Being a Healer is DANGEROUS


General Discussion

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

A game I ran today (Doomsday Dawn, L9 characters) crystalized a thought I'd had before.

Being a healer is DANGEROUS if you're facing reasonably intelligent bad guys who want to win.

Final fight of The Mirrored Moon. PCs had done everything right so it was a fight between 4 L9 PCs and a CR9, 3xCR 8 enemies

First round, some damage done, some moving into position, some buffs.

Second round, a wizard does lots of Area of Effect Damage so the bad guys focus fire a bit. Do lots of damage. Cleric heals him all the way back on their turn because that is what clerics DO now.

Third round, bad guys, being intelligent, focus fire the cleric down. Wizard (who has multiclassed into cleric) brings cleric back up.

Fourth round, they focus fire the cleric DEAD. If they want to win they have no choice. The cleric is so powerful that any other tactic is just conceeding the fight. They now know the PCs can bring him back if he is only unconscious.

Bad guys are going down at the point too. 2 Down, 1 almost down, 1 in good shape.

Fifth round, they turn on the alternate healer (the wizard) and focus fire him dead too. They don't know that he has shot his healing bolt so they kill him.

PCs mop up remaining bad guys.

Final Score - PCs win but at the cost of 2 deaths out of 4.

I'm normally a pretty soft GM and don't like focus firing unconscious characters to death but
1) Playtest. So I'm trying as hard as possible to kill PCs
2) There really was NO alternative if the bad guys actually wanted to win. Clerics are WAY too effective, they HAVE to die or you just lose.

I'm not totally sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing. But it is a thing. This game is more dangerous than PF1 and making yourself the primary target is very dangerous. And killing unconscious opponents is a riduculously good (almost essential) strategy


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree overall. I have just one point - which honestly doesn't apply to your particular playthrough, but would in a general sense.

Why would any NPC 'kill' a downed opponent? How would they know that these folks are the 4-6 beings in the entire universe who can be brought back from 'death' with normal healing spells? Obviously, in your playthrough, *they saw it happen*. So, duh. Kill the thrice-cursed-freaks-who-defy-the-will-of-Pharasma and all that.

I really prefer the distributed healing setup for parties. It's the default we've run with on almost every PF1E campaign we've run. I think we had a healing battery cleric once? And they got replaced, because they were just boring - all hail the chirurgeon alchemist. The perceived need for a full-bore cleric to make a viable party is not one of the attractive features of PF2E.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:

...

Why would any NPC 'kill' a downed opponent? How would they know that these folks are the 4-6 beings in the entire universe who can be brought back from 'death' with normal healing spells? Obviously, in your playthrough, *they saw it happen*. So, duh. Kill the thrice-cursed-freaks-who-defy-the-will-of-Pharasma and all that.
...

I can't be bothered finding the rules text right now, but the "0hp=dead" thing is basically a GM shortcut that they are encouraged to not use for things like major NPCs, or for any creatures that have healing backup. Going off this, any intelligent NPC would have to be aware that stabbing things until they fall over may not finish them off permanently.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
Requielle wrote:

...

Why would any NPC 'kill' a downed opponent? How would they know that these folks are the 4-6 beings in the entire universe who can be brought back from 'death' with normal healing spells? Obviously, in your playthrough, *they saw it happen*. So, duh. Kill the thrice-cursed-freaks-who-defy-the-will-of-Pharasma and all that.
...
I can't be bothered finding the rules text right now, but the "0hp=dead" thing is basically a GM shortcut that they are encouraged to not use for things like major NPCs, or for any creatures that have healing backup. Going off this, any intelligent NPC would have to be aware that stabbing things until they fall over may not finish them off permanently.

OK - so let's be generous and say that 1% of all the things in existence (from mayflies to dragons) are 'important enough' to whatever powers that be to not die instantly. That's still 99% of the things out there that don't get back up. And an intelligent creature is not very intelligent if they waste their actions in combat whacking dead things that almost never get back up. Totally fine if (as happened above) they see someone cheat-death-OMG-kill-it-again-and-keep-killing-it.

It's just messy. It's very contrived. It's very inconsistent. And again - YMMV.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I just filled in the survey and realize that we totally forgot about hero points. That would have saved the wizard and may have saved the cleric.

