Are we heading back to mandatory healer territorry?


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 100 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Dandy Lion wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


Barbarian: Surprisingly, when the barbarian was the group's main source of healing, they did fine.
Now this is what I like to hear.

"How did you do that?"

"Inverse healing. I killed all those m$*&+!+$&**#s before they could hurt my buddies."

Paizo Employee Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
The main problem and the reason why you need a "healing capable" class even if they're not spec'd for healing is that you can have all the HP in the world but one particularly nasty status effect like Mummy Rot can end the adventuring day if you can't remove it. Are there methods in place to handle these conditions without a 9th level divine caster in tow?

Weirdly, we were just talking to editor James (not to be confused with Creative Director James) about an ability that does that without spells.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The main problem and the reason why you need a "healing capable" class even if they're not spec'd for healing is that you can have all the HP in the world but one particularly nasty status effect like Mummy Rot can end the adventuring day if you can't remove it. Are there methods in place to handle these conditions without a 9th level divine caster in tow?
Weirdly, we were just talking to editor James (not to be confused with Creative Director James) about an ability that does that without spells.

Hmm...

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Healing wizards you say? Am I in heaven?

As with the barbarian, it would have little to do with the fact that I was a wizard; I just want to try it out some time. There's a lot of cool character ideas that I really want to test out in the new system when I get a chance!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Interesting tidbits

Mark, with these non-class healers, is it based on the Heal Skill or on feat selection?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The main problem and the reason why you need a "healing capable" class even if they're not spec'd for healing is that you can have all the HP in the world but one particularly nasty status effect like Mummy Rot can end the adventuring day if you can't remove it. Are there methods in place to handle these conditions without a 9th level divine caster in tow?
Weirdly, we were just talking to editor James (not to be confused with Creative Director James) about an ability that does that without spells.

You just made my day, Mark. Not having a good way to heal the really dangerous inflictions without 9th level divine progression was one of my biggest pet peeves with PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The main problem and the reason why you need a "healing capable" class even if they're not spec'd for healing is that you can have all the HP in the world but one particularly nasty status effect like Mummy Rot can end the adventuring day if you can't remove it. Are there methods in place to handle these conditions without a 9th level divine caster in tow?
Weirdly, we were just talking to editor James (not to be confused with Creative Director James) about an ability that does that without spells.
You just made my day, Mark. Not having a good way to heal the really dangerous inflictions without 9th level divine progression was one of my biggest pet peeves with PF1.

This is good news.

I just hope it doesn't require too much specialization


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Healing wizards you say? Am I in heaven?
As with the barbarian, it would have little to do with the fact that I was a wizard; I just want to try it out some time. There's a lot of cool character ideas that I really want to test out in the new system when I get a chance!

Are we going to get a detailed post on this stuff in the near future (pretty please)? This seems exciting but also terrifying at the same time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

Alchemists run into problems with Resonance though Mark, at least how I understand it. They can keep themselves topped off fine but I'd like to see how they do when groups have to take that into account.

That’s what he did? He was playtesting, and the Alchemist didn’t run into resonance limit problems.

And I can find the info where? Examples; how high was the Alchemist's Resonance? How many magic items did people have? How many did the Alchemist have? How many Elixirs of healing vs how many buffs? And so on.

I will be honest, I'm unsure of if we need dedicated healer now but under the new system I really can't believe an Alchemist can expect to be the heal bot while still fulfilling their role.

At least not solo. We probably don't need a heal bots but we'll still probably going to need mini heal bots. If most the party has at least one decent for level heal, then we are probably okay. No idea how this will effect the adventure day but smart planning with some luck, maybe 2+ fights depending?

“The alchemists so far were easily able to keep the group healed, and with the power of distributed processing in their action economy.” I don’t know how much that impacts the other stuff they’re doing, it’s true, but they were able to keep the group healed.

Also, the Alchemist’s resonance should be irrelevant, they’re not the one spending it.

I'll be honest,I have no idea what distributed processing means. Given that followed by action economy, I assume it's saying they can heal with no real noticible loss of actions. This is also not taking into account other people that can heal.

