Do anyone think that Healers should be obligatory in parties?


General Discussion

1 to 50 of 163 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I read thro "On the topic of Hit Points Healing -- What about Stamina?" forum post and most people there think that they should not be obligatory.

Do anyone think that it's a good thing to always need a cleric or other healing focused class in the party?


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think of "HP healing and condition mitigation" as just one of many jobs someone in the party needs to be able to handle, like "Damage Dealing" or "various knowledge checks."

It's just that (almost) any class can be a halfway decent damage dealer, while a bunch of classes don't really have the opportunity to be good at healing short of multiclassing cleric.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think they need to buff the heal skill. make a heavy investment turn you into a healing class. maybe not as good as a cleric but able to do the job.


25 people marked this as a favorite.

Should you have some form of healing in your party? Yes. Should a player have to spend some of the relatively limited choices they get each level up on healing? Very much no in my opinion - it's not healthy for a game to mandate a particular role in that way. It makes people less likely to enjoy playing, because either they have to stick someone else with the role or they get stuck with it themselves. It should be a "nice to have if someone wants to bring it, but not mandatory to proceed" type situation.

If only there was some sort of... reliable out of combat healing. Perhaps some sort of cheap reusable item? One that could be carried easily, but wouldn't be so efficient as to make it powerful in combat. Perhaps it replicates a low level healing spell?

Nah, that can't be right. Resonance knocks that one on it's head. Oh well.

;)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
neaven wrote:

Should you have some form of healing in your party? Yes. Should a player have to spend some of the relatively limited choices they get each level up on healing? Very much no in my opinion - it's not healthy for a game to mandate a particular role in that way. It makes people less likely to enjoy playing, because either they have to stick someone else with the role or they get stuck with it themselves. It should be a "nice to have if someone wants to bring it, but not mandatory to proceed" type situation.

If only there was some sort of... reliable out of combat healing. Perhaps some sort of cheap reusable item? One that could be carried easily, but wouldn't be so efficient as to make it powerful in combat. Perhaps it replicates a low level healing spell?

Nah, that can't be right. Resonance knocks that one on it's head. Oh well.

;)

What you suggest removes the healer class and healing skill from the game entirely. Additionally its literally the games job to set roles for party member heck its a role playing game.

Your argument of why should a character spend limited resources on healing literally works for whatever you want to plug in their.
Why should a character spend their limited resources on trap finding, combat effectiveness, defense, lore, diplomacy, etc. etc.
A character invests into something and expects to use it. If I have a character that heavily invests in healing I expect it to be necessary and not over shadowed by a outside resource.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
neaven wrote:

If only there was some sort of... reliable out of combat healing. Perhaps some sort of cheap reusable item? One that could be carried easily, but wouldn't be so efficient as to make it powerful in combat. Perhaps it replicates a low level healing spell?

Made me laugh. :) :)

Grand Lodge

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

Realistically right now Cleric is in a category of it's own for healing. They have a dedicated pool of heals separate to their combat ability & it's at their max level & they get 3+cha (So proabably 5-6 at low levels) & they can stack buffs onto it with class feats. Other healers (bard/druid/sorcerer) have it competing for their top level spells. Paladin is actually pretty good with Lay on Hands & the right build too.

And for in-combat healing I think that's a great place to be. Clerics are the masters of it, let them be. Other classes can do it at a pinch. In-combat healing with the new action economy feels quite effective as a part of your activities in combat. Consumables can be used to supplement weaker healing options & due to new actions are actually probably more effective than before (At least til you hit the resonance cap).

Where I see the problem is the impact of not having a cleric specifically in the party for out of combat healing.

Clerics are currently the only class who gets enough healing to manage out of combat healing over a decent length adventuring day (3-4 encounters) without having to dedicate almost all their spell slots to it, and consumables have been made prohibitive by resonance (Either by sheer lack of it at low levels or cost of consumables higher). Multi-class cleric doesn't even give that much healing power, though if enough did it it'd definitely chip away. Expanded health pools and resonance have made using consumables prohibitively expensive as a primary out of combat healing method.

My preference would be to add more out of combat healing options outside clerics specifically. Leave them their niche, it's pretty cool, but give more options. A bard song of rest, a druid coaxing natural healing at an accelerated rate, using skill in medicine to treat wounds in a slow methodical way. Don't hurt the cleric's combat niche but give some options to lengthen the adventuring day for a party without a cleric.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I believe healing is a valuable part of gameplay and resource management. Whether a group has a focused healer or 2-3 off-healers, it should need to use one of these options. Neither PF1 nor PF2 has healers that "can only heal", they unavoidably have other character abiltites and options, so there is no problem wirth it, except with immature players who want to dps only and without any resource limits.

I am also in favor of balanced groups and believe that groups tactically matching should work better than pick-from-the-street groups. This is a cooperative, tactical, resource-management game, where "noone wants to be healer" attitude should result in miserable death of the party.

I don't play PFS, predictably :)


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
neaven wrote:

Should you have some form of healing in your party? Yes. Should a player have to spend some of the relatively limited choices they get each level up on healing? Very much no in my opinion - it's not healthy for a game to mandate a particular role in that way. It makes people less likely to enjoy playing, because either they have to stick someone else with the role or they get stuck with it themselves. It should be a "nice to have if someone wants to bring it, but not mandatory to proceed" type situation.

If only there was some sort of... reliable out of combat healing. Perhaps some sort of cheap reusable item? One that could be carried easily, but wouldn't be so efficient as to make it powerful in combat. Perhaps it replicates a low level healing spell?