But talk about COMPLETELY losing any and all suspension of disbelief, any even slight in world logic.

"The bad guy stabs down at your unconscious body, stabbing it right through the heart" (critical on final blow)
"Hero Point!!!"
"Uh, the shock of one more blow into your body jolts you completely awake and, while you still bear many wounds, you are no longer at all close to dying any longer. Because, uh, because!!"

I just realized that I HATE, LOATHE and ABHOR that particular use of hero points. The game world now makes absolutely no sense. Having a hero point miraculously save you if you fall from a great height, are left for dead on the battle field, etc is one thing (and a good thing). But having it turn a Coup De Grace into a free recovery seems way, way, way over the top to me


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Obligatory Penny Arcade.

It's true. Smart people will focus the healer first. In a game that allows tactical options, that's why you have a stronger person get in the way to protect the healer.

In practice in 2e, the healer had better beef up their defense, because stuff will run right around everyone to get to them with near total impunity. That was the lesson I learned pretty quickly in Sombrefell Hill.

That's just how it is, unless healing is neutered so much that it doesn't matter, in which case smart bad guys will focus down whatever the next strongest threat is instead.

Grand Lodge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, playing a healer (or even a caster) has always been dangerous against intelligent foes.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Requielle wrote:

...

Why would any NPC 'kill' a downed opponent? How would they know that these folks are the 4-6 beings in the entire universe who can be brought back from 'death' with normal healing spells? Obviously, in your playthrough, *they saw it happen*. So, duh. Kill the thrice-cursed-freaks-who-defy-the-will-of-Pharasma and all that.
...
I can't be bothered finding the rules text right now, but the "0hp=dead" thing is basically a GM shortcut that they are encouraged to not use for things like major NPCs, or for any creatures that have healing backup. Going off this, any intelligent NPC would have to be aware that stabbing things until they fall over may not finish them off permanently.

OK - so let's be generous and say that 1% of all the things in existence (from mayflies to dragons) are 'important enough' to whatever powers that be to not die instantly. That's still 99% of the things out there that don't get back up. And an intelligent creature is not very intelligent if they waste their actions in combat whacking dead things that almost never get back up. Totally fine if (as happened above) they see someone cheat-death-OMG-kill-it-again-and-keep-killing-it.

It's just messy. It's very contrived. It's very inconsistent. And again - YMMV.

not-PCs dying at 0 is not a world effect, it's a table effect.

by that i mean: NOBODY dies when dropped to 0.

but if there's no way or reason for that to stand back up, then just handwave him dead.

that's why "npc and monsters dropped to 0 die UNLESS they can be brought up"

it's not like pharasma somehow intervenes and saves the PCs.

So, in case of NPCs it's up to the player to "risk it" and leave him at "0" while assuming that the opponents don't have healing, but it can backfire. If they want to be sure, they have to whack the unconsious dude same as the monsters have to whack an unconsious PC.

If you don't want to use the rule in your table, just don't, you'll quickly notice that it has no game effect (i.e. unless the players bring him back from 0, if the NPCs party lacks healing, he'll die at the end of the encounter either way)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

@ shroudb

I know I can run my table in my home game differently (and I would).

The point is not that the rule can or can't be ignored, it's that a default setting of the world is incredibly non-immersive because <reasons> and it doesn't need to be.

I don't want to (by default) take over the role of Powers That Be and decide that this guy, and that guy, and that other guy over there are exceptions to the rule. And these 4 folks have a perma-exception to the rules, too. And later, on Tuesday, because it's more narratively interesting, another few folks are going to be exceptions. But, by and large, things just die. Except when they don't.

As I note over and over in my posts, YMMV. There are going to be tables where this doesn't even register as a thing. With me *and with the people I regularly play with* this rule destroys immersion. It already destroyed immersion in the very first session of the very first part of Doomsday Dawn, when I was running RAW because playtest. My players HATED this new dying rule for NPCs with the fury of a thousand suns, even though it was in their favor.

The more stuff I have to houserule in order to just get a playable game, the less likely I am to purchase that game. This doesn't bother you - and that's good feedback for Paizo. This bothers me - and that also is good feedback for Paizo.


