| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Declarations that in combat healing is not needed or is a waste of time are very tiresome. Perhaps it's true for your game but it's not for mine. I have a very large group (6-8 players, 2 animal companions plus a conjuration wizard that reliably litters the battlefield with summons) which makes channeling insanely more efficient than many other options available to my cleric. Having such a large group also means it's difficult for my character to even get into melee range if he were so inclined, which he's not--that's his AC's job.
Why am I so certain that I require channeling and in-combat healing? Because the dark tapestry oracle I played before this cleric could not keep his party members alive. Not even with 2 bards and an inquisitor lending a hand. Each day would begin with us burning the majority of our spells to heal the damage we still had from the encounters the day before, leaving us tapped for buffing, debuffing, summoning or offensive casting.
Now, it is true that the DM for this game has an aversion to CLW wands. It's also true that the optimization of this group is probably on the average side at best and the damage we take might be on the high side but these things only serve to illustrate my point: your game is not my game. Can we stop with the "healing is a waste of time" pronouncements already? It is a serious disservice to those whose games resemble mine more closely than yours and does nothing to improve peoples' opinion of clerics as a class.
Declarations that in combat healing is not needed or is a waste of time are very tiresome. Perhaps it's true for your game but it's not for mine. I have a very large group (6-8 players, 2 animal companions plus a conjuration wizard that reliably litters the battlefield with summons) which makes channeling insanely more efficient than many other options available to my cleric. Having such a large group also means it's difficult for my character to even get into melee range if he were so inclined, which he's not--that's his AC's job.
Why am I so certain that I require channeling and in-combat healing? Because the dark tapestry oracle I played before this cleric could not keep his party members alive. Not even with 2 bards and an inquisitor lending a hand. Each day would begin with us burning the majority of our spells to heal the damage we still had from the encounters the day before, leaving us tapped for buffing, debuffing, summoning or offensive casting.
Now, it is true that the DM for this game has an aversion to CLW wands. It's also true that the optimization of this group is probably on the average side at best and the damage we take might be on the high side but these things only serve to illustrate my point: your game is not my game. Can we stop with the "healing is a waste of time" pronouncements already? It is a serious disservice to those whose games resemble mine more closely than yours and does nothing to improve peoples' opinion of clerics as a class.
Even in the kind of game you are describing, healing in combat is generally* wasting an action that could be better spent preventing more damage from coming in... by killing the thing that can damage you. The only "style" of game where healing is efficient in combat is where the GM is going to fudge the encounter so the monsters do not die until the players lose hp and have to recover. Otherwise this isn't a style issue, it's a math one and the math says healing is inefficient in most situations.
*Heal (the spell), getting a party member at 0 or less life back into positives, severe condition removal and the entire Vitalist class are exceptions to the general rule.
F+%+ paragon surge.
If a fight is such that the entire party dies unless you heal every/most rounds there's something fundamentally wrong with your party.
Even in those types of parties, you laying down a Control spell will be tons more effective than healing every/most rounds.
Is channeling better for large parties? Yes. Does that mean use it during combat? no. Finish the fight and then do all the healing afterwards. If you need to use the next day to heal up, don't adventure that day. Do that for one day and then you'll actually be ready for your fights and not take so much damage.
I wouldn't really put the Cleric anywhere near the "most versatile" class categories.
Instant access to your entire class spell list -- core and all allowed splats -- every morning is really hard to beat. Not even the wizard can do that (the druid can, but their list is more restrictive than the cleric's).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
For god's sake, not every game is like your game. Wait another day to adventure when we are on an adventure imposed time limit? Use CLW wands after battle when CLW wands are not available? Just do more damage when your players' system mastery is on the low side? Just hit it myself when the much hardier and effective characters intended for melee are already jockeying for position and having a hard time getting into range themselves?
And who said anything about mostly healing or healing every round? The decision to heal in combat is not a binary condition where there is only healing or no healing; it's a fluid choice based on the particular circumstances of each individual encounter.
It's already difficult to get many people to play a cleric. Having a frothing horde screaming that a cleric must be played a certain way* is not much encouragement for anyone considering the class.
