Combat Healing


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm hoping combat healing becomes viable again. The Cure spells are very obsolete (they're throwbacks to 1e D&D, when damage was much, much lower), and the healing line in general is very limited, outside of things with "Heal" in their name.

I'd like to see the following (please? pritty please??):
- fast, instant heals for rapid response to critical situations (ie fightie mcfightington is about to die, instant cure light wounds!). These should be more powerful than the existing 1e spells, but less powerful than:
- heals-over-time for slower response to less critical situations (fightie mcfightington is rather low on health but the big baddie is already dead, and he's just cleaning up some stray goblins and not in any real danger.. continuing cure light wounds!)
- Different kinds of AoE spellies for heals - lines, radius, cones
- Maybe things like all single-target heal spells have range, but if you touch the target, there's a multiplier or something.
- Combining healies with buffs would be super nifty! Like offensive or defensive buffs that last for a couple of rounds.

That would make things much more interesting and effective.

Signed,
Kerrilyn, cleric of The Healing Light.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Seeing new ways of toying with healing to make it more like support class abilities in games such as, say, Overwatch, would open a whole load of options, for PCs and enemies both. A long range healing spell that does less healing, a close up healing spell that gives, say, Fast Healing = 1/2 CL so long as the healer is on the healee, a spell that emulates an Alchemist's Healing bomb, etc. Basically, make healing a more versatile tool than just "I cast Cu X or Channel Energy or Lay on Hands", and make it as flexible as any other type spell. Hell, if you're feeling ambitious, even a Wizard school of healing!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Seeing new ways of toying with healing to make it more like support class abilities in games such as, say, Overwatch, would open a whole load of options, for PCs and enemies both. A long range healing spell that does less healing, a close up healing spell that gives, say, Fast Healing = 1/2 CL so long as the healer is on the healee, a spell that emulates an Alchemist's Healing bomb, etc. Basically, make healing a more versatile tool than just "I cast Cu X or Channel Energy or Lay on Hands", and make it as flexible as any other type spell. Hell, if you're feeling ambitious, even a Wizard school of healing!

Yep yep! Exactly! Options so that we can make meaningful choices.

(well, I'm not super excited about the idea of wizards healing, although that would probably make for a good optional thingie for "white mage"-style worlds)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't care whether healing is reserved for clerics, but healing in general definitely needs an overhaul. Healing spells are seriously underpowered in the context of how much damage is being dealt, how often it is needed (which is why CLW wands are so necessary to keep going). A first level cleric, bard, or oracle isn't going to be able to do enough healing to get a party through 5 or 6 encounters in a day, let alone more than one.


Judging by how many posts decry healing as a role or necessity, I dont know how much traction this is going to get with the base.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What if they made it possible to cast a "Ritual" form of the cure spells? Perhaps by increasing the cast time by a factor of 10 (essentially, 1 minute), you amplify its effects? So Cure Light does, I dunno, an additional d8 and affects a number of targets equal to your Wisdom modifier, and higher level healing spells get better effects?

As for heals being useful in combat, I agree that they should be, and I think that making them act as buffs is a good way to go. Specifically, I think that making heals grant stacking Temp HP and affecting more allies early on would be a good way to go. Part of the problem with Healing is that it's reactive, so a proactive way to "Heal" the party would go a long ways towards encouraging active gameplay. Let overhealing be converted to Temp HP, or make options that improve heal spells but make them only provide Temp HP. In fact, when it comes to Temp HP, you could even make a reasonable cantrip that grants 1d6 + Wis. Mod. temp HP and it likely wouldn't be too unbalanced.


Davor wrote:

What if they made it possible to cast a "Ritual" form of the cure spells? Perhaps by increasing the cast time by a factor of 10 (essentially, 1 minute), you amplify its effects? So Cure Light does, I dunno, an additional d8 and affects a number of targets equal to your Wisdom modifier, and higher level healing spells get better effects?

As for heals being useful in combat, I agree that they should be, and I think that making them act as buffs is a good way to go. Specifically, I think that making heals grant stacking Temp HP and affecting more allies early on would be a good way to go. Part of the problem with Healing is that it's reactive, so a proactive way to "Heal" the party would go a long ways towards encouraging active gameplay. Let overhealing be converted to Temp HP, or make options that improve heal spells but make them only provide Temp HP. In fact, when it comes to Temp HP, you could even make a reasonable cantrip that grants 1d6 + Wis. Mod. temp HP and it likely wouldn't be too unbalanced.

