Are we heading back to mandatory healer territorry?


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

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?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

They have mentioned there are other healing options that will be available aside from spells and consumables.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't have a problem with this myself. I dislike the cheap cure light wounds happy stick easy game mode.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
RedDogMT wrote:
I don't have a problem with this myself. I dislike the cheap cure light wounds happy stick easy game mode.

then don't use wands of CLW. Easy as that. And people who like that sort of play still can enjoy game nevertheless.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hythlodeus wrote:
RedDogMT wrote:
I don't have a problem with this myself. I dislike the cheap cure light wounds happy stick easy game mode.
then don't use wands of CLW. Easy as that. And people who like that sort of play still can enjoy game nevertheless.

Except to not do that is shooting yourself in the foot? It’s playing the game with a hand tied behind your back.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
RedDogMT wrote:
I don't have a problem with this myself. I dislike the cheap cure light wounds happy stick easy game mode.
then don't use wands of CLW. Easy as that. And people who like that sort of play still can enjoy game nevertheless.
Except to not do that is shooting yourself in the foot? It’s playing the game with a hand tied behind your back.

Idk, we seldom use wands of CLW and I wouldn't call our games 'hard mode' either. It's still possible. Then again, we have dedictaed healers and players who love playing dedicated healers, so what do I know.

Thing is, if you don't want to play 'easy mode', don't play 'easy mode'. ESPECIALLY if that means it will get harder


10 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
RedDogMT wrote:
I don't have a problem with this myself. I dislike the cheap cure light wounds happy stick easy game mode.
then don't use wands of CLW. Easy as that. And people who like that sort of play still can enjoy game nevertheless.
Except to not do that is shooting yourself in the foot? It’s playing the game with a hand tied behind your back.

So, instead of placing limitations on yourself, you want to drag everyone else down to your chosen playstyle?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

10 of the 12 Classes in the 2e CRB had options for healing themselves or others in 1e. This + Paizo accounting for the changes to items, makes me assume there will be plenty of healing in the game.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
No ignored, we simply lack any hint of what this might entail.

Except we've already seen 83.3% of the 2e classes have had healing options already in 1e (with Fighter and Rogue being the only ones without it).... It's already an accepted part of the game that nearly all the 2e classes have the potential to heal themselves or others.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
RedDogMT wrote:
I don't have a problem with this myself. I dislike the cheap cure light wounds happy stick easy game mode.
then don't use wands of CLW. Easy as that. And people who like that sort of play still can enjoy game nevertheless.
Except to not do that is shooting yourself in the foot? It’s playing the game with a hand tied behind your back.
So, instead of placing limitations on yourself, you want to drag everyone else down to your chosen playstyle?

That's not what anyone said. It's about adressing the perceived issue, not just ripping it out.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Threeshades wrote:


That's not what anyone said. It's about adressing the perceived issue, not just ripping it out.

It's addressing the issue without seeing if the consequences are worse than the failure. I mean yes if you have a snake in your boot the giant blow torch WILL get rid of it* that doesn't make it a good idea.

*fun working in a state park...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Except we've already seen 83.3% of the 2e classes have had healing options already in 1e (with Fighter and Rogue being the only ones without it).... It's already an accepted part of the game that nearly all the 2e classes have the potential to heal themselves or others.

Yes, plus there's always treat deadly wounds, long term care, and resting overnight, which is available to all characters in the PF1 CRB.

If they don't want to heal, well, they can spend the extra time. It's an opportunity cost for being psychotic murder-hobos who only take pleasure in killing things.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Oooo I hope the Barbarians get Fast Healing or something similar when raging.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


4 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.

Really? I found it the opposite. People are like "meh. At least you don't have to UMD the med stick" now. Forums and Reddit are like "red alert! very dis-optimal build detected! stop wasting turns/slots!" and stuffs.

Before, the DM would always try to knock me out of the action as first priority, even though I never did any damage unless undead were around. This was 3.5 and 3.0 though, not 2e, and I had heavy armor and was one of the tougher party members.

BretI wrote:
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.

Well, I have always max out my healing ranks and carry a healing kit, as there is such a thing as an anti-magic zone..and/or being completely out of anything that isn't at-will. I'm not opposed to that being buffed somewhat.

