Do anyone think that Healers should be obligatory in parties?


General Discussion

101 to 150 of 163 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
RazarTuk wrote:

Letting barbarians, monks, paladins, and rangers be good at raw damage output doesn't negate the role of damage-dealer. It just means you don't have to be a fighter to fill that role.

Letting bards and (sort of) alchemists and wizards have a lot of skills doesn't negate the role of utility party member. It just means you don't have to be a rogue to fill that role.

Giving bards disable device as a class skill in 1e or giving barbarians d12s to soak up damage with doesn't negate the role of trap-finder. It just means you don't have to be a rogue to fill that role.

Letting alchemists, bards, and sorcerers be good at magic doesn't negate the role of magic-user. It just means you don't have to be a wizard to fill that role.

The only role that is still closely tied to a class is clerics being healers. So giving more options than CLW/Heal for significant amounts of healing wouldn't negate the role of healer. It would just mean you'd no longer have to be a cleric to fill that role. Not to mention that healsticks actually make it more interesting to play a cleric, because you no longer feel required to save all your spell slots for CLW. You can use the wand for that and your actual spell slots for the rest of your spell list.

Counterpoint, those are all examples of roles replaced by other classes filling that role. If healer wasn't replaced by an item, but by feats and class features for other classes I wouldn't mind as much. To replace any of those other roles using purely items would have a huge gold investment, why should it be different for healers.

I wouldn't mind more mundane healing options (skill proficiency usage options, skill/general feats) being opened, nor would I mind more class features/feats being added as options for other classes. What I do mind, is the replacement of a class by a cheap source.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
willuwontu wrote:
RazarTuk wrote:

Letting barbarians, monks, paladins, and rangers be good at raw damage output doesn't negate the role of damage-dealer. It just means you don't have to be a fighter to fill that role.

Letting bards and (sort of) alchemists and wizards have a lot of skills doesn't negate the role of utility party member. It just means you don't have to be a rogue to fill that role.

Giving bards disable device as a class skill in 1e or giving barbarians d12s to soak up damage with doesn't negate the role of trap-finder. It just means you don't have to be a rogue to fill that role.

Letting alchemists, bards, and sorcerers be good at magic doesn't negate the role of magic-user. It just means you don't have to be a wizard to fill that role.

The only role that is still closely tied to a class is clerics being healers. So giving more options than CLW/Heal for significant amounts of healing wouldn't negate the role of healer. It would just mean you'd no longer have to be a cleric to fill that role. Not to mention that healsticks actually make it more interesting to play a cleric, because you no longer feel required to save all your spell slots for CLW. You can use the wand for that and your actual spell slots for the rest of your spell list.

Counterpoint, those are all examples of roles replaced by other classes filling that role. If healer wasn't replaced by an item, but by feats and class features for other classes I wouldn't mind as much. To replace any of those other roles using purely items would have a huge gold investment, why should it be different for healers.

I wouldn't mind more mundane healing options (skill proficiency usage options, skill/general feats) being opened, nor would I mind more class features/feats being added as options for other classes. What I do mind, is the replacement of a class by a cheap source.

And I definitely agree with that, which is why I've been advocating for Medicine skill feats to allow someone to play healer. The healstick's just interesting because it lets other people play healer/cast CLW (the two are synonymous) and opens up the cleric's spell slots for things other than healing magic. I was defending the prevalence of healsticks inasmuch as they serve that latter purpose.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Rednal wrote:
Personally, I think the key is for healers to be able to do something besides healing on a frequent basis. That is, something useful and attractive in its own right, whether that's buffing allies, summoning creatures, or otherwise being proactive about affecting battles. When you do that, it makes the class more interesting to more people - and if healing is its own resource on the side, they probably won't object to using it on demand or feeling like they're locked into just doing that (assuming it doesn't take up every action, anyway).

It is. "Healers" should be doing more than just healing. That might be buffing. It might be CC. It might be bad touching. It might be blasting. It might be whacking stuff with a pointy object. Even someone playing a dedicated healer build still has all kinds of other support abilities they can use to swing the battle. I mean, what is Communal Resist Energy except "healing I won't have to cast later"?

A lot of healers actually used CLW wands and curative scrolls to augment their healing, freeing up more spells to do other stuff with while also ensuring they had what they need for recovery (and if you needed to heal in combat, you'd use a big heal to do it faster). Healing in PF has never been like healing in a MMO, where you're spending an entire combat spamming healing spells and maybe sneaking in something else if you can.