That Cantrip would be incredibly OP if it had any sort of duration higher than 1 round. Start eveyr fight with +10 HP on entire party! Hell, it's almost as good as the False Life buff which is lv2 spell. Maybe as lv1 it'd be ok.


I definitely want dedicated healers, since some players DO enjoy playing them, with powerful ranged, area and reactive healing options.

I want a more Warlordy version of the Cavalier. But instead of somehow shouting you to better health like in 4E, it would instead grant temporary HP to represent a morale boost. So itcould grant pre-emptive "healing" in the form of a buffer against damage. She could also have damage mitigation in the form of a reaction used to help an ally reduce incoming damage from one attack.

Even the basic cure spells should definitely be buffed. I've mentioned this repeatedly in various threads, but if the cure line healed 10% of the target's max HP in addition to whatever rolled dice, that would help make them more useful at higher levels and when healing a front-line fighter who takes more damage than the ranged characters. So maybe CLW heals 10% of the target's max HP + 2d6.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Warlord sounds like a Bard archetype to me.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ChibiNyan wrote:
Davor wrote:

What if they made it possible to cast a "Ritual" form of the cure spells? Perhaps by increasing the cast time by a factor of 10 (essentially, 1 minute), you amplify its effects? So Cure Light does, I dunno, an additional d8 and affects a number of targets equal to your Wisdom modifier, and higher level healing spells get better effects?

As for heals being useful in combat, I agree that they should be, and I think that making them act as buffs is a good way to go. Specifically, I think that making heals grant stacking Temp HP and affecting more allies early on would be a good way to go. Part of the problem with Healing is that it's reactive, so a proactive way to "Heal" the party would go a long ways towards encouraging active gameplay. Let overhealing be converted to Temp HP, or make options that improve heal spells but make them only provide Temp HP. In fact, when it comes to Temp HP, you could even make a reasonable cantrip that grants 1d6 + Wis. Mod. temp HP and it likely wouldn't be too unbalanced.

That Cantrip would be incredibly OP if it had any sort of duration higher than 1 round. Start eveyr fight with +10 HP on entire party! Hell, it's almost as good as the False Life buff which is lv2 spell. Maybe as lv1 it'd be ok.

Not really. Even with a duration of 1 minute, it still isn't viable to cast pre-combat, and in-combat 10 HP isn't necessarily that much. We can always tweak the numbers. Maybe it's just a flat d6, or d4 + Modifier. Point is, it could be done, and would give a support-themed character something healy-support to do.

As for being better than False Life, sure. False Life sucks anyways for it's spell slot level.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I do not see how healing is a problem. With channeling the parties in my groups are usually almost fully healed in the middle of a combat. And is rarely in too bad of shape at the end of the battle. I would actually advocate for the channeling to be taken out of the game. I am not sure about the spells being underpowered, but someone should not be knocked unconscious and then jump up and be ready to fight again. They should need rest and recuperation.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Planpanther wrote:
Judging by how many posts decry healing as a role or necessity, I dont know how much traction this is going to get with the base.

Speaking as one of those decriers of Healing As Necessity I LOVE this sort of thing.

The critical key is the system must not be built expecting a party to carry this type of healing.

A character who chooses to focus on In Combat Healing should be Amazingly good at it, a rare treasure that can totally carry a party that has 25% to 40% less offensive prowess than normal.


Thats a nuance that is difficult to explain in a rule book to "dont want to support ma allies I wanna do all the cool stuff bro" types.


Fuzzypaws wrote:

I definitely want dedicated healers, since some players DO enjoy playing them, with powerful ranged, area and reactive healing options.

I want a more Warlordy version of the Cavalier. But instead of somehow shouting you to better health like in 4E, it would instead grant temporary HP to represent a morale boost. So itcould grant pre-emptive "healing" in the form of a buffer against damage. She could also have damage mitigation in the form of a reaction used to help an ally reduce incoming damage from one attack.

Even the basic cure spells should definitely be buffed. I've mentioned this repeatedly in various threads, but if the cure line healed 10% of the target's max HP in addition to whatever rolled dice, that would help make them more useful at higher levels and when healing a front-line fighter who takes more damage than the ranged characters. So maybe CLW heals 10% of the target's max HP + 2d6.

