| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it 1D8, or 1D8 + 8?
1D8, to everyone in the emanation.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I don't think you need to ascribe any bad faith to someone thinking the three-action action also adds 8 to the total.
It's definitely clear when you read the whole thing: three actions is 1d8. But I can see someone honestly just looking at the spell and thinking that the three action version includes the +8 from the two action version without "skip[ping] around to just find the parts that make things look their way."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I don't think you need to ascribe any bad faith to someone thinking the three-action action also adds 8 to the total.
It's definitely clear when you read the whole thing: three actions is 1d8. But I can see someone honestly just looking at the spell and thinking that the three action version includes the +8 from the two action version without "skip[ping] around to just find the parts that make things look their way."
Amusingly I did the same thing originally but because I was surprised at how good the healing was I did a double take and reread it immediately because of it seeming overly good :)
But yeah, easy mistake to make especially as we are used to systems being linearly additive.
Being a math guy what was striking me though when I first read the spell is that the 3 action heal is almost never worth it, at least in regard to healing done, as long as you are not fighting undead or somehow need to heal at least 3 targets while not needing to move to get in range (and hopefully can exclude living enemies).
For the basic 2-action heal 1d8+8 equals 12.5 points of healing done. For the 3-action heal 1d8 flat is 4.5 per target, so you need at least 3 targets to beat the 2-action variant and even then only by a small margin (total of 13.5 for 3 targets).
In addition to that not having a fixed adder makes you very, very dependend on your dice rolls. At level five a 2-action heal does a minimum of 27 points of healing whereas a 3-action heal's minimum is 3 per target (unlikely 1 in 1000 roll but still possible).
Of course and as described above the 3-action heal has its merits as it will outshine the 2-action variant in cases where there are many targets (e.g. a couple of NPCs to heal in addition to the PCs or a large group of 4+ players), however in our party of four I found it quite difficult to use. I think in four character levels I used it only once during our current AP when we were indeed fighting undead.
Of course and as described above the 3-action heal has its merits as it will outshine the 2-action variant in cases where there are many targets (e.g. a couple of NPCs to heal in addition to the PCs or a large group of 4+ players), however in our party of four I found it quite difficult to use. I think in four character levels I used it only once during our current AP when we were indeed fighting undead.
It helps if your group can be effective at ranged and are in an adventure you aren't in tight locations: if you can keep 30' between the group and the baddies [or can gain that with movement when needed], it allows for much easier 3 action heals. I'll agree 30' burst heals in a confined dungeon can be difficult.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics have many ways to turn up what they can accomplish with a three action heal, from increasing the die size, to excluding specific targets to having a 60ft cone, which can mean hitting the rest of the party while staying at range.
That said,
I have only just started playing a cleric, but it has struck me pretty quickly that the biggest mistake I can make is wasting my actions moving, especially into close combat. Even though I am playing a healing/harm cleric, I am much better off using actions to move into a position where the enemy has to move twice to get to me, or puts myself in a strong strategic position, that they have to move to overcome. I am very glad that the math works out that staying back and spending two actions to cast heal on the barbarian works out better than moving forward and casting 2 heal spells.
That said, I have only just started playing a cleric, but it has struck me pretty quickly that the biggest mistake I can make is wasting my actions moving, especially into close combat. Even though I am playing a healing/harm cleric, I am much better off using actions to move into a position where the enemy has to move twice to get to me, or puts myself in a strong strategic position, that they have to move to overcome. I am very glad that the math works out that staying back and spending two actions to cast heal on the barbarian works out better than moving forward and casting 2 heal spells.
On the contrary my warpriest was specifically designed to not stay at range, but to be a passive agressive flanker for the other melees and to serve as an additional hard target to share the damage received. However I quickly noticed that I can not do this in PF2E. Not because it was to dangerous (my defenses and HP are on par or higher than the defences of the other melees) or because casting in melee posed a problem, no, it was because the 3-action economy simply won't let me do it. Raise shield, move into flanking, cast heal on your party member opposite your own position, sorry 4 actions. So now the wizard and I spend our days serving second line and telling dirty jokes to each other with our 3rd actions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds more like you don't want to rather than that you can't.