It makes sense for intelligent foes to focus fire a healer and bring them down. It makes less sense for them to keep attacking the same target once they're already down, they should generally move on to the next target who is still standing and a threat. Obviously they would then proceed to attack the healer again if he stood back up.

Ranged attacks against a target that drops may also not be particularly effective, due to the target likely gaining cover in the process of dropping prone. Of course, this doesn't do much to stop melee attackers, who can move around with complete impunity due to the lack of AoO and other battlefield control. :p


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:

@ shroudb

I know I can run my table in my home game differently (and I would).

The point is not that the rule can or can't be ignored, it's that a default setting of the world is incredibly non-immersive because <reasons> and it doesn't need to be.

I don't want to (by default) take over the role of Powers That Be and decide that this guy, and that guy, and that other guy over there are exceptions to the rule. And these 4 folks have a perma-exception to the rules, too. And later, on Tuesday, because it's more narratively interesting, another few folks are going to be exceptions. But, by and large, things just die. Except when they don't.

As I note over and over in my posts, YMMV. There are going to be tables where this doesn't even register as a thing. With me *and with the people I regularly play with* this rule destroys immersion. It already destroyed immersion in the very first session of the very first part of Doomsday Dawn, when I was running RAW because playtest. My players HATED this new dying rule for NPCs with the fury of a thousand suns, even though it was in their favor.

The more stuff I have to houserule in order to just get a playable game, the less likely I am to purchase that game. This doesn't bother you - and that's good feedback for Paizo. This bothers me - and that also is good feedback for Paizo.

you keep referecing things that don't apply.

the "rule" clearly states that in all and every case that an opponent MAY be healed up, do not kill him when at 0 hp.

the rule exists only so that you don't have to have those akward minutes after the end of a battle with PC coup de gracing every fallen enemy.

it basically says "if it falls, and no one can (or wants to) heal him back up, just assume him dead"

you are not assuming the role of pharasma (not that you should have a problem assuming that role, given that you as a GM ARE pharasma as well)

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Slyme wrote:
To be fair, playing a healer (or even a caster) has always been dangerous against intelligent foes.

Agreed. The difference, though, is now that combats tend to last long enough for the bad guys to actually focus fire the PC down.

Take the identical combat in PF1 and it would have been over in round 3.

Also, in PF1 (at least until the Heal spell becomes a thing) in combat healing is weaker. It isn't enough to bring a character from down to full in a single round.

Basically, in PF2 in combat healing is a FAR, FAR better strategy than it was in PF1. Which makes putting the healer down a FAR, FAR better strategy too


This is an interesting discussion, and something I've thought of too. I'm actually soon going to be playing a Cleric who avoids healing in-battle whenever possible because he's used to facing smart foes and knows that if he's made as a healer he immediately becomes the most viable target. XD

Also as a note since I saw a comment about the perceived need for a Cleric, my party just made it through Mirrored Moon with no Cleric. We had an Alchemist who distributes Elixirs of Life and a Druid who Multiclassed Cleric. The only healing dealt in the entire fight was a level 4 heal and a level 5 heal from the Druid's staff. This party made it through The Lost Star with similarly slight healing as well.

Admittedly the Druid would've gone down if I didn't roll like crap on Hidimbi's AoOs but even then we'd have been able to save him.

This isn't to say I couldn't potentially kill players if I tried, just to say these battles are winnable even without strong healing.

This battle in particular was about half-beaten by our Sorcerer-Fighter casting level 3 Fireball and level 5 Fireball with Quicken Spell before the enemies could spread out quite enough. XD


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@ shroudb

Playtest Rulebook Pg. 294 wrote:
When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die, unless the attack was nonlethal, in which case they are knocked out for a significant amount of time (usually 1 minute or more). ... Villains, powerful monsters, enemies with healers or regeneration, and any other NPCs at the GM’s discretion are knocked out like a PC as well.

That's what I'm referencing. The default setting for the world. I dislike nebulous concepts like "villain" or "powerful" or "with healers (does that include having someone trained in Medicine?)" changing the basic reality of the game world. I like there to be universal rules for how things die, because that makes the game world immersive *for me*.

NPC #1: Wow! Gertrude didn't actually die when that adventurer stabbed her through the heart! She must be a villain! Or maybe she's extra powerful? Wait! I know! The Powers That Be have blessed her with their discretion!
NPC #2: Nah. She's nothing special. We brought Melvin along this time, and he has a box of band-aids.