At any rate, I know the truth of the matter for me based on my game play experience rather than some antiseptic exercise in math. I've had this discussion many times in the past with the same group of utter intractables. Not sure why I thought this was worth my time today. This is also straying farther from the OP's discussion than it ought to be. Good day.
*whether the screams are that they must heal or that they must never heal in combat
If only my Alchemist, Bard, Oracle, Shaman, Druid, Investigator, Paladin, or Spiritualist could do the same things clerics do.
...wait a minute...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only person here who has cleric down as their favourite class to play? They have built in roleplay hooks, can fight, can save the party from seemingly inevitable defeat with buffs or healing in the right place, and have the most flexible range of spells in the game.
Half the fun of playing a cleric is going "ooh, there's a really obscure spell that will solve just this problem... I'll have three of it memorised then."
I agree with you, but most people here on the boards seem allergic to RP that actually involves moral restrictions. They aren't saying it out loud, but most of them want co-op first person shooters, not actual RPGs.
I wouldn't really put the Cleric anywhere near the "most versatile" class categories.Instant access to your entire class spell list -- core and all allowed splats -- every morning is really hard to beat. Not even the wizard can do that (the druid can, but their list is more restrictive than the cleric's).
Right, I gave them the spells thing. But besides that? And outside of wanting a good fortitude save, or one of the handful of good domain abilities, why play one over a Shaman?
If only my Alchemist, Bard, Oracle, Shaman, Druid, Investigator, Paladin, or Spiritualist could do the same things clerics do.
...wait a minute...
Sorry but with the exception of the Oracle and possibly Spiritualist, they can't. The reason why healers are necessary in this game isn't hp loss, it's removal of conditions like cursed, paralyzed, poison, disease, etc.
There are lots of ways to regain hp,but very few classes can heal the more uncommon stuff
I am a lucky man to have never had this problem. Of course, my favorite class is the Cleric. Followed by pretty much any other divine spellcaster lol!
I hear you! In one of my current campaigns, I am playing an inquisitor (of Mystra), and I have no heal spells known at all these days - because the rest of the group is paladin, cleric, wizard and druid. Being able to use wands is sufficient. Before that, I played an oracle and a bard and a paladin. It's *nice* to be able to support the group, and you don't need to sacrifice your identity to it, if you're half-decent at coming up with a good background story.
Long story short, the big thing is to find a group where everyone shares a mindset, and is willing to handle the consequences of the various choices made in a mature way. Sure, we're an older gaming group (I think our youngest is in his 30s right now), but even if you all prefer to play aggressive glass cannons, you cannot avoid the results of the choices made.
In our case it's sometimes our damage output and battlefield control being a bit iffy, and we talk it over if it becomes a problem. In someone else's case it may well be status effects, and the answer is the exact same: sit down together, list the issues you run into, and realize that it's a group effort to deal with it.
Goodness knows that Paizo has gone out of it's way to accomodate filling party niches in a gazillion ways. So you don't want to play a cleric, and you like crowd control but also need some healing ability? Consider a witch. Need hit point healing and you like playing a bruiser? Paladin, or maybe an oradin (life oracle / paladin). Ranged combat, but the group needs magic to increase survivability in the wilds? There's the hunter, or inquisitor, or a million other ways to spin the same skill set.
The only way never to solve issues is not to talk. That also means that if your fellow party members aren't actually willing to talk it over, they aren't inclined to solve issues. Walk away, and find more mature fellow gamers. They do exist, even if you may need to look outside of your usual social circles.
If only my Alchemist, Bard, Oracle, Shaman, Druid, Investigator, Paladin, or Spiritualist could do the same things clerics do.
...wait a minute...
Sorry but with the exception of the Oracle and possibly Spiritualist, they can't. The reason why healers are necessary in this game isn't hp loss, it's removal of conditions like cursed, paralyzed, poison, disease, etc.
There are lots of ways to regain hp,but very few classes can heal the more uncommon stuff
He knows. Those classes can take care of those.
If only my Alchemist, Bard, Oracle, Shaman, Druid, Investigator, Paladin, or Spiritualist could do the same things clerics do.
...wait a minute...