Nah, that can't be right. Resonance knocks that one on it's head. Oh well.

;)

What you suggest removes the healer class and healing skill from the game entirely. Additionally its literally the games job to set roles for party member heck its a role playing game.

Your argument of why should a character spend limited resources on healing literally works for whatever you want to plug in their.
Why should a character spend their limited resources on trap finding, combat effectiveness, defense, lore, diplomacy, etc. etc.
A character invests into something and expects to use it. If I have a character that heavily invests in healing I expect it to be necessary and not over shadowed by a outside resource.

In case it's unclear, my post was a sarcastic reference to the Wand of CLW that is the boogeyman hiding behind every cleric's door. Except it's not, because you can still be a healing focused character even if there's another way to provide out-of-combat healing. Healing large amounts of damage in combat, condition removal, quick mass healing, and so on and so forth. None of that can be done by the wand.

And yes, actually I'd like it so there is never any role to be as mandatory as healing is in PF2e. I'd like anything that specific (because healing is much narrower than combat effectiveness and defense) to be "nice to have, but not mandatory in every party that likes being alive" because otherwise you might have to force someone to pick up something they don't want to. If everyone at the table has cool and fun concepts that just all happen not to involve a certain thing, I don't see why they should be punished by the game system for wanting to play in that way.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

D&D has always had the role of healer. I don't want that role removed. Its been part of the game since forever and their are people who enjoy playing healers. Its part of the genre.

Edit: If you wanted to pull back on the healer role a little that's fine. Give alternative options that still require investment so that you don't have to have a specific class handle all the healing. I want the heal skill to do more for sure. I don't want it to replace magic healing but if it helps keep a party going when they lack a healer i'm cool with that. and yes it requires an investment just like everything else does.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
D&D has always had the role of healer. I don't want that role removed. Its been part of the game since forever and their are people who enjoy playing healers. Its part of the genre.

I never said it should be removed. If people want to be able to play it, sure, and I'd go even further to say that they should explore ways to make healing just as engaging and interesting as the varying ways there are to deal damage. But it shouldn't be "someone has to play a healer or you're all doomed" either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it should cause an obvious effect upon how the party approaches adventures to not have healing resources among the party - just like it should cause an obvious effect if no character can do anything with traps or locks, or if all the characters are focused on areas other than combat, or if no one in the party can survive soaking up a few monster attacks, and so on.

So yeah, I like that there is a big difference between a party that has a healing-and-support-focused class/character present and one that doesn't - especially in the case of that party not taking what options they can to mitigate the lack of such a character.

This version of the rules has a couple feats that allow a character to restore some HP to the party, so there are enough options for over-coming the lack of a "healer" even with Resonance completely scrapping the idea that affordable expendable magic can patch up the party as much as needed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll put it this way.

% of hp healable

cleric focused on healing does 125% of the healing

Class with healing spells 100%

class with healing skill and heavy investment 75%

class with no healing skills and the heal skill 50%

No heal skill no casting 25% which would be Potions etc. but not infinite amount of use on them. this party would have to work on defense a bit and try and take enemies down quickly however since this part would have an extra damage dealing class since no one touched healing they will take enemies down faster so hopefully take less damage over all.

So basically I think a party without a healer should be viable but should have a different play style. you have to take some measure to shore up your weaknesses its about use of strategy. which keeps things interesting at least.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I started to think about something like :

Heal :

Untrained
Stop bleeding.
Use 1 hour to Heal 1/4 of the HP damage someone since the last time he was Heals by this skill (need some DC here. Failure means no Heal. Critical failure means no Heals and a small debuff on the target for 1 hour. Critical success to halve time or Heals up to 2 people)

Trained :
Cure Poison / Disease
Same as untrained but Heal 1/2 of the hp damage taken since his last healing with this skill, up to 2 people (critical success allow to halve time and Heal 2 targets or full time and 4 targets)

Expert :
Same as trained but the full time is 30 minutes for 3 people. (Criticall success 15 minutes on 3 targets or full time and 6 targets).

Master :
Same as Expert but Heals 3/4 of the hp damage taken since his last healing with this skill, up to 4 people (critical success allow to halve time and Heal 4 targets or full time and 8 targets)

Legendary :
Same as master but full time is 10 minutes for 6 people (critical success allow to halve time and Heal 6 targets or full time and 10 targets).

Example :
Low level
Bob is a fighter with 40 hp.
Tom is a trained Healer.

Bob took 20 damage and has 20 hp after two minors fights. The party rest one hour and bob is back to 30 hp.

Then they fight the boss. Bob barely survive at 1 hp. Tom critically succeed to Heal him faster. Bob has now 15 hp, just enough to survive against remaining minions while the party run out of the haunted forest.

Mid level
Bob has 100 Hp
Tom is expert

Bob took 45 damage in several fights against low ennemies. Tom Heals him. Bob has now 78 hp to keep going.

One or two fights later he has Lost 60 hp and has 18 hp. Tom Heals again. Bob has 48 hp. Not quite a lot but he may be able to make another fight now.

I'm not sure if it works Well but the point is :
- You can't restore full life in short time (You still need a full rest) with mundane ways.
- It mitigate the damage over the day if the character can manage some time to a quick rest, allowing them to increase the aventuring day.
- If you need stronger healing or emergency Heal in fight, or very quick healing because you need to attack right now or ennemy back up troops are coming in 2 minutes, magic is still the solution and magic Healer are still valuable.