That's almost exactly what I do, but 20% and no 2d6. CMW is 40%, CSW is 60%, and CCW is 80%. It worked great until one player realized he should always wait until 0 hp to cast them, but I think the new dying rules will take care of that little problem.


Personally I liked the way channel healing worked in Pathfinder 1e. It was one of the features that made Pathfinder interesting and not just a poor facsimile of D&D. I hope that channel healing, or something similar, is in 2e so that in-combat healing is still viable.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kerrilyn wrote:

I'm hoping combat healing becomes viable again. The Cure spells are very obsolete (they're throwbacks to 1e D&D, when damage was much, much lower), and the healing line in general is very limited, outside of things with "Heal" in their name.

I'd like to see the following (please? pritty please??):
- fast, instant heals for rapid response to critical situations (ie fightie mcfightington is about to die, instant cure light wounds!). These should be more powerful than the existing 1e spells, but less powerful than:
- heals-over-time for slower response to less critical situations (fightie mcfightington is rather low on health but the big baddie is already dead, and he's just cleaning up some stray goblins and not in any real danger.. continuing cure light wounds!)
- Different kinds of AoE spellies for heals - lines, radius, cones
- Maybe things like all single-target heal spells have range, but if you touch the target, there's a multiplier or something.
- Combining healies with buffs would be super nifty! Like offensive or defensive buffs that last for a couple of rounds.

That would make things much more interesting and effective.

Signed,
Kerrilyn, cleric of The Healing Light.

I could not agree more with this post Kerrilyn. I would like healers to be able to have ranged heals before they acquire 5th level spells and those heals should be better than 1d8+x. Both monsters & PC's pump out crazy dpr but heals are still stuck in 3.0. Allow burst heals and cones that affect only the allies of the caster. These spells are usually (though not always) granted by supernatural beings. I mean is it is hard to think that Mishakal, goddess of healing, cannot control her own healing powers? Let cones heal for multiple D8's plus stat bonus and allow burst heals for D^'s or D4's. Allow temp hit point spells like Heroism in 5E that give a small amount of hit points per round (5) for multiple rounds and make spells like vampiric touch easier to use. Give PC's other viable options besides MOAR DAMAGE!

The Exchange

Kerrilyn wrote:
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Seeing new ways of toying with healing to make it more like support class abilities in games such as, say, Overwatch, would open a whole load of options, for PCs and enemies both. A long range healing spell that does less healing, a close up healing spell that gives, say, Fast Healing = 1/2 CL so long as the healer is on the healee, a spell that emulates an Alchemist's Healing bomb, etc. Basically, make healing a more versatile tool than just "I cast Cu X or Channel Energy or Lay on Hands", and make it as flexible as any other type spell. Hell, if you're feeling ambitious, even a Wizard school of healing!

I totally agree! Wizards get their best spells poached by other classes all the time. Making cure spells into arcane spells is not a big deal anymore since bards have been casting them since 3E. Sacrifice the last sacred cow and allow wizards to heal, heal and heal some more!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Shem wrote:
I do not see how healing is a problem. With channeling the parties in my groups are usually almost fully healed in the middle of a combat. And is rarely in too bad of shape at the end of the battle. I would actually advocate for the channeling to be taken out of the game. I am not sure about the spells being underpowered, but someone should not be knocked unconscious and then jump up and be ready to fight again. They should need rest and recuperation.

You will like the new death mechanics.

Dying is a condition going from 1 to 4, if you hit 4, you die.
When you get to 0HP, you gain Dying 1 (you gain Dying 2 if you were downed by a Critical hit).
Each round you roll Fortitude-Dying vs DC based on strength of the foe that downed you. (In a playtest video, the boss had a DC of 17 while a zombie had 12 or less)
If you miss, you gain Dying+1, if it's a critical miss, it's Dying+2.
If you succeed, you get up to 1HP, become stable but stay unconscious and keep your lvl of Dying. Unles you get hit again, the next time you succeed you regain consciousness and begin losing 1 to you Dying condition each rounds. If you get downed again, you start at your current Dying lvl + 1 (+2 if crit).

If someone heals you, it's the same thing as if you got to 1HP by yourself, you keep your dying condition and you stay unconscious until you succeed at the Fortitude save.

Boomerang Nebula wrote:
Personally I liked the way channel healing worked in Pathfinder 1e. It was one of the features that made Pathfinder interesting and not just a poor facsimile of D&D. I hope that channel healing, or something similar, is in 2e so that in-combat healing is still viable.

