Are There Any Classes or Class Abilities That You Wished Was Done Differently?

[Dragon78]

It would have been nice Kineticist had the choice of what type of wild talent they could choose at each level instead of limited to one or the other(infusions at odd levels and utility at even levels). All save DCs should be based on Con mod and not some Con and some Dex. Also new wild talents should be at odd levels instead of even, for example a level 3 infusion could be taken at 5th not 7th(or even 6th).

[pad300]

It's not quite on topic, but some of the racial Favored Class Bonuses are so overwhelming (human sorcerer for example), that you rarely see characters without said FCB... Perhaps some of those should be built into the class chassis as a pick this in place of getting your FCB option.

[Dragon78]

Personally I would be fine if we didn't have favored class bonuses and traits... if of course we got max HP per level and all skills were class skills;)

Though if we got to pick one "boon"...or two if the DM is being nice.

Such "boons" could be...

Armor Master-(Gain prof. with all armor and shields and reduce armor penalty by 2).
Bonus Feats-(1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th).
Gift of Magic-(gain several spell powers).
Highly Skilled-(+2 extra skill points per level + all skills are class skills).
Martial Arts-(gain unarmed damage/DR bypass of Brawler/Monk).
Power of Faith-(gain one domain, if not a caster, domain spells are 1/day spell powers).
Psychic Gift-(gain psychic power such as limited telepathy, limited telekinesis, etc.).
Stat Boost- (gain +2 to any two ability scores)
Unarmored Master-(gain monk like AC).
[b]Weapon Master[/b}- (gain martial and exotic weapon prof.).

[Dragonborn3]

Witch Hexes. Not shackling them to Cackle would be a great start, but so would not make otherwise neat choices only work on a single creature ONCE PER DAY.

Hex Vulnerability helped, but when it got nerfed to only work on the debuff options it put the Healing hexes back into "don't take these" territory.

[Sysryke]

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Witch Hexes. Not shackling them to Cackle would be a great start, but so would not make otherwise neat choices only work on a single creature ONCE PER DAY.

Hex Vulnerability helped, but when it got nerfed to only work on the debuff options it put the Healing hexes back into "don't take these" territory.

Thank you. What a lovely and timely segue. I started reading this thread to talk/ask about the witch. No criticism of anyone meant, and I did take time to read the whole thread, but this seems mostly a place to vent/lament things we can only change by house rules.

On that note, I wish the patrons of witches gave more than just a jumble of spells known. It would be nice if that feature gave a bit more flavor and versatility similar to cleric domains or wizard schools. I know that hex choices help to define a witch, but since all witches have the option to access all hexes, they feel a bit to homogeneous to me. Patron hex packages, boons, or some other perk would have been nice. Could have also worked like Cavalier Orders; certain patrons have certain codes.

I know Alpha/Beta witches worked differently. Anybody know the good, the bad, and the ugly of that? Any house rules or old thread links to help with this?

[Melkiador]

I really don't think the full casters needed meaningful buffs. The witch already has really strong abilities all on a single ability score. At most, you should be able to choose a hex multiple times to increase the number of times you can use it.

[VoodistMonk]

I was under the impression that the only thing wrong with the Witch was spell selection being relatively poor.

Accursed Hex helps with the 1/day per target Hexes. And really, how many times do you have to Hex an enemy with the same Hex in one day?

[Sysryke]

Melkiador wrote:

I really don't think the full casters needed meaningful buffs. The witch already has really strong abilities all on a single ability score. At most, you should be able to choose a hex multiple times to increase the number of times you can use it.

Sorry, I should have been a bit more clear. I don't think the witch needs more buffs or mechanical help (with the exception of spell list variety/selection). My issue is more one of flavor or how the features are packaged/tied to one and other. In theory, witches having unfettered access to all of the hexes, but in practice we tend to see a lot of the same ones chosen. Cackle should perhaps be just a class feature. Then, some but not all of the hexes, could be linked to different patrons. Or patron choice could offer perks to certain hexes. Basically, I'd just like a mechanic that reflects the flavor differences of witches with different patrons. The slightly different lists of bonus spells don't feel like enough of a distinction.

To better illustrate my point; I'd have the same problem if all sorcerer bloodlines only gave bonus spells, and bloodline powers became a complete pick and choose list. Yes, more versatile/customizable, but somehow less thematic/flavorful.

[Squiggit]

Melkiador wrote:

I really don't think the full casters needed meaningful buffs. The witch already has really strong abilities all on a single ability score. At most, you should be able to choose a hex multiple times to increase the number of times you can use it.

Well on the subject of things Paizo could have done better, I definitely think they sort of got stuck when it came to full casters. Ninth level spellcasting is so strong that most casters just don't get many class features besides their spell list. But as a result it creates a lot of flavor issues with those spellcasters. Even things that feel like they should genuinely be build-defining choices often feel like they don't matter because it's just a couple new spells on your list. You'd think like, a Death Witch and a Healing Witch would be pretty different from each other... but they're both just spamming slumber and evil eye.

Kinda sucks.

[Senko]

JiCi wrote:

Many archetypes allowed other classes to have an animal companion or a familiar... yet barely any of them allowed you to have an eidolon.

Where was the option for a Wizard to have an eidolon that behave like a Golem? Where was the option for a Cleric to have an Unchained eidolon, especially when that book added outsider variations? Where was the option for a Druid to have an Unchained eidolon based on the Plant or the Fey subtype?

Speaking of that, the unchained eidolon is lacking subtypes, like Dragon, Undead, Construct and Beast. If that was the case, then:
- Necromancy-using classes/archetypes could have gotten a customizable undead minion.

- The Drake companion would have been replaced by a dragon-like eidolon.

- Alchemists and arcane spellcasters could have gotten construct eidolons, similar to the Construct Caller, which was an Unchaine Summoner archetype.

I admit I've often liked the idea of a mage with the figment archetype who's familiar is a human/other humanoid race because as a lonely child they wanted a friend so badly their power created one. However you can only get animals which just isn't the same. Sure cute, furry animal is nice but its not a friend you can chat with, play games with, share the expereinces of a person growing up. Literally a real imaginary friend. They don't need to be an advanced race or even have class levels just a human/elf/dwarf/half-orc/other that is a familiar/friend/family.

On a similar note I'd like a lot of classes to have companions that aren't limmited to an arbitary distance they can move away from you. Eidolons, figment familiars etc other beings companions, npc's, regular familiars are free to move around but these ones nope no can do.