It is totally fine with me that this rule is OK with you, and it works great in your games. Can you be OK with me just not liking it, even though I can handwave it away with my super GM powers in my home games?

Edit: Typos.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The rule basically says "if there isn't a point to keeping them alive, don't bother".

That part about "villains or powerful" was probably there because in the original dying rules, they had a chance of getting up again. Now, if they don't, don't bother.

Edit: Unless you like rolling dying checks and keeping track of dying and wounded values for every monster, in which case you do you.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What I find immersion breaking is leaving all the mooks alive unless you drop then to -con...

"Oh look, 3/4 of these guys are still breathing...guess we have to go around slitting their throats to make sure they are all dead dead"

Mooks "dying" at 0 is just a way to simplify game play...Think of it like you would for a PC dropping to 0...they are dying too, unless someone can heal them...99% of the time, the mooks have no chance of being healed, so they are effectively dead regardless of what the rules say. Either they bleed out in a few rounds, or they stabilize at negative HP and starve to death a few days later, or the PCs come over and butcher the helpless dying NPCs.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Edge93 wrote:


Also as a note since I saw a comment about the perceived need for a Cleric,

This is obviously a YMMV thing. In the group that I'm running through Doomsday if the one character wasn't a cleric but was instead, say, a martial I can't know exactly how things would have changed with one more heavy damage dealer.

But I DO know that, as things played out, the Cleric "seemed" absolutely essential to success in the Lake encounter and the Final encounter of Mirrored Moon. In fact, he did quite a bit of AoE damage in the Final Encounter (Cleric of Sarenrae). My best guess is that without the Cleric they'd have lost at the lake and likely won but with only one character left standing in the Final Encounter.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I knew there was a reason I liked to have channel life on my playtest paladin. "Yeah, that's right - I healed our fighter. What are you going to do about it, attack me like I wanted you to do anyway?" Takes a little pressure off the cleric.


pauljathome wrote:
Edge93 wrote:


Also as a note since I saw a comment about the perceived need for a Cleric,

This is obviously a YMMV thing. In the group that I'm running through Doomsday if the one character wasn't a cleric but was instead, say, a martial I can't know exactly how things would have changed with one more heavy damage dealer.

But I DO know that, as things played out, the Cleric "seemed" absolutely essential to success in the Lake encounter and the Final encounter of Mirrored Moon. In fact, he did quite a bit of AoE damage in the Final Encounter (Cleric of Sarenrae). My best guess is that without the Cleric they'd have lost at the lake and likely won but with only one character left standing in the Final Encounter.

Eh, fair. I can totally see that. (Also hail Cleric of Sarenrae, Fire and Healing Domain Battle Cleric in PF1 was my JAM, looking forward to trying it in 2.0 eventually)

But yeah, I feel like my party has fared a fair bit better than average in Doomsday Dawn, I wasn't meaning to say there's never a need for top-notch in-battle healing but rather that it's entirely possible to get through these adventures without it, albeit a fair bit tougher.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:

@ shroudb

Playtest Rulebook Pg. 294 wrote:
When most creatures reach 0 Hit Points, they die, unless the attack was nonlethal, in which case they are knocked out for a significant amount of time (usually 1 minute or more). ... Villains, powerful monsters, enemies with healers or regeneration, and any other NPCs at the GM’s discretion are knocked out like a PC as well.

That's what I'm referencing. The default setting for the world. I dislike nebulous concepts like "villain" or "powerful" or "with healers (does that include having someone trained in Medicine?)" changing the basic reality of the game world. I like there to be universal rules for how things die, because that makes the game world immersive *for me*.

NPC #1: Wow! Gertrude didn't actually die when that adventurer stabbed her through the heart! She must be a villain! Or maybe she's extra powerful? Wait! I know! The Powers That Be have blessed her with their discretion!
NPC #2: Nah. She's nothing special. We brought Melvin along this time, and he has a box of band-aids.

It is totally fine with me that this rule is OK with you, and it works great in your games. Can you be OK with me just not liking it, even though I can handwave it away with my super GM powers in my home games?

OK. When I was reading your previous posts I was thinking that your immersion breaking concern was that player characters would get back up from 0 HP while NPC villians and monsters couldn't.