You'll like the new "Heal" spell. It have a modular action cost.

If you use only 1 action, it's a touch, exactly like Cure Light Wounds.
If you use 2 actions, it's a ranged Cure Light Wounds.
If you spend all 3 of your actions, it's a channel that heal everyone around you by your Spell Modifier (WIS for a cleric?), and hurt Undeads by the same amount (Will save for half).

BTW, the channel ability has been morphed to a certain number of free casting of that new Spell (In a playtest video, Kyra that had 18 WIS had 4 free casting, so that's probably related).

Talek & Luna wrote:
[...]I could not agree more with this post Kerrilyn. I would like healers to be able to have ranged heals before they acquire 5th level spells [...]

For that part, you'll be happy! Look just above! :D

Talek & Luna wrote:
[...] and those heals should be better than 1d8+x. [...]

Eh... That doesn't seems to have changed that much, and it's now 1d8+Spell mod (stat). BUT technically you could cast up to 3 of the touch version in a single turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elfteiroh wrote:


If you spend all 3 of your actions, it's a channel that heal everyone around you by your Spell Modifier (WIS for a cleric?), and hurt Undeads by the same amount (Will save for half).

BTW, the channel ability has been morphed to a certain number of free casting of that new Spell (In a playtest video, Kyra that had 18 WIS had 4 free casting, so that's probably related).

Wow, seriously? That's... really weak (even for PF1, and we know PF2 hit points are being inflated considerably) and also really unfortunate for the Cleric class.

Then again, PF2 is using the ridiculously bad idea of overcasting, so we have no way of knowing at this point what spells actually do what at which level and if something will or will not use a better version later on.
I guess none of that really matters, though, as it has already been confirmed that you can use General, Skill, and Ancestry feats to make any class fill any role perfectly fine, with a specific example given being a Barbarian that was the primary healer of a party and having none of that being related to being a Barbarian.


Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Bloodrealm wrote:
Elfteiroh wrote:


If you spend all 3 of your actions, it's a channel that heal everyone around you by your Spell Modifier (WIS for a cleric?), and hurt Undeads by the same amount (Will save for half).

BTW, the channel ability has been morphed to a certain number of free casting of that new Spell (In a playtest video, Kyra that had 18 WIS had 4 free casting, so that's probably related).

Wow, seriously? That's... really weak (even for PF1, and we know PF2 hit points are being inflated considerably) and also really unfortunate for the Cleric class.

Then again, PF2 is using the ridiculously bad idea of overcasting, so we have no way of knowing at this point what spells actually do what at which level and if something will or will not use a better version later on.
I guess none of that really matters, though, as it has already been confirmed that you can use General, Skill, and Ancestry feats to make any class fill any role perfectly fine, with a specific example given being a Barbarian that was the primary healer of a party and having none of that being related to being a Barbarian.

I think I saw somewhere than overcasting the 3 action heal spell add dices to the healing (so it's probably (spell level - 1)d8)

Also, I'm not sure on what is the static bonus here. It never was clear.
Also, it damage AND heal at the same time (so a warning if there's a Dhampir or an undead on the team...)
Also, the save make it possible for them to fumble it and have X2 dmg...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Healing will slow down the game. More healing = longer combats.

Not necessarily a show-stopper, but something to keep in mind. If I was at a PFS table and someone said "Should I play my cleric or my barbarian?" and I knew that with the barbarian each combat would last 45 minutes whereas with the cleric each combat would last 60 minutes, I would say "Play the barb pretty pretty please!"


RumpinRufus wrote:
Healing will slow down the game. More healing = longer combats.

Trading an assailant for a Healer will slow things down a bit, but not by a bad amount So Long As The Game Is Not Engineerer For High Healing.

For your Cleric (I hate that they seem to be setting the cleric up as the default healer with dedicated healing resources in its own separate pool) vs Barbarian example you're excluding the time saved by defensive magic, status prevention/mitigation and guaranteeing all the assailants stay on their feet.

Maybe 40-50 minutes Barbarian and 45 minutes Healer if the game is designed right.


Incidentally... Those are ridiculous combat times either way. How do you stay engaged in such long fights? More than half an hour on even a semi regular basis and I'd be looking for a new game.


Hmm this is at least the second thread I've read today where betteridge's law of headlines applies :(

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:


Wow, seriously? That's... really weak (even for PF1, and we know PF2 hit points are being inflated considerably) and also really unfortunate for the Cleric class.

