Are we heading back to mandatory healer territorry?


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 144 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The CLW wand trivialized healing. Making healing a meaningful character choice is a big step up.


3 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.

Chicken soup?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
The CLW wand trivialized healing. Making healing a meaningful character choice is a big step up.

The CLW wand allowed a Primary Healer (with sufficient system mastery to build a sufficiently potent Healer) to save their spells to be badasses saving the day in battle.

It also allowed parties to get by without a Healer, which is very important to me.

If a role is required it is no longer special.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
The CLW wand trivialized healing. Making healing a meaningful character choice is a big step up.

And it'll be different with everyone having healing, heal skill doing work, mundane items that can seemingly heal too, and to top it off you can still get away with magical item healing and poking people with a stick how?

Heck I now fully expect encounters to demand full hp PCs now. Or the damage to be higher than before.i

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
The CLW wand trivialized healing. Making healing a meaningful character choice is a big step up.
And it'll be different with everyone having healing, heal skill doing work, mundane items that can seemingly heal too, and to top it off you can still get away with magical item healing and poking people with a stick how?

It sounds like healing requires more investment than just your party's first paycheck, but less than a whole character build. That's the sweet spot. Anyone can. Not everyone will. A system that requires reasonable tradeoffs.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts and replies to them. We can have discussion without personal attacks. Please avoid making them.


KingOfAnything wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
The CLW wand trivialized healing. Making healing a meaningful character choice is a big step up.
And it'll be different with everyone having healing, heal skill doing work, mundane items that can seemingly heal too, and to top it off you can still get away with magical item healing and poking people with a stick how?
It sounds like healing requires more investment than just your party's first paycheck, but less than a whole character build. That's the sweet spot. Anyone can. Not everyone will. A system that requires reasonable tradeoffs.

Until we get the numbers of gain or loss, I see no reason for people not to splice in some healing if they can fit the room. Heck this could also foster a sense of "Everyone has to take care of themselves" depending on how the numbers end up.

Side note, at least in my experience CLW spam never seemed a problem if you had at least 2 people that could cast it, even unfocused. That and my DM's have always rolled to see how many charges. Meh.

And while this is more a Resonance thing, I fully expect some people to try and game the system with hirelings doing the CLW usage.

Speaking of I wonder how the new healing system will effect NPC healing services.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
And while this is more a Resonance thing, I fully expect some people to try and game the system with hirelings doing the CLW usage.

Part of my playtesting will be "loopholes that it'll annoy me to see in lots of guides and threads".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
And while this is more a Resonance thing, I fully expect some people to try and game the system with hirelings doing the CLW usage.
Part of my playtesting will be "loopholes that it'll annoy me to see in lots of guides and threads".

While the end result is something I actually dislike, getting a new edition and seeing how wide you can crack it open sounds quite fun and this is the first time I've actually been a part of it.

Playtesting is nice, but I'm sure plenty of us are used to either building around or sometimes THROUGH the rules rather than with. Being around to see just how the public works with the rules will be worthy of some popcorn.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is such a fine line that I'm not sure there is any way that Paizo can create a system in PF2 that isn't going to piss off a major portion of the player base.

On one hand, it's great that there are already 10 classes that can engage in some sort of healing. It's EVEN BETTER that they are looking at making is so players of any class can invest in healing skills/feats and be mundane healers using bandages and salves.

On the other hand, if these same characters are able to eliminate the likes of Mummy Rot and other status-altering effects, then what in the world is the point of playing a cleric that actually plays to type? If anything, playing a cleric to type quickly becomes as much a hindrance as it helps with resource allocation. Sure, the healer can come along and magically spell things away, but they aren't contributing nearly as much in combat and other situations, and those magical heals just aren't really all that NECESSARY. In smaller groups, anything that isn't necessary for survival and advancement is usually quickly discarded.