There seem to be a lot of people stating that nobody wants to play a cleric, but the results of the 1st playtest survey suggest that this is might not be the case:

Jason Bulmahn wrote

Quote:
Class: Cleric, fighter, and rogue were the most common choice for class (around 12% each). Most others fell between 6-9%.

It looks like clerics, fighters and rogues are the MOST popular. Now maybe these were all people forced into playing clerics, or maybe they were perceptive people who recognized that clerics are super strong in the play test. But I imagine that a good portion of them just enjoy playing clerics.

There also seems to be the false repeated idea that the only good healer is a cleric.

While I agree that clerics are very strong healers, I have played a Leaf druid who had 5 different sources of healing at 4th level: Natural Medicine, Goodberries (12d4+48 points per day), his own healing spells, a staff of healing and a wand of healing. As the main healer for our group in part 2 we did not have to rest for 8 hours of adventuring and traveling (except once so the wizard could regain his spell slots).

I have also played a divine Sorcerer as a healer using Magical Striker, and I because I am looking for someone to heal every round to proc the magical striker effect, our party stays healthy during combat. While perhaps slightly less potent than the cleric, the divine sorcerer functions admirably as a healer.

I have also played a Paladin with maxed out lay-on-hands features and he does well as a healer about equal to the cleric channel energy ability.

I think if they lower the DC for Battle Medic and Natural Medicine and perhaps nudge the healing a bit (I'd love to see natural medicine give hit points back like the rest mechanic so that it scales with level and the person-being-healed's constitution), some kind of reliable out of combat healing will be available for all classes.

Also they could give Cleric multi-class access to the heal spell at the level 2 feat. Although I'm not sure this is necessary because the level 2 feat does give access to the divine spell list so that healing wands and staves are usable by multi-classing clerics right away (I think)

What I hope they don't do is make healing so ubiquitous and available that the game goes to easy mode. I recognize that there are a variety of play styles and rules proficiencies. It would be nice to create the game that can accommodate both those who love and want a challenge and those that want to have a good time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snickersnax wrote:

There seem to be a lot of people stating that nobody wants to play a cleric, but the results of the 1st playtest survey suggest that this is might not be the case:

Jason Bulmahn wrote

Quote:
Class: Cleric, fighter, and rogue were the most common choice for class (around 12% each). Most others fell between 6-9%.

It looks like clerics, fighters and rogues are the MOST popular. Now maybe these were all people forced into playing clerics, or maybe they were perceptive people who recognized that clerics are super strong in the play test. But I imagine that a good portion of them just enjoy playing clerics.

There also seems to be the false repeated idea that the only good healer is a cleric.

While I agree that clerics are very strong healers, I have played a Leaf druid who had 5 different sources of healing at 4th level: Natural Medicine, Goodberries (12d4+48 points per day), his own healing spells, a staff of healing and a wand of healing. As the main healer for our group in part 2 we did not have to rest for 8 hours of adventuring and traveling (except once so the wizard could regain his spell slots).

I have also played a divine Sorcerer as a healer using Magical Striker, and I because I am looking for someone to heal every round to proc the magical striker effect, our party stays healthy during combat. While perhaps slightly less potent than the cleric, the divine sorcerer functions admirably as a healer.

I have also played a Paladin with maxed out lay-on-hands features and he does well as a healer about equal to the cleric channel energy ability.

I think if they lower the DC for Battle Medic and Natural Medicine and perhaps nudge the healing a bit (I'd love to see natural medicine give hit points back like the rest mechanic so that it scales with level and the person-being-healed's constitution), some kind of reliable out of combat healing will be available for all classes.

Also they could give Cleric multi-class access to the heal spell at the level 2 feat. Although I'm...

It does not meant that people WANTED to play a cleric. It could just as easily man that people realized that someone HAD to play one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thorin001 wrote:

It does not meant that people WANTED to play a cleric. It could just as easily man that people realized that someone HAD to play one.

I suspect Paizo would know this, but it'd be interesting to see how the clerics rated their experience playing the playtest compared to other classes. If they have lower scores overall you're probably right, but if not then either they did want to play clerics and had a good time, or felt obligated to play it but had a surprising good time.

That's probably a good statistic for Paizo to look at.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

My feeling: CLW wands served a necessary role in PF1e and that role is lacking in PF2e.

HOWEVER.

CLW wands were a terrible, hacky, unintended, uninteresting, and general terrible fit for that role. Their existence obviated massive parts of the system (such as every other healing wand and potion). The fact that everyone used them indicates that they filled a needed role, but not that they are the best choice to fill that role.

I would much, MUCH prefer a system that filled the "out of combat healing" role in a cleaner way than "there's this one magic item that is so cost effective that everyone buys it because they have to". If the CLW wand role is an integral part of the system, then make it an integral part of the system.