Sorry but with the exception of the Oracle and possibly Spiritualist, they can't. The reason why healers are necessary in this game isn't hp loss, it's removal of conditions like cursed, paralyzed, poison, disease, etc.
There are lots of ways to regain hp,but very few classes can heal the more uncommon stuff
That's what wands are for. But otherwise I'm pretty sure the other classes I mentioned have restoration spells.
Damn ninja'd again!
|
Sorry but with the exception of the Oracle and possibly Spiritualist, they can't. The reason why healers are necessary in this game isn't hp loss, it's removal of conditions like cursed, paralyzed, poison, disease, etc.
Alchemists/Investigators get the removal spells and can take infusion to hand them out. Prep time is one minute. Paladins, as mentioned before, can use mercies on demand.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For god's sake, not every game is like your game. Wait another day to adventure when we are on an adventure imposed time limit? Use CLW wands after battle when CLW wands are not available? Just do more damage when your players' system mastery is on the low side? Just hit it myself when the much hardier and effective characters intended for melee are already jockeying for position and having a hard time getting into range themselves?
And who said anything about mostly healing or healing every round? The decision to heal in combat is not a binary condition where there is only healing or no healing; it's a fluid choice based on the particular circumstances of each individual encounter.
It's already difficult to get many people to play a cleric. Having a frothing horde screaming that a cleric must be played a certain way* is not much encouragement for anyone considering the class.
At any rate, I know the truth of the matter for me based on my game play experience rather than some antiseptic exercise in math. I've had this discussion many times in the past with the same group of utter intractables. Not sure why I thought this was worth my time today. This is also straying farther from the OP's discussion than it ought to be. Good day.
*whether the screams are that they must heal or that they must never heal in combat
1) Truth is not subjective.
2) The observations made on the forums are made using the following assumptions:
-A) You are playing the game using the RAW. Once house rules come into play (removing access to certain items, restricting healing over time, etc.), conventional wisdom regarding the baseline rules of the game no longer works.
-B) The group that is playing is optimized to a reasonable level. A reasonable level usually implies individual character viability (the ability to perform my role in the group reasonably well). If players are inexperienced, or otherwise unable to optimize viably, they will be unable to handle encounters safely the majority of the time. I've observed a trend: generally, the less optimized a group is, the more healing becomes a requirement. I've found that this trend holds true often enough to stand by it.
Basically, the conventional wisdom regarding healing (healing outside of combat is best done with wand, and healing in combat should generally be avoided unless certain dire conditions are met) work with the base game as written, assuming party viability. If those demands are not met, then conventional wisdom does not apply. This doesn't make this ideology wrong: it means that any arguments AGAINST this conventional wisdom need to be made on equal ground. They very rarely are.
That's very good to know!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the adage that in combat healing is generally the least efficient thing you can be doing, there are quite a few exceptions. Often times, healing doesn't actually need to keep pace with damage, it just needs to be sufficient to create the difference between keeping someone who can deal more damage or utilize more effective control in the fight when they would otherwise be knocked out.
Similarly, the level in question can also be very relevant. During the first 5ish or so levels of the game (not coincidentally, also the most commonly played levels), even if healing isn't pacing damage it's often enough to adjust the margins so that a potentially fatal hit instead leaves the target standing with a few hp. Since there's no drop-off in performance between having 1 hp and 50, that means your healing spell could translate into the beatstick getting a whole extra full attack in.
"In combat healing is always inefficient" is no more true than "in combat healing is always the best option". While the math does make it pretty clear that healing doesn't keep pace with damage, it won't always need to, and that's where player experience and judgment need to be exercised. I was playing a Vanguard from Ascension Games' "Path of Iron" just last night, a class that has 3/4 BAB, martial weapon and firearm proficiency, a solid spell list, and a construct companion. There were several times where some quick calculations actually showed me that the 3 hit points I restored to my construct companion were actually going to be a wiser use of my standard action than shooting the moss troll it was fighting, since it kept the construct swinging.
Good think nobody is saying it's always the wrong answer
Even in the kind of game you are describing, healing in combat is generally* wasting an action that could be better spent preventing more damage from coming in... by killing the thing that can damage you. The only "style" of game where healing is efficient in combat is where the GM is going to fudge the encounter so the monsters do not die until the players lose hp and have to recover. Otherwise this isn't a style issue, it's a math one and the math says healing is inefficient in most situations.