Side notes :
- it works best when all fight are not "You barely survived"
- Potions can complete this. Potentially make the system like a "slow CLW wand" limited by resonance.
- It would need to supress signature skill system to trully shine. Or at least would need some floating signature skill.
- Magic Healers that invest in the skill are still way ahead.

Maybe add a Master Skill feats like :
"Once per day your healing is 100% of the damage taken since the last healing with this skill"
Or
"Once per day the healing time is halved. If you critically succeed it still is halved again."

I don't really know.
I need to think about It more. Make some simulation. Tweak numbers.

If you have any ideas I Will take it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Vidmaster's numbers sound good but don't match present PF2 reality, where clerics can do more than twice the healing of the next best classes - even more if they get the healing domain or something. They seem like something reasonable to aim for in a redesign.


avr wrote:
Vidmaster's numbers sound good but don't match present PF2 reality, where clerics can do more than twice the healing of the next best classes - even more if they get the healing domain or something. They seem like something reasonable to aim for in a redesign.

right I'm not saying its perfect as is. It definitely needs some tinkering. I think people get that impression to often. I have ALOT of things that I think still needs to be fixed but some times people go to far. Plus the way I want things fixed tend to differ. (Like i personally hate the CLW thing.)

Like one of the big things is I think a healer-less party should be possible but you have to change tactics to make it work and the extra damage provided should help with that. Maybe have a few more ranged character in the party and the wizard instead of going full offense does a bit more battlefield control to keep allies from getting hurt etc.

also I think Con should influence how much you are healed in some way, but that's neither here or their.

Scarab Sages

I'm starting to think all my ideas are bad since no one ever react to them :-(


Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
I'm starting to think all my ideas are bad since no one ever react to them :-(

I looked over it but honestly it was a bit lengthy and absorbing it immediately just didn't happen so I didn't think of a comment on it.

So not exactly TL/DR but to long to process at a glance I guess?

I will say it seems like it would work with the starfinder stamina system pretty well.

Scarab Sages

Vidmaster7 wrote:
Shaheer-El-Khatib wrote:
I'm starting to think all my ideas are bad since no one ever react to them :-(

I looked over it but honestly it was a bit lengthy and absorbing it immediately just didn't happen so I didn't think of a comment on it.

So not exactly TL/DR but to long to process at a glance I guess?

I will say it seems like it would work with the starfinder stamina system pretty well.

I'm not Familiar with Starfinder so I don't really know what you mean. Sorry.

I Will "try" to sumarize the idea :

Healing skill to Heal a portion of the damage you took since the last time you got Healed by someone using this skill.

The amount healed scale with proficiency. The time needed when using it decrease with proficiency.

The number may be off though and it would work better with a slightly less overpowered bestiary.

Grand Lodge

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

I read it but I honestly didn't give it much attention purely on the extra effort necessary to have any idea how much damage everyone in the party has taken since they last got healed by this particular skill feat. Tracking how much damage each person has taken since last heal by this is too much, especially when other types of healing are in-between. It's just too much cognitive load for a single ability to add to the game in my view.

I intentionally avoided specific implementations, but if I was to try to give a solution I'd say a long duration use of medicine that increased it's DC for each prior use that day on that person (e.g. DC 10 first time, each attempt increases DC of next by 5, scale amount healed off proficiency, crit failure blocks further that day). The person with the skill just has to track how many times they used this on that person that day.

Scarab Sages

Tim Schneider 908 wrote:

I read it but I honestly didn't give it much attention purely on the extra effort necessary to have any idea how much damage everyone in the party has taken since they last got healed by this particular skill feat. Tracking how much damage each person has taken since last heal by this is too much, especially when other types of healing are in-between. It's just too much cognitive load for a single ability to add to the game in my view.

I intentionally avoided specific implementations, but if I was to try to give a solution I'd say a long duration use of medicine that increased it's DC for each prior use that day on that person (e.g. DC 10 first time, each attempt increases DC of next by 5, scale amount healed off proficiency, crit failure blocks further that day). The person with the skill just has to track how many times they used this on that person that day.

Fair point.

I didn't though that it is difficult to track but the others Heal sources make it really hard indeed.

I Will scrap it and work on another idea I have.
Thanks for the feedback.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I say if people want to do multiple encounters of a rewarding difficulty daily then yes magical healers should be mandatory. If they are fine with doing 2 encounters a week well then we can talk about non magical healing.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't mind if combat is designed around the necessity for SUSTAIN (the idea that characters need a way to restore HP/abilities above and beyond their base), but am firmly opposed to combat, or the game in general, REQUIRING 1-3 classes in order to simply play. I got to play for the first time the other day, and another player stated that the group really NEEDED a cleric. I can't convey how furious it made me, but only because he was right. Combat can be pretty lethal from what I've seen, and groups can need an amount of healing that few classes can provide, and once you've required a class capable of large amounts of healing, and focused all healing into it, you've stripped players of agency.

If I can make a wizard that provides the same effective support, or a barbarian, or a fighter, then I'm fine with it. Otherwise, it's just bad design for a game that is supposed to reward player agency.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I dont think they should be. Out of combat healing should be in-built in the system, or you risk what happened to my group when we started with 3,5. Our prevalent gm at the time liked to peer pressure new people into playing healbots, and the result is that every one of our players see playing healers as a non interactive npc role (and thus refuse), especially since in 3,5 and pf healing is not worth the actions in combat due to healing scaling badly.
We had a oracle npc through leadership in kingmaker, and in rotrl we had three off healers, so we managed, but noone wants to play a cleric, ever.