From this post it seems more like the problem is that anyone can come back up from 0 HP at all.

So I am having a bit of difficulty understanding.

The way I read the rule that you quoted, I see the default setting of the world is technically that everything goes through the dying process once the hit 0 HP. Everything. From the most powerful monsters, villains, and player characters down to the farmers, animals, and shopkeepers.

The handwaving is actually having things die at 0 HP. That is a convenience for me when I am GM so that I don't have to track dying levels and make saving throws for a bunch of things that the players defeated. And if there is some notable reason why the enemies could recover from 0 HP just like the player characters can, then I do need to go through the dying process like normal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The main thing i'm not seeing is how it's more dangerous now than it was in pathfinder 1. It was easier to finish of a dying character when you just had to reach a certain negative number and it was easier to make the killing blows on an unconscious character in that ruleset.

So if you used to play enemies to keep attacking unconscious players before I don't see why that should change, and if you didn't I don't see why it should be more reasonable to do so now.
I can see the change to AoO and some nerfs to the battlefield controls spells might put certain squishes more in the range, however they have an easier time to get away from combat now as well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Third round, bad guys, being intelligent, focus fire the cleric down. Wizard (who has multiclassed into cleric) brings cleric back up.

Yep, PF2 is a different game than PF1. In PF1, you could not out heal incoming damage. Clerics in PF2 can now heal more damage than PCs can take. As long as you don't run out of healing, your party is unbeatable. I have to say, I don't like this feeling, at all.


The number of heals clerics get is just too many. Get rid of channel.

I could see Heal domain clerics using spell points to heal as thier domain power though (or focus points as they will be called).

Maybe even go back to 3.5 basics and give clerics spontaneous harm/heal conversion.

But, whatever is done, channel energy giving clerics a bunch of extra high level slots to super heal people is just too much.


I wonder, what if it were just limited to 3 slots. Don't add Cha to it, especially if that's going into Focus points.

How would that end up comparing to Wizard/Sorc and their effective extra spell of each level?


Imagine a cleric with paladin dedication, casting heals with a special channel pool AND spell points.

Channel Energy is a problem.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Nettah wrote:
The main thing i'm not seeing is how it's more dangerous now than it was in pathfinder 1.

Its more dangerous for the healer because healers are far, far, far more effective than in PF1. In PF1 in combat healing was rarely the best tactic, in PF2 it very, very often IS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There was a reason in 1stD&D cleric wore that full plate ;)


This reminds me of a guy I played with in a con that when attacked at times fell to the ground as if he were dead. The proceeded to cast spells from that position and "try" and use acting to pretend to be dead.
MDC


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

This reminds me of a guy I played with in a con that when attacked at times fell to the ground as if he were dead. The proceeded to cast spells from that position and "try" and use acting to pretend to be dead.

MDC

>.> I have personally done that before.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:
Yep, PF2 is a different game than PF1. In PF1, you could not out heal incoming damage.

Speak for yourself, my Paladin/Life Oracle can heal more than most things can dish out. That is about all he can do...but he does it really, really well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, you know what they say. Geek the mage first.

pauljathome wrote:


1) Playtest. So I'm trying as hard as possible to kill PCs

I think it's fine in this circumstance because you were playing malicious, intelligent foes, aware of the existence of the Palatine Eye and actively at odds with them. But, as a heads up in the unlikely event that you aren't aware, it has been noted that the expected feedback isn't from full murderbot, but from how the events would be expected to be run.


Slyme wrote:
Jason S wrote:
Yep, PF2 is a different game than PF1. In PF1, you could not out heal incoming damage.
Speak for yourself, my Paladin/Life Oracle can heal more than most things can dish out. That is about all he can do...but he does it really, really well.

Yeah, life oracles and clerics with Heal spells can do some really critical in-combat healing in PF1e.


Data Lore wrote:
I could see Heal domain clerics using spell points to heal as thier domain power though (or focus points as they will be called).

This is how I feel about. I think ridiculously strong healing should be an option but that it should require specialization (Life Oracle, Healing Domain, etc*). It shouldn't be the default for Clerics.

*I'd like them to introduce Druid and Alchemist path equilivents to these.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ladies and gentlegoblins,

I would like to introduce,

The Revised Channel.