I get mixed signals or info; The drinker loses 2 Resonance not the alchemist?

It means that the person in need of healing is the person spending actions.

As far as I can tell, if an Alchemist drinks an elixir, the Alchemist doesn’t spend resonance. If someone else...

At 1 this is much more manageable, though I still dislike the system. At two(I was informed of in another thread) this seems like it would burn through Resonance far too fast

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kerrilyn wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Healing wizards you say? Am I in heaven?
As with the barbarian, it would have little to do with the fact that I was a wizard; I just want to try it out some time. There's a lot of cool character ideas that I really want to test out in the new system when I get a chance!

Are we going to get a detailed post on this stuff in the near future (pretty please)? This seems exciting but also terrifying at the same time.

Seconded.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Thanks, Mark!

I like the idea that anyone can cross the established class roles with a little investment. Healing barbarians, even...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The main problem and the reason why you need a "healing capable" class even if they're not spec'd for healing is that you can have all the HP in the world but one particularly nasty status effect like Mummy Rot can end the adventuring day if you can't remove it. Are there methods in place to handle these conditions without a 9th level divine caster in tow?
Weirdly, we were just talking to editor James (not to be confused with Creative Director James) about an ability that does that without spells.

Antiseptic Barbarian rage froth.

"Is he...spitting on the wound?"

"More of a drool if you ask me."


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The main problem and the reason why you need a "healing capable" class even if they're not spec'd for healing is that you can have all the HP in the world but one particularly nasty status effect like Mummy Rot can end the adventuring day if you can't remove it. Are there methods in place to handle these conditions without a 9th level divine caster in tow?
Weirdly, we were just talking to editor James (not to be confused with Creative Director James) about an ability that does that without spells.

Antiseptic Barbarian rage froth.

"Is he...spitting on the wound?"

"More of a drool if you ask me."

The Fighter gets a healing ability that's just "Rub Some Dirt On It".


He let some maggots eat the necrosis while mixing up a poultice to rebuild the lost tissue.


MerlinCross wrote:
At 1 this is much more manageable, though I still dislike the system. At two(I was informed of in another thread) this seems like it would burn through Resonance far too fast

I looked back, and could find where that came from. I mean, it's possible, but it seems really unlikely they'd do something so tilted against Alchemist, and I can see why you'd think Alchemists were terrible healers.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerrilyn wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Healing wizards you say? Am I in heaven?
As with the barbarian, it would have little to do with the fact that I was a wizard; I just want to try it out some time. There's a lot of cool character ideas that I really want to test out in the new system when I get a chance!

Are we going to get a detailed post on this stuff in the near future (pretty please)? This seems exciting but also terrifying at the same time.

KingOfAnything wrote:

Thanks, Mark!

I like the idea that anyone can cross the established class roles with a little investment. Healing barbarians, even...

These 2 posts sum it up for me.

The idea doesnt seem bad on itself, but how much investment is actually required for said barbarian/wizard... to become the healer?

Guess this will only be know in the future, but hardly what was said today makes my worries go down, since afterall, the druids werent healing all that well apparently when they decided to not focus on it.


Arachnofiend wrote:
The main problem and the reason why you need a "healing capable" class even if they're not spec'd for healing is that you can have all the HP in the world but one particularly nasty status effect like Mummy Rot can end the adventuring day if you can't remove it. Are there methods in place to handle these conditions without a 9th level divine caster in tow?

For stuff like this it would be worth spending some resonance to fix up. It is the using heal light wound wands like candy they are trying to avoid not using stuff to hear infrequent but more major issues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
The main problem and the reason why you need a "healing capable" class even if they're not spec'd for healing is that you can have all the HP in the world but one particularly nasty status effect like Mummy Rot can end the adventuring day if you can't remove it. Are there methods in place to handle these conditions without a 9th level divine caster in tow?
Weirdly, we were just talking to editor James (not to be confused with Creative Director James) about an ability that does that without spells.

Antiseptic Barbarian rage froth.

"Is he...spitting on the wound?"

"More of a drool if you ask me."

The Fighter gets a healing ability that's just "Rub Some Dirt On It".

So is their remove curse power called "Walk it Off"?