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

I think healers shouldn't be "mandatory" but I feel like the party should be punished for not having one. A few hundred gold (or silver in this edition) wand shouldn't completely replace the role of a character. Imagine if a wand of burning hands was the most "efficient" way to deal damage. People would hate it instantly because then all we would have is character with a ton of AC and health running around with explody wands. That's how clerics and healers feel in 1e. You HAVE to build for damage if you want to be efficient because otherwise you're not pulling your weight.

The punishment for not running a healer should be you need to spend gold and resonance. Which I think this system does well. I think it can be tweaked for sure, like 1st level characters should start with a bit more resonance, and I think potions probably shouldn't take resonance, or at the very least not be expended if you fail the overspend check.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah I think if characters started with about 2-4 more resonance at 1st level it would clear up a lot of problems people are reporting. I think it should maybe be a racial advantage like humans get 2 more and elf being a magical race get 4 more etc.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
neaven wrote:

Should you have some form of healing in your party? Yes. Should a player have to spend some of the relatively limited choices they get each level up on healing? Very much no in my opinion - it's not healthy for a game to mandate a particular role in that way. It makes people less likely to enjoy playing, because either they have to stick someone else with the role or they get stuck with it themselves. It should be a "nice to have if someone wants to bring it, but not mandatory to proceed" type situation.

If only there was some sort of... reliable out of combat healing. Perhaps some sort of cheap reusable item? One that could be carried easily, but wouldn't be so efficient as to make it powerful in combat. Perhaps it replicates a low level healing spell?

Nah, that can't be right. Resonance knocks that one on it's head. Oh well.

;)

What you suggest removes the healer class and healing skill from the game entirely. Additionally its literally the games job to set roles for party member heck its a role playing game.

Sorry that this is going to sound blunt, but no, it doesn't remove the possibility of a healer role. In 1e, even the optimisation community considers Dreamscarred Press's vitalist a solid tier 3 class, and that's all about healing. But unlike the 1e cleric, it's capable of doing competitive amounts of healing in combat. And someone capable of doing that is a very useful addition to the party, even in a setting that has wands of CLW for cheap out of combat healing.

If you mean that a wand of CLW means you can't have a "healer" whose healing is too slow to work in combat, then yes. But is "guy who contributes nothing much in combat, but then tells the party to restore their hit points to full after the battle" really a party role we want? Frankly, it sounds really boring to play.

Also, I've always interpreted the "role-playing" in "RPG" to refer to pretending to be your character, not to the somewhat nebulous party roles of healer, arcane caster, etc. So I'm not playing the role of a healer, I'm playing the role of a halfling who was freed from slavery by a dragon and has a curse preventing her from attacking people, but has access to certain magic powers she uses to heal the party. My character fits into the healer role within the party as it currently stands, but could theoretically switch to some other role if the party's composition changes, or she breaks her curse.

Dire Ursus wrote:
I think healers shouldn't be "mandatory" but I feel like the party should be punished for not having one. A few hundred gold (or silver in this edition) wand shouldn't completely replace the role of a character. Imagine if a wand of burning hands was the most "efficient" way to deal damage. People would hate it instantly because then all we would have is character with a ton of AC and health running around with explody wands. That's how clerics and healers feel in 1e. You HAVE to build for damage if you want to be efficient because otherwise you're not pulling your weight.

Strictly speaking, a wand of burning hands is the most efficient way to deal damage, calculated on a hp-for-gp ratio. Or it's some other level 1 spell, depending on whether you need the AoE. The "punishment" for relying on wands is that you can't do damage quickly, making the strategy useless in combat. If you had to, say, melt your way through a wall of ice, though, then a wand of burning hands would probably be your best option.

And the situation is similar here. The "punishment" for not having a healer is that you can't heal in combat. Bring along a healer, and you should be able to heal much more quickly, in a way that's actually worth doing in combat. Unfortunately, the "healing" Paizo classes in PF1e (and, to be fair, their counterparts in 3.5 and 3e) aren't able to do that, which has led to this idea that strong healing in combat is OP and that having a healer who just heals outside combat is somehow the default.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
A few hundred gold (or silver in this edition) wand shouldn't completely replace the role of a character.

It doesn't. Not even a little unless the entire role of a character is OUT of combat healing. The wand doesn't touch in combat healing, condition removal, raising dead or any of the other things 'healers' do. It seems pretty myopic to hyper focus on one aspect and ignore everything else a 'healer' does for the party.

EDIT: and the wand actually expands a healers' role, not reduces it. A 'healer' with a wand doesn't have to focus everything on healing: they don't feel bad if they throw a buff or a damage spell in combat since it's not taking away from out of combat healing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
neaven wrote:
Should you have some form of healing in your party? Yes. Should a player have to spend some of the relatively limited choices they get each level up on healing? Very much no in my opinion - it's not healthy for a game to mandate a particular role in that way. It makes people less likely to enjoy playing, because either they have to stick someone else with the role or they get stuck with it themselves. It should be a "nice to have if someone wants to bring it, but not mandatory to proceed" type situation.

Aside from the "kill stuff" role, which is entirely mandatory in the group and basically the default, I can't think of any other mandatory role. Trap finder is handy, diplomacy guy is handy, etc. But if you don't have them, you can usually work around it in a suboptimal way.