Maybe Paizo finds a way to make a balance, but I fear any system that tries to balance the two will have too many loopholes. Sure, mundane healing can keep a disease or poison from killing a person, but maybe it doesn't actually CURE it, and that healing needs to be applied regularly (once per day?). You would still need some sort of magical healing to remove blindness and such, but there are multiple ways in which someone can come by this, not just through clerics.

I understand the concept of "If a role is required, it isn't special."

By the same token, if a role is irrelevant, then there are a ton of other issues.

Likewise, in over 30 years of gaming, I can count the number of campaigns on one hand where the party didn't have a strong melee fighter or two. Why? Because it WAS REQUIRED. No muscle in the party tends to make parties too squishy to survive. Yet I don't see anyone looking for eliminating fighters from parties.

MMOs took their lead from AD&D. There's something to be said for a balanced party of a fighter, a rogue, a divine caster (Cleric/Druid) and an arcanist. IT's awesome when one member is able to branch out and help out in another area, but there still needs to be some reason for a player to specialize in one of these paths. If all of a cleric's healing abilities (short of resurrection) can be duplicated through mundane means, there is little point to playing a cleric to type and a massive emphasis on playing against type and embracing an archetype other than healer.

I can't count how many times I have played in campaigns where my healer was merely dead weight because the party didn't need one, due to wands, potions, and other mundane healing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If by playing a Cleric 'to type' you mrab bringing a Primary Healer, a Primary Healer who chooses to focus their resources on healing should be incredibly valuable. Massive healing that outpaces the enemies' ability to inflict damage and a few decent defensive wards to use before the healing is required.

If the game is 'balanced around a Primary Healer' and they are expected, then they indeed are no longer special and become an obligation.

This is an optional path that should be damn powerful, it has to be to make up for sacrificing a combatant.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
TolkienBard wrote:
Likewise, in over 30 years of gaming, I can count the number of campaigns on one hand where the party didn't have a strong melee fighter or two. Why? Because it WAS REQUIRED. No muscle in the party tends to make parties too squishy to survive. Yet I don't see anyone looking for eliminating fighters from parties.

Classes in PF1 that can fulfill the role of a frontline DPR: Cleric, Bard, Barbarian, Fighter, Druid, Rogue, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Shifter, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Cavalier, Magus, Oracle, Summoner, Vigilante, Antipaladin, Ninja, Samurai, Hunter, Investigator, Warpriest, Brawler, Bloodrager, Shaman, Skald, Slayer, Swashbuckler, Kineticist, Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, and Spiritualist.

Classes in PF1 that can remove status effects on an appropriate curve: Cleric, Oracle, Druid, and Witch.

I hope this illustrates why there's a problem with healing being so exclusive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've had successful parties without any strong melee combatants. Parties that had nothing but passable melee and an abundance of magic [or some magic and some archery]


Kerrilyn wrote:

Can we make it so that healing kits don't lose their bonus as their uses are used up though? That's annoying and always gets house ruled away in my groups.

CRB page 99 / Treat Deadly Wounds wrote:
You take a –2 penalty on your Heal skill check for each use from the healer’s kit that you lack.
..why??

I'm pretty sure that refers to the previous sentence about Treat Deadly Wounds consuming two "charges" from the healer's kit. That would seem like the only reasonable interpretation: you really should have proper medical supplies (and quite a lot of them) for treating deadly wounds, but if you're short you can improvise some stuff at a -2 or -4 penalty.


Staffan Johansson wrote:
Kerrilyn wrote:

Can we make it so that healing kits don't lose their bonus as their uses are used up though? That's annoying and always gets house ruled away in my groups.

CRB page 99 / Treat Deadly Wounds wrote:
You take a –2 penalty on your Heal skill check for each use from the healer’s kit that you lack.
..why??
I'm pretty sure that refers to the previous sentence about Treat Deadly Wounds consuming two "charges" from the healer's kit. That would seem like the only reasonable interpretation: you really should have proper medical supplies (and quite a lot of them) for treating deadly wounds, but if you're short you can improvise some stuff at a -2 or -4 penalty.