Paizo Employee Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Kerrilyn wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Charabdos, The Tidal King wrote:
Healing wizards you say? Am I in heaven?
As with the barbarian, it would have little to do with the fact that I was a wizard; I just want to try it out some time. There's a lot of cool character ideas that I really want to test out in the new system when I get a chance!

Are we going to get a detailed post on this stuff in the near future (pretty please)? This seems exciting but also terrifying at the same time.

KingOfAnything wrote:

Thanks, Mark!

I like the idea that anyone can cross the established class roles with a little investment. Healing barbarians, even...

These 2 posts sum it up for me.

The idea doesnt seem bad on itself, but how much investment is actually required for said barbarian/wizard... to become the healer?

Guess this will only be know in the future, but hardly what was said today makes my worries go down, since afterall, the druids werent healing all that well apparently when they decided to not focus on it.

It shows the range of responses from the different playtesters on their different characters. In PF1, some characters are pressured to contribute to healing because they're the ones who can, and some classes couldn't help even if they wanted to, but you can still easily have a character who refuses to do healing in PF1. In PF2, the characters who wanted to be helping with healing and put a bit into it were helping with healing, more so than in PF1 for several classes, and those who didn't still weren't helping just like in PF1. You could easily build a druid with significant healing on the table, those druids just didn't want to do that and the group did fine. They would have finished a normal day's worth of encounters if they weren't also testing trying to spam CLW at higher levels, and even then they got through three. The corollary to Arachnofiend's comment about conditions is that of course a prepared caster like a druid who normally doesn't run condition removal can always grab some the next day (or with forewarning) if needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Dandy Lion wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


Barbarian: Surprisingly, when the barbarian was the group's main source of healing, they did fine.
Now this is what I like to hear.

I hope i'm not the only one imagining barbarian healing basically consisting of rubbing some dirt on it and telling the injured character to walk it off, but somehow still working.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Squeakmaan wrote:


I hope i'm not the only one imagining barbarian healing basically consisting of rubbing some dirt on it and telling the injured character to walk it off, but somehow still working.

The barbarian's granny taught him to rub mouldy bread on his wounds, and everyone else thinks it's a crazy superstition but oddly it works anyway.


That only works if he's an Orc.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bloodrealm wrote:
That only works if he's an Orc.

While we're at it, can they paint their armour red for a +10 to their land speed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
It shows the range of responses from the different playtesters on their different characters. In PF1, some characters are pressured to contribute to healing because they're the ones who can, and some classes couldn't help even if they wanted to, but you can still easily have a character who refuses to do healing in PF1. In PF2, the characters who wanted to be helping with healing and put a bit into it were helping with healing, more so than in PF1 for several classes, and those who didn't still weren't helping just like in PF1. You could easily build a druid with significant healing on the table, those druids just didn't want to do that and the group did fine. They would have finished a normal day's worth of encounters if they weren't also testing trying to spam CLW at higher levels, and even then they got through three.

I am glad to hear that there are practical methods of healing and condition removal available to any class. It sounds like the method is outside any class gating, which I think is great.

Perhaps now characters can emulate what Strider did with leaves of the Athelas and boiling water to heal Frodo’s knife wound. There are also lots of similar things in literature using various bandages, herbs, alchemical healing ingredients and such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds great, I'm more excited about this than when I first heard you were doing new edition.
It sounds pretty obvious the game is new from ground up, even if re-treading same thematic material and using d20, AC etc.
Good to know there is wide variety of ways to solve problems, I'm assuming including Heal skill.

And not like you haven't heard it before, but you (Mark) are a superstar for forum engagement.
Really refreshing and encourages people to stay productive in their comments rather than dwell in rut.
I haven't been as engaged here perhaps because very-late-P1E developments surpass my splat tolerance,
but I look forward to new playtest and final P2E which sounds like refreshing new take on game!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:


I am glad to hear that there are practical methods of healing and condition removal available to any class. It sounds like the method is outside any class gating, which I think is great.

Perhaps now characters can emulate what Strider did with leaves of the Athelas and boiling water to heal Frodo’s knife wound. There are also lots of similar things in literature using various bandages, herbs, alchemical healing ingredients and such.

