 rounds. I'd love to hear the details of a fight going past 6 rounds with no fudging involved or one of the above noted exceptions.It's actually really easy.
The monsters use the same level of tactical and strategic planning and execution as the players, depending upon the intelligence level of the monsters in question, of course.
If the encounters charge straight in and let themselves get pounded, then the combat isn't going to last very long. If they use cover and concealment, maneuverability, their own magical abilities to SoS the party, work in coordination to direct attacks at a single important party member to neutralize that opponent, etc., then combats can (and should) last far more than 3 rounds, though I think that 10+ rounds would be a relatively rare thing.
I play my intelligent monsters to brutal effectiveness. Targeting single players determined to be a threat? Check? (This leads to things like the high level Monk in my campaign being largely ignored as a threat, because frankly he wasn't.) Spamming SoS *and* SoD? Check and double check! (Poor Monk rolling a 1 on a SoD was one of his deaths.) Working in coordination, pinning down and working to remove opponents? Check, Check, and Check! (Maze sees a *lot* of use in my campaigns.) Guess what? The math of the game doesn't change. It just means that in my campaign the PCs can be defeated in about 3 rounds. My PCs have had to bail with teleport or plane shift when overwhelmed.
So yes, even with your suggestions 10+ combats should be very rare. If you have been in one more then 6 rounds, it's probably one of the outliers I listed. If it's not one of those and the PCs aren't far below average, you should suspect fudging. (Oh man, the Wizard, 3 teleport mishaps in one campaign. Priceless.)
But it sure gets old hearing about how, apparently, Pathfinder is supposed to work this way. Follow the class guides to build four murder-hobo munchkins and rocket-tag every encounter to oblivious before round three.
Do it this way or we're doing it wrong.
I, for one, would like to acknowledge that that's only ONE way to "play" this "game", if it even is playing a game at that point.
If that's a "high horse" then so be it.
So if a player takes dazing spell, realizes it works great with chain lighting (I prefer Ball Lightning myself), you deem them to essentially be "doing it wrong". Because if so, then yes, that is a issue. *THE* issue in fact.
Quickly skimming this thread, have read the first 50 posts and a few on the last page.
I play a level 14 Cleric and I'm mostly handing out buffs and heals, I don't contribute in the damage compartment at all. And I agree that most of the time, I'm healing less than they can dish out, but I heal by enough that I keep my friends up until the combat is over. If an enemy can drop a PC in two turns, and I heal for only half as much, that means I still give that character a full round in which it can try to end the combat. Add to that the fact that usually our action economy is better than the enemy's, and it means that we usually outpace the enemy, so if my healing isn't enough, someone else can pick up the slack.
I find that in-combat healing isn't as effective, but it's still important to have healing options. Stray criticals can be avoided with Breath of Life, and it just gives your team a little more wiggle room.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So if a player takes dazing spell, realizes it works great with chain lighting (I prefer Ball Lightning myself), you deem them to essentially be "doing it wrong". Because if so, then yes, that is a issue. *THE* issue in fact.
One, nowhere in my posts did I say anything was wrong, other than that it's wrong to suggest there is only one way to play the game.
Two, I never said a player shouldn't use dazing chain lighting (or anything else). I did say that this tactic could end many feeble encounters in the first round, and I did say that some people like to play this way, and I did say that some GMs make an effort to design non-feeble encounters so that they won't all be ended in the first round by this tactic. None of which is any valuation judgment of the tactic itself - I never "deemed" it to be "doing it wrong".
Three, I don't put any of this on the player. Chain Lightning exists, Dazing exists, these are just two of countless tools in the players' toolboxes, there to be used however the players want to use them. If the GM keeps throwing feeble encounters at the players and they keep ending them in round one with dazing chain lightings and if everybody is enjoying it that way, then awesome, they're doing it right (for their table, which is all that matters at that table). Me, I won't GM it that way. Sure, they'll be able to do it sometimes, feel like superheroes, but other times that tactic won't help them much and they'll have a real encounter with real tactical and strategical challenges to be solved - so that they can actually play a game rather than just steamroll a story. And if everybody is enjoying it that way, then awesome, we're doing it right (for our table, which is all that matters at our table).
My original "high horse" post was merely to call out a post that seemed to dismissively suggest that NOT playing rocket tag with optimized murder hobos was an inferior approach to the game.
|
|
Targeting single players determined to be a threat? Check? (This leads to things like the high level Monk in my campaign being largely ignored as a threat, because frankly he wasn't.)