My Very First Houserule in Pathfinder was fundamentally Bottomless Heal Kits and Treat Deadly Wounds not restricted per day per patient.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
TolkienBard wrote:
Likewise, in over 30 years of gaming, I can count the number of campaigns on one hand where the party didn't have a strong melee fighter or two. Why? Because it WAS REQUIRED. No muscle in the party tends to make parties too squishy to survive. Yet I don't see anyone looking for eliminating fighters from parties.

Classes in PF1 that can fulfill the role of a frontline DPR: Cleric, Bard, Barbarian, Fighter, Druid, Rogue, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Shifter, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Cavalier, Magus, Oracle, Summoner, Vigilante, Antipaladin, Ninja, Samurai, Hunter, Investigator, Warpriest, Brawler, Bloodrager, Shaman, Skald, Slayer, Swashbuckler, Kineticist, Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, and Spiritualist.

Classes in PF1 that can remove status effects on an appropriate curve: Cleric, Oracle, Druid, and Witch.

I hope this illustrates why there's a problem with healing being so exclusive.

A Skald that keeps Spell Kenning is able to provide status removal and do some healing if they select the spells. Not as well as the ones you list, but better than others.

As for why still have a healer? They will be able to heal in combat rather than waiting until the action is done and others are looting.


TolkienBard wrote:


MMOs took their lead from AD&D. There's something to be said for a balanced party of a fighter, a rogue, a divine caster (Cleric/Druid) and an arcanist. IT's awesome when one member is able to branch out and help out in another area, but there still needs to be some reason for a player to specialize in one of these paths. If all of a cleric's healing abilities (short of resurrection) can be duplicated through mundane means, there is little point to playing a cleric to type and a massive emphasis on playing against type and embracing an archetype other than healer.

I am 100% absolutely certain that the people working on PF 2.0 know that there are times you would throw the divine and possibly the arcane caster out into a dumpster bin.
Quote:
Classes in PF1 that can remove status effects on an appropriate curve: Cleric, Oracle, Druid, and Witch.

Alchemist is probably a bit better than those classes in terms of removing and preventing status effects. You'd have to archetype into a healing specification but the archetypes turn them into a stronger contender.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Given what we learned from the Proficiency blog post, I don't think it's unreasonable to speculate that higher ranks of proficiency in the "heal" skill may be super-bonkers amazing. Like if Legendary Athletics lets you leap high in the air and suplex a chimera, I imagine that Legendary Heal might let you get people to regrow limbs.

So potentially the needed investment for "a healer" is "someone who invests maximally in the 'heal' skill" which is probably better than requiring specific classes.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Looking at pf2s playtests , it almost seems like you're going to require a dedicated healer in the group. Is there any way to avoid that? Either with PFs's pugs or a home game where people don't want to be stuck with the role the cheap cure light wounds happy stick (for all its problems) lets everyone play the character they want to play.

Starfinder easily lets you play without a healer. Whats pf2s solution?

The issue I have found with a dedicated healer such as Clerics built for it specifically, Druids burning up a ton of spell slots, etc is that there is an inherent opportunity cost associated with them in combat. Out of combat, its just a burn of spell slots for them, but in combat I often found that given the action economy, actions spent healing would have been better spent trying to kill enemies and end the encounter faster instead. Since dead is the combat ending condition, making enemies dead faster is better than just making enemies kill you slower. So dedicated healer's issue isn't so much the existence of wands or potions, its that you cannot heal your way out of combat. So another damage dealer was always a better option. Out of combat it could be helpful, but hardly worth dedicating a quarter or more of the party's output to.

On resonance in general, I think what the devs have proposed sounds interesting, but they are going to have to make it perfect in order to not massively screw up way more than it hopes to fix.