That's all at 1st level, the amount goes up. And at 1st level, healing the entire party 4 HP is statistically better than healing them all the 1d6 of Channel Energy a PF1 Cleric would have.

Bloodrealm wrote:
Then again, PF2 is using the ridiculously bad idea of overcasting, so we have no way of knowing at this point what spells actually do what at which level and if something will or will not use a better version later on.

I'd argue it's not inherently a bad idea, but it's certainly true we don't know how things work.

Bloodrealm wrote:
I guess none of that really matters, though, as it has already been confirmed that you can use General, Skill, and Ancestry feats to make any class fill any role perfectly fine, with a specific example given being a Barbarian that was the primary healer of a party and having none of that being related to being a Barbarian.

This is true. Though I suspect a Cleric who focused equally on healing would've been a better healer (and less effective at hitting people in the face).


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:


Wow, seriously? That's... really weak (even for PF1, and we know PF2 hit points are being inflated considerably) and also really unfortunate for the Cleric class.

That's all at 1st level, the amount goes up. And at 1st level, healing the entire party 4 HP is statistically better than healing them all the 1d6 of Channel Energy a PF1 Cleric would have.

Bloodrealm wrote:
Then again, PF2 is using the ridiculously bad idea of overcasting, so we have no way of knowing at this point what spells actually do what at which level and if something will or will not use a better version later on.

I'd argue it's not inherently a bad idea, but it's certainly true we don't know how things work.

Bloodrealm wrote:
I guess none of that really matters, though, as it has already been confirmed that you can use General, Skill, and Ancestry feats to make any class fill any role perfectly fine, with a specific example given being a Barbarian that was the primary healer of a party and having none of that being related to being a Barbarian.
This is true. Though I suspect a Cleric who focused equally on healing would've been a better healer (and less effective at hitting people in the face).

I'm wondering if level is going to add into that 'spellcasting modifier' at some point. I know for sure that how well healing scales with level is something I plan on taking a really hard look at during the playtest.

I like the suggestion several people have made about healing that is % of max HP based.


I'd like to have a character who shoots healing arrows with his bow, please.


Or a bard that shoots musical notes at his allies to heal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Leyren wrote:

I'd like to have a character who shoots healing arrows with his bow, please.

If you both know the Heal spell and have Bow proficiency, when you cast it as a ranged spell you could always flavor it as creating an "arrow" of healing light you launch out of your bow, with the GM's agreement about that fitting the tone of their game / setting.


Ranged healing spells!?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Grognardy Dangerfield wrote:
Ranged healing spells!?

Healing spells now cost between 1 and 3 actions. At 1st, they do the following:

1 Action: Heal yourself or one person within reach 1d8+Wis Mod (or damage undead)
2 Actions: Heal one person at range 1d8+Wis Mod (or damage undead)
3 Actions: Heal all allies within 30 feet Wis Mod (and damage undead)


Shadrayl of the Mountain wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:


Wow, seriously? That's... really weak (even for PF1, and we know PF2 hit points are being inflated considerably) and also really unfortunate for the Cleric class.

That's all at 1st level, the amount goes up. And at 1st level, healing the entire party 4 HP is statistically better than healing them all the 1d6 of Channel Energy a PF1 Cleric would have.

Bloodrealm wrote:
Then again, PF2 is using the ridiculously bad idea of overcasting, so we have no way of knowing at this point what spells actually do what at which level and if something will or will not use a better version later on.

I'd argue it's not inherently a bad idea, but it's certainly true we don't know how things work.

Bloodrealm wrote:
I guess none of that really matters, though, as it has already been confirmed that you can use General, Skill, and Ancestry feats to make any class fill any role perfectly fine, with a specific example given being a Barbarian that was the primary healer of a party and having none of that being related to being a Barbarian.
This is true. Though I suspect a Cleric who focused equally on healing would've been a better healer (and less effective at hitting people in the face).

I'm wondering if level is going to add into that 'spellcasting modifier' at some point. I know for sure that how well healing scales with level is something I plan on taking a really hard look at during the playtest.

I like the suggestion several people have made about healing that is % of max HP based.

The problem with percentile healing is the concept of improvement in the spells.

We want healing spells to be fantastic at all levels, but the only way to do that is having high healing provided by low level spells [so that healing is fantastic at low level as well] which results in very low level spells being able to keep characters healed very easily into high levels.