That's why I make my tanky characters not look tanky. Low levels? My monk wore a robe & pointy hat with stars & moons on them. Later? A hat of disguise or two for the group can keep the enemy guessing and make them take a swing or five at beefy characters before moving on.
So if a player takes dazing spell, realizes it works great with chain lighting (I prefer Ball Lightning myself), you deem them to essentially be "doing it wrong". Because if so, then yes, that is a issue. *THE* issue in fact.One, nowhere in my posts did I say anything was wrong, other than that it's wrong to suggest there is only one way to play the game.
Two, I never said a player shouldn't use dazing chain lighting (or anything else). I did say that this tactic could end many feeble encounters in the first round, and I did say that some people like to play this way, and I did say that some GMs make an effort to design non-feeble encounters so that they won't all be ended in the first round by this tactic. None of which is any valuation judgment of the tactic itself - I never "deemed" it to be "doing it wrong".
Three, I don't put any of this on the player. Chain Lightning exists, Dazing exists, these are just two of countless tools in the players' toolboxes, there to be used however the players want to use them. If the GM keeps throwing feeble encounters at the players and they keep ending them in round one with dazing chain lightings and if everybody is enjoying it that way, then awesome, they're doing it right (for their table, which is all that matters at that table). Me, I won't GM it that way. Sure, they'll be able to do it sometimes, feel like superheroes, but other times that tactic won't help them much and they'll have a real encounter with real tactical and strategical challenges to be solved - so that they can actually play a game rather than just steamroll a story. And if everybody is enjoying it that way, then awesome, we're doing it right (for our table, which is all that matters at our table).
My original "high horse" post was merely to call out a post that seemed to dismissively suggest that NOT playing rocket tag with optimized murder hobos was an inferior approach to the game.
If you go back and reread your post, you'll notice that you repeatedly dismissively suggest that "playing rocket tag with optimized murder hobos" was not only an inferior approach to the game it doesn't even qualify as a game to you at all.
In short: You did exactly what you're accusing others of doing.
As far as the encounter length debate goes, I find that encounters usually are more-or-less decided by three rounds of heavy fighting. However, it's not unusual to see a round or two of buffing/maneuvering/skirmishing before everyone starts really pounding on each other, and while the battle is usually decided after three rounds of pounding there might be a round or two of mop-up afterwards.
If you go back and reread your post, you'll notice that you repeatedly dismissively suggest that "playing rocket tag with optimized murder hobos" was not only an inferior approach to the game it doesn't even qualify as a game to you at all.
In short: You did exactly what you're accusing others of doing.
Sure, I've been there, I've done that (on both sides of the screen). It's not what I like and I don't consider that to be a game because there is literally no challenge and no risk and no doubt about any outcome of anything.
I also said, repeatedly, that I'm not telling anyone not to play that way - everybody should play how they like in their games.
So I described one style of play that I don't like, said as much, and said that people shouldn't post as if that's the only right way to play. Myself included, because I sure don't think my way is the only right way to play and have not ever posted as such.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of points about the healing in combat debate that seem to get missed frequently.
1) There is no "Healer" class in Pathfinder. Even a healing domain cleric (probably the closest thing to a "Healer") doesn't have to memorize a single healing spell, yet can convert all but their domain spells (1/spell level) to healing, plus they still have several channel energies (assuming they are positive energy).
2) Most divine magic, and especially cleric spells are heavily weighted toward defense and/or buffing. Generally there are only one or two spells per level that are effective offense, and these are often limited to a specific creature type such as humanoid, or aligned outsider. If you don't encounter that creature type, the spell is totally useless. Many of the other spells are enchantment, language dependent, alignment dependent, etc. Almost all allow a save, SR, and often require a successful touch attack. If any of these fail, chances are you had zero effect that round. The direct damage spells a cleric gets are usually weaker then a comparative arcane spell of the same level.
3) Unless you invest in it, a cleric is generally a mediocre melee combatant, and piss poor archer. If you want to participate in melee combat, it requires adequate ability scores, and feats/domains that provide proficiency with better weapons/armor. It also requires more investment in magical arms and armor. All of these sacrifice casting power for fighting power. Even with all of those things, it generally requires 2-3 spells in order to EQUAL a fighter of the same level, and the really good ones are rounds/level, and generally don't do anything for ranged attacks, if not actually making them worse.