For extra fun gave arcanists the ability to take greater wizard discovery's at 20 so they can gain immortality or other fun capstones.

I also agree fighter SHOULD have perception as a class skill and at least 4 + int skill points.

And please kill the sacred cow of ONLY CLERICS CAN HEAL. Give proper healing spells to other classes so your not using either workarounds or forcing someone to play a cleric variant (other priest classes that get healing spells from outsiders count e.g. oracles and infernal healing).

It would be nice of more templates didn't trade the same class features making it impossible to take them.

Also a general one here but please get rid of abilities that can be used X times a level. It's bad enough taking a class ability you can change at level up but I always look at 20th level with the knowledge that at the height of their power they can use this ability one last time then never, ever again even if they're an elf looking forward to centuries more of life. Make them once a month, have a cooldon or something but not an arbitary power measurement that caps out and prevents the abilities use especially since a lot of them either (a) only come online at higher levels or (b) are tied to an archetype and trade out a class ability for something with use once a level.

[Derklord]

Sysryke wrote:

in practice we tend to see a lot of the same ones chosen.

That's normal - it's in the nature of selectable abilities that not all are equally good. That's inevitable. It's not just hexes, it's everything selectable. You often see the same spells, rage powers, bloodlines, archetypes, and so on. It's more pronounced in discussion than in actual play, because power is measurable and comparable, whereas flavor is not.

Of course, if certain hexes were limited to specific patrons, we'd see those patrons all the time, and that would actually reduce the differences between multiple Witch characters. Like, if Slumber was only aviable to the Nightmare patron, every other Witch would have that patron, and thus the same bonus spells.

Note that I don't actually disagree, but it would require a more fundamental rework, mainly because of the issue Squiggit addressed. There actually an underlying problem, namely that spellcasting doesn't require specialization, unlike almost everything else - it's literally the biggest advantage casting has.

Also, they literally did what you're talking about with the Shaman.

Senko wrote:

And please kill the sacred cow of ONLY CLERICS CAN HEAL. Give proper healing spells to other classes so your not using either workarounds or forcing someone to play a cleric variant (other priest classes that get healing spells from outsiders count e.g. oracles and infernal healing).

What are you even talking about? There is no sacred cow to kill, because that was never true in Pathfinder.

Remove Blindness/Deafness is on the Alchemist, Witch, Mesmerist, and Spiritualist lists (plus Paladin and Shaman).
Remove Curse is on the Wizard/Sorc/Arcanist, Bard, Alchemist, Witch, Mesmerist, and Spiritualist lists (plus Paladin, Inquisitor, and Shaman).
Remove Disease is on the Alchemist, Witch, and Spiritualist list (plus Druid, Ranger, and Inquisitor).
Remove Fear is on the Bard, Psychic, Mesmerist, and SPiritualist lists (plus Inquisitor and Shaman).
Remove Paralysis is on the Spiritualist list (plus Paladin, Inquisitor, and Shaman).
Remove Sickness is on the Witch, Mesmerist, and Spiritualist lists (plus Druid).
Delay Poison is on the Bard, Alchemist, Witch, Mesmerist, and Occultist lists (plus Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Inquisitor, and Shaman).
Lesser Restoraiton is on the Alchemist, Mesmerist, and Spiritualist lists (plus Druid, Paladin, Inquisitor, and Shaman).
Restoration is on the Mesmerist and Spiritualist lists (plus Paladin and Shaman).
21 of 41 classes can use wands of CLW and/or Infernal Healing.

That only Clerics (/Oracles/Shamans) can heal, or that you need one of these classes for a functional party, is just some bull s+~~ spread by people who come from other games (which included D&D) and are unable or unwilling to accept that PF is different.

[Mudfoot]

Senko wrote:

Also a general one here but please get rid of abilities that can be used X times a level. It's bad enough taking a class ability you can change at level up but I always look at 20th level with the knowledge that at the height of their power they can use this ability one last time then never, ever again even if they're an elf looking forward to centuries more of life. Make them once a month, have a cooldon or something but not an arbitary power measurement that caps out and prevents the abilities use especially since a lot of them either (a) only come online at higher levels or (b) are tied to an archetype and trade out a class ability for something with use once a level.

What? Example?

[Senko]

Mudfoot wrote:

Senko wrote:

Also a general one here but please get rid of abilities that can be used X times a level. It's bad enough taking a class ability you can change at level up but I always look at 20th level with the knowledge that at the height of their power they can use this ability one last time then never, ever again even if they're an elf looking forward to centuries more of life. Make them once a month, have a cooldon or something but not an arbitary power measurement that caps out and prevents the abilities use especially since a lot of them either (a) only come online at higher levels or (b) are tied to an archetype and trade out a class ability for something with use once a level.

What? Example?

Pretty much all of your examples are removing conditions not healing hp damage and that you listed the use wand work around I already mentioned. Also I can't help but note that of the classes you listed a lot are the occult adventure options I admit I've never played or looked at (don't have that book). Still I don't deny there are work arounds I just want to see straightforward cure X wounds on non divine spellcasting lists.

Mudfoot wrote:

Senko wrote:

Also a general one here but please get rid of abilities that can be used X times a level. It's bad enough taking a class ability you can change at level up but I always look at 20th level with the knowledge that at the height of their power they can use this ability one last time then never, ever again even if they're an elf looking forward to centuries more of life. Make them once a month, have a cooldon or something but not an arbitary power measurement that caps out and prevents the abilities use especially since a lot of them either (a) only come online at higher levels or (b) are tied to an archetype and trade out a class ability for something with use once a level.

What? Example?

From the Oracle . . .

Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered oracle level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), an oracle can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the oracle loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell’s level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged. An oracle may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level. She cannot swap any cure or inflict spells, nor can she swap any spells gained from her mystery.

From the unchained summoner

The eidolon takes a form shaped by the summoner’s desires. The eidolon’s Hit Dice, saving throws, skills, feats, and abilities are tied to the summoner’s class level and increase as the summoner gains levels. In addition, each eidolon gains a pool of evolution points based on the summoner’s class level that can be used to give the eidolon different abilities and powers. Whenever the summoner gains a level, he must decide how these points are spent, and they are set until he gains another level of summoner.

They seem to be more common in archetypes than base classes but they do exist. It may well be just me but I prefer "You select this at X level and it can't be changed" over "You can change this every X levels". The former is just a normal levelling up choice as your character adventures they make choices about what they can do. The later just feels wrong with the you can change this but only every so often and eventually never again.