That's how Healing should be, and it was, until...

Quote:

If only there was some sort of... reliable out of combat healing. Perhaps some sort of cheap reusable item? One that could be carried easily, but wouldn't be so efficient as to make it powerful in combat. Perhaps it replicates a low level healing spell?

Nah, that can't be right. Resonance knocks that one on it's head. Oh well.

;)

Zing!

You're exactly right. Resonance is an attempt to fix a perceived problem while completely ignoring the actual problem that caused players to do this in the first place. Now we have the actual problem rearing up again instead and there's no answer aside from "bring a Cleric".

Which, I mean, it's great that I'm in such demand, but that probably isn't workable for every group...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Healing in combat is perfectly fun - but what ends up happening is that the Healer won't "waste" turns in the fight to heal someone. The party is better off killing the remaining sources of damage and then healing after combat.

It turns the Cleric into an auto attacker who only uses resources during rests. It turns all of your spells and all of your powers into "traps" because its sub-optimal to do anything except healing other people until mid levels.

If a healer class is mandatory and the healer is required to spend ALL of their early game resources on healing in 2e I'll be playing another system.

I am not interested in playing WoW the tabletop experience and it seems like 2e is going to turn the game into a crappy tabletop MMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Dire Ursus wrote:
A few hundred gold (or silver in this edition) wand shouldn't completely replace the role of a character.

It doesn't. Not even a little unless the entire role of a character is OUT of combat healing. The wand doesn't touch in combat healing, condition removal, raising dead or any of the other things 'healers' do. It seems pretty myopic to hyper focus on one aspect and ignore everything else a 'healer' does for the party.

EDIT: and the wand actually expands a healers' role, not reduces it. A 'healer' with a wand doesn't have to focus everything on healing: they don't feel bad if they throw a buff or a damage spell in combat since it's not taking away from out of combat healing.

Too bad in combat healing isn't worth it in 1e. The only one that can do it well is the Oradin. Which goes back to my point. If you aren't spending your turn doing as much damage as possible, or disabling as many enemies as possible in 1e, you're not being effective. And that sucks for PCs who want to play supportive roles. Maybe it's better in 2e now that combats last longer and everyone has more health overall. Plus the heal spell is buffed. But I still think out of combat healing should be a premium and not something every party can have unlimited access to.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Support is absolutely viable in PF1. Buffing is great, which it is not in PF2. It's just in-combat healing that's very much a sometimes thing in PF1 and essential to have in PF2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
But I still think out of combat healing should be a premium and not something every party can have unlimited access to.

I think that players should have access to a specific and defined amount of healing between fights. Similar to short resting in 5e or Stamina in Starfinder.

If you give them a way to recover some, but not all of their missing HP it allows the party to go on without a dedicated healbot as long as they avoid damage when possible. They won't die to a thousand cuts and bruises but aren't able to shrug off every fight the moment they down the last enemy.

CLW wands were an ugly solution to a problem presented in 3.5 - published content asks players to go through more combat than their hp can handle without a dedicated healer. The dedicated healer would rather use wand charges than spells because nobody wants to *only* heal - especially when all of that healing is done out of combat. Throwing a big heal on a hurting character in the midst of a battle can feel heroic or fun. Using four level 1 spell slots to top off the party is bad gameplay. Why not just let healers conjure magical food and water so players can eat and drink to full HP in 30 seconds if we're going to try to turn DnD into WoW?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Yeah I think if characters started with about 2-4 more resonance at 1st level it would clear up a lot of problems people are reporting. I think it should maybe be a racial advantage like humans get 2 more and elf being a magical race get 4 more etc.

It wouldn't have helped our group. That's with drinking 10+ healing elixirs.

Monsters tend to have better numbers than the party: some almost always go before you and damage or crit you. So even with the best tactics/strategy, you can expect some healing every combat. That's what leads to a nap after every combat or a cleric in the party.

Dire Ursus wrote:
Too bad in combat healing isn't worth it in 1e. The only one that can do it well is the Oradin. Which goes back to my point. If you aren't spending your turn doing as much damage as possible, or disabling as many enemies as possible in 1e, you're not being effective. And that sucks for PCs who want to play supportive roles. Maybe it's better in 2e now that combats last longer and everyone has more health overall. Plus the heal spell is buffed. But I still think out of combat healing should be a premium and not something every party can have unlimited access to.

So far in 2e, I've seen combats start with players already laying on the ground from crits before they got a turn. If we ignore in combat healing, those players aren't fighting and stand the chance of dying. SO even if it isn't 'worth it' in your mind, it's needed in the new game. With as deadly as combat seems to be, I think that "premium" shifts largely to in combat in an effort to mitigate the KO chances as monsters hit more often, crit more often and go first more often.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Yeah I think if characters started with about 2-4 more resonance at 1st level it would clear up a lot of problems people are reporting. I think it should maybe be a racial advantage like humans get 2 more and elf being a magical race get 4 more etc.

It wouldn't have helped our group. That's with drinking 10+ healing elixirs.

Monsters tend to have better numbers than the party: some almost always go before you and damage or crit you. So even with the best tactics/strategy, you can expect some healing every combat. That's what leads to a nap after every combat or a cleric in the party.