On a related note, I think *every* class should be designed with at least two distinct roles in mind, plus non-combat utility on the side. (In this context, a "role" is something the class can do on a consistent basis, usually all day long, and is a clearly distinct way of interacting with the game.) From a player standpoint, I think that helps to ensure they almost always get to make a choice about how to handle a situation - and making meaningful choices is how you help create the story in a narrative game.

It's not like every class has to be 50/50 in its focus or anything - that's a little too constraining - but they should have options that ensure their decisions matter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clerics are definitely the best healers, but I'm not sure that a well-oiled party needs that much healing. I've seen a Druid and Alchemist/Paladin do well enough for "In Pale Mountain's Shadow", when both parties acted as units with decent tactics. I'd probably suggest a Cleric for a beginner's party.

Snickersnax wrote:

There seem to be a lot of people stating that nobody wants to play a cleric, but the results of the 1st playtest survey suggest that this is might not be the case:

Jason Bulmahn wrote

Quote:
Class: Cleric, fighter, and rogue were the most common choice for class (around 12% each). Most others fell between 6-9%.

It looks like clerics, fighters and rogues are the MOST popular. Now maybe these were all people forced into playing clerics, or maybe they were perceptive people who recognized that clerics are super strong in the play test. But I imagine that a good portion of them just enjoy playing clerics.

There also seems to be the false repeated idea that the only good healer is a cleric.

Sounds similar to all the predictions that "no-one" wanted Goblins as a core race.

Quote:
I have also played a divine Sorcerer as a healer using Magical Striker, and I because I am looking for someone to heal every round to proc the magical striker effect, our party stays healthy during combat. While perhaps slightly less potent than the cleric, the divine sorcerer functions admirably as a healer.

I'd say the Primal Sorcerer has a lot of advantages over the Cleric. With spontaneous casting, he can learn Heal at level 1, and convert any spell slot gained later into a Heal; that leaves him open to learning damage spells and niche utility spells. The Cleric may be able to heal more, but he has to lock himself into just Heal. Any interesting spell has to be chosen in lieu of Heal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just do away with that per day limit for the Heal skill (or whatever it's called). And make it great for the first time in D&Desque gaming.

By the way, adding too much other things to a formerly dedicated healer might result in another CoDzilla.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
CLW wands were a terrible, hacky, unintended, uninteresting, and general terrible fit for that role.

People say that, but what is the replacement that's great, appropriate, interesting anda great fit? What makes a wand of moderate wounds more exciting, intended or less hacky? What makes a potion of serious wounds a better fit and super interesting vs a CLW wand. I just don't see it. Is it that somehow a person casting those spells is what changes them from hacky to the best thing since sliced bread? CLW wand bad but cast CLW good?


I think one of my biggest complaints about wands was the 50 charges for that price. WAY WAY TO much for the cost.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
CLW wands were a terrible, hacky, unintended, uninteresting, and general terrible fit for that role.
People say that, but what is the replacement that's great, appropriate, interesting anda great fit?

More and more, the impression I'm getting from players here and Paizo is "bravely going forward even with few to nil resources and hoping like hell to win anyway! And being totally okay with it even if we TPK! Hell, half the fun is rolling up new characters anyway! I've never had a party last longer than level 5!"

Or alternatively, "to do that and always succeed because, pathetic human, I am vastly superior to you. I play Dark Souls blindfolded for a casual gaming experience. Also I routinely devise new forms of cold fusion for something to engage my brain whilst I slip off to sleep on my pile of Rolls Royces, and did I forget to mention I'm a dragon?"


graystone wrote:
People say that, but what is the replacement that's great, appropriate, interesting anda great fit?

I like healing surges, resolve/stamina, or short rests. If hit points are in part morale or luck and we're not actually imagining it taking dozens and dozens of arrows in the barbarian to drop them, then we should be able to replenish that without magic or stuff a certain number of times a day.


Eh I already broke down how I felt it should work by percents.


I'm generally against mandatory solutions to common problems. If you can get by without healers, but they work great when present, cool. If on the other hand you have a book full of options that only work when a healer is present, you can't throw up your hands when players pick those options and nobody picks the healer.

I love playing healers. I play them in most games and usually find a way to mix a little healing into my PF1 characters. My favorite by far has been using a spiritualist whose phantom has life spirit abilities. I'm still the healer, making in combat tactical decisions about healing, but I'm also not stuck sitting on my thumbs.