PF1 had those options. The problem was that they were so expensive, it was usually cheaper and easier to just buy the appropriate potion.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It shows the range of responses from the different playtesters on their different characters. In PF1, some characters are pressured to contribute to healing because they're the ones who can, and some classes couldn't help even if they wanted to, but you can still easily have a character who refuses to do healing in PF1. In PF2, the characters who wanted to be helping with healing and put a bit into it were helping with healing, more so than in PF1 for several classes, and those who didn't still weren't helping just like in PF1. You could easily build a druid with significant healing on the table, those druids just didn't want to do that and the group did fine. They would have finished a normal day's worth of encounters if they weren't also testing trying to spam CLW at higher levels, and even then they got through three.

I am glad to hear that there are practical methods of healing and condition removal available to any class. It sounds like the method is outside any class gating, which I think is great.

Perhaps now characters can emulate what Strider did with leaves of the Athelas and boiling water to heal Frodo’s knife wound. There are also lots of similar things in literature using various bandages, herbs, alchemical healing ingredients and such.

That's the Heal Skill, it just freaking sucks in 3P

Hopefully PF2 does the Heal skill right.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Dandy Lion wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


Barbarian: Surprisingly, when the barbarian was the group's main source of healing, they did fine.
Now this is what I like to hear.

It is the opposite of what I want to hear.

This is any class = any role.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Classes defining roles was already critically wounded in 2000 with the release of 3E.

Its about time we burried it out back.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
The Dandy Lion wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


Barbarian: Surprisingly, when the barbarian was the group's main source of healing, they did fine.
Now this is what I like to hear.

It is the opposite of what I want to hear.

This is any class = any role.

I'm... Not sure... I'll have to see how it's implemented. I could see it being cool or awful depending on how it works.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Classes defining roles was already critically wounded in 2000 with the release of 3E.

Its about time we burried it out back.

Nope. I like defined roles and classes. I really do not like suggestions to gut a key element of what makes this game this game and not some other game. If I want a classless system there are dozens out there that will fill that role just fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:

Here's what my playtest groups have seen in terms of healers (I've run a lot of playtests at this point; we try to meet once a week if we can for a year and a half):

Alchemist: The alchemists so far were easily able to keep the group healed, and with the power of distributed processing in their action economy.
Barbarian: Surprisingly, when the barbarian was the group's main source of healing, they did fine. This was an unusual barbarian though with an unhealthy obsession with Gorum, and the ability to be main healer had little to do with the fact she was a barbarian.
Bard: A single bard turned out to easily handle all the healing the group needed assuming he was willing to make room for healing in his spells, which so far most bards have been in my playtest groups.
Cleric: Groups with clerics have tended to be super great on healing, especially if the cleric does a heal nova (you can guess what this is based only on released information about healing). The best part is the cleric didn't even have to lose her prepared spells like she might in PF1.
Druid: The playtest session that had the most trouble so far had two higher level druids who refused to prepare any heals and tried to make do with as many 1st-level heal wands, potions, and scrolls as humanly/gnomely possible to see if they would eventually run out of resonance. They still made it through three fights including a pretty nasty one, but they eventually ran out of resonance. Druids completely can take care of your healing (especially two in one group), but in my playtests, they have been less likely to feel like it than others have.
Fighter: The fighters, which I may have seen the most different characters because everyone seems to want to play one, have almost always brought some non-consumable healing to the table. Over time that adds up. I've never had one be the only source yet.
Monk: In a very hard playtest, my monk sure was the one at full health while everyone else was dying (until my fellow PC, Jason's wizard, hit me with two spells...

So, if you have a class known for their healing abilities, (and they aren't planning on playing against trope) you're going to be fine, but if not, you should probably invest in a few appropriately leveled potions to be safe?

I have faith that Resonance is going to work out fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Did we ever leave mandatory healer territory? Like sure it's fine for a while, but eventually you're going to need someone who can cast remove disease or restoration or something else characters are gonna die.

