Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bruize 01-30-08, 12:37 PM	I posted this question in the Character Optimization forum but I thought I should ask here to get a more eberron specific view. ------------ Howdy, my DM is starting up a new Eberron game. We'll be playing Eyes of the Lich Queen and moving on from there. Out current party consists of a Gnome Ardent focused on creating Astral Constructs and knowledge/communication skills, a Summoner/Malconvoker who deals almost exclusively with critter summoning, and a Barbarian of some kind. That leaves us needing a healer and trapmonkey. The stats I rolled are somewhat average...not at all what I had hoped for. 5, 10, 12, 12, 14, 18 I'm looking for some suggestions on how best to use my stats to fill the trapmonkey/healer role so any help would be greatly appreciated. Sources allowed: Core Books, Races of X, Complete X, Spell Compendium, Dragon Magic, All ebberon source books. Dieties and domains must be from Eberron sources. Any ideas or suggested reading?
naturax 01-30-08, 02:38 PM	Artificer! Use the 18 for your INT, 14 for your CHA, and you're good to go. If you read this article (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55951), you'll see that you don't really need a healer, you just need some items of healing.
ChaoticGood 01-30-08, 11:35 PM	I agree! Artificers get Trapfinding and Disable Device as a class skill, and they can Use Magic Device to operate (and later create) wands of cure light (or moderate, or serious, or critical) wounds. For added fun, you can play "keeping up with gnomeses" and build a small army of homonculi to aid you in your trap-finding and healing roles.
Kreistor2 01-31-08, 10:17 AM	The Artificer doesn't make for good in combat healing, only post combat healing. If you know your DM well enough to know you need really good in combat healing, then do the following. 1. Put the Ardent player on your left. Put the Summoner on the right. 2. Grab both of their heads. 3. Bash their skulls together. 4. Tell them they're morons for playing the characters with redundant powers and that one of them gets to take one of the Trapfinding or Healer roles.
kelvinaw273 01-31-08, 11:43 AM	Actually, an Ardent can make a good healer, but from the sound of things your ardent isn't going to do that. Both seem to have chosen 'arcane' roles, giving the party redundancy in those fields. There are very few divine/rogue archetypes, but I can think of a few possibilities - remember that you usually only need a few levels of a trapspringer class to get the advantages: Cleric/Rogue - kind of the The Mouse from the film Ladyhawke, famous for the quote: "Lord, I know I promised that I would never steal again, but I know You'll forgive me for You know how weak-willed I am ..." Scout/Druid - ideal for an elf or shifter if you can get your DM to allow a change in favored class. Very good for wilderness. As an alternative to Druid, Spirit Shaman has more spells per day for less flexibility (I'm doing EotLQ with a shifter Ranger/Spirit Shaman at the moment as the party healer, works very well). House Jorasco Dragonmarked rogue - this gives you a little healing from the Dragonmark, and UMD is always handy for that Wand of healing. Psionic Classes can do healing, although they