Sounds more like you don't want to rather than that you can't.
Well, apart from a two-action spell, move or raise the shield, choose one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds more like you don't want to rather than that you can't.Well, apart from a two-action spell, move or raise the shield, choose one.
Which doesn't mean can't. It just means you have to make a choice in how to act. You're choosing to stay in the backline instead of flanking. Which is cool and all, but phrasing that as a mandate of the game rather than you just not wanting to shift around how you use your turns is weird.
Which doesn't mean can't. It just means you have to make a choice in how to act. You're choosing to stay in the backline instead of flanking. Which is cool and all, but phrasing that as a mandate of the game rather than you just not wanting to shift around how you use your turns is weird.
The mandate of the game is that I can not do what I wanted to do when I made the character concept. And the sole person to blame for it is I due to my incomplete knowledge of the inner workings of the 3-action system at this time, so no hard feelings. Having medium armor and a shield just sounded perfect for a supposedly tanky healer/melee caster/opportunistic flanker, just to learn that I either become a monolith when actually using said shield while trying to use the most effective single heal spell available (or any two-action spell really) or that I can not use the shield at all if I need to move for any reason and cast a two-action heal (spell) in the same round. And because I could not consistently do what I wanted to do (shield+move+cast) I relegated myself to second line duty while pondering if cloistered cleric with champion dedication would not have made a better defensive caster.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was no action in PF1 that let you increase your defense when in melee and give you damage reduction that would allow you to move and cast a spell as well. moving into position to flank instead of heal is an interesting and aggressive tactical choice. Alternatively, you could move into position to flank and heal is a different tactical choice that leaves you open to attack. This sounds more interesting than being a problem.
There was no action in PF1 that let you increase your defense when in melee and give you damage reduction that would allow you to move and cast a spell as well. moving into position to flank instead of heal is an interesting and aggressive tactical choice. Alternatively, you could move into position to flank and heal is a different tactical choice that leaves you open to attack. This sounds more interesting than being a problem.
Well I have been playing clerics since AD&D and as far as I remember I could use shields for AC, move and cast throughout most/all older editions so far, so I was a little surprised that I could not conduct this routine anymore (in this considerations I don't mind the damage reduction as everybody would need to use an action to benefit from a shield's AC bonus; of course the shield is better then ever if you manage to use it to full effect). So I have indeed the option to either become a static defense or to get hit & crit 10% easier.
However after a couple of fights and after some tactical analysis by our senior party members (me included) we concluded that the concept did not work as expected and the benefits of having an additional albeit passive party member in melee range did not outweight the costs (healer often being the prime target anyway, possibly triggering of AoOs while moving or casting in melee etc). So I now stay back mostly, alternating in between buffs, heals, cantrips and the occasional attack or debuff spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the issue with the heal spell is that shields work differently, and that means your character concept of Warpriest doesn't work any more? how did healing work for you in AD&D, when you were trying to flank enemies but have to be adjacent to cast cure light wounds?
PF2 is a new game. There are a lot of new mechanics and new tactics will be developed around them. It seems like one idea you wanted to try didn't work out in practice as well as you would have liked and you modified you strategies. Thats alright, right?
So the issue with the heal spell is that shields work differently, and that means your character concept of Warpriest doesn't work any more? how did healing work for you in AD&D, when you were trying to flank enemies but have to be adjacent to cast cure light wounds?
PF2 is a new game. There are a lot of new mechanics and new tactics will be developed around them. It seems like one idea you wanted to try didn't work out in practice as well as you would have liked and you modified you strategies. Thats alright, right?
The issue is that with the removal of the 5-foot step and the "free" move from other editions playing a caster in PF2E feels extremely limited in regards to mobility once you start casting a 2-action spell (not limited to the heal spell of course).
Spell + Sustain a spell = Monolith
Spell + Dismiss a spell = Monolith
Spell + Use a spell (e.g. increase Bless radius) = Monolith
Spell + Raise a shield = Monolith
Spell + Recall knowledge = Monolith
etc.
