I was under the impression that evil clerics could
still channel energy and heal the living.
So if this is not true, it would be harder for an evil
group to get by and be successful.
Seems to me that even evil deities would want to do something to keep their minions alive longer?.
I understand there are feats that will allow the healing but is this true?
" An evil cleric (or a neutral cleric who worships an evil deity) channels negative energy and can choose to deal damage to living creatures or to heal undead creatures. "
Very true.
They also cannot spontaneously cast cure spell, only inflict spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Evil cleric is supposed to play out in a different way than a good one. Either way: You can still prepare cure spells. There is infernal healing which is sometimes superior to cure light wounds, and its evil descriptor means little to an evil cleric. And finally, an evil cleric's allies might prefer negative energy anyway - this mainly applies to undead minions, but also to the odd dhampir.
Arguably, an evil cleric could also be less generous with healing anyway. Their companions might have to listen to "you deserved your wounds" or "my deity doesn't tolerate fools". As a player, make sure you are on the same page as your fellow players before pulling that.
Seems to me that even evil deities would want to do something to keep their minions alive longer?
Some evil deities might take special care to keep their minions alive, but ... for the most part I think you are overestimating the level of actual concern they have for the well being of their minions. "Evil" is evil, after all.
If you want an Evil divine caster than can channel positive energy, I'd suggest using a Life mystery Oracle with the Channel revelation. I had a lot of fun with that character in Hell's Vengeance.
While an evil cleric cannot use channel energy to heal living creatures it can do so to harm them. So instead of healing their allies they kill their enemies. As long as the evil cleric has selective channel and a decent CHA score, he can help the party by killing the enemy. In Pathfinder most healing is actually done out of combat and often uses wands and other consumables. The only effective in combat healing is a paladin using a swift action to lay on hand to himself.
An evil cleric can also spontaneously convert any spell into a inflict wound spell. This increases their combat ability because they always have a damaging spell. Clerics also have a lot of offensive touch spells. Most of them belong to the school of necromancy as do the inflect wounds spells this allows the cleric to specialize in necromancy. This type of cleric is referred to as a bad touch cleric and can actually be quite effective.
The only effective in combat healing is a paladin using a swift action to lay on hand to himself.
Really? That sounds like a big call. At our table other forms of healing are quite effective depending on circumstance. For instance in our low level campaign I had a melee Inquisitor with high AC who would trigger fast healing as his judgment power and it worked really well. On our high level campaign our healbot can lay down three channels in a round or cast mass heal in emergencies.
I don’t get why people on these boards think in combat healing is ineffective, in combat healing works great for us, our table mostly plays adventure paths as written, I can’t see our group being a weird outlier. Maybe I’m wrong.
Back to the opening post. I had a high level cleric of Asmodeus once with the Conversion Channel feat. It was brilliant in emergencies, once a day you can inflict damage on the enemy AND heal your allies in the one action, muahaha! The other tactic I liked was to summon evil outsiders (with Sacred Summons it is a standard action) as meat shields and then use alignment channel to heal them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t get why people on these boards think in combat healing is ineffective, in combat healing works great for us, our table mostly plays adventure paths as written, I can’t see our group being a weird outlier. Maybe I’m wrong.
Action economy. Most combat in Pathfinder is against a few enemies with high damage. If you don't kill them rapidly you get too many hit point of damage to be able to heal them and continue. Most healing requires a standard action, an action that you can use to deal damage.
The inquisitor Fast healing is a swift action, so it doesn't suffer from that problem. The same thing for the paladin lay of hands.
|
Action economy. Most combat in Pathfinder is against a few enemies with high damage. If you don't kill them rapidly you get too many hit point of damage to be able to heal them and continue. Most healing requires a standard action, an action that you can use to deal damage.I don’t get why people on these boards think in combat healing is ineffective, in combat healing works great for us, our table mostly plays adventure paths as written, I can’t see our group being a weird outlier. Maybe I’m wrong.
Because most people on these boards are optimizers to one degree or another. Who firmly believe that the best defense is a good offense, and that the strategy with the highest likelihood of success is to end combats as quickly as possible. Which means focusing on doing massive damage or spells/abilities that remove enemies from the fight. (From a statistical viewpoint I do agree with that assessment.)
However there's a completely different way to build for combats, and that's to be more reactive. Debuff removal (poisons, etc.), positioning, and healing. Whittle down the enemies slowly instead of using dynamite on turn 1. This is a perfectly valid way to play and encounters - in theory - should be balanced to allow either kind of group, or something in-between, to win. The slower playstyle has a higher chance of something going sideways but I personally find it much more satisfying. Everyone has a chance to contribute and you really feel like you had a challenging battle.
The only effective in combat healing is a paladin using a swift action to lay on hand to himself.
Really? That sounds like a big call. At our table other forms of healing are quite effective depending on circumstance. For instance in our low level campaign I had a melee Inquisitor with high AC who would trigger fast healing as his judgment power and it worked really well. On our high level campaign our healbot can lay down three channels in a round or cast mass heal in emergencies.
I don’t get why people on these boards think in combat healing is ineffective, in combat healing works great for us, our table mostly plays adventure paths as written, I can’t see our group being a weird outlier. Maybe I’m wrong.
Back to the opening post. I had a high level cleric of Asmodeus once with the Conversion Channel feat. It was brilliant in emergencies, once a day you can inflict damage on the enemy AND heal your allies in the one action, muahaha! The other tactic I liked was to summon evil outsiders (with Sacred Summons it is a standard action) as meat shields and then use alignment channel to heal them.