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??

BretI wrote:
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.

Yah, it's very speculative at this point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerrilyn wrote:

.

If they don't want to heal, well, they can spend the extra time. It's an opportunity cost for being psychotic murder-hobos who only take pleasure in killing things.

That is not a viable amount of healing for an adventuring party.

Yes, the healing exists is a mathematicians answer. Technically correct, devoid of meaning, and not particularly relevant to the conversation.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
That is not a viable amount of healing for an adventuring party.

There's no upper limit to how much it can heal. And it's level*2/night, or level*4/full day. That last one is just one day for a d8 hit die or lower person. Maybe enough for anybody who's at half health. And it's on top of Treat Deadly Wounds, which adds an additional level-of-target +wisdom bonus (if positive). ..oh and it's an area affect, encompassing up to six people.

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


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 think neutralize poison is the only one you would have to worry about in most circumstances. There always seems to be a church in town that offers restorative services.


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 thought it went without saying that said healer as a party member , and reiterated what i meant when talking about the players picking their character, but if you're still going to twist the language...

*opens the ghost trap for chelaxian lawyers*


5 people marked this as a favorite.
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 wonder, also, how many of the CRB classes can handle the appropriate healing/condition removal without having to invest extensively in it.

Just out of the CRB, we have the Cleric, the Druid, the Paladin, and (apparently) the Alchemist. Now certainly this isn't going to cover every party but this is like 25% of all the classes.

So what percentage of classes should come with "can do enough healing" packages before we can conclude this is not an issue?


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I wonder, also, how many of the CRB classes can handle the appropriate healing/condition removal without having to invest extensively in it.

Just out of the CRB, we have the Cleric, the Druid, the Paladin, and (apparently) the Alchemist. Now certainly this isn't going to cover every party but this is like 25% of all the classes.

So what percentage of classes should come with "can do enough healing" packages before we can conclude this is not an issue?

Musings:

-Alchemist: Makes healing consumables, likely has fast healing option like in PF1, maybe even other option to pass this healing via touch?
-Barbarian: Rage uses temp h.p. like Unchained. Likely has ways (maybe later) to recover in emergency, and (much later) to recover from abnormal conditions (like some classes in SF).
-Bard: Spells, maybe have a healing song too
-Cleric: Spells & class features
-Druid: Spells, maybe more?
-Fighter: They seem to be toughing things out as optimal shield users. Would expect mid-late game reboots similar to the Barbarian.
-Monk: Had healing, but very poor. Maybe add as a ki power?
-Paladin: Lay on Hands, minor spells, add aura that aids healing?
-Ranger: Minor spells...seems bad off.
-Rogue: Had the (lame) emergency h.p. 1/day. Likely will have to do dodgy things to avoid damage. Maybe avoids blows as a reaction w/ roll?
-Sorcerer & Wizard: Spells for temp h.p. buffs, and now Shield as a cantrip blocks some h.p. damage too. Tons of defensive options, but can't see them treading on divine terrain by having healing.

So not too many in-combat options for worthwhile healing, but several out-of-combat options. Thing is, how much will the PC have to sacrifice to heal enough, especially with these higher hit points in PF2?
Looks like parties will need to buy strong healing magic, but at what cost? How much g.p. variation will occur due to having abundant free healing in one group, normal healing in another, and purchased healing in a third?

Having GMed a 17th level party that had 1 level of healer among them (unless one counts the Limited Wishes they used in emergencies), I can say even in PF1 a healer isn't absolutely necessary. Lots of defensive magic is out there.

Sovereign Court

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

I can see shields getting more popular for damage mitigation in parties without easy access to healing resources.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'd like to see magical healing be the in-battle emergency healing thing.

Out of battle, I'd like to see the heal skill become actually useful for restoring HP. So your post-battle healing dude may even be the fighter or rogue who's bothered to put ranks in heal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hoping whatever they do, they keep the cost of healing to minimum, the idea of forcing someone at the party to take the fall and become a healer every game just so the adventure day/week lasts more than 1 combat is something absurd to me.

Wands were something every party member could take part in the cost and then benefit from. Which is why while "lore breaking" kinda, it was a fair way to solve the issue.