*Heal (the spell), getting a party member at 0 or less life back into positives, severe condition removal and the entire Vitalist class are exceptions to the general rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good think nobody is saying it's always the wrong answer
Ummm...
Is channeling better for large parties? Yes. Does that mean use it during combat? no. Finish the fight and then do all the healing afterwards.
Emphasis added.
In any case, in combat healing kills action economy - you should be trying to out damage your opponents, killing them faster - not trying to out heal their ability to damage. That's a losing battle, because healing is limited, swinging an axe is not.
I'm not actually saying that people are saying you should never heal in combat, but I can see where born_of_fire's frustration is coming from, given some of the statements that have been thrown around. I was just noting that there are no absolutes on the subject; the real lesson is that you need a character who has more options than just healing, because unless you're a finely tuned Life Oracle or an equivalent type of healer, healing won't always be your best choice. Sometimes though, it will.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately the best answer is that in-combat healing is often situational. Offensive contributions can often mean less healing overall because dead or disabled enemies don't deal damage, but if that healing is going to keep someone standing, or if it's an attrition fight where the cleric's offensive contributions become increasingly less impactful then in combat healing can be effective.
In general though I have found most healing (particularly cure) spells to be not worth the action unless they specifically push the character high enough to avoid death or unconsciousness or etc.
As for the cleric itself. Strong class with some cool tools and can be fun to play but damn does it feel outdated in what it has. Not just compared with newer classes like the shaman, but even compared to other CRB classes it feels like a design relic. CRB classes are polished from their 3.5 counterparts and modern Pathfinder classes are polished and fleshed out even beyond that, but the PF Cleric looks like it's still stuck in 3.0.
What was that about feat taxes?
Y'know, that really ticks me off when looking at that and then the Intrigue archetype. Comparing the two Cardinal gives up (effectively) three bonus feats, spontaneous curing, spontaneous summoning and a couple of sometimes helpful extras for two skill points and a couple new class skills. That makes it look even worse than it does normally.
I mean, even if I don't want to play a summoning cleric I'd probably pick Herald Caller over it just because of the utility of spontaneous summoning.
Right, I gave them the spells thing. But besides that? And outside of wanting a good fortitude save, or one of the handful of good domain abilities, why play one over a Shaman?
Specialisation.
By using certain archetypes, a cleric can make a good specialist but can still fall back on their entire spell list to make a very good generalist as well. The basic Shaman spell list is one of the worst of all the 9th level casters meaning they dont have this option. FCB helps with this but is race restrictive, 1/level and can only take spells 1 level lower.
Also the whole Shaman class is built around the idea that pretty much everyone will take Arcane Enlightenment.
To make this viable and considering you still need WIS as your main casting stat, you need WIS-26, CHA-18 and INT-16 as a minimum..... and thats without even looking at any of your physical stats yet!
This gives you 4 wiz spells of upto Lv 6 and a +8 on your spell DC with an OK amount of bonus spells.
That takes some serious starting point buy investment and cash to make happen. A cleric can go single stat and not really be that affected. This means that he can use point buy and cash in a multitiude of different ways in comparison. A cleric will in 99% of cases have better WIS and FORT saves and more HP.
Finally, PrC options are greatly restricted for the Shaman due to all its level dependant abilities and need for FCB.
But yes you are essentially right in terms of versatility that the Shaman is No 1..... but the cost of it is huge.
So, in a party of four you're saying that instead of having four people useful in a fight and have to worry about healing someone if they go down that you should have 1 of those guys be a dedicated healer instead of a useful fighter. So 1 you have 4 awesome guys and heal if one goes down, the other is you have 3 awesome guys and a guy that heals. Yeah no thanks. I'd prefer the first party.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*** You have a four party group doesn't matter what. Someone gets hurt bad during combat, it happens. Most people heal them before they drop below zero. No healer means one of those three other people has to do it. One of them is now using an action other what they intended to heal and it won't be as good as a dedicated healer. The character by the way doesn't need to be focused as a heal bot a term I personally hate. Are doctors just heal bots? No have met several some are quite interesting some less so. My point just because you are the groups medic doesn't mean you are just there to heal. It's about character design.