Planpanther wrote:
Im taking a complete guess here, but I think there is going to be some type of healing surge or short rest shenanigans happening in the near future. Hope im wrong tho.

I hope you're right.

Ideally, IMNSHO, one should be able to play a no-magic game right out of the box.


TolkienBard wrote:

This is such a fine line that I'm not sure there is any way that Paizo can create a system in PF2 that isn't going to piss off a major portion of the player base.

On one hand, it's great that there are already 10 classes that can engage in some sort of healing. It's EVEN BETTER that they are looking at making is so players of any class can invest in healing skills/feats and be mundane healers using bandages and salves.

On the other hand, if these same characters are able to eliminate the likes of Mummy Rot and other status-altering effects, then what in the world is the point of playing a cleric that actually plays to type? If anything, playing a cleric to type quickly becomes as much a hindrance as it helps with resource allocation. Sure, the healer can come along and magically spell things away, but they aren't contributing nearly as much in combat and other situations, and those magical heals just aren't really all that NECESSARY. In smaller groups, anything that isn't necessary for survival and advancement is usually quickly discarded.

Maybe Paizo finds a way to make a balance, but I fear any system that tries to balance the two will have too many loopholes. Sure, mundane healing can keep a disease or poison from killing a person, but maybe it doesn't actually CURE it, and that healing needs to be applied regularly (once per day?). You would still need some sort of magical healing to remove blindness and such, but there are multiple ways in which someone can come by this, not just through clerics.

I understand the concept of "If a role is required, it isn't special."

By the same token, if a role is irrelevant, then there are a ton of other issues.

Likewise, in over 30 years of gaming, I can count the number of campaigns on one hand where the party didn't have a strong melee fighter or two. Why? Because it WAS REQUIRED. No muscle in the party tends to make parties too squishy to survive. Yet I don't see anyone looking for eliminating fighters from parties.

MMOs took their lead from...

Someones (and by someone I mean several if not dozens or more people) is going to get PO'd no matter what Paizo does. you can't please all of the people all of the time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Someones (and by someone I mean several if not dozens or more people) is going to get PO'd no matter what Paizo does. you can't please all of the people all of the time.

I don't understand how real people create expectation of Paizo delivering their personal sub-genre preferences. If they do, fine, if they don't, use other game system suited for it. Do people react this way when Starwars RPG doesn't simulate Conan very well? Do people react this way when Ponyfinder does not pull off WW3 apocalypse very well? Do people think companies that produce those will suddenly change the entire concept of their designs because of an opinionated forum post or two dozen? "Gee, maybe our game really should prioritize a realistic knitting simulator"

Paizo does their own spin on class-based high magic vanilla/patch-work D&D fantasy. If it isn't your thing, there's plenty of other good RPG designers out there. No magic, no class, whatever. Patronizing them would do more good in supporting such developments than badgering people who don't do that kind of design. Hell, Paizo even SELLS many such systems thru their own website. Yet there is this black hole of perception here, like Paizo is the one and all. Just doesn't feel like rational adult behavior.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Dead Phoenix wrote:
Rysky wrote:
They have mentioned there are other healing options that will be available aside from spells and consumables.
I love that your post is ignored so people could have the same argument about clw wands again. Milo knows whats up at least.

No ignored, we simply lack any hint of what this might entail.

I'm betting it's healing surges. PF2 is looking more and more like it is becoming the very thing that PF1 was created to avoid.

I hate healing surges ...

Played 4E - it was nicely designed, but not m game.


In a game where we are supposed to be playing co-op, where we each fill different roles in a functional team, shouldn't a healer role be a thing? Should a team of 4 damage dealers with little tanking, no skill monkeys, and no healers be a strong team?

And I'd much rather that the Heal skill be improved to be comparable to basic healing magic than deal with that pure orange cheese that is healing surges.