[Derklord]

Senko wrote:

Pretty much all of your examples are removing conditions not healing hp damage

That's what being a "healer" in Pathfinder is all about. With 21 out of 41 classes being able to use healing wands (not counting UMD and archetypes), hp healing is not an issue. Why would you want to waste spell slots when wands are so much easier?

Senko wrote:

Still I don't deny there are work arounds

Here's where your thinking is fundamentally wrong. Wands aren't the work around to not having cure spells, cure spells are the workaround to not having wands! Wands are the main source of healing in Pathfinder. That's how the game is. "Only Clerics can heal" is objectively a wrong statement. You're complaining about something that isn't true.

Senko wrote:

I just want to see straightforward cure X wounds on non divine spellcasting lists.

Bard, Alchemist, Witch, Occultist, and Spiritualist have access to all 4 normal cure spells. Bard and Occultist also have access to the first two mass spells. Witch has access to all mass cure spells.

Also, I've seen a Magus provide more healing than the party's Druid by spending unused Arcane Pool points on Spell Recall-ing Infernal Healing in the evening, and a Summoner use their SLA to call Bralani Azata (which comes with two uses of Cure Serious Wound). At 9th level, that's 16 CSWs per day, for 312 HP healing per day on average - about as much as a Cleric could heal by spending all their first to fourth level spells on cure spells (and a third more than a Druid spending all their spell slots on cure spells). Without the Summoner casting Infernal Healing!

Senko wrote:

It may well be just me but I prefer "You select this at X level and it can't be changed" over "You can change this every X levels".

I'm pretty sure it's indeed just you. Neither of your examples are "abilities that can be used X times a level". They're additional choices on levelup, which is something completely different.

I honestly don't get why the ability to change selections previously made that have since become obsolete (or to correct mistakes) is a bad thing. Indeed, I think all "on levelup" selectable class features (like Rage Powers) should have that ability!

[Sysryke]

Derklord wrote:

Senko wrote:

Still I don't deny there are work arounds

Here's where your thinking is fundamentally wrong. Wands aren't the work around to not having cure spells, cure spells are the workaround to not having wands!

Solid points on all the rest of that post, but here you're slipping into opinion masquerading as fact territory. When opinions differ, neither can be objectively or fundamentally true to the detriment of the other. It is also true to say, that without spells, wands and potions don't exist. That's not a chicken/egg thing. If you don't have the spell to craft the item or load the charges, a wand is just an inert (maybe fancy) stick.

While wands of cure (and potions too) are incredibly common treasures and purchasable from nearly every Tom, Dick, and Harry in most AP's, there are plenty of games/groups where these items are less common, harder or more costly to obtain, or otherwise less efficient (i.e. found wand with only a few charges). Depending on the story, group, and lethality level, relying on only wands for healing may be just as ignorant or fool hardy as relying on only spells.

However, what if your group has no one with UMD? Yes, tactically, this is a hole that shouldn't be left in a group, but what if nobody want to use that skill? What if it's truly thematically inappropriate to the characters or the campaign? Then, some type of healer becomes necessary for many groups, unless the point is to have a gritty, low-magic, just use the Heal skill type game.

I know you're from the camp that absolutely hates the "classic party" and "group roles" concept with a passion. However, numerous players throughout this hobbie's history have liked and embraced those concepts for any number of reasons. We may all laugh and joke about the cliched late comer to the party, but some people find true joy in playing "the healer". To deny people those thoughts and opinions, or that choice, or insist their thinking is "fundamentally wrong" smacks of accusations of wrong/bad fun.

I agree that the role of healer can be filled in numerous different ways by many classes. Spells, SLA's, UMD, some esoteric feat/trait/skill combos; all are acceptable. None are really a work around; they're just different (equally valid) options. The only work around is if these options are taken out of a forced "need" for party balance, or necessity when the campaign get too lethal down the road.

[Mudfoot]

Senko wrote:

Mudfoot wrote:

Senko wrote:

Also a general one here but please get rid of abilities that can be used X times a level

What? Example?

From the Oracle . . . (and sorcerer, bard, etc)

Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered oracle level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), an oracle can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the oracle loses the old spell in exchange for the new one.

It's a bit of a kludge, I'll admit. It's so that a sorcerer can get spells like Sleep and Color Spray which are great at low levels but junk above 4th, and replace them with Magic Missile and so on which are a waste of time at 1st level and come online around 5th.

But as the obsolete spell isn't used much beyond that point, it wouldn't help the character materially to still know it, except in some niche cases such as harmlessly putting down some mook servants when sneaking into the arch-emperor's palace. So personally I'd just add the extra spell known...

Senko wrote:

(Eidolon points)

That's just a level-up choice. Are you also going to object to getting new feats or talents or rage power or spending skill points or what?

Senko wrote:

It's bad enough taking a class ability you can change at level up but I always look at 20th level with the knowledge that at the height of their power they can use this ability one last time then never, ever again even if they're an elf looking forward to centuries more of life.

That's just an artefact of the game breaking down at 20th level, so the tables don't extend beyond that. If your elf were to go Epic, he could keep swapping spells or adding Eidolon points.

[Senko]

Mudfoot wrote:

Senko wrote:

Mudfoot wrote:

Senko wrote:

Also a general one here but please get rid of abilities that can be used X times a level

What? Example?

From the Oracle . . . (and sorcerer, bard, etc)

Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered oracle level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), an oracle can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the oracle loses the old spell in exchange for the new one.

It's a bit of a kludge, I'll admit. It's so that a sorcerer can get spells like Sleep and Color Spray which are great at low levels but junk above 4th, and replace them with Magic Missile and so on which are a waste of time at 1st level and come online around 5th.

But as the obsolete spell isn't used much beyond that point, it wouldn't help the character materially to still know it, except in some niche cases such as harmlessly putting down some mook servants when sneaking into the arch-emperor's palace. So personally I'd just add the extra spell known...

Senko wrote:

(Eidolon points)

That's just a level-up choice. Are you also going to object to getting new feats or talents or rage power or spending skill points or what?

Senko wrote:

It's bad enough taking a class ability you can change at level up but I always look at 20th level with the knowledge that at the height of their power they can use this ability one last time then never, ever again even if they're an elf looking forward to centuries more of life.

That's just an artefact of the game breaking down at 20th level, so the tables don't extend beyond that. If your elf were to go Epic, he could keep swapping spells or adding Eidolon points.