These points are important to remember because the idea behind the healing-in-combat-is-a-waste argument is that there are better actions that you could be taking, that will end the encounter faster then keeping the injured character in the fight.
On the first round, the reality is that the cleric will cast hold person, or blindness, or flame strike, assuming that they are targeting a humanoid, creature with a weak fortitude save, or flammable creature respectively. Or they will cast Divine Favor, Righteous Might, or whatever if they are a melee cleric. Or my personal favorite tactic of summoning a monster.
On the second or third round, is usually when healing will start to be useful/needed, and it is then that the question "what is the best action I can take?" really gets asked. If the cleric just cast divine favor and righteous might, he better start kicking ass. However, if the cleric is not built for melee, the best option is often keeping the other party members in the fight. This sometimes means casting a freedom of movement, resist energy, or status removal spell, but often it means swapping a spell out for a cure spell. Usually by that point in the combat, that is the most optimal action.
[...](three of the positive channels to heal were done as swift actions so the warpriest was still in there swinging at the minions)[...]Out of curiosity, how did the Warpriest gain the ability to channel energy as a swift action?
Blake, I'm gonna go ahead and quote my post in case you missed the question the first time. There's a warpriest in my Hell's Rebels campaign who is very interested in learning how this is possible. :)
The original post I'm quoting can be found here.
Most recently, it took my group a fairly long period of time to kill Zoud in the Choking Tower because of the 50% miss chance against incorporeal foes. I even rolled the miss chance in open view so they wouldn't think I was fudging.
Are you applying a 50% miss chance to physical attacks with magic weapons against incorporeal foes in the belief that this is a rule in Pathfinder?
Feint is a standard action without improved feint, which most non specialized builds won't have. Also feint only affects attacks you make on the target. If you don't have improved feint, you won't get any actions to attack.
It lasts until your next attack, though, so you can get the benefit on a subsequent round.
[...](three of the positive channels to heal were done as swift actions so the warpriest was still in there swinging at the minions)[...]Out of curiosity, how did the Warpriest gain the ability to channel energy as a swift action?Blake, I'm gonna go ahead and quote my post in case you missed the question the first time. There's a warpriest in my Hell's Rebels campaign who is very interested in learning how this is possible. :)
The original post I'm quoting can be found here.
Yeah, I guess I did miss that in all the smoke and mirrors...
I actually answered that on page one, post 27 of this thread. It was a custom item that I gave him to make him less of a healbot and more of a WARpriest, but still able to heal.
Yeah, I guess I did miss that in all the smoke and mirrors...
I actually answered that on page one, post 27 of this thread. It was a custom item that I gave him to make him less of a healbot and more of a WARpriest, but still able to heal.
Ah, interesting! I read your previous post but I didn't connect the dots between "warpriest" and "healer" - the WP's slow channel progression really kills the healing side of the class for me. Though the option to channel as a swift whenever you hit someone is definitely interesting... I might steal this. Thanks! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A four person party needs two things, a healer and someone able to disarm like a Rogue.
Not in my experience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A four person party needs two things, a healer and someone able to disarm like a Rogue.Not in my experience.
It looks like it is the season to go over the basics again.
Trazpfinding is not a requirement, healing is situational at best, fireball is inefficient...
I keep meaning to archive all this every time we go over it again, and I always seem to forget to do so.
A four person party needs two things, a healer and someone able to disarm like a Rogue.Not in my experience.It looks like it is the season to go over the basics again.
Trazpfinding is not a requirement, healing is situational at best, fireball is inefficient...
I keep meaning to archive all this every time we go over it again, and I always seem to forget to do so.
I think it's going to have to happen sooner or later. Seems like we go through this on a weekly basis.
I keep meaning to archive all this every time we go over it again, and I always seem to forget to do so.
Go for it.
Make a post like that big one that listed all the flawed arguments about martial Caster Disparity so we can all just reference the post and the numbered paragraph for all these questions.
I don't see the point in taking musket master as a dip. To me the best dip for an oracle is 1 level of mysterious stranger.
Paladin 2 is also pretty tasty, especially now that Divine Protection's been nerfed.
Though honestly I've never had a problem being combat-effective with a divine caster. The Cleric/Oracle spell list has plenty of good buffs, summons, Save-or-Sucks, battlefield control, and even a little blasting.