Revised Channel wrote:

Channel Energy: You only gain one use of Channel Energy. If you have at least three feats related to Channel Energy (see list), you gain two uses. If you have five or more, you gain three.

Channel Smite, Command Undead, Conical Channel, Necrotic Infusion, Selective Energy (feat4) now require Cha14.

Channeled Succor, Elemental Channel, Improved Command Undead (feat8) now require Cha16.

Fast Channel, Improved Elemental Channel (feat14) now require Cha18.

Deity’s Protection (feat14) now requires Cha18, provides resistance 7.

Specialise into a healer or be a cleric instead. Choice Is yours.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Requielle wrote:
Snowblind wrote:
Requielle wrote:

...

Why would any NPC 'kill' a downed opponent? How would they know that these folks are the 4-6 beings in the entire universe who can be brought back from 'death' with normal healing spells? Obviously, in your playthrough, *they saw it happen*. So, duh. Kill the thrice-cursed-freaks-who-defy-the-will-of-Pharasma and all that.
...
I can't be bothered finding the rules text right now, but the "0hp=dead" thing is basically a GM shortcut that they are encouraged to not use for things like major NPCs, or for any creatures that have healing backup. Going off this, any intelligent NPC would have to be aware that stabbing things until they fall over may not finish them off permanently.

OK - so let's be generous and say that 1% of all the things in existence (from mayflies to dragons) are 'important enough' to whatever powers that be to not die instantly. That's still 99% of the things out there that don't get back up. And an intelligent creature is not very intelligent if they waste their actions in combat whacking dead things that almost never get back up. Totally fine if (as happened above) they see someone cheat-death-OMG-kill-it-again-and-keep-killing-it.

It's just messy. It's very contrived. It's very inconsistent. And again - YMMV.

Messy, contrived, and inconsistent is a perfect description of a system wherein the unconscious/dying/healing rules are not the same across the board, PC or NPC.

In a world where magical healing is possible, it makes perfect sense to spend an action to ensure that a downed opponent stays down.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

For what it's worth, double tapping is a thing that happens in real life, and has been a thing since people started looting corpses on the battlefield after a battle. It's a bronze age tradition, really.

The only unrealistic thing right now is that it takes three strikes instead of one to do it.

Why do combatants double tap? Besides greed, the motivation is self-preservation. Suppose your cavalry broke their ranks, and now you're mopping up the resistance, wading knee-deep in corpses (hey, difficult terrain!). If one of those "corpses" is still alive and is playing dead, you could get back-stabbed (or groin-stabbed) right as you step over them.

So you stab every corpse for safety.

Safety first.

Groin stabs suck.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

this was the case in 2nd edition. you killed cleric and wizards first. in shadowrun it's geek mages first. just like football teams need to protect their quarterback, players need to protect their clerics. I love it. pf2 brining back battle tactics.


Eh, attacking the arm holding up the sword has always been pretty standard. I find the current ruleset lacks the ability to armour the metaphorical arm by putting up something difficult to get through.


The Sideromancer said wrote:
Eh, attacking the arm holding up the sword has always been pretty standard. I find the current ruleset lacks the ability to armour the metaphorical arm by putting up something difficult to get through.

Depending on how you define acting hostile, a cleric could use sanctuary and just buff and heal the party. Having to do a will save to attack the cleric + his armor and other defensive buffs would make it quite hard to down him.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sanctuary is a nice added layer of defense... but with the current monster statistics it's bound to pop pretty quickly. Making it an expensive tactic to use unless you're fighting mooks, against whom you didn't need the protection anyway.


If upping personal bulk is so easy, why would you need a healer in the fist place instead of running more sturdy attackers?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cantriped wrote:
Sanctuary is a nice added layer of defense... but with the current monster statistics it's bound to pop pretty quickly. Making it an expensive tactic to use unless you're fighting mooks, against whom you didn't need the protection anyway.

you'd need a critical success to dismiss it.

else it's still a saving throw/attack.

even with monster stats as they are atm, that's still like 40%+ "concealment" vs all monsters for a whole battle, with a 1st level spell.


Cantriped said wrote:
Sanctuary is a nice added layer of defense... but with the current monster statistics it's bound to pop pretty quickly. Making it an expensive tactic to use unless you're fighting mooks, against whom you didn't need the protection anyway.