Dire Ursus wrote:
Too bad in combat healing isn't worth it in 1e. The only one that can do it well is the Oradin. Which goes back to my point. If you aren't spending your turn doing as much damage as possible, or disabling as many enemies as possible in 1e, you're not being effective. And that sucks for PCs who want to play supportive roles. Maybe it's better in 2e now that combats last longer and everyone has more health overall. Plus the heal spell is buffed. But I still think out of combat healing should be a premium and not something every party can have unlimited access to.
So far in 2e, I've seen combats start with players already laying on the ground from crits before they got a turn. If we ignore in combat healing, those players aren't fighting and stand the chance of dying. SO even if it isn't 'worth it' in your mind, it's needed in the new game. With as deadly as combat seems to be, I think that "premium" shifts largely to in combat in an effort to mitigate the KO chances as monsters hit more often, crit more often and go first more often.

Yeah I do't think anything could help your group grey your the most outlier person I have seen post. I don't think I can fix your games, but for the normal people it might be the little oompf they need. I think your actually from an alternate universe and are somehow posting in paizo forums in our universe so I believe what you say but it would apply a lot better if it was in your own dimension.

But actually I do think monsters are a bit over tuned atm and their numbers need to be pulled back a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dire Ursus wrote:
But I still think out of combat healing should be a premium and not something every party can have unlimited access to.

Trouble is that in a system where out of combat healing is at a premium, a group with a healer (whether that means someone who heals in combat, or just someone who heals out of combat, in this hypothetical system) will enter every combat on full hp, while a group without a healer will have their hp whittled away and have a far lower hp for the later battles (in the same day, or before downtime lets them heal naturally, depending on whether you use resonance or gold cost to limit the healing).

This is a major difference in power, particularly since Pathfinder expects you to have several encounters per day and end with the hardest ones. Theoretically there should be a sweet spot where you can make non-healer healing just rare enough that parties without a healer enter their last battles down [whatever fraction of their hp you think is balanced]. But in practice, I think there are far too many variables that differ between groups, and between adventures, to be able to pull it off that effectively - how many encounters do we have, how well did the PCs play them, were the dice favourable towards them, etc - which will mean that the amount of healing a group needs will vary quite a lot from game to game and from day to day, even among characters who are the same level. So one day one group, may find that the healing you've allotted them is more than sufficient to let them encounter the boss on full hp (the wand of CLW scenario) while the next day another group may find they run out of healing and TPK before reaching the boss.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

no ever asks should fighters/rangers/paladins be in parties

no ever says should we need rogues for going through this trap laden dungeon

you are an adventuring party, yes you should have a healer. just like you should have a person who can deal physical damage. or someone to disable those traps.

where did this come from. I never played in an AD&D 2nd edition campaign that didn't have a rogue, a fighter, and a cleric/druid.

. I don't remember it being a thing in 3.0 either.

CLW wands have been one of the worst things ever in this game. the healer role is a central to this game, as is the skill monkey, the physical damage dealer, and the arcane caster.

Silver Crusade

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

I don’t think a healer should be mandatory or obligatory in a party. I think having a dedicated healer should be an asset, capable of keeping the party going even farther and take on more encounters in a row thanks to in combat healing and condition removal.
But I think a party without a healer shouldn’t be relegated to 15 minute adventuring days. A party healer should feel valuable but a party with a ranger, rogue, fighter and wizard should still be a viable group.


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

I don't think a healer should be mandatory.

In PF1e, I can tell my players to choose what they want to play and make sure they have a wand of CLW to get them by if no one chooses a healer.

In PF2e, I'll have to include an NPC cleric of sarenrae if no one plays a healer. I'm sure they'll enjoy the babysitter.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:

no ever asks should fighters/rangers/paladins be in parties

no ever says should we need rogues for going through this trap laden dungeon

you are an adventuring party, yes you should have a healer. just like you should have a person who can deal physical damage. or someone to disable those traps.

where did this come from. I never played in an AD&D 2nd edition campaign that didn't have a rogue, a fighter, and a cleric/druid.

. I don't remember it being a thing in 3.0 either.

CLW wands have been one of the worst things ever in this game. the healer role is a central to this game, as is the skill monkey, the physical damage dealer, and the arcane caster.

Oh wow, I was going to respond by pointing out I haven't had a rogue character in any of my 8 games for over a year now... then I realized, I haven't had a cleric in any of them before PF2, either! It's been Oracles, Inquisitors, Occultists, Witches, etc, doing the healing. And 90% of the healing was done with a wand of CLW, which led to loads of interesting characters. Those people in charge of the out-of-combat healing top ups certainly appreciated being able to use fun spells in combat because their out of combat healing came from a wand instead of running their main battery dry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, the traditional four-character party is a Damage Dealer/Tank, a Damage Dealer/Skill Monkey, a Healer/Buffer, and a Battlefield Controller/Debuffer. Truth is, if you don't have any of these roles, you're probably going to notice the difference (if you're an experienced player that knows what could be done, anyway). Most adventures are written with the assumption that you have some way of accessing the abilities of the traditional party, even if that means hiring an NPC back in town.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I hate that they want to introduce dedicated healers to 2e and force them on every party.

You'll never find fantasy literature that includes an MMORPG style healer. I don't seem to remember there being an iconic health battery in The Lord of the Rings.

The idea of the pure healer comes from modern online rpg video games, and D&D is supposed to be based on themes and ideas present in fantasy literature. As soon as there's a pure healing class, it's a mandatory part of every group, and the game is nothing more than a combat grind.

If I want that experience, WoW does it better than PF ever can because it requires much less bookkeeping. If you really need to stick to tabletop, Gloomhaven is a better miniature combat grind than 2e.