What might be interesting [albeit a bit more complex than I would like] would be if Cure was a single level 1 spell that healed... say... 50% of the health of the recipient... with a level cap of successful target [similar to Sleep etc] equal to twice the spell level used to cast the spell.

Retaining the current casting actions specs for healing magic regarding range/area should be fine because this is the top level spell of the caster.

Perhaps one could instead use three actions to cast a 'maximized Touch Heal' which would provide the full health of the recipient.

This is all spitballing of course, further refinement is required.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Elfteiroh wrote:
Shem wrote:
I do not see how healing is a problem. With channeling the parties in my groups are usually almost fully healed in the middle of a combat. And is rarely in too bad of shape at the end of the battle. I would actually advocate for the channeling to be taken out of the game. I am not sure about the spells being underpowered, but someone should not be knocked unconscious and then jump up and be ready to fight again. They should need rest and recuperation.

You will like the new death mechanics.

Dying is a condition going from 1 to 4, if you hit 4, you die.
When you get to 0HP, you gain Dying 1 (you gain Dying 2 if you were downed by a Critical hit).
Each round you roll Fortitude-Dying vs DC based on strength of the foe that downed you. (In a playtest video, the boss had a DC of 17 while a zombie had 12 or less)
If you miss, you gain Dying+1, if it's a critical miss, it's Dying+2.
If you succeed, you get up to 1HP, become stable but stay unconscious and keep your lvl of Dying. Unles you get hit again, the next time you succeed you regain consciousness and begin losing 1 to you Dying condition each rounds. If you get downed again, you start at your current Dying lvl + 1 (+2 if crit).

If someone heals you, it's the same thing as if you got to 1HP by yourself, you keep your dying condition and you stay unconscious until you succeed at the Fortitude save.

I agree I will like the new death mechanics. I may bring them into my PF e1 game in the future after I get the BETA rules. I have so much stuff in 1e I have not played yet, that I want to play. It will be glorious.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I like how brushed over the Touch Action healing spell is. This means that, at 1st level, a cleric can Move, Attack, and heal himself or an adjacent ally in the same turn. Or attack an adjacent enemy and heal an ally at range. That's a big deal. I still feel like the numbers should probably be tuned up, but until we see the system in action I'll hold my tongue on the exact numbers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you spend combat time healing a live target,

  • you have not progressed your team towards the goal condition
  • you have not increased your team's capabilities to achieve the goal condition
  • you have not decreased you opponent's capabilities to accomplish their victory condition
Effectively, you are trading your time with that of the opponent's damage-dealers. You would be healing almost all the time only if that trade was worth it almost all of the time (remember, if you can heal twice the oncoming damage, at least 50% of your time should be spent on something other than healing). In other words, the enemy DPR/DPS is sufficiently large to dominate the match-up. I don't view that as balanced.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:

If you spend combat time healing a live target,

  • you have not progressed your team towards the goal condition
  • you have not increased your team's capabilities to achieve the goal condition
  • you have not decreased you opponent's capabilities to accomplish their victory condition
Effectively, you are trading your time with that of the opponent's damage-dealers. You would be healing almost all the time only if that trade was worth it almost all of the time (remember, if you can heal twice the oncoming damage, at least 50% of your time should be spent on something other than healing). In other words, the enemy DPR/DPS is sufficiently large to dominate the match-up. I don't view that as balanced.

If you spend one action on a heal and two on attacking, that's very much worth it. Your third attack is very expendable. It's comparable to 1E Lay on Hands.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:

If you spend combat time healing a live target,

  • you have not progressed your team towards the goal condition
  • you have not increased your team's capabilities to achieve the goal condition
  • you have not decreased you opponent's capabilities to accomplish their victory condition

I have, however, fulfilled my own personal, out of game goal condition of enjoying my time and playing my character the way I wish to play them, which is as a healer. If I enjoy that and my party doesn't object to it, then I don't see what the issue is. And I especially don't see an issue with Paizo making effective and enjoyable healing options so that a) those of us who like healing have tools to do so without feeling like we're glorified bandages and b) when you need to heal someone, such as when the barbarian is one strong hit away from going down, it doesn't feel as bad for you as a person who doesn't enjoy the healing role.