The thing about a healer role is that it is hard to balance. By its nature, it's reactive when damage, tanking, and other forms of support can seize the initiative. To be fully viable, a healer needs to be worth the teamslot and the loss of active presence over another character. A damage-dealer, tank, or non-healer support can prevent the need for healing by doing their job properly (defeating the enemy before they can act/reducing the impact of enemy attacks, buffs/debuffs/control), so I'm uncomfortable with making healer a central role since it has a track record of bringing the rest of the roles down to make the healer look good, often starting with non-healer support. Support options have so much potential because they don't need to be direct, but having them pushed down hits that potential significantly. I like my crazy options, and them being overwritten by the biggest HPR number is just as bad as being overwritten by the biggest DPR.

TL;DR: A support's success shouldn't be measured directly on a health bar, regardless of whose health bar it is.


There are lots of support options that can do some healing, plus buff, debuff, or lots of other useful things. I would find a healing domain cleric that doesn't do much else super boring.

The other option is don't have a healer of any kind. Eventually something will surprise you or win initiative and you'll have to deal with being blind for god knows how long or die because no one can cast Breath of Life.

I do agree that a support character's worth can't really be measured with HP healed. A support alchemist that throws a stinking cloud bomb in the first round (before anyone needs healing) might prevent a lot of damage and really mess up the enemies for a few rounds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Right, since any other role can itself remove need for healing,
it seems hard to believe healing is more difficult to balance than others.
Balancing can be hard, but it seem an across the board issue.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I believe in my fellow Pathfinder Compatible Publishers enough to know there will be an Inquisitor, Witch, Warpriest, and half a dozen other non-dedicated healer classes within a month of launch.


The Sideromancer wrote:
so I'm uncomfortable with making healer a central role since it has a track record of bringing the rest of the roles down to make the healer look good, often starting with non-healer support.

I wouldn't want to nerf non-healer support. I used to be an Enchanter in Everquest afterall. Why would that be necessary to support healing? Healing was critical in Everquest -- if you didn't have at least a druid, you couldn't group. If you didn't have at least four groups of clerics, you didn't raid. It was also very powerful - full-group heals, regens, complete heal.. and yet enchanters were still adding to groups.

Well, they were, until the nerfs started rolling in. The problem was that a group-worthy enchanter could also serve to cover an entire raid...and the changes that made a raid need to have 2-3 enchanters (out of 150~) made an enchanter much, much less useful in a 6-person group.

Staffan Johansson wrote:
I'm pretty sure that refers to the previous sentence about Treat Deadly Wounds consuming two "charges" from the healer's kit. That would seem like the only reasonable interpretation: you really should have proper medical supplies (and quite a lot of them) for treating deadly wounds, but if you're short you can improvise some stuff at a -2 or -4 penalty.

Yah it was discussed in another thread. The wording around there needs to be changed, so very badly...


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.

be careful that way of thinking leads to 4th Edition D&D and you see how well it worked out for them. There are people who enjoy playing healers and keeping the party going. beware trying to fix a minor issue only to cause far more problems.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hargert wrote:
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.

be careful that way of thinking leads to 4th Edition D&D and you see how well it worked out for them. There are people who enjoy playing healers and keeping the party going. beware trying to fix a minor issue only to cause far more problems.

Pardon, last I checked 4E was the poster child for Class Defining Role.

Regarding the comment on healing, I really enjoy playing a Healer... When the game is *not* 'balanced' around healer as an expected role.

Primary Healer should be an optional, amazing path, not just a cog in the machine


I look more at percentages of a team than total numbers (mostly because I'm very used to 4-6 person teams), so I would consider that example to be yes, healers are overshadowing other roles. There probably is some bias on my side, because I view important healing as a sign of poor tanks.