Tabletop is about RP and story. Mandating that someone play a boring role is a surefire way to kill the immersion and narrative aspect of the game. If my players don't want to play a healer I need to have options to support that playstyle.

Players walked away from 4th edition and embraced Pathfinder because it felt more like the Dungeons & Dragons they all knew and loved. Pathfinder's player base is primarily people who hated the tabletop MMO feeling - so why is it being forced on us?

Paizo is making 2e feel a lot like the thing I was running away from when I started playing Pathfinder. I've been playing since the 1e playtest, but if a dedicated healer is a requirement for every party I'll be leaving for another game. I would rather have my players abuse wands of CLW than force someone to play a role they don't enjoy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM Rednal wrote:
Well, the traditional four-character party is a Damage Dealer/Tank, a Damage Dealer/Skill Monkey, a Healer/Buffer, and a Battlefield Controller/Debuffer. Truth is, if you don't have any of these roles, you're probably going to notice the difference (if you're an experienced player that knows what could be done, anyway). Most adventures are written with the assumption that you have some way of accessing the abilities of the traditional party, even if that means hiring an NPC back in town.

Well, I question why that should have to be the case, just because "it's always been done this way before". If we're not willing to change anything about the game, we might as well just go back to PF1 and forget the new edition entirely.

But even assuming we want to keep enforcing those roles...the four-character party from PF doesn't have a healer/buffer, it has a buffer. And a wand of CLW. And a trap option of trying to use the buffer as a healer.

Conversely, PF2 has a healer, who can also do a bit of buffing. But not a great deal of it, since buffs have been severely nerfed in this edition. And based on the frequency of threads like these, it seems like while there are plenty of people willing to play a battlefield controller/debuffer, and plenty who enjoy playing a damager dealer/skill monkey, and plenty of enjoy the damage dealer/tank role, significantly less than a quarter of the player base wants to play a primary healer. Which would mean that if the game required every group to have a primary healer, then obviously people are going to be forced to fill that role when they want to do something else, which can't be healthy for the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*Shrugs* Healing is healing. How you do it isn't as important, role-wise, as the fact that somebody is doing it at all. Or rather, people might prefer to limit their healing to wands so they can focus their spells on stuff that's more proactive than reactive. XD And I'm not saying it's something that should never be changed or reconsidered, just that it's sort of the classic expectation for the game.

(Fulfilling a role doesn't have to come exclusively from spells or class abilities. It can also be done with items, or - in some cases - even by roleplaying creatively. Of course, this assumes that fulfilling a role is what someone wants to do. XD)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:
CLW wands have been one of the worst things ever in this game. the healer role is a central to this game, as is the skill monkey, the physical damage dealer, and the arcane caster.

The Arcane Caster was better at skills than anyone else because they could use spells to bypass most of them.

The Arcane Caster was the best physical damage dealer and melee combatant for most off the game's history.

You could absolutely do any and all of the content without any of the primary roles as long as you had a Wizard and a lot of splat books.

The problem is that the healer in previous editions of the game had the option of using wands or scrolls, or crafting potions to keep people alive because using those things didn't prevent you from wearing magical items.

High-level spell slots were used for buffs or debuffs and not strictly for healing spells.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Robert Bunker wrote:

Healing in combat is perfectly fun - but what ends up happening is that the Healer won't "waste" turns in the fight to heal someone. The party is better off killing the remaining sources of damage and then healing after combat.

This has NOT been my experience so far in the PF2 playtest (3 parts). The combats are so swingy and dangerous with critical hits and monster bonuses that letting a character fall below 50% or 60% health has a high likelihood of them being knocked into the dying condition.

In combat healing is absolutely necessary in this game.
A healer is often making very important decisions that influence the outcome of the battle. Do I do damage or do I heal? ...and picking wrong can have terrible consequences.

I think that not having a healer is foolish for most parties and it should be.

Even in the real world where healing is MUCH more difficult than Pathfinder, Special Forces units have a medic in every team of 6.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:

no ever asks should fighters/rangers/paladins be in parties

no ever says should we need rogues for going through this trap laden dungeon

you are an adventuring party, yes you should have a healer. just like you should have a person who can deal physical damage. or someone to disable those traps.

where did this come from. I never played in an AD&D 2nd edition campaign that didn't have a rogue, a fighter, and a cleric/druid.

. I don't remember it being a thing in 3.0 either.

CLW wands have been one of the worst things ever in this game. the healer role is a central to this game, as is the skill monkey, the physical damage dealer, and the arcane caster.

Yeah, game design got better since Dark Ages of Gygax, so no one class is necessary. And no we don't want it to return as much as Paizo is determined to give it to us.

On the OP, I don't a healer class should be necessary, especially for out-of-combat healing. It should be handled by magic items with rebalanced costs, better Medicine skill, or a subsystem like stamina, healing surges or short rests (I'm partial to rebalanced item pricing and stronger Medicine, rather than subsystems). The healer class should be exceptional for in-combat healing and condition removal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Robert Bunker wrote:

I hate that they want to introduce dedicated healers to 2e and force them on every party.

You'll never find fantasy literature that includes an MMORPG style healer. I don't seem to remember there being an iconic health battery in The Lord of the Rings.

The idea of the pure healer comes from modern online rpg video games, and D&D is supposed to be based on themes and ideas present in fantasy literature. As soon as there's a pure healing class, it's a mandatory part of every group, and the game is nothing more than a combat grind.