(and don't think that all those spells are decisive spells like fireball or similar, even casting a cantrip will eat up 2/3 of your actions)
Once our group noticed that I could not follow the flow and movement of battle properly while primarily trying to use spells for buffs/heals and debuffs/attacks I more or less automatically relegated myself to "true caster" second line duty. Which is not to say that the melee / caster hybrid warpriest does not work at all, as I can easily either use spell + 3rd action or use strike + strike + move or shield + strike + move using my favorite weapon, however you can probably not do it "in the same round" (well you probably can while using an active, offensive build casting single-action harm).
I modified my strategy and that is indeed alright, however it sometimes feels a little off standing besides our cloth wearing mage in my shiny armour and shield. ;)
Sounds like you need haste cast on you. Or to grab reactive shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell + Sustain a spell = Monolith
Spell + Dismiss a spell = Monolith
While I agree that casters are very action hungry in PF2, especially if they want to be in melee with the martials, you couldn't do these in PF1 either.
Concentration and dismissing a spell were both standard actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, I have only just started playing a cleric, but it has struck me pretty quickly that the biggest mistake I can make is wasting my actions moving, especially into close combat. Even though I am playing a healing/harm cleric, I am much better off using actions to move into a position where the enemy has to move twice to get to me, or puts myself in a strong strategic position, that they have to move to overcome. I am very glad that the math works out that staying back and spending two actions to cast heal on the barbarian works out better than moving forward and casting 2 heal spells.On the contrary my warpriest was specifically designed to not stay at range, but to be a passive agressive flanker for the other melees and to serve as an additional hard target to share the damage received. However I quickly noticed that I can not do this in PF2E. Not because it was to dangerous (my defenses and HP are on par or higher than the defences of the other melees) or because casting in melee posed a problem, no, it was because the 3-action economy simply won't let me do it. Raise shield, move into flanking, cast heal on your party member opposite your own position, sorry 4 actions. So now the wizard and I spend our days serving second line and telling dirty jokes to each other with our 3rd actions.
If your defenses are so high and you're capable of defending yourself, surely you can go a single round where you choose not to raise your shield? or you can get the feat that lets you raise your shield as a reaction?
It's strange to me that you had a specific line of actions you wanted to all do in one turn and the game is at fault for not letting you do it. If I made a sorcerer that wanted to cast 6 spells while standing stationary, is the game at fault?
Spell + Sustain a spell = Monolith
Spell + Dismiss a spell = MonolithWhile I agree that casters are very action hungry in PF2, especially if they want to be in melee with the martials, you couldn't do these in PF1 either.
Concentration and dismissing a spell were both standard actions.
Technically correct, but especially sustain respectively concentrate on a spell was much less predominant in PF1 than it is in PF2 (at least this is my impression) and many more or less classic cleric spells call for it even at the lower levels I am currently playing. Bless needs a couple of actions to bring it to its old size, Spiritual Weapon needs sustaining instead of having a duration etc. In addition to this you have new spells like the Forbidding Ward cantrip or the Calm Emotions spell which you also might want to sustain. I understand that this is necessary to not disturb PF2s delicate action economy, nonetheless as this puts additional strain on the casters action economy and possibly also his spell selection.
Being a tank in PF2 is more than just getting proficiency in medium or heavy armors and carrying a shield. It takes some character investment. The action it takes to raise a shield is a base level "anyone can do it" action and it is good for the game that it can be built upon in interesting ways.
I think a shieldmaiden warpriest would work very well as cleric MC'd into fighter or a Lastwall sentry. Fighter if being agressive was more of your long term goal, or Lastwall sentry if you want to really focus on using that shield to protect yourself and your allies. Both of those builds would be plenty fun and could be running by 2nd or 4th level.
If your defenses are so high and you're capable of defending yourself, surely you can go a single round where you choose not to raise your shield? or you can get the feat that lets you raise your shield as a reaction?