Earlier AoE healing, heal/buff combination spells, cool things like the new equivalent of channel on the PF2 cleric letting you heal and damage undead at the same time. Those are things that we want, that will not kill you if they are included, and that will arguably make your arguments no longer even a concern because they make healing still contribute towards success.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I also enjoy playing combat healers, as long as they also get to do interesting stuff. 4e did that spectacularly well with their swift-action heals. Looks like PF2 will have one-action heals and two-action ranged heals, so that leaves me optimistic. :D

A 1d8+4 heal with infinite accuracy is easily worthwhile over 1d8+4 damage at –10 to hit.


I'd like to see Combat healing as an option, but one that isnt the base nor standard. If we tell all healing capable classes that this is your most efficient use for your actions, then there is no choice.
However, make it so you trade a few things for it and make it a conscious choice, and you have something optional yet efficient.

Edit. It also seems that numbers have been tamed substantially in PF2e, so healing can become worthwhile.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm hesitant about this particular topic. Having stronger healing in general affects the game system as a whole, for both PC's and NPC's, and that could potentially cause combat encounters to drag out for longer. In PF1 it was rare to see antagonists who had meaningful healing capabilities, in part due to the alignment restriction on cleric channeling. As a result, I suspect a lot of people have never experienced NPC clerics using positive energy to keep mooks alive and seen just how effective and annoying it really is. The "whack-a-mole" effect is very real.

Healing is a lot more effective when used on a downed ally. This comes down to action economy: an ally restored back to to positive hit point totals can start taking actions again, thus your team as a whole gets an action economy bonus when you heal someone who is downed. NPC's go down a lot more frequently than PC's (just the nature of the game), which means healing will be more useful to NPC's than to PC's. That's a pretty huge caveat to consider when buffing healing in general; anything that makes it a good specialization for PC's could turn it into something outrageously annoying in the hands of NPC's.

So while I do like the idea of getting more support to PC's who want to focus more on this role, I'm very cautious of what it could do to NPC's. Definitely something that could use playtesting.


I hope status removal is easier in Pathfinder 2e. I would also like it if ability damage was easier to remove.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So easy, it doesn't even exist :)

Instead of getting '2 points of strength damage', you now have a condition 'Enfeebled 1', which probably gives you a penalty to attack rolls, damage and strength checks.
How to remove this kind of conditions, we still don't know.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Megistone wrote:
How to remove this kind of conditions, we still don't know.

We know that when a Lesser Shadows make you Enfeebled it wears off in an hour from the Glass Cannon Podcast. How generalizable that is remains to be seen, but indications are it might more usually be one per good night's sleep.


That's good, I didn't particularly like ability damage in 1e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
We know that when a Lesser Shadows make you Enfeebled it wears off in an hour from the Glass Cannon Podcast. How generalizable that is remains to be seen

I'd be pretty happy if this was how it was handled across the board.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm cool with anything from a good night's sleep on down, healing-time wise.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

They mentioned spells when discussing proficiency, so I am imagine your casting modifier (and thus static modifier to heals) can be improved by investing proficiency into it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the timeline of games that leads up to Pathfinder, in combat healing has never been "good." Even back in 1e AD&D, you got cure light wounds for a d8 at level 1 - ok, sure, that's a lot of healing for a level 1 PC, especially with rolled level 1 hp. But then you had to wait until level 7 to get your second healing spell in the form of cure serious wounds, which healed an entire 2d8+3 or similar as a 4th level spell. Not so impressive.

It wasn't until 3.0 that we got the "each level of spells has a cure spell" thing and by then hp inflation was in place.

I'm not really sure the game is improved by having an MMO-style "healer" whose job is simply to keep everybody topped off as much as possible. While I enjoy playing that role in online games, those proceed at a much faster pace than tabletop combat, and if you create a character who can heal at that rate, you risk requiring that rate of healing.


ryric wrote:
It wasn't until 3.0 that we got the "each level of spells has a cure spell" thing and by then hp inflation was in place.

I think late 2e introduced cure moderate wounds. But I don't know if that was when they were testing 3e rules or not.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

John Lynch 106 wrote:
ryric wrote:
It wasn't until 3.0 that we got the "each level of spells has a cure spell" thing and by then hp inflation was in place.
I think late 2e introduced cure moderate wounds. But I don't know if that was when they were testing 3e rules or not.

I somewhat recall that - it might have been in the Tome of Magic, which was roughly in the middle of the 2e run. I think it healed 1d10+1 as a 2nd level spell, so also not that great.

1 to 50 of 110 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Combat Healing All Messageboards