As a DM, I expect to autopilot a cleric in most games. Heal when needed or spend your turn keeping forbidding ward active. You don't need a player for that.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
I think one of my biggest complaints about wands was the 50 charges for that price. WAY WAY TO much for the cost.

I can understand that complaint even though I don't agree. That's not really what a lot of people complain about. Many seem to complain about the optics of the wand and that's what i just don't get.

It's the "terrible, hacky, unintended, uninteresting, and general terrible fit" I don't get: note none of that is 'it's too cheap' or 'it's too easy'. ;)

PossibleCabbage wrote:
graystone wrote:
People say that, but what is the replacement that's great, appropriate, interesting anda great fit?
I like healing surges, resolve/stamina, or short rests. If hit points are in part morale or luck and we're not actually imagining it taking dozens and dozens of arrows in the barbarian to drop them, then we should be able to replenish that without magic or stuff a certain number of times a day.

I wouldn't mind having those, but I'm not getting how they're an improvement over CLW wands. Meditating/resting with a short break vs tossing a few gp with a short break seem like pretty close in feel IMO. If a central complaint is 'it's too cheap', there there isn't a big gulf between the two.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
If you can get by without healers, but they work great when present, cool. If on the other hand you have a book full of options that only work when a healer is present, you can't throw up your hands when players pick those options and nobody picks the healer.

If parties can get by without healers, then the game must not need healers. In that case, get rid of the class altogether, so that people won't waste their time doing a role that's unnecessary.

But if a healer is necessary, then it's on the group if they don't want to fill a role that's necessary. It's like losing a soccer game because no-one wants to be a goalie. Given the PF2's 3 action rules and Heal's 1 action economy, it's quite easy for Clerics to cast spells and attack enemies while still healing allies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
I wouldn't mind having those, but I'm not getting how they're an improvement over CLW wands. Meditating/resting with a short break vs tossing a few gp with a short break seem like pretty close in feel IMO. If a central complaint is 'it's too cheap', there there isn't a big gulf between the two.

I feel like though that we can solve a few of the problems with the CLW wand though. Like the concern is not just "it's cheap" but "it's cheap AND you can get as much of it as you can afford (which is a lot- because it's cheap.)" Plus "the magic stick solves our problems, the magic stick is life" is aesthetically irritating in a way "let's take a breather" is not.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:
If parties can get by without healers, then the game must not need healers. In that case, get rid of the class altogether, so that people won't waste their time doing a role that's unnecessary.

"Can get by without" does not equal "there is no point in having this thing at all."

The point is to have more options, not restrict people to only having one.

Why do people have such a huge problem with the idea of player agency to the point that they feel comfortable forcing someone to play a character they don't want to?

Also, I should remind people the wands of CLW are not the problem; they are the solution to the problem of the lack of efficiency and efficacy of most healing options. When your options are between depleting wand charges to keep going or completely emptying out the cleric and still probably needing to rest a day, it's obvious most people would rather use a wand.

There have been reports of parties retreating from the dungeon to have their cleric spend all their healing resources, resting eight hours so the cleric gets their spells back, spending all those spells to finish healing the party, then resting a further 24 hours to get those spells back again before continuing onward. This is ridiculous, but it's going to happen as long as the average healing spell only restores a fraction of the character's HP and characters can be expected to lose a lot of HP in every battle.

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:


If parties can get by without healers, then the game must not need healers. In that case, get rid of the class altogether, so that people won't waste their time doing a role that's unnecessary.

But if a healer is necessary, then it's on the group if they don't want to fill a role that's necessary. It's like losing a soccer game because no-one wants to be a goalie. Given the PF2's 3 action rules and Heal's 1 action economy, it's quite easy for Clerics to cast spells and attack enemies while still healing allies.

One group got by on one adventure without any fighters, just casters. So just get rid of fighters... Yeah, I don't think thats how it does, or should work.

Boojum the brown bunny


Sanmei wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:
If parties can get by without healers, then the game must not need healers. In that case, get rid of the class altogether, so that people won't waste their time doing a role that's unnecessary.

"Can get by without" does not equal "there is no point in having this thing at all."

The point is to have more options, not restrict people to only having one.

Even with just the Cleric class, domains and other forms of customization give players a lot of different ways to play a healer. And IME, Druids and Alchemists *can* be the party's solo healer. So there's not just one option.

Quote:
Why do people have such a huge problem with the idea of player agency to the point that they feel comfortable forcing someone to play a character they don't want to?

And if someone wants to play a peasant with no magical or weapon proficiency? Do you let someone play any kind of character they want, no matter how useless it is for the party, because a player's wish to play something trumps any other concerns? Of course not! A player needs to present the party with a character that's useful at some level to the group, and sometimes, that means filling in a niche.