I regret that I have only one +1 to give for this. At a certain point the attribute damage, perma blindness, and mummy rot are beyond a cure stick's abilities. Eventually you'll need an actual healer to fix the nastier stuff that monster's inflict.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xerres wrote:
Kerrilyn wrote:
You want to adventure faster? Maybe one less half-dragon infernal slayer-magus gestalt (or..whatever) and one more healer then.

"If you don't want to be bored, then maybe you should be bored!"

How is that an answer? Lots and lots of people don't like healing. They think it is boring. Your solution is for them to be screwed either way.

I'd vastly prefer that someone play the Half-Dragon Infernal Slayer Magus Gestalt, whatever you think is insulting enough, to having them sitting around bored playing a character they hate because the game doesn't work if they don't.

I've had great fun playing healers that can do more than just heal. I've played paladins and alchemist's that also served at party healers. The paladin used a pole arm and got lots of AoO and the alchemist would tangle foot and frost bomb enemies before healing was needed. I'm sure druids and shaman could be fun too.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

People who are against classes doing things outside their "role" do realize archetypes have been doing that since APG right?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
People who are against classes doing things outside their "role" do realize archetypes have been doing that since APG right?

While Wizards, clerics and druids have been doing it on a day by day basis since 3.0 (as have theme specialized sorcerers as a whole character)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:


While Wizards, clerics and druids have been doing it on a day by day basis since 3.0 (as have theme specialized sorcerers as a whole character)

Nah they were still in their role, the role was just stupidly decided to be "Anything".


WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
Xerres wrote:
Kerrilyn wrote:
You want to adventure faster? Maybe one less half-dragon infernal slayer-magus gestalt (or..whatever) and one more healer then.

"If you don't want to be bored, then maybe you should be bored!"

How is that an answer? Lots and lots of people don't like healing. They think it is boring. Your solution is for them to be screwed either way.

I'd vastly prefer that someone play the Half-Dragon Infernal Slayer Magus Gestalt, whatever you think is insulting enough, to having them sitting around bored playing a character they hate because the game doesn't work if they don't.

I've had great fun playing healers that can do more than just heal. I've played paladins and alchemist's that also served at party healers. The paladin used a pole arm and got lots of AoO and the alchemist would tangle foot and frost bomb enemies before healing was needed. I'm sure druids and shaman could be fun too.

What you find fun is completely, utterly irrelevant to what others find fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:


While Wizards, clerics and druids have been doing it on a day by day basis since 3.0 (as have theme specialized sorcerers as a whole character)
Nah they were still in their role, the role was just stupidly decided to be "Anything".

In the Sorcerer example that's not a bad thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
BretI wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
It shows the range of responses from the different playtesters on their different characters. In PF1, some characters are pressured to contribute to healing because they're the ones who can, and some classes couldn't help even if they wanted to, but you can still easily have a character who refuses to do healing in PF1. In PF2, the characters who wanted to be helping with healing and put a bit into it were helping with healing, more so than in PF1 for several classes, and those who didn't still weren't helping just like in PF1. You could easily build a druid with significant healing on the table, those druids just didn't want to do that and the group did fine. They would have finished a normal day's worth of encounters if they weren't also testing trying to spam CLW at higher levels, and even then they got through three.

I am glad to hear that there are practical methods of healing and condition removal available to any class. It sounds like the method is outside any class gating, which I think is great.

Perhaps now characters can emulate what Strider did with leaves of the Athelas and boiling water to heal Frodo’s knife wound. There are also lots of similar things in literature using various bandages, herbs, alchemical healing ingredients and such.

That's the Heal Skill, it just freaking sucks in 3P

Hopefully PF2 does the Heal skill right.

I did mention it had to be practical.

I do not consider waiting several days (long term care) practical. I also don’t consider a once-a-day cure (treat deadly wounds) practical. Even treating poisons and diseases don’t remove the conditions, they just give a bonus for the character fighting it off.

No, I do not consider the Heal skill from Pathfinder something that is practical to use for most injuries. It can help, but it doesn’t do enough.

I am asking for something that actually does enough healing that you can recover between fights (notice the plural) using it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
The Dandy Lion wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:


Barbarian: Surprisingly, when the barbarian was the group's main source of healing, they did fine.
Now this is what I like to hear.