***
I'm not sure this is entirely true. By and large, there actually isn't that much difference between a "dedicated" healer and a character who can heal. Outside of Life Oracles, maybe a couple Shaman builds, and some 3pp classes like Dreamscarred Press' Vitalist, there aren't that many builds that actually meaningfully change the efficiency of healing spells. Until 6th level, there's no difference between even a Healing domain cleric's cure light wounds and one cast by an inquisitor. If your tank happens to be a Warpriest or a Paladin, more often than not the best tactic is going to be to let them heal themselves. Because of all the variables of positioning, environment, and the wild variations in strengths and weaknesses of different types of enemies, you can't say for sure which member of the group is going to be the least essential in a given fight.
My personal experience is that a group is generally better off with a few decent secondary healers than with a single dedicated healer, because you'll have more people who can jump into that clinch that situation when a party member needs that little bit of healing that makes the difference between them staying in the fight and going down. A super healing dedicated cleric who can't reach the ranger on the other side of the room generally won't be as useful as a bard whose near the ranger and can drop a quick CLW without disrupting their performance. Actually, IME bards make amazing healers since they've got quite a few tricks for preemptive or swift/immediate action healing, some of it naturally usable at range, and they're virtually always useful for at least 2 or 3 other things besides. They may not have the full suite of condition removal that a cleric does, but they can usually find a way to cover their bases.
Anyways, I don't think a dedicated healer is really necessary, or even better than a few characters with some secondary healing options, anymore than I think that one is totally useless. I do think it's a good idea for every character to have at least two or three different ways to participate in combat though; a cleric who can heal, fight, and buff will probably be a better ally 9 times out of 10 than a cleric who can only heal. A party with a bard, a hunter, and a paladin probably doesn't need a healing specialist at all. Sure, if the hunter has to drop a round to delay poison on the bard she won't get her normal attack in, and something similar can be said for the other characters as well, but they don't need to sacrifice much, if anything, to keep a portion of their resources set aside to aid in healing, and the party as a whole will likely be better overall for having some primary combatants and a buffer who can heal, rather than the party who has one guy who is only operating at full capacity when they're healing.
Of course, clerics make great combatants and buffers, so they can certainly be an amazing member of a party, but the general idea still applies. More often than not, you'll probably be better off with a cleric who buffs and bashes and heals when necessary than with a cleric who is so focused on healing that his ability to buff and/or bash is compromised.
The necessity of in combat healing is almost always going to be a situational judgment call. Sometimes it'll be the right move, sometimes it won't. Having a party with the flexibility to actually make and execute on that decision appropriately is probably always going to be better than a party that lacks that ability though.
Steal the recovery mechanic from 13th Age or the Healing Surge mechanic from 4E.
Alternately, just play 13th Age. It's better at being Pathfinder than Pathfinder, IMHO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where are you reading about a party that doesn't get hurt? The majority that I see are parties where it's more useful to have the cleric do something else other than healing in a fight.
And in a goodly optimized group it's true. Fights last 2-4 rounds, all you need to do then is survive a few rounds before you can get healed.
Clerics can also be good (to steal a sports reference) at being pitch hitters. Their spell abilities for divination are pretty unequaled, (augury and divination are alone worth the class), and they can also buff and damage at higher level with close or medium range attacks. Healing is not always a bad choice when combined with improving the party's defenses. It gives them a fall back when GMs deploy creatures capable of dispelling magic via touch or SLA/supernatural ability, and most clerics can fight with pretty equal ability to the martial classes. The key is to understand the roleplaying aspect for your cleric and how the mechanical abilities can be used to reinforce it while aiding the party to its goals.
Frankly, if you truly want a dedicated healer that is also killer against the undead and gets ability removal conditions to boot in addition to healing magic, the Miniatures Handbook healer is your best choice. Kick in some more condition removal 1PD abilities at the dead levels, and the class can be your best friend if you want to heal.
I'm kind of late to the thread so my statements may not be reflective of the conversation going on.