Even against optimized parties, a good GM can make it hard enough on a party that if combat healing isn't done, then the party dies. So I agree, combat healing is a must (at least in our games).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general Pathfinder rewards "act first, kill fast": An opponent might have several nasty abilities to hurt you, but if you don't really allow it to use them, your defenses will barely be tested.
However, sometimes this doesn't work out and you are seriously damaged. Some arguments in favor of combat healing:
1) Not every PC enjoys full HD. Getting only half the dice (or similar) means healing becomes urgent earlier.
2) Combat healing doesn't need to cover all damage. If it's half as strong as the incoming damage, the frontliner lasts twice as long - which might already make the difference.
3) While a healing PC could instead take an offensive action, they are not necessarily good at it. Being good at melee / ranged / offensive spells doesn't come for free. The price (ability scores, feats, equipment etc.) probably wasn't paid, so they accomplish little (mostly an ego boost to the martial player who can feel superior). Or the price was paid, but this comes at the expense of the things the player actually wants to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In combat healing is usually because it needs to be done, not because it is an effective strategy. When it happens, it is because something bad has happened and if the character is not healed, they are likely going to die or be taken out of the combat. In those situations, in combat healing is actually effective. But the majority of the time it is not.
When I said that the only effective in combat healing was a paladins lay on hands, I was over simplifying things. The only type of in combat healing is effective is what I would call effortless healing. Effortless healing is when you heal without it substantially affecting your ability to act. The best example of this is a paladin using a swift action to use lay on hands to heal himself. As other have pointed out there are other types of effortless healing. Effortless healing would also include something that provides ongoing healing without having to continue to spend actions. So, casting a spell that provides fast healing over a substantial time would be considered effortless healing even though it takes a standard action to start.
The reason is better to finish the combat quicker than to make your fight last longer is the odds are actually stacked against the player. A natural 20 always hits and a 1 always fails a saving throw. That means that your opponent's always have a 5% chance of affecting you. As you level up the consequences of failure become more extreme. At low level failing a saving throw or getting hit by a critical hit is generally not as bad. But at higher level the consequence is more painful. Where a failed save vs burning hands means you take more damage, a failed save vs Flesh to Stone will take you out of the combat and require a way to bring you back beyond just healing the damage. The longer you fight the greater the chance of something like this happening is.
What I should have said is the only type of in combat healing is effortless healing or emergency healing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In combat healing is usually because it needs to be done, not because it is an effective strategy. When it happens, it is because something bad has happened and if the character is not healed, they are likely going to die or be taken out of the combat.
This should happen almost every round, or at least every other round. If combat isn't a threat, then IMO, the game gets boring. So, if combat is to a level that characters can be taken out of action relatively often, then a good battle healer is needed. Clerics excel at this due to Selective channeling. (other classes do well also). But my point is, combat should be enough of a threat that healing during combat becomes necessary.
I will agree that the fighter stopping to drink a potion instead of making an attack is a poor choice, But a healer whose attacks only do a d6 each round, it better off casting a healing spell than attacking.
In combat healing is usually because it needs to be done, not because it is an effective strategy. When it happens, it is because something bad has happened and if the character is not healed, they are likely going to die or be taken out of the combat.
This should happen almost every round, or at least every other round. If combat isn't a threat, then IMO, the game gets boring. So, if combat is to a level that characters can be taken out of action relatively often, then a good battle healer is needed. Clerics excel at this due to Selective channeling. (other classes do well also). But my point is, combat should be enough of a threat that healing during combat becomes necessary.
I will agree that the fighter stopping to drink a potion instead of making an attack is a poor choice, But a healer whose attacks only do a d6 each round, it better off casting a healing spell than attacking.
I have a problem with that theory, which is if a character can take enough damage in one round to potentially knock them unconscious or kill them then the party is reliant on going first and killing them before they can act. Which is where we're already at, unless you increase the enemy HP to prevent that.
In which case all your doing is making a healing focused character required for every party. Which absolutely sucks and shouldn't be the solution.
Healing is one the things that PF2 got very right in my opinion that someone with the skill and right feats is every bit the healer a party needs, and emergency healing in combat can be a portion of what a character does. Either through magic or consumables, but basically should never be the entire focus of a character.
Healing is one the things that PF2 got very right in my opinion that someone with the skill and right feats is every bit the healer a party needs, and emergency healing in combat can be a portion of what a character does.
Paizo introduced the Healer's Hands and Incredible Healer feats at the end of Pathfinder 1E. They are quite a leap from simply applying the Heal skill, at least in theory (never saw them in practice). I guess they are still weaker than a dedicated healer, which is fine since that's a more serious investment.
I see some merit in simplifying healing: It keeps the story more fluid, reduces bookkeeping and allows a player to take other responsibilities. But it also takes away from a gritty world, makes the game more shallow and removes an option for players who actually enjoy a support role. So IMO a GM should decide consciously how easy healing is in a given campaign, depending on tone and the participating players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess my response to that would be that 3.0, 3.5, and PF1 were never what I would consider gritty worlds. You could make them so with some effort, but by level 3 you could access magic that made "survival" stories moot.
And I want people to enjoy a support role and have it available, I just don't think that support role should be dedicated (solely) to healing. A pf2 bard with the heal skill is a wonderful support character that serves as a passable healer with the skill (and skill feats) and can even have magical healing for emergencies. But it doesn't take a lot of resources in PF2 to make a character that is sufficiently good at healing.
However in PF1, it wasn't ever really an option. Except maybe those feats you listed at the end of the life of the game's publishing schedule. You either healed through wands, or had to build something very focused to heal effectively and required the use of limited daily resources.