Oh I don't object to people being able to use them I just would rather it was tied to other things that are more thematic than X/level.

On the day you made a compact with outside being you can renegotiate for different abilities/powers.
On High holy day of your religion you can be granted access to different abilities.

Having X/level as I said fails at 20th level and above, can result in a character of 4th level needing to decide "Do I set up for peaceful stuff now, finish off the adventure then if I survive retire to my tavern or do I keep combat stuff and retire to a tavern with stuff I can't use." Still since I'm obviously having bad wrong fun and am fundamentally wrong in my thihnking I'll take myself out of this thread.

[Derklord]

Sysryke wrote:

Derklord wrote:

Senko wrote:

Still I don't deny there are work arounds

Here's where your thinking is fundamentally wrong. Wands aren't the work around to not having cure spells, cure spells are the workaround to not having wands!

Solid points on all the rest of that post, but here you're slipping into opinion masquerading as fact territory.

No, I don't think so. Wands are the default source of HP healing in Pathfinder. They are widespread, made easily aviable in most published thing, and usuable by half the classes in the game. Unless you deliberately remove them from the game, the existence and aviability of healing wands mean that no party needs a dedicated "healer", divine full caster, or worst yet Cleric for HP healing. That's a fact.

Wands are not a band aid for emergencies (which is what Senko painted them as), but rather a completely normal thing to use even in a party with divine full casters. Actual casting cure spells are the band aid for emergencies!

Sysryke wrote:

While wands of cure (and potions too) are incredibly common treasures and purchasable from nearly every Tom, Dick, and Harry in most AP's, there are plenty of games/groups where these items are less common, harder or more costly to obtain, or otherwise less efficient (i.e. found wand with only a few charges).

And in such games that deviate from the norm, spells are the workaround for not having access to healing wands. Exactly how I said. Although they aren't the only workaround, I can personally attest how nice the Healer's Hands feat is (I actually banned healign wands from the campaign that I'm currently GMing because I think healing wands are stupid, and a player picked up that feat because he wanted to do the healing stuff even though I said that I would make healing aviable in other form).

Sysryke wrote:

However, what if your group has no one with UMD?

You mean what if no one in the group has UMD; or plays one of the 20 (out of 40) classes (not counting Occultist, Medium, or archetypes) that can use a healing wand without UMD? Of course, such a party doesn't in any way invalidate what I said.

Sysryke wrote:

some people find true joy in playing "the healer". To deny people those thoughts and opinions, or that choice, or insist their thinking is "fundamentally wrong" smacks of accusations of wrong/bad fun.

Whoa, whoa, stop right there. I'm not saying anything about/against people playing a healer. The only thing I'm speaking out against is people saying you need a healer (in the sense of a dedicated character/divine full caster/Cleric).

The thinking that I called fundamentally wrong was "cure spells are the main healing and therefore a party must have someone who can cast such spells". That's not an opinion, it's simply wrong. Senko really should be extremely happy with my post, because they wished for a Pathfinder where a divine full caster was not mandatory, and I have shown how using certain classes makes that the reality.

[Lucy_Valentine]

In PF most of my characters can heal HP with a wand. In Baldur's Gate using 2e rules, I needed (mostly) dedicated healers, usually two in a party of six, and I had to stop regularly to heal and then recover healing spells. Neither is ideal, but the wand solution is better, and that's bearing in mind BG is a computer game and I control the whole party. Committing a character to that role when it's the only character the player gets to play seems... how should I put it politely? Like a major imposition on the player being committed to the role. I don't want to play that, and I don't want to commit my friends to playing that either. Use wands! Or 5e hit dice and short rests. Or something else.

[Sysryke]

Derklord wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

Derklord wrote:

Senko wrote:

Still I don't deny there are work arounds

Here's where your thinking is fundamentally wrong. Wands aren't the work around to not having cure spells, cure spells are the workaround to not having wands!

Solid points on all the rest of that post, but here you're slipping into opinion masquerading as fact territory.

No, I don't think so. Wands are the default source of HP healing in Pathfinder. They are widespread, made easily aviable in most published thing, and usuable by half the classes in the game. Unless you deliberately remove them from the game, the existence and aviability of healing wands mean that no party needs a dedicated "healer", divine full caster, or worst yet Cleric for HP healing. That's a fact.

Wands are not a band aid for emergencies (which is what Senko painted them as), but rather a completely normal thing to use even in a party with divine full casters. Actual casting cure spells are the band aid for emergencies!

I'm sorry, but something being common, does not actually make it default. That's the part where opinion is coming into play. None of the healing methods are default. They're all legitimate ways of dealing with an in game hazard. The very fact that some games/stories/groups approach healing from a different angle or mind set proves that no option is the default. However, while I appreciate your multi-part response, since you choose to ignore my bolded statement from last time, I'll reiterate that wands came from spells, not the other way around.

I agreed with many of your points. My point was merely that you couldn't legitimately say Senko's thought or singular point on this one issue was wrong. Neither healing method is a "work around" merely a different approach. But, again I do agree, you don't have to have specifically a cleric, or even caster to fill the healer role. You also don't have to have a "dedicated" healer I suppose, but (unless playing the gritty survivalist game) you do have to have someone who can "reliably" heal.

********

The previous exchange was too long to auto-quote the whole thing, and I don't have the skill to format and target sections individually. I'll try and be clear what I'm responding to.

*******
My only point on the topic of characters with or without trained UMD, was that it's just about as likely (or unlikely) for a party to have that gap as it is to have no one with cure spells. Since at the very least you need to have the spell on your class spell list to use wands untrained, those who don't need the skill could be expected to heal in either manor. This wasn't meant to invalidate your points, merely to showcase other possibilities.

As to the final part you responded to. Firstly my apologies. I was not trying to put words in your mouth, or accuse you of accusing others of wrong bad fun. "Smacks of" is not the same thing as "is" or "equals", but I probably could have found a better way to phrase things. The "fundamentally wrong" line of yours does dance close to that line though. The biggest problem with text based exchange though, is that none of us can truly convey tone, and that leaves the rest of us to (sometimes wrongly) infer intent.