In my view, a tank's role is to prevent meaningful damage from occurring. In a team with effective tankiness, healers are not very useful since the amount of incoming damage is significantly reduced. A given unit is better served augmenting another role than survivability. Intuitively, if you are currently in an open slot and the defensive line is failing (i.e. the incoming damage is significant), a good play is to be an additional tank. As such, I view prominent healing positions as a sign that tanks don't work beyond a token investment, otherwise you would be increasing tanks until your defences are covered and then investing in more general support. I think of main healers as a niche option for glass cannon comps, but not something that should be prominent in defensive or potentially even balance teams (again, for a small team. Unless the tanks are arbitrarily good, some damage will get through them. But somebody who mostly heals taking up 1/4 of your composition shouldn't be the norm).

my gaming history examples:
I play pokemon semicompetitively, and have built a few teams. The ability to heal a teammate's hp or status is still valued, but most support in single battles (i.e. 6v6 one out at a time) is battlefield control. VGC (4v4 two out at once) often runs full support sets, and I honestly appreciate the prevalence of team-specific ways of boosting speed, debuffing, and Skill Swap over healing.
Moving more towards traditional fantasy, I often ran two characters capable of healing in Fire Emblem (out of usually around 14). Except at least one of those was a damage dealer ~60% of the time. As I moved into the later game, I often dropped to one because the tankiness of the team had approached the point where the second was unnecessary. Now, mucking about postgame for PVP, the singleton is there for debuffs as much as anything. The main support has a massive impact with healing as an incidental (i.e. it's a passive not worth an action cost), with the second-biggest being a power boost permanently affixed to the main damage-dealer. And I'd take those over another staffbot.

As for the salt: Overwatch. I used to play it, enough to get the impression the meta is dictated by whoever has the best HPS at the moment. It supposedly has tanks, but most are awful at tanking. You know its bad when you look at an older patch's "triple tank (out of 6)" comp and it plays like a 5 DPS. The non-healer supports (all 2/26) have unique contributions, except the devs have outright stated they're supposed to be rarely used and the one that has risen above the trash heap is in the process of being nerfed. Guess which two character's I mained? If you want to know why I think primary healing is a stain on primary support, it's right here.


Sure, to all these examples you can ask about between comabts. But that's already saying that in-combat healing is only rarely worth the time. I like the complexity of higher-tank games than a tug-of-war between DPR and HPR.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Primary Healer should be an optional, amazing path, not just a cog in the machine

I can live with that~ I'm just concerned though that in PF1, we've already been replaced by that stupid med stick, and in PF2, replaced (ie, been made totally obsolete by) whatever lets a barbarian fully heal a party on their own.

The Sideromancer wrote:

I look more at percentages of a team than total numbers (mostly because I'm very used to 4-6 person teams), so I would consider that example to be yes, healers are overshadowing other roles. There probably is some bias on my side, because I view important healing as a sign of poor tanks.

Oh! I think I understand what you're getting at. And yes, healers shouldn't overpower tanks. There's still room for plenty of synergy without turning healers into a small passive item though.

Overwatch btw - heals are mostly irrelevant except for post-fight top-ups there. You're either rezzing, a CLW wand, or useless there. Blizzard has a poor idea of healing in general anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerrilyn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Primary Healer should be an optional, amazing path, not just a cog in the machine
I can live with that~ I'm just concerned though that in PF1, we've already been replaced by that stupid med stick, and in PF2, replaced (ie, been made totally obsolete by) whatever lets a barbarian fully heal a party on their own.

What if that Barbarian IS a Primary Healer?

Maybe it's a medicine man specialized in the Heal skill and consuming his rage to implore the great spirits to heal his allies and ward off disease and curses and debuffs?


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kerrilyn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Primary Healer should be an optional, amazing path, not just a cog in the machine
I can live with that~ I'm just concerned though that in PF1, we've already been replaced by that stupid med stick, and in PF2, replaced (ie, been made totally obsolete by) whatever lets a barbarian fully heal a party on their own.

What if that Barbarian IS a Primary Healer?