Quote:
Also, I should remind people the wands of CLW are not the problem; they are the solution to the problem of the lack of efficiency and efficacy of most healing options. When your options are between depleting wand charges to keep going or completely emptying out the cleric and still probably needing to rest a day, it's obvious most people would rather use a wand.

Of course people would be happier with more healing than less. Players and characters should always seek out getting more for themselves. However, a game shouldn't just give it to them. They should work for it, or pay dearly for it. Otherwise, there's no challenge to the game, and the narrative loses a lot of its uncertainty.


I really wanted to heal skill to do more. Which I think their is still plenty of time to fix that.

and yes the cheap cost for the spells is one problem I have with the wants plus and it is related and not just heal spells but wands giving all caster essentially endless (not truely endless but a far to large amount) amount of spells per day is problematic too. I feel like this for scroll and potions to. Endless magic based on consumable items for the cost of gold. It means that

1. I have to spend money on limited use items my preference would be permanent items that I have forever. Now if I know I can only use 3 items a day (or w/e random number really) then I don't feel I have to spend half my gold on potions scrolls etc. the best part is at the point the system wouldn't expect me to igther. I just buy back the potions I used when I get to town then worry about the next plus of gear.

2. cost to benefit ratio on wands is way off. I could perceiveably buy enough wands and cheap enough to replace the mechanics of several party members. I don't think I need to explain why I don't like that.

3. I don't actually want my party to be healed up automatically after every encounter I want a chance to wear them down and for damaging traps to contribute to that.

that said I do want them to have healing I just want a commitment to be involved with it like I would with everything. I expect the fighter to get better at fighting by investing in it just like I expect a cleric to get better at healing by investing in it.

I see some people just want free heals or to be auto healed up after every fight but that to me is a different game. that is not pathfinder or D&D.

In the past if we were short on a healer we would take tactics to compensate. In pf2 I would like to see one of those tactics be a character investing in the heal skill. I am ok with one of those tactics being useing items but that should only account for about 25-40% of the overall healing a average party would need then the presence of another dps class would probably reduce it a bit more and useing tactics to minimize risk as well.


Boojumbunn wrote:
EberronHoward wrote:


If parties can get by without healers, then the game must not need healers. In that case, get rid of the class altogether, so that people won't waste their time doing a role that's unnecessary.

But if a healer is necessary, then it's on the group if they don't want to fill a role that's necessary. It's like losing a soccer game because no-one wants to be a goalie. Given the PF2's 3 action rules and Heal's 1 action economy, it's quite easy for Clerics to cast spells and attack enemies while still healing allies.

One group got by on one adventure without any fighters, just casters. So just get rid of fighters... Yeah, I don't think thats how it does, or should work.

Boojum the brown bunny

Are we talkin about PF1 or PF2? And if PF2, are we talking about those Wizards taking the Fighter multi-class?


EberronHoward wrote:
Even with just the Cleric class, domains and other forms of customization give players a lot of different ways to play a healer. And IME, Druids and Alchemists *can* be the party's solo healer. So there's not just one option.

Ah, so you can choose between a poor healer or a series of worse healers? Everything I've seen and much of what I've heard in playtesting is that a cleric often isn't sufficient, and other classes can only do a fraction of what a cleric can. Of course there are groups which have succeeded without a cleric, but there are also groups where players confidently boast that Drakkus was far too easy and needs a buff in order to be a decent challenge. :P

Quote:
And if someone wants to play a peasant with no magical or weapon proficiency? Do you let someone play any kind of character they want, no matter how useless it is for the party, because a player's wish to play something trumps any other concerns?

Nice strawman.

"More options" also does not mean "must accommodate every playstyle under the sun no matter how outlandish."

There's a middle-ground.

Quote:
Of course people would be happier with more healing than less. Players and characters should always seek out getting more for themselves. However, a game shouldn't just give it to them. They should work for it, or pay dearly for it. Otherwise, there's no challenge to the game, and the narrative loses a lot of its uncertainty.

Obtaining the gold to purchase healing is the game just giving it to you? Having to budget wisely in order to afford healing is the price you pay.

Or do you prefer the 15 minute adventuring day? My goal is to avoid it if possible, but if players are consistently expending all their resources in the first one or two fights, it'll be inevitable.

Unless, as some have suggested, the goal is to force players to press on and risk TPKing. Frankly I'm sick to death of sadistic GMs trying to drive the company model.