The line that you quoted was meant to address the entirety of the paragraph it ended, not just "the healer" part. I dovetailed in my response slightly, by addressing your attitudes towards "classic four" "party roles" and similar conventions. Again, allowing for tone can only be inferred, the tone of those posts has always seemed quite aggressive and authoritarian. I agree those conventions are not absolutely required by the rules. As I said before though, they have existed for a long time for numerous reasons. If players choose to use those conventions (for whatever reasons), then they might "have to" have a dedicated healer from their chosen party build perspective. Their way isn't "wrong", it's just different. The great thing about Pathfinder (and its predecessor in 3.x) is that their are tons of options for how to fill the "classic roles", or to break that mold entirely and try something different. The one thing that does remain true on this topic, is that when you get hurt, you have to find some way to heal.

Again. I apologize for any hurt feelings, ruffled feathers, or unclear communications. Respect, and thanks for good conversation.

[Dragon78]

More healing options would have been nice.

Natural healing from rest was better.

Not to be afraid to let classes/archetypes(especially non-casters) get good healing options like channel, lay on hands, healing hexes, etc.

That the heal skill, using a healer's kit, could actually heal someone of an amount based on your heal check/rank.

That some classes(and races)could get fast healing without limit and not just as a 20th level cap ability.

[Senko]

Dragon78 wrote:

More healing options would have been nice.

Natural healing from rest was better.

Not to be afraid to let classes/archetypes(especially non-casters) get good healing options like channel, lay on hands, healing hexes, etc.

That the heal skill, using a healer's kit, could actually heal someone of an amount based on your heal check/rank.

That some classes(and races)could get fast healing without limit and not just as a 20th level cap ability.

That would be nice the healer doesn't need to be a cleric/wizard/caster giving it to martial would be fine.

As for the wands are the default form of healing our usual GM is very firmly against magic marts so finding magical items capable of healing is rare and usually we are reliant on the class not items.

[glass]

Sysryke wrote:

Solid points on all the rest of that post, but here you're slipping into opinion masquerading as fact territory. When opinions differ, neither can be objectively or fundamentally true to the detriment of the other. It is also true to say, that without spells, wands and potions don't exist. That's not a chicken/egg thing. If you don't have the spell to craft the item or load the charges, a wand is just an inert (maybe fancy) stick

Wands are not rechargable; you buy them fully charged, use them until the are depleted, and then chuck them. So charging them with spells is not an option.

Whoever made them arguably needed the spell, but since that can easily be an NPC, that is not particularly relevant to the dicussion.

Sysryke wrote:

I'm sorry, but something being common, does not actually make it default.

No, but something being the default does (often( make it common. And the default is that CLW wands are available and efficient.

Senko wrote:

As for the wands are the default form of healing our usual GM is very firmly against magic marts so finding magical items capable of healing is rare and usually we are reliant on the class not items.

Being able change the default does not make it not the default.

Finally, I cannot find it to quote now, but when I was reading on my phone earlier someone said that a party was just as likely to be unable to use wands as to be unable to cast cure spells. Since the former is a strict superset of the latter unless the chance of anyone having ranks in UMD is zero, which it clearly isn't.

_
glass.

[Dragon78]

I always liked the idea that anyone could use wands and that wands didn't use charges, but magic points that everyone has. Something like your level + Cha mod(or at least your highest mental stat mod).

[Sysryke]

Wands and staves both used to be rechargeable by spending appropriate spell slots. Is that a rule that didn't port over from 3.x? If so, I stand corrected on that point.

However, whomever does craft a wand, must have the appropriate spell to do so. So, my point that the existence of spells is the precursor and basis for wands (for all magic items) stands.

I'm not for any one healing method over another; but can anyone site rules text, or even published Paizo crunch/fluff that states CLW wands are the assumed standard for party healing? If so, I will concede the point. If not, no rule RAW or RAI, then the tactic/option may be common in APe's, but that doesn't make it the default (rule) for an entire game system that has at least one open setting (Golarion, I don't know names for the rest if any), and rules that support numerous free form games at stores and home tables around the world. No disrespect to those who enjoy and participate in AP's and Society games, but that isn't default, just another avenue of play within the larger system.

[glass]

Sysryke wrote:

Wands and staves both used to be rechargeable by spending appropriate spell slots. Is that a rule that didn't port over from 3.x? If so, I stand corrected on that point.

You could not charge wands in 3.0 or 3.5 either. You could recharge certain kinds of wands in AD&D IIRC, but AD&D wands were not quite the spells-in-a-stick that they became from 3e onwards.

Sysryke wrote:

However, whomever does craft a wand, must have the appropriate spell to do so. So, my point that the existence of spells is the precursor and basis for wands (for all magic items) stands.

True, but as already noted not relevant. The wand can be created by an NPC, so whether or not it needs spells to make has no bearing on the makeup of a PC party.

Sysryke wrote:

I'm not for any one healing method over another; but can anyone site rules text, or even published Paizo crunch/fluff that states CLW wands are the assumed standard for party healing?

RAW is that you can by them for 750 gp in any decently sized settlement (or make them for half that and a bit of downtime if you have the appropriate feat and spell). Since running out of hit points is generally considered bad, and spell slots are a precious resource (and other ways of getting hp back without using precious spell slots are either more expensive, more situational, or both), that makes them the default. The book does not need to say "thou shalt buy and used happy sticks" for it to be an emergent property of the system.

_
glass.

[KahnyaGnorc]

Isn't using and abusing cheap wands in-between combat a cheesy exploitation of the rules, though?

[Mudfoot]

It would have been nice if the crafting system wasn't so strictly based on spell level x caster level, because it has some silly effects where the level of the caster isn't very important. CLW is the poster child of that, such that it's economically unviable to make healing wands any other way.

But the game is what it is. As for the subject of the thread, it would have been nice if there were more workable healing methods that didn't involve divine casters or CLW wands. PF2 made a lot of effort to enable that. But the above lament that cleric = healer = cleric isn't valid.

[Sysryke]

glass wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

Wands and staves both used to be rechargeable by spending appropriate spell slots. Is that a rule that didn't port over from 3.x? If so, I stand corrected on that point.

You could not charge wands in 3.0 or 3.5 either. You could recharge certain kinds of wands in AD&D IIRC, but AD&D wands were not quite the spells-in-a-stick that they became from 3e onwards.

I concede that point. I was mixing up staves with wands.

Sysryke wrote:

However, whomever does craft a wand, must have the appropriate spell to do so. So, my point that the existence of spells is the precursor and basis for wands (for all magic items) stands.

glass wrote:

True, but as already noted not relevant. The wand can be created by an NPC, so whether or not it needs spells to make has no bearing on the makeup of a PC party.