Certantly whatever they came up to stand in its place im hoping fits the same bill, not make one guy pay it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arutema wrote:

I'd like to see magical healing be the in-battle emergency healing thing.

Out of battle, I'd like to see the heal skill become actually useful for restoring HP. So your post-battle healing dude may even be the fighter or rogue who's bothered to put ranks in heal.

In-battle emergency healing was already what it was, for the most part. All they needed was to implement a very simple short rest mechanic to take ten minutes to apply first aid and catch your breath instead of overhauling the entire magic item system to eliminate heal stick abuse. The Heal skill could add a bonus to the HP restored, but you'd still get a base amount so that it would still be useful if nobody was particularly good at Heal (a situation which would actually exist if everything didn't advance with level... I guess everyone is a medic, now).


A game from the 1980s that I liked was DragonQuest. You took damage on your Fatigue, which represented energy that you used for things like avoiding damage. When you ran out of Fatigue you lose Endurance which was what killed you.

You healed Fatigue quickly, but Endurance very slowly. And they did a nice job of defining Fatigue recovery as per-hour rate based on if you were sleeping, taking time for a good meal, etc. There was a decent mechanic to represent what they were after.

Basically, D&D Hit Point were DQ Fatigue + Endurance.

Then D&D 4e gives everyone healing surges. They make them usable during combat. Few people could rationalize what they meant. They lacked enough verisimilitude. It rang to many as if Fighters were magically healing themselves, which led to ridicule.

PF2e might succeed in being better than D&D 4e here, but a lot depends on how it is presented and how well the mechanics support what they're trying to represent.


Bloodrealm wrote:
The Heal skill could add a bonus to the HP restored, but you'd still get a base amount so that it would still be useful if nobody was particularly good at Heal (a situation which would actually exist if everything didn't advance with level... I guess everyone is a medic, now).

Oh yeah, I forgot about that! Everybody will have ranks in Heal now.

Wait..does that mean everybody gets skill unlocks?


Kerrilyn wrote:
Bloodrealm wrote:
The Heal skill could add a bonus to the HP restored, but you'd still get a base amount so that it would still be useful if nobody was particularly good at Heal (a situation which would actually exist if everything didn't advance with level... I guess everyone is a medic, now).

Oh yeah, I forgot about that! Everybody will have ranks in Heal now.

Wait..does that mean everybody gets skill unlocks?

No, skill unlocks require proficiency levels as prerequisites.

Paizo Employee Designer

20 people marked this as a favorite.

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 anyway).
Paladin: Paladin as the group's only healer worked quite well, especially when the paladin specced for it.
Ranger: Rangers, like fighters, often did well with backup healing due to build choices not really related to their class.
Rogue: Like fighter and ranger, though for whatever reason they didn't do it as much despite having more chances to choose. Maybe this is also related to why the druids didn't cover heals as much even though they could?
Sorcerer: Surprisingly easy to heal the group with my sorcerer. Having so much resonance helped, of course.
Wizard: Wizards haven't really been helping with healing too much. They've had other things to do. I want to try an oddball build where I spec a wizard for healing like the barbarian did above, but haven't gotten a chance yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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.


So basically Ancestry is another class parallel to your actual class? Or does class just barely matter because anyone can fill any role?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Bloodrealm wrote:
So basically Ancestry is another class parallel to your actual class? Or does class just barely matter because anyone can fill any role?

What does ancestry have to do with anything?

How does healing being available through items or (I presume) general feats mean that any class can fill any role?


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.

Scrolls, Potions, a non-primary healer (cleric, Paladin or witch often) preparing it as a one-off the next morning, etc.

In my own games all those conditions can be treated with Heal and a Healer's Kit and some treatment (and perhaps an expenditure of gold to cover especially rare and valuable medicinal materials.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hum... cant say this put my worries to rest, since apparently someone had to be willing to focus on this, instead of being a side thing, but maybe i understood it wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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.


Mark Seifter wrote:


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.

Well, there we have it. Even Barbarians can heal...although it's apparently not a class thing?

Mark Seifter wrote:


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.

Yay!! *cheer*

Liberty's Edge

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Healing wizards you say? Am I in heaven?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
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 drinks an Alchemist’s elixir, that other person (the drinker) spends one resonance in the process of drinking that one elixir.

1 to 50 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