If I want that experience, WoW does it better than PF ever can because it requires much less bookkeeping. If you really need to stick to tabletop, Gloomhaven is a better miniature combat grind than 2e.

Tabletop is about RP and story. Mandating that someone play a boring role is a surefire way to kill the immersion and narrative aspect of the game. If my players don't want to play a healer I need to have options to support that playstyle.

Players walked away from 4th edition and embraced Pathfinder because it felt more like the Dungeons & Dragons they all knew and loved. Pathfinder's player base is primarily people who hated the tabletop MMO feeling - so why is it being forced on us?

Paizo is making 2e feel a lot like the thing I was running away from when I started playing Pathfinder. I've been playing since the 1e playtest, but if a dedicated healer is a requirement for every party I'll be leaving for another game. I would rather have my players abuse wands of CLW than force someone to play a role they don't enjoy.

what? those MMO's got the pure healer from AD&D. everquest is pretty much cut and paste AD&d. the dedicated healer has always been apart of the dungeons and dragon. figher wizard rogue cleric, there is a reason that is the standard party. all the additional classes that were added were variations on those 4.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zautos' wrote:

I read thro "On the topic of Hit Points Healing -- What about Stamina?" forum post and most people there think that they should not be obligatory.

Do anyone think that it's a good thing to always need a cleric or other healing focused class in the party?

From my perspective, I'm fine with it, because (1) it's just carrying on a tradition that was around since the first days of the game (a party without a cleric always struggled more than one with a cleric.) and (2) As long as the healing role is distinct from the combat capability or the social/exploration capabilities, I'm fine with it, much as cleric does not need to blow spells on healing in order to be an effective healer.

I do think the Playtest NEEDS other healing means that could replace clerics - the current sorcerers don't look like they do it, nor bards or paladins (well, paladins come closest, but they don't quite make it). improving the healing from the medicine skill could do it, as could adding some separate healing resources to more classes that AREN'T JUST DIVERTING THEIR SPELL SLOTS. The Cleric is so bada** at this because they have both the channel pool and their slots, they don't have to eat slots to still be decent at it.

That said, I don't like stamina. I don't in Starfinder, and I would hate it here. For one thing, it inflates hit points INSANELY high, and they're high enough now. A 10th level Starfinder character can have, what, 250 hit points effectively? For another, I just don't like the concept of two separate pools. I could see a hit point mechanic equivalent to a short rest that would restore up to half or three-quarters of your hit points with a brief 10-minute rest, similar to starfinder, that would keep you viable for the next challenge. But just giving them two separate pools at the same time would mean it would be much tougher to make challenging combats after about 6th level - I saw the beginnings of this in our Dead Suns game (before we had to quit playing due to group changes.)


9 people marked this as a favorite.
ikarinokami wrote:

no ever asks should fighters/rangers/paladins be in parties

no ever says should we need rogues for going through this trap laden dungeon

No one also says "you must have one or the game doesn't work." I'm in a 3.5 game and a PF 1e game right now. Neither has a Rogue. One has someone else who can find traps, and the other deals with them in other ways. One has a Paladin, but that was because the player wanted to play a Paladin and not because we set out to demand someone fill that role in the party.

Quote:
you are an adventuring party, yes you should have a healer. just like you should have a person who can deal physical damage. or someone to disable those traps.

You should have healing. Not necessarily a healer.

The only thing that this game absolutely must have is fun. Someone forced to play a role they do not want to play is not having fun. That's a critical failure in the product design. We had a way to solve the issue in 1e that we do not have now. That's a defect in the game design.

Quote:
where did this come from. I never played in an AD&D 2nd edition campaign that didn't have a rogue, a fighter, and a cleric/druid.

It came from the last 15+ years where systems haven't imposed a mandatory healer because the reality is that people who want to do that role are a clear minority and not every table has one.

Quote:
. I don't remember it being a thing in 3.0 either.

IIRC, it was. But it's clearly been a thing since 3.5, and 3.5 isn't exactly new. Hell, even healing capable classes in 3.5 would rarely do in combat healing, because taking stuff out was usually more effecient in that it would lower incoming damage and thus how much healing was needed.

Quote:
CLW wands have been one of the worst things ever in this game. the healer role is a central to this game, as is the skill monkey, the physical damage dealer, and the arcane caster.

I'm a healer & support player. I use CLW wands to augment my healing. It doesn't make sense for me to burn spell slots that can be used for other things on downtime healing if I can avoid it.

What benefits a 1e party more? Me casting Cure Critical Wounds in downtime, or me casting Blessing of Fervor in combat? The answer is Fervor, every time, because it makes everyone else in my party more awesome. Aside from being really effective, the extra boost they get from it is fun for all those players. Which in turn is fun for me, because a lot of my fun in combat comes from empowering everyone else and letting them have more fun. 2e nerfed the hell out of support buffs, and it's a real shame.

Healing is the same thing: dying isn't fun (although it's a necessary threat), and when I heal someone who is dying, they get to come back into the fight. That's fun.

Downtime healing is not fun. It's a thing that needs to happen so the next combat doesn't start with everyone one hit from death (which is not fun), or doing a full day rest after every encounter (which is also not fun).

Take it from a healer: the role of Healer is in no way diminished if a party without one has access to downtime healing (since healers also have access to those tools). I have never heard a group go "no please don't play a support caster, we have wands!" Ever.

The game itself is diminished if someone is forced into the role despite not wanting to play it.

1 to 50 of 163 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / 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.