The point here was never about party makeup. It was about the understood history of the world/game in and out of character, that might affect both characters and players attitudes and expectations about the sources of healing. The point is simply that healing spells existed before wands. Players may understand the value of comparitvely cheap (not so much at level 1) consumable healing. But other characters and players like the idea of a consistently renewable resource. Neither viewpoint is wrong, just different priorities.

Sysryke wrote:

I'm not for any one healing method over another; but can anyone site rules text, or even published Paizo crunch/fluff that states CLW wands are the assumed standard for party healing?

glass wrote:

RAW is that you can by them for 750 gp in any decently sized settlement (or make them for half that and a bit of downtime if you have the appropriate feat and spell). Since running out of hit points is generally considered bad, and spell slots are a precious resource (and other ways of getting hp back without using precious spell slots are either more expensive, more situational, or both), that makes them the default. The book does not need to say "thou shalt buy and used happy sticks" for it to be an emergent property of the system.

_
glass.

Sorry, nope. Nothing you just said constitutes as a default. You took two rules that specifically address the purchase price and likely availability of the item in question [¡] within a settlement [/i], and then extrapolated that to apply to the whole system, for all games in all settings. Just because a tactic or playstyle has become common within a portion (possibly numeric majority) of a community of players, does not make it a default. It is your default assumption, and many others, but it's not the default assumption of the system or community as a whole. For that, there would have to be a clear rule or guideline in the official text on game play or campaign design. Defaults are those things that come baked into a build (like a races ability bonuses, fighter weapon proficiencies, or a goodly cleric channeling positive energy). Anything where we have a choice to take it or leave it, or substitute one option for another, is no longer a default, it's a choice.

[ShroudedInLight]

My current party has a cure light wounds wand that they've spent...like, 8 charges of over 3-4 levels. Between the Paladin, Oracle, Investigator, and the nightly heal checks (Paladin has a Ring of Sustenance) they almost never run out of HP until their adventuring day is over.

I think they all have "Elixir Syndrome," after all, what if they need their consumable items later! (Hint: Later never happens, they will end this game with that Cure Light Wounds wand on like, 22 charges).

So it really depends on your party composition and your players. In some groups, wands of CLW are the classic. People pitch in to buy them together under the understanding that its group healing and no one knows when they're the one who is gonna run around on 1 HP if they decide to skip on chipping in for the wand. In other groups, its bring your own healing, or players will fall back on their party casters.

[Sysryke]

ShroudedInLight wrote:

My current party has a cure light wounds wand that they've spent...like, 8 charges of over 3-4 levels. Between the Paladin, Oracle, Investigator, and the nightly heal checks (Paladin has a Ring of Sustenance) they almost never run out of HP until their adventuring day is over.

I think they all have "Elixir Syndrome," after all, what if they need their consumable items later! (Hint: Later never happens, they will end this game with that Cure Light Wounds wand on like, 22 charges).

So it really depends on your party composition and your players. In some groups, wands of CLW are the classic. People pitch in to buy them together under the understanding that its group healing and no one knows when they're the one who is gonna run around on 1 HP if they decide to skip on chipping in for the wand. In other groups, its bring your own healing, or players will fall back on their party casters.

Well said. I wish I could get to a point as succinctly as some of the rest of you. Your statement is a clearer phrasing of my thoughts than my own words were.

[glass]

KahnyaGnorc wrote:

Isn't using and abusing cheap wands in-between combat a cheesy exploitation of the rules, though?

No, it is professional adventurers who do not want to die taking reasonable steps to not die.

Sysryke wrote:

Sorry, nope. Nothing you just said constitutes as a default. You took two rules that specifically address the purchase price and likely availability of the item in question within a settlement, and then extrapolated that to apply to the whole system, for all games in all settings. Just because a tactic or playstyle has become common within a portion (possibly numeric majority) of a community of players, does not make it a default. It is your default assumption, and many others, but it's not the default assumption of the system or community as a whole. For that, there would have to be a clear rule or guideline in the official text on game play or campaign design. Defaults are those things that come baked into a build (like a races ability bonuses, fighter weapon proficiencies, or a goodly cleric channeling positive energy). Anything where we have a choice to take it or leave it, or substitute one option for another, is no longer a default, it's a choice.

Again, it is not a matter of assuption, it is a matter of rules printed in the rulebook. The default is that those rules are used unless specifically houseruled. No further assumtions are necessary. I am confused that this is in any way contraversial.

_
glass.

[JiCi]

Dragonborn3 wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Here's another one: powers from domains, bloodlines and schools being [1d6 points of damage + 1 point for every two cleric levels you possess] and being usable [a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier].

If they were 1) at-will and 2) scalable, that would not have broken the game. I mean, the Kineticist has the Blast, which is at will and scales with levels. The Warlock back in 3.5... was essentially the same thing. 1d6/5 levels, at-will would have been much better, especially since spellcasters NEVER have the spell equivalent of a backup weapon.

They did have them at-will in the Alpha/Beta Playtests for Pathfinder Core. People complained about players burning through doors and recharging batteries.

but when the Kineticist does it, nobody minds?

[avr]

JiCi wrote:

Dragonborn3 wrote:

JiCi wrote:

Here's another one: powers from domains, bloodlines and schools being [1d6 points of damage + 1 point for every two cleric levels you possess] and being usable [a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier].

If they were 1) at-will and 2) scalable, that would not have broken the game. I mean, the Kineticist has the Blast, which is at will and scales with levels. The Warlock back in 3.5... was essentially the same thing. 1d6/5 levels, at-will would have been much better, especially since spellcasters NEVER have the spell equivalent of a backup weapon.

They did have them at-will in the Alpha/Beta Playtests for Pathfinder Core. People complained about players burning through doors and recharging batteries.

but when the Kineticist does it, nobody minds?

Well, the kineticist doesn't have full spellcasting to break out when they get bored of burning thru doors I guess.

[avr]

Dragon78 wrote:

It would have been nice Kineticist had the choice of what type of wild talent they could choose at each level instead of limited to one or the other(infusions at odd levels and utility at even levels). All save DCs should be based on Con mod and not some Con and some Dex. Also new wild talents should be at odd levels instead of even, for example a level 3 infusion could be taken at 5th not 7th(or even 6th).

Just more wild talents for the kineticist would have been nice. A pyro who wants to fly has few powers free.