You want a challenge? Don't give out as many resources, add more monsters, crunch the time constraints more tightly, etc. But I would happily do without Pathfinder becoming Dark Souls in tabletop format when it wasn't that to begin with and arguably never should be.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a player who likes playing support characters. You know what her favorite class in PF 1 was? Kinetic Chirurgeon. She loved the class. She said that it was the first time she felt like a real healer, because the healing wasn't limited in how much healing she could do, but how much healing the others could take. She also had backup abilities to help the support role (slick for making people trip or drop their weapon, kinetic cover for battlefield control) plus an okay damage to contribute to damage.

It was an interesting way to play, really. The group was never in danger of being killed, but as the day progressed, they became easier to knock out, so eventually they would have to rest to clear all of the non-lethal damage. It did seem that they were much more willing to press forward, even "injured", because there was less of a fear of losing their characters.

Since PF2 is getting rid of non-lethal damage, I'm not sure how such a class would work. I'd still like to see a similar class.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:


It's the "terrible, hacky, unintended, uninteresting, and general terrible fit" I don't get: note none of that is 'it's too cheap' or 'it's too easy'. ;)

If you think no one thinks that wands of CLW are too cheap or too easy you've just not been listening.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:


If parties can get by without healers, then the game must not need healers. In that case, get rid of the class altogether, so that people won't waste their time doing a role that's unnecessary.

But if a healer is necessary, then it's on the group if they don't want to fill a role that's necessary. It's like losing a soccer game because no-one wants to be a goalie. Given the PF2's 3 action rules and Heal's 1 action economy, it's quite easy for Clerics to cast spells and attack enemies while still healing allies.

If parties can get by without <buff-casters>, then the game must not need <buff-casters>. In that case, get rid of the <Skald and Bard> altogether, so that people won't waste their time doing a role that's unnessessary.

But if a <buff-caster> is necessary, it's on the group if they don't want to fill a role that's necessary...

But, y'know, Bard/Skald were fine classes and the fact it wasn't completely required by the system wasn't an issue? Why should healers be different and required by the system? They shouldn't be. This is an absurdist line of reasoning.


EberronHoward wrote:
But if a healer is necessary, then it's on the group if they don't want to fill a role that's necessary. It's like losing a soccer game because no-one wants to be a goalie. Given the PF2's 3 action rules and Heal's 1 action economy, it's quite easy for Clerics to cast spells and attack enemies while still healing allies.

I feel the need to point out that having no goalie in a soccer game is perfectly within the rules and has been used whenever hyper offence is desired.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
I feel the need to point out that having no goalie in a soccer game is perfectly within the rules and has been used whenever hyper offence is desired.

Pure player replacement is more common in ice hockey. In soccer it's more common for the goalkeeper to move away from the goal to aid in the attack.

(Sorry, trivia, I know... :) )


I expect the need of different equipment for hockey goalies compared to non-goalies is a big part of that.


I, too, am in favor of including the ability to play things, rather than rejecting it outright. For example...

Quote:
And if someone wants to play a peasant with no magical or weapon proficiency?

Spheres of Might for PF1 allows this. With the right combination of choices, you can make a peasant who uses herbs to create helpful salves and poisons from plants they've gathered and can direct their farm animals in battle. It could be rather funny, actually. The entire system is basically a toolkit going "Here's a bunch of options, mix-and-match them to play what you want to play". Just like the compatible magic system, it's all about trying to say "yes" to ideas.

There are some roles that tend to hurt the party more than others when they're lacking. Watch how badly things go if nobody can do damage, or if nobody has good defenses and can soak up enemy attacks.

If a game expects a lot of [X], then [X] should be plentiful. If players are expected to take a lot of damage each fight and must get healing, then healer classes should be able to provide it without it being their only practical option each round. Alternatively, give classes their own self-healing (some kind of 'Determination' mechanic they can take as reactions?) so healing magic is only needed for emergencies and the Cleric can do other stuff.

(We mentioned MMOs earlier. Guild Wars 2 gives every class its own healing skill so nobody is outright forced into the role in normal content. For hard content, like raids, special healer builds exist - but even those are still able to deal damage to enemies, often at the same time they're healing.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

healer does not mean cleric. Jason noted onstream that goodberries got super buffed. they just buffed bard healing, sorcerers can make excellent healers, and paladins in our plays tests have held their own . there are a lot of classes that can fill the healer role, there is absolutely no reason it should be done by wand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Plus "the magic stick solves our problems, the magic stick is life" is aesthetically irritating in a way "let's take a breather" is not.

THIS. This this this.

I have zero problem with players having reliable access to out-of-combat healing.