It is the opposite of what I want to hear.

This is any class = any role.

Any time somebody posts that they want to play a healer, people on the boards inform them that "healer" isn't a role, it's just whoever can use a wand of CLW. Now it's possible to be a healer by (I presume) investing feat(s) and maybe some skill progression into it.

I'm also hoping that classes other than Rogue have an option to invest in disarming traps, even magical ones, so that you aren't artificially required to have a Rogue in every party.


Something like this Bret?

kyrt-ryder in another thread wrote:

1: make Healer Kits fundamentally bottomless like spell component pouches.

2: ensure a patient cannot be retreated for old wounds that have already been treated.

3: 1d8 per level of the medic. (I like to also cap healing based on the patient's level, but it would be fine if Pathfinder lets higher level medics work miracles on lower level patients.)

4: reasonably quick, one minute per patient, two minutes for self treatment works great in my games.

Adding one more because I just remembered PF1 has a stupid restriction on Treat Deadly Wounds (beyond the expendable Healer's Kit)

5: any medic can treat any patient as many times per day as they receive injuries, the only restriction is the limit of one treatment at a time


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:

I played a Cleric in 1st edition AD&D and in Pathfinder. I got a lot more respect as a healer in Pathfinder where it isn’t required.

When it is required, more people just expect someone else to do it. Very few said thank you or gave much of anything other than complaints. Back then, you didn’t have the ability to turn them into spontaneous cure spells either.

When it isn’t required but you bring it along and are moderately good at it, people notice more.

That said, I would like some mundane healing options. Even in Starfinder I think they went too heavily into magical healing, not allowing skills to do enough.

I’m waiting to see more of the rules. At this point, I feel that there isn’t enough information to do more than guess at how things will work in actual play. We will have the playtest to find and report our experiences with this sort of stuff.

As a PFS Healadin I heal for an average of 7d6 at level 8 (7d6+14 to Foundlings!) a total of 13 times per day.

(Level 8, 20 Charisma, Greater Mercy, Bracers of the Merciful Knight, Extra Lay on Hands...)

I have been told, in game, "don't waste your heals on me."

Healers don't get a lot of respect from some groups. Other groups absolutely love me though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On foundlings that's very solid. On everyone else it is a little meh.

Especially considering it's only 6.5 Channels, the 13 is Touch.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

On foundlings that's very solid. On everyone else it is a little meh.

Especially considering it's only 6.5 Channels, the 13 is Touch.

Uhm... A CLW charge heals an average of 5.5 (4.5+1) - A single 7d6 heals an average of 24.5

A wand is touch.

So no matter how you slice it, it is 4-5 times more healing than a CLW and, since I get them per day, it's not taking any comparable resources.

Side note:

A Cure Moderate only does 2d8+8 at this level, and a Cure Serious 3d8+8 - That's only 17 and 21.5 - So it's keeping pace with a Cleric. Also even a channel positive is only doing 4d5 or avg 18 with ways to get it up to avg of 27 with the right feats... Either way... Compared to a wand? It's a heck of a lot better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Also even a channel positive is only doing 4d5 or avg 18 with ways to get it up to avg of 27 with the right feats... Either way... Compared to a wand? It's a heck of a lot better.

Ugh why are all the channel feats in books we don't own? Channel Surge is .. quite costly for what it does. Two charges and a feat slot for 50% extra? t.t


WhiteMagus2000 wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Did we ever leave mandatory healer territory? Like sure it's fine for a while, but eventually you're going to need someone who can cast remove disease or restoration or something else characters are gonna die.
I regret that I have only one +1 to give for this. At a certain point the attribute damage, perma blindness, and mummy rot are beyond a cure stick's abilities. Eventually you'll need an actual healer to fix the nastier stuff that monster's inflict.

I wouldn't be surprised if PF2 moves away from this somewhat and favors "poison/energy drain that does hit point damage/gives you a penalty to attack until you next rest" over lingering status effects.

I wonder how many players find that sort of penalty exciting, as opposed to annoying?

51 to 100 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Are we heading back to mandatory healer territorry? All Messageboards