[Sysryke]

glass wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

Sorry, nope. Nothing you just said constitutes as a default. You took two rules that specifically address the purchase price and likely availability of the item in question within a settlement, and then extrapolated that to apply to the whole system, for all games in all settings. Just because a tactic or playstyle has become common within a portion (possibly numeric majority) of a community of players, does not make it a default. It is your default assumption, and many others, but it's not the default assumption of the system or community as a whole. For that, there would have to be a clear rule or guideline in the official text on game play or campaign design. Defaults are those things that come baked into a build (like a races ability bonuses, fighter weapon proficiencies, or a goodly cleric channeling positive energy). Anything where we have a choice to take it or leave it, or substitute one option for another, is no longer a default, it's a choice.

Again, it is not a matter of assuption, it is a matter of rules printed in the rulebook. The default is that those rules are used unless specifically houseruled. No further assumtions are necessary. I am confused that this is in any way contraversial.

_
glass.

I asked you to quote any rules, or even flavor text, or storytelling/GMing suggestions, that state the default mechanic for party healing is wand usage. You have so far failed to do so. There is no rule, crunch, fluff, or otherwise, that indicates wand usage to be required, expected, or even recommended over spell usage or other healing.

Neither mechanic is held above the other or spoken of in any official Paizo text that I have yet seen. If you can show me such text, I'll stand corrected. Until that time, the tactic you are championing may well be a good one, absolutely legal by he rules. The usage of said tactic though, is not a rule in and of itself. You don't have to use that tactic. The books don't tell you to assume that tactic is your first or best option. It is therefore not the "default" of the system. In a game where creative problem solving and player agency are two fundamentals of the system, very few options would be considered default. This isn't a video game.

[glass]

Sysryke wrote:

I asked you to quote any rules, or even flavor text, or storytelling/GMing suggestions, that state the default mechanic for party healing is wand usage.

The rules are that wands are cheap and available. To the best of my knowledge, not even you dispute that. The rest is, as already pointed out, emergent.

There is no "thou halt use wands to heal between fights" explicitly stated in the rules. There does not need to be, and asking for such again does not help your argument any more than it did the first time. EDIT: It seems like you are either unfamiliar with the concept of emergent properties, or are ignoring them because they do not suit your argument. Either way, we have probably gone about as far as we can with this particular debate.

_
glass.

[Reksew_Trebla]

Plasma Blasts should have been a composite of Electric Blasts and Fire Blasts, and thusly, should not be available for Infusions that normally require it to be physical and/or Air Blast related, but should be allowed for Infusions that work with Electric Blasts and/or Fire Blasts.

Like, every other source says plasma is half electricity half fire, so why the f#@~ are Plasma Blasts half bludgeoning half fire?

Off topic, but speaking of plasma, why aren’t there Plasma Elementals, or at least Smoke Elementals? Really irks me that there isn’t a half air half fire elemental. Like, complete the loop with the hybrid elementals, please.

[Squiggit]

avr wrote:

Just more wild talents for the kineticist would have been nice. A pyro who wants to fly has few powers free.

Yeah.

To be honest, pre-requisite trees in general feel pretty bad only almost any class. You get so few selectable abilities and they're always spaced out, it never feels good to have to take one just so you can take something good later. It's true of feats, it's true of wild talents. But... Paizo keeps doing it for some reason. Even PF2 likes to bottleneck players with feats.

I feel like sometimes designers sit down and think "Oh well this is kinda strong so it makes sense to spread it out over two or three abilities" and I guess kind of just... forget in the moment how a lot of campaigns flow and how limited your resources really can be.

[GeraintElberion]

glass wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

I asked you to quote any rules, or even flavor text, or storytelling/GMing suggestions, that state the default mechanic for party healing is wand usage.

The rules are that wands are cheap and available. To the best of my knowledge, not even you dispute that. The rest is, as already pointed out, emergent.

There is no "thou halt use wands to heal between fights" explicitly stated in the rules. There does not need to be, and asking for such again does not help your argument any more than it did the first time. EDIT: It seems like you are either unfamiliar with the concept of emergent properties, or are ignoring them because they do not suit your argument. Either way, we have probably gone about as far as we can with this particular debate.

_
glass.

PF2 developers specifically mentioned the heal-stick as something very common in PF that they wanted to remove from the game.

So, the Paizo devs thought it was a thing.

Also, it is an accepted convention at all of the PFS I have played that you drop two prestige on a wand of CLW and ask healers to dub you up with it.

[Scavion]

The Ankou Shadow slayer archetype is so neat but kind of lackluster.

[Sysryke]

glass wrote:

Sysryke wrote:

I asked you to quote any rules, or even flavor text, or storytelling/GMing suggestions, that state the default mechanic for party healing is wand usage.

The rules are that wands are cheap and available. To the best of my knowledge, not even you dispute that. The rest is, as already pointed out, emergent.

There is no "thou halt use wands to heal between fights" explicitly stated in the rules. There does not need to be, and asking for such again does not help your argument any more than it did the first time. EDIT: It seems like you are either unfamiliar with the concept of emergent properties, or are ignoring them because they do not suit your argument. Either way, we have probably gone about as far as we can with this particular debate.

_
glass.

In terms of us coming to agreement, you are quite right, we probably can't go much further. But, I wonder if you truly understood what I was debating on. The entire point of my contention was on the use of the term "default", and its application to invalidate the thought processes, play style, and/or system understanding of others with different views.

No text, no default. The conclusions one draws or choices one makes with the rules and options provided, does not constitute a default.

I will concede that I'm not familiar with your term of "emergent properties" within the context of this discussion. But in general, while I do enjoy a good debate or philosophical discussion, I reject most academic forms of rhetoric and philosophy. The one is predicated on the idea that one can somehow truly "win" a debate which invalidates human independence, opinion and discussion. The other is a (in my opinion) mostly wasted field in which eloquent speakers ask questions to which we can not find definitive answers, and then proceed to insist that their reasoning is the only valid one. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.

[Albatoonoe]

I wish the Skald would've ditched the spellcasting entirely in favorite if of more martial and at will abilities. More so than any of the other Advanced Classes (save maybe the Bloodrager), the Skald feels the two parent classes duct taped together.

[glass]

Sysryke wrote:

In terms of us coming to agreement, you are quite right, we probably can't go much further. But, I wonder if you truly understood what I was debating on. The entire point of my contention was on the use of the term "default", and its application to invalidate the thought processes, play style, and/or system understanding of others with different views.

Then you were tilting at windmills. "Default" is not a value judjement, it is a simple statement of fact not an accusation of WrongBadFun.