I presume that by 'cleric' we mean the 'band-aid' guy because most opinions I've seen and most builds that I've seen seem to revolve around the cleric being some kind of casting martial class rather than the 'white mage' type of character that does all the healings and buffs for everyone like the same type of character would for any videogame. Speaking of videogames I have seen people avoid the cleric because of the perception of it being a healer/buff type of class but that's besides the point. The point is that the cleric can play the healing/buff game but often does not and sometimes that is sad for a party that wants buffs and healing.
From my personal experience most times I've played a cleric or cleric was specifically because nobody else was playing a class that was capable of dealing with ability damage, something that I really hate, so I often play the 'white mage' doing mostly healing and buffs. And this happens a lot and when I don't do it we wind up with two battle work days because of HP problems which annoys me. This would all be fine but I feel like the cleric don't have that many significant buffs to hand out without third party products. I REALLY want Divine Favor to target creatures touched and there are too few party buffs for my tastes. Nowadays whenever I want to play a white mage I go for third party classes. So I guess you can say that my biggest problem with the cleric is that the ability to be a white mage isn't exactly optimal.
I'm kind of late to the thread so my statements may not be reflective of the conversation going on.
I presume that by 'cleric' we mean the 'band-aid' guy because most opinions I've seen and most builds that I've seen seem to revolve around the cleric being some kind of casting martial class rather than the 'white mage' type of character that does all the healings and buffs for everyone like the same type of character would for any videogame. Speaking of videogames I have seen people avoid the cleric because of the perception of it being a healer/buff type of class but that's besides the point. The point is that the cleric can play the healing/buff game but often does not and sometimes that is sad for a party that wants buffs and healing.
From my personal experience most times I've played a cleric or cleric was specifically because nobody else was playing a class that was capable of dealing with ability damage, something that I really hate, so I often play the 'white mage' doing mostly healing and buffs. And this happens a lot and when I don't do it we wind up with two battle work days because of HP problems which annoys me. This would all be fine but I feel like the cleric don't have that many significant buffs to hand out without third party products. I REALLY want Divine Favor to target creatures touched and there are too few party buffs for my tastes. Nowadays whenever I want to play a white mage I go for third party classes. So I guess you can say that my biggest problem with the cleric is that the ability to be a white mage isn't exactly optimal.
For ability damage, A Wand of Lesser Restoration is very reasonably priced.
For hit point damage, a Wand of Cure Light Wounds is very very very reasonably priced.
Clerics have some amazing buffing spells, right from the get-go. Bless, Protection from Evil, Prayer, Divine Favor, Blessings of Fervor, Aid, Protection from Energy, Wind Wall, Spell Immunity are all really good.
Clerics have some amazing buffing spells, right from the get-go. Bless, Protection from Evil, Prayer, Divine Favor, Blessings of Fervor, Aid, Protection from Energy, Wind Wall, Spell Immunity are all really good.
Out of those spells Divine Favor is personal and only Bless, and Pro-evil are first level spells, with non-scaling bonuses and single targets. I wouldn't all that all that interesting of buffing from the get-go.
I know wands can help out quite a bit, although personally I don't like banking on such things being available until I can actually access them through class features, which I guess is okay for the feat at fifth level depending on the class.
Clerics have some amazing buffing spells, right from the get-go. Bless, Protection from Evil, Prayer, Divine Favor, Blessings of Fervor, Aid, Protection from Energy, Wind Wall, Spell Immunity are all really good.
Out of those spells Divine Favor is personal and only Bless, and Pro-evil are first level spells, with non-scaling bonuses and single targets. I wouldn't all that all that interesting of buffing from the get-go.
I know wands can help out quite a bit, although personally I don't like banking on such things being available until I can actually access them through class features, which I guess is okay for the feat at fifth level depending on the class.
At first level character, Clerics get Guidance, Resistance, Bless (this affects all allies within 50'), Liberating Command, Magic Weapon, Protection from Evil, Shield of Faith, and Blessings of the Watch. They can take Variant Channeling, too, which is kind of cool. They're really awesome at buffing.