My problem is that the reliable out-of-combat healing is centered in a magic item that just happens to peak the cost/benefit math. This has several issues, not least of which is that parties who haven't yet figured out CLW wands are very much playing a different game than parties who have.

Plus, again, the whole "CLW wands are such a good value that no one ever buys more expensive wands". This is why I like Resonance - it gives a reason to invest in more expensive healing items. Your character wants stronger swords as they level up, shouldn't they also want stronger healing items?

The problem with Resonance, though, is that it takes away that critical "out-of-combat healing" aspect.

So far my preferred solution is to buff the Medicine skill so that someone invested in Medicine can reliably provide meaningful out-of-combat healing to the party. That is a much better, more thematic way of handling it, imo.

Like I said, if reliable out-of-combat healing is meant to be part of the system (which I think it should be to reduce the reliance on clerics) then make it part of the system, not an unintended side effect of a poorly priced magic item.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Plus "the magic stick solves our problems, the magic stick is life" is aesthetically irritating in a way "let's take a breather" is not.

If Paizo doesn't want to power up mundane healing to that extent they should just create a magical ritual ala healing circle. It wouldn't use up spell slots and would take long enough to cast that it could be disrupted if used in an hostile situation, but would provide reliable out of combat healing that isn't mundane, item based, or class locked.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zautos' wrote:
Do anyone think that it's a good thing to always need a cleric or other healing focused class in the party?

I don't care if you need a healer. What I don't like is that the removal of spammable healing items is going to force that healer to spend >50% of their SP / Spell Slots on healing and the majority of it will be done between encounters.

We've replaced the Wand of CLW with the Cleric's SP pool. It turns every single domain power into a trap. It feels ridiculous that Clerics should above using their domain powers, the one specific to Clerics of their faith, so that they can instead be a walking hp battery for the party.

In previous editions of the game, Healers could craft potions, scrolls, and wands to handle the actual healing outside of encounters and used their limited resources on buffs, debuffs, or control.

Now they have to choose to heal or to use spells that are actually rewarding, knowing full well that they're expected to choose healing spells.

I've been playing PF since the 1e playtest but I will walk away without hesitation if they decide to make 2e into a tabletop version of World of Warcraft. Dedicated healers are a concept from video game RPGs and they make the game feel more "game-ey" than wands do.

If players had access to any kind of healing between encounters they would never have started to abuse the wands in the first place. Removing the solution to a problem that hasn't been solved is bad game design - and making that choice purely to spite a large portion of your playerbase for "playing the game wrong" is petty.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Plus "the magic stick solves our problems, the magic stick is life" is aesthetically irritating in a way "let's take a breather" is not.

THIS. This this this.

I have zero problem with players having reliable access to out-of-combat healing.

My problem is that the reliable out-of-combat healing is centered in a magic item that just happens to peak the cost/benefit math.

Wands of CLW are popular because there are no reliable sources of mundane healing.

4th Edition had healing surges and Wands of CLW weren't a problem.

Starfinder has Stamina and doesn't require a dedicated healer or allow any item like a wand of CLW.

5th Edition allows hp regeneration on a short rest, and wands of CLW are not a problem.

Wands are the SOLUTION to a problem that other games have solved. Players expect to recover SOME health in between encounters - if PF2e would provide them with a limited and strictly defined amount of healing after a fight, then they wouldn't need to wands in the first place.

Requiring a dedicated healer to spend all of their resources on healing feels punishing and unfair. There are few situations where a Cleric will cast a big healing spell in combat. They're mostly going to be using the lowest level spell slots available to cast healing spells between fights. Instead of the wand having 50 charges, it's a PC who has to dedicate half of their daily resources to healing off damage that is now unavoidable. Monsters hit more often than ever, players have access to less healing than ever.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Robert Bunker wrote:
Dedicated healers are a concept from video game RPGs and they make the game feel more "game-ey" than wands do.

It bears mentioning that D&D 2e and earlier also had the "you'd better bring a priest or you're going to die" factor. This goes way farther back than "World of Warcraft did it".

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I still don't see why "Give every class a way to provide sustain support to the group" isn't the clear solution. Give Barbarians a battle-cry that grants a few Temp HP to their allies (Like Shared Rage, only not a 20th level feat). Give rangers the ultimate "patch up during a rest" support. Just give everybody something, so that if the group doesn't pick the "Best Single-target healing" in the game, they have a way to patch up their support so that it's not necessary. That way, when someone comes along that wants to play a "Best Healer in the Game", the group says "Really? Sweet! Looks like it's all Damage/Control options for us!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:
But if a healer is necessary, then it's on the group if they don't want to fill a role that's necessary.