No playstyles are being invalidated. As for "system understanding"; thinking that the system by RAW does notstrongly incetivise using wands to heal up after each fight in most circumstances is simply wrong, so I suppose you could call that invalid. And the thought process "I do not like the default, so I will argue that is not the default" is clearly involid. But it it not anything I am doing that makes it so.

Maybe an analogy would help. A steak dinner is generally considerably more expensive than beans-on-toast. Therefore by default, all other things being equal, wealthy people will have steak more often and poor people will have beans-on-toast more often. That is not to say that there will not be poorer people who really love steak and scrimp and save in other areas to have it as often as possible, nor wealthier people who really love baked beans and have them four times a week. And it is certainly not suggesting that (nutritional issues aside) either person is having WrongBadDinner.

_
glass.

[Dragon78]

Yeah Reksew_Trebla, plasma blast should have been electricity + fire.

Yeah Albatoonoe, I wish the Skald was more combat focused as well.

[Derklord]

Sysryke wrote:

Defaults are those things that come baked into a build (...). Anything where we have a choice to take it or leave it, or substitute one option for another, is no longer a default, it's a choice.

There is more than one meaning of the word. My statement used the word as a default logic, meaning something that is true unless exceptions are in effect.

And that's all I was saying: Unless the GM changes things, healing wands can take care of a group's healing. Other things can go beyond, (I provided an example of that, as did ShroudedInLight,) but healing wands do remove the need for basic healing.

Sysryke wrote:

The entire point of my contention was on the use of the term "default", and its application to invalidate the thought processes, play style, and/or system understanding of others with different views.

I don't think the word "invalidate" means what you think it means. The word means making or proving an argument or point unsound (which for an argument means the conclusion doesn't logically follow the premises). Which is actually was I was doing, but don't see why that's a bad thing to do.

But going by what I presume you meant, glass is right, you're tilting at windmills. You're trying to defend something that was never attacked, nor insulted. Senko came to an unsound conclusion, therefore thinking that Pathfinder has a sacred cow of "only [divine full casters] can heal". That thinking is objectively wrong. My statement calling it that was not an attack or insult.

Regarding playstyle that I'm allegedly "invalidating":
I don't give a f@$# how anyone decides what they want to play. If someone joining a party of Alchemist, Witch, and Inquisitor decides to play a Cleric/Oracle/Shaman because they think a party absolutely can't function without a divine full caster, I don't have an issue with that. However, the second they spread falsehoods, or even worse (try to) make others pick something different than they want, what they're doing is wrong.

I mean, come on, you have seen the post from SheepishEidolon about their miserable experience that resulted from the GM sprouting that "the groups needs a healer" bull s*%%. That is the negative effect of promoting such falsehoods!

­

Sysryke wrote:

I don't have the skill to format and target sections individually.

Under the new post window, there a line that says "How to format your text" followed by a "show" button - klicking the button displays a list of the various codes accepted by these boards. Alternatively, just look at how I did it in my post (if you reply to a post, you see that post with the code).

[Derklord]

Senko wrote:

As for the wands are the default form of healing our usual GM is very firmly against magic marts so finding magical items capable of healing is rare and usually we are reliant on the class not items.

So, you want classes to be different to offset that your GM removed an intended part from the game? Am I getting this right?

Of course, being "firmly against magic marts" is absolutely no reason not to have wands in the game - magic loot is a thing that exists. Indeed, if ever PC party uses healing wands, intelligent enemy groups carrying wands with them is absolutely logical.

Mudfoot wrote:

it would have been nice if there were more workable healing methods that didn't involve divine casters or CLW wands.

Oh yeah, it would be awesome if arcane casters had a healing spells. Shame Paizo would never create something like that!

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of more healing options, but it has absolutely nothing to do with divine and not-divine casting. Fun fact: Every arcane caster can heal (and use healing wands), but not every divine caster can!

Albatoonoe wrote:

I wish the Skald would've ditched the spellcasting entirely in favorite if of more martial and at will abilities. More so than any of the other Advanced Classes (save maybe the Bloodrager), the Skald feels the two parent classes duct taped together.

Have you ever actually played or seen a Skald in action? Rage powers for the party are pretty huge, way more impactful than a Bard's performances, and the Spell Kenning ability is absolutely amazing.

[Melkiador]

I think cantrips should have been limited but slightly stronger. Like, maybe cantrips can only be used a number of times equal to your casting stat bonus +1, but these uses recover at the rate of 1 per 10 minute. Then you could have a cantrip/orison that heals, but you don't have unlimited healing in a short term.

With a limit the attack cantrips could also be made a little stronger to give low level casters better, but more difficult options.

This also makes the detect spam less of an issue. Suddenly your players need to be more careful with their adventuring use of detect magic and instead save that for downtime activities.

[Set]

Albatoonoe wrote:

I wish the Skald would've ditched the spellcasting entirely in favorite if of more martial and at will abilities. More so than any of the other Advanced Classes (save maybe the Bloodrager), the Skald feels the two parent classes duct taped together.

I feel that way about a lot of classes. A version of Bard that relied entirely on bardic performance and Masterpieces, and had no spells, or a version of Witch that had greatly expanded use of Hexes, but no spells, or an Alchemist that had no extracts, but better other options, or an Oracle that had *tons* of revelations instead of spells, etc. would be cool to me.

[Sysryke]

Insisting that one's logic is the only correct logic is a rhetorical device that leads to a dead conversation. I'm still getting arguments on statements where I've said I'm in agreement, and the one or two singular statements where we have contention, I'm being dismissed or trivialized. My arguments have never been "I don't like x, so I am against x", they have been about definitions. There clearly won't be any agreement here.

I had moved past, and also apologized for, the wrong bad fun statement. That was no part of my continued argument. The invalidation part, which I understand the meaning of perfectly well, referred to the rhetorical devices being used to deny any validity to mine or other's thought processes or agrguements. Never have I contended, that the divine casters were essential, or the only form of healing. The ongoing, and clearly irreconcilable difference, is over the use of and insistence upon the term default. As above, one's logic does not supersede another's. The conclusions that one group draws are not inherently more valuable or accurate than those of another's.

We won't all agree here I'm sure. Others will want the last word, I'm also fairly certain. But, since it seems the debate has descended to the level of deflection, word twisting, and veiled name calling, this will be my last post on the topic. Much as it pains me, for I love a good debate, this really isn't that anymore.

Apologies in general for my part in adding any tension to this thread. Thanks to the OP, and all other contributors, for all of the topics that have been discussed here.