At first level character, Clerics get Guidance, Resistance, Bless (this affects all allies within 50'), Liberating Command, Magic Weapon, Protection from Evil, Shield of Faith, and Blessings of the Watch. They can take Variant Channeling, too, which is kind of cool. They're really awesome at buffing.Clerics have some amazing buffing spells, right from the get-go. Bless, Protection from Evil, Prayer, Divine Favor, Blessings of Fervor, Aid, Protection from Energy, Wind Wall, Spell Immunity are all really good.
Out of those spells Divine Favor is personal and only Bless, and Pro-evil are first level spells, with non-scaling bonuses and single targets. I wouldn't all that all that interesting of buffing from the get-go.
I know wands can help out quite a bit, although personally I don't like banking on such things being available until I can actually access them through class features, which I guess is okay for the feat at fifth level depending on the class.
I guess I was wrong then. Most of the time I feel like I'm dealing with dishing for +1s so I'm normally not really feeling the cleric.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Declarations that in combat healing is not needed or is a waste of time are very tiresome. Perhaps it's true for your game but it's not for mine. I have a very large group (6-8 players, 2 animal companions plus a conjuration wizard that reliably litters the battlefield with summons) which makes channeling insanely more efficient than many other options available to my cleric. Having such a large group also means it's difficult for my character to even get into melee range if he were so inclined, which he's not--that's his AC's job.
Why am I so certain that I require channeling and in-combat healing? Because the dark tapestry oracle I played before this cleric could not keep his party members alive. Not even with 2 bards and an inquisitor lending a hand. Each day would begin with us burning the majority of our spells to heal the damage we still had from the encounters the day before, leaving us tapped for buffing, debuffing, summoning or offensive casting.
Now, it is true that the DM for this game has an aversion to CLW wands. It's also true that the optimization of this group is probably on the average side at best and the damage we take might be on the high side but these things only serve to illustrate my point: your game is not my game. Can we stop with the "healing is a waste of time" pronouncements already? It is a serious disservice to those whose games resemble mine more closely than yours and does nothing to improve peoples' opinion of clerics as a class.
Even in the kind of game you are describing, healing in combat is generally* wasting an action that could be better spent preventing more damage from coming in... by killing the thing that can damage you. The only "style" of game where healing is efficient in combat is where the GM is going to fudge the encounter so the monsters do not die until the players lose hp and have to recover. Otherwise this isn't a style issue, it's a math one and the math says healing is inefficient in most situations.
In healing combat is generally not very efficient, but it is not necessarily a waste of time. No matter how good your party is, there will be a time when you need to heal in combat to prevent the death of one or more party members or to keep a member of the party up for one more round that is much better at killing the enemy than you are. Sometimes it's better to channel to get a few party members conscious or to give the barbarian one more round of full attack to make the enemy dead than to cast a buff or damaging spell or even attack yourself.
*Heal (the...
So, I may be stuck with the "healer" role in our next campaign, and just like alot of people on this thread, I hate Clerics and am not a huge fan of divine full casters in general. I was actually considering playing a melee Spiritualist (either the base class or the Ectoplasmatist archetype) as a non-traditional choice for the healer role.
Assuming I select the Cure/Restoration/Remove X spells for my character, and assuming I have a wand of CLW, do people think that a Spiritualist would have healing enough for a group of 4 PCs?
Those are good arguments, Atarlost. How about a bomber alchemist, do they perform any better in a healing role?
Those are good arguments, Atarlost. How about a bomber alchemist, do they perform any better in a healing role?
If you work with a paladin to coordinate extracts and mercies they work pretty well, but alone there's a lot they're missing out on and the paladin has to grab ultimate mercy if you want breath of life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dwarven cleric is fine.
PC "Dude I am injured can you heal me up?"
DC "Your fine! rub some dirt in it you pansy!"
PC "I feel really badly...."
DC "Get tough or die!"
A Chirurgeon Alchemist gets Breath of Life (needs Poisoner's Gloves to administer effectively). Alchemical Allocation lets you recycle various healing potions (assuming your party members don't mind the backwash).
Hmmm...this may be worth exploring, thanks!
I'm sure this was mentioned months ago, but obviously the Oradin is a solid choice for being a competent damage dealer, while still providing healing. It isn't perfect, but it's certainly effective.
I'm hoping the healers handbook in a few months
You have my attention also giiiiiiiiiiive.