In the particular fight that started this thread the saves are as follows.

I assumed a DC of 23 (10+ 9 (level)+ 4 (from 18 wis))

Spoiler for enemies in Mirrored Moon:
Hdibi +15 will; so need a 8+ to attack, 18+ to end the spell

Cultist +14 will; so need a 9+ to attack, 19+ to end the spell

Brain collector +12 (+13 vs spells) will; so need a 10+ to attack and nat 20 to end the spell

This are all enemies with decently high will saves for their level and it would still cut the attacks in almost half.

If you were fighting one strong enemy it should be hard for him to "focus fire" you down quickly, so most of the time the "focus fire" is heavy enough to take you down in one round is when there is several enemies, and those would rarely be more than equal level or lower.
And this entire effect is from a 1st level spell, so something the cleric could easily have as a wand, making it a pretty low cost (except for action economy) after the first few levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
Being a healer is DANGEROUS if you're facing reasonably intelligent bad guys who want to win.

Personally, as someone who loves playing a Healer, I think it should be DANGEROUS. That keeps it engaging.

In 3.5 I fielded a series of highly mobile weapon-less Healers with maxed AC (skipping a weapon made it cost effective to enchant armor/shield, high DEX, mithral shirt, heavy shield, etc).

In Pathfinder I fielded a deaf Tengu Shadow Oracle who focused on healing/buffing while spamming Darkness, Invisibility, Hide in Plain Sight, etc.

A ring of invisibility was a healer/buffer's best friend in 3/3.5/P1e.

A healer being seen as critical threat by the enemy is a good thing as it means they're being effective (even if I agree that clerics' default channel energy is too powerful currently and that the death/dying rules need some more work).


Slyme wrote:
Jason S wrote:
Yep, PF2 is a different game than PF1. In PF1, you could not out heal incoming damage.
Speak for yourself, my Paladin/Life Oracle can heal more than most things can dish out. That is about all he can do...but he does it really, really well.

In P1 you had to build intentionally to create a healer that outpaced damage. In the Playtest most healing outpaces damage.

P1 always had the 'smart enemies kill the fallen' option. It just came up less often because healing wasn't as effective. For example I GMed a cavalier villain that was quite happy to stand over the bleeding fighter, let the cleric waste his action channeling, and taking the AoO everytime the freshly healer fighter tried to pick up their weapon. The villain was just keeping him under control until he crit with his katana or had a spare attacks after a full attack to finish him off.

I only played a few sessions at high level once the Heal spell came into play. I can't comment on how that changes things.


DM Livgin wrote:
Slyme wrote:
Jason S wrote:
Yep, PF2 is a different game than PF1. In PF1, you could not out heal incoming damage.
Speak for yourself, my Paladin/Life Oracle can heal more than most things can dish out. That is about all he can do...but he does it really, really well.

In P1 you had to build intentionally to create a healer that outpaced damage. In the Playtest most healing outpaces damage.

P1 always had the 'smart enemies kill the fallen' option. It just came up less often because healing wasn't as effective. For example I GMed a cavalier villain that was quite happy to stand over the bleeding fighter, let the cleric waste his action channeling, and taking the AoO everytime the freshly healer fighter tried to pick up their weapon. The villain was just keeping him under control until he crit with his katana or had a spare attacks after a full attack to finish him off.

I only played a few sessions at high level once the Heal spell came into play. I can't comment on how that changes things.

Only Cleric healing.

Divine sorc, bard, paladin, alchemists are all far behind.

And clerics are only that far ahead because of the free 3+Cha pool of Heal (that really should be way, way less, like 1-3 total pool)


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

This reminds me of a guy I played with in a con that when attacked at times fell to the ground as if he were dead. The proceeded to cast spells from that position and "try" and use acting to pretend to be dead.

MDC
>.> I have personally done that before.

Way back when (in the 80's and 90's) it often took GM's by surprise with some saying, you cannot do what you want and others taking a more variable tack in that they either gave % chance to cast the spell (divided action and no rules in game to represent that) or fail to cast. Some GM's would tell the player before hand their % to cast and other GM's would say "it depends on the randomness of the combat round so you do not know until you try".

MDC

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Being a Healer is DANGEROUS All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.