Pathfinder is designed to be playable PFS-style: a bunch of random characters thrown together with zero co-ordination. If any specific role is necessary, then it's not going to work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Robert Bunker wrote:
Dedicated healers are a concept from video game RPGs and they make the game feel more "game-ey" than wands do.
It bears mentioning that D&D 2e and earlier also had the "you'd better bring a priest or you're going to die" factor. This goes way farther back than "World of Warcraft did it".

Absolutely! Early video games adopted the concept from tabletop RPGs. Not the other way around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Plus "the magic stick solves our problems, the magic stick is life" is aesthetically irritating in a way "let's take a breather" is not.
If Paizo doesn't want to power up mundane healing to that extent they should just create a magical ritual ala healing circle. It wouldn't use up spell slots and would take long enough to cast that it could be disrupted if used in an hostile situation, but would provide reliable out of combat healing that isn't mundane, item based, or class locked.

I really like this idea. They already have the mechanics for non-spellcasters being able to cast spells, why not use it to fix this problem? They could keep resonance as it is but if there was a reliable healing circle ritual then you wouldn't have to eat up all your resonance to drink a couple potions after combat, you could keep them for in combat emergencies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Who was the healer for the Fellowship of the Rings?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
The Once and Future Kai wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Plus "the magic stick solves our problems, the magic stick is life" is aesthetically irritating in a way "let's take a breather" is not.
If Paizo doesn't want to power up mundane healing to that extent they should just create a magical ritual ala healing circle. It wouldn't use up spell slots and would take long enough to cast that it could be disrupted if used in an hostile situation, but would provide reliable out of combat healing that isn't mundane, item based, or class locked.

I too find this rather elegant


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

The only problem with the ritual thing is that the rules for rituals say that they all take "at least 8 hours" so they are basically stuck as downtime activities. But I don't think it'd be that hard to add some 1 hour rituals. It'd mix well with the other 1 hour activities currently in the game (identifying items, repairing dents). Imagine Sorcerer is identifying a magic item, the fighter is repairing a dent in his shield and the Rogue is using his esoteric knowledge to create a healing circle to heal his party, each taking 1 hour. That seems to work out nicely.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Who was the healer for the Fellowship of the Rings?

If you're trying to create a Lord Of The Rings game I'd respectfully suggest that pathfinder may not be your best gaming engine. Neither first nor second edition.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Corrik wrote:
Who was the healer for the Fellowship of the Rings?

Aragorn. He's skill at healing is noted on several occasions. It's not his primary role but he's probably the best human healer in the Third Age.

Of course - Tolkien is, in general, on the low end of the power spectrum for high fantasy. But it is true that dedicated healers are more often seen as supporting characters who the heroes visit (like Elrond) in fantasy media rather than as adventurers themselves.


The Once and Future Kai wrote:
Corrik wrote:
Who was the healer for the Fellowship of the Rings?

Aragorn. He's skill at healing is noted on several occasions. It's not his primary role but he's probably the best human healer in the Third Age.

Of course - Tolkien is, in general, on the low end of the power spectrum for high fantasy. But it is true that dedicated healers are more often seen as supporting characters who the heroes visit (like Elrond) in fantasy media rather than as adventurers themselves.

He knew which plant would cure the corruption, which serves as an example of his knowledge of nature more than healing. Could you sight specific examples of him patching up the other members of the fellowship after fights? Which is the role of the healer.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like though that we can solve a few of the problems with the CLW wand though. Like the concern is not just "it's cheap" but "it's cheap AND you can get as much of it as you can afford (which is a lot- because it's cheap.)" Plus "the magic stick solves our problems, the magic stick is life" is aesthetically irritating in a way "let's take a breather" is not.

I actually really like the idea that there's a cheap, easily made, and widely available source of healing, and I tend to play it up in my games. Shops sell branded wands. Communities pool resources to make sure healing is always at hand. That people caught on to the fact there was an efficient solution to their problems and used that solution, despite it's absurdity, makes the world a more interesting place. At least in my opinion.

Then again, my players tend not to want to play healers, and it sounds like I'm looking for something fundamentally different from my games as compared to many other posters.


Dire Ursus wrote:
Imagine Sorcerer is identifying a magic item, the fighter is repairing a dent in his shield and the Rogue is using his esoteric knowledge to create a healing circle to heal his party, each taking 1 hour. That seems to work out nicely.

I forgot about the eight hour requirement but I really like the concept of mini-downtime activities as described. Makes rest stops a lot more interesting especially if the activities are on the same time frame.

101 to 150 of 163 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Do anyone think that Healers should be obligatory in parties? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.