Have you ever played with a GM that you usually play wargames with? Nothing telegraphs incomming attacks like a shield not raised. ;)
Jokes aside the main reason to quit melee was not the fear of being hit but I found that in the few battles we had I mostly had to have my shield down anyway, usually because I needed to move to come into range or sustain a spell or make knowledge checks etc. And I can tell you that it was very frustrating to choose a class where one level 1 class defining feature is a shield related feat, only to learn that due to action economy you can rarely use your shield.
It's strange to me that you had a specific line of actions you wanted to all do in one turn and the game is at fault for not letting you do it. If I made a sorcerer that wanted to cast 6 spells while standing stationary, is the game at fault?
I do not blame the game for anything, but as already explained above AD&D let me do it, DnD 3.0 let me do it, DnD 3.5 let me do it and PF1 also let me do it. So before getting familiar with the rules and before actually getting to play I foolishly assumed that PF2 would let me do it too. Simple as that. The only thing that is bugging me here an there is the fact that even with my newfound system and meta knowledge I find the action economy of casters a little harsh (as is our Wizard by the way).
Being a tank in PF2 is more than just getting proficiency in medium or heavy armors and carrying a shield. It takes some character investment. The action it takes to raise a shield is a base level "anyone can do it" action and it is good for the game that it can be built upon in interesting ways.
I think a shieldmaiden warpriest would work very well as cleric MC'd into fighter or a Lastwall sentry. Fighter if being agressive was more of your long term goal, or Lastwall sentry if you want to really focus on using that shield to protect yourself and your allies. Both of those builds would be plenty fun and could be running by 2nd or 4th level.
That is good advice and I would probably do it (the Dex req for the Fighter MC is hard though), however I have one golden rule when it comes to RPGs and I will probably stick with it.
When a new RPG is introduced to our group I will exclusively chose a base class (Fighter, Rogue, Wizard or Cleric; at least in RPGs that have similar classes) and stick with it as long as possible to test the strength of the core mechanic of the game. Because if the core classes are not working properly over a wider band of levels usually the game has some severe issues. So I will stay true to my warpriest for our current AP while possibly doing some retraining on feats or class features. If we ever play a second AP or if I would enter organised play then it is time to MC and optimize.
|
Being a math guy what was striking me though when I first read the spell is that the 3 action heal is almost never worth it, at least in regard to healing done, as long as you are not fighting undead or somehow need to heal at least 3 targets while not needing to move to get in range (and hopefully can exclude living enemies).
For the basic 2-action heal 1d8+8 equals 12.5 points of healing done. For the 3-action heal 1d8 flat is 4.5 per target, so you need at least 3 targets to beat the 2-action variant and even then only by a small margin (total of 13.5 for 3 targets).
In addition to that not having a fixed adder makes you very, very dependend on your dice rolls. At level five a 2-action heal does a minimum of 27 points of healing whereas a 3-action heal's minimum is 3 per target (unlikely 1 in 1000 roll but still possible).
Of course and as described above the 3-action heal has its merits as it will outshine the 2-action variant in cases where there are many targets (e.g. a couple of NPCs to heal in addition to the PCs or a large group of 4+ players), however in our party of four I found it quite difficult to use. I think in four character levels I used it only once during our current AP when we were indeed fighting undead.
The three action is also good for allowing you to generate multiple counteracts real fast, which might be more useful than the raw healing in some encounters. For example, if you're fighting a barbazu with infernal wounds or something similar and you have multiple allies taking bleed damage, a 3-action heal can you let ding them all with some healing and make a counteract check against the bleed. For each successful counteract that's another 3.5 added "healing" in prevention and would bring the per target average from your example up to 8 each for the 3-action heal, meaning that if you successfully heal at least two creatures, you've already pulled in more total healing than the two-action version. This is also relevant with contract devils, clay golems, and anything else where healing triggers a counteract check that can end a debuff or prevent persistent damage from recurring.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
^ All that and the three-action heal benefits much more from any kind of extra bonus you have rolling around. Have an angelic halo up? That increases the healing by a lot no matter which version you have, and the increase passes on to more characters if you use the three-action version.