Maybe it's a medicine man specialized in the Heal skill and consuming his rage to implore the great spirits to heal his allies and ward off disease and curses and debuffs?

To me that sounds awesome. But I would expect such a build/archetype/path to have to give something up for such healing. Same with all the classes own way of healing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Naturally. Primary Healer is its own role. It should be tremendously powerful and special, but comparatively lacking in offensive prowess.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
MerlinCross wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kerrilyn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Primary Healer should be an optional, amazing path, not just a cog in the machine
I can live with that~ I'm just concerned though that in PF1, we've already been replaced by that stupid med stick, and in PF2, replaced (ie, been made totally obsolete by) whatever lets a barbarian fully heal a party on their own.

What if that Barbarian IS a Primary Healer?

Maybe it's a medicine man specialized in the Heal skill and consuming his rage to implore the great spirits to heal his allies and ward off disease and curses and debuffs?

To me that sounds awesome. But I would expect such a build/archetype/path to have to give something up for such healing. Same with all the classes own way of healing.

Well he has presumably given up four skill proficiency increases, one or more skill feats and multiple class feat (meaning he likely has less combat options/damage or something else.)


It feels like Society play is going to replace "mandatory" CLW wands with "mandatory" Heal skill feat taxes (in that it's frowned upon to not take the option), if that's where the non-class healing comes from. Which seems slightly worse for player agency.

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kerrilyn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Primary Healer should be an optional, amazing path, not just a cog in the machine
I can live with that~ I'm just concerned though that in PF1, we've already been replaced by that stupid med stick, and in PF2, replaced (ie, been made totally obsolete by) whatever lets a barbarian fully heal a party on their own.

What if that Barbarian IS a Primary Healer?

Maybe it's a medicine man specialized in the Heal skill and consuming his rage to implore the great spirits to heal his allies and ward off disease and curses and debuffs?

The barbarian was enough of a healer to serve as the team's main healer (though not due to barbarian abilities), but she was far from primarily a healer. A full healing cleric would have been much better for healing, at the expense of not smashing as much. A healer cleric can do a really powerful recovery turn with the new heal (you can figure out the combo from what has been revealed so far).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can I please have a cleric / etc who can heal as a single action while still getting to attack and cast other real spells with the rest of their actions? This was one thing 4E did right, "Healing Word" and similar abilities that let a cleric still play the game while also getting to heal on the side. You only ever had to spend your full turn healing if the party was /really/ messed up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
Can I please have a cleric / etc who can heal as a single action while still getting to attack and cast other real spells with the rest of their actions? This was one thing 4E did right, "Healing Word" and similar abilities that let a cleric still play the game while also getting to heal on the side. You only ever had to spend your full turn healing if the party was /really/ messed up.

Heal costs 1, 2, or 3 actions depending on what you're doing with it. The 1 action version is the touch spell we're used to, so you can slap your buddy's wounded ass for one action, move, then hit the enemy with your mace as your turn.


Malk_Content wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Kerrilyn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Primary Healer should be an optional, amazing path, not just a cog in the machine
I can live with that~ I'm just concerned though that in PF1, we've already been replaced by that stupid med stick, and in PF2, replaced (ie, been made totally obsolete by) whatever lets a barbarian fully heal a party on their own.

What if that Barbarian IS a Primary Healer?

Maybe it's a medicine man specialized in the Heal skill and consuming his rage to implore the great spirits to heal his allies and ward off disease and curses and debuffs?

To me that sounds awesome. But I would expect such a build/archetype/path to have to give something up for such healing. Same with all the classes own way of healing.
Well he has presumably given up four skill proficiency increases, one or more skill feats and multiple class feat (meaning he likely has less combat options/damage or something else.)

My lack of understanding of the new level up mechanics along with not having the actual numbers in front of either of us prevents this from being fact.

You can and probably are right, but I've always liked having the actual numbers in my hands to start with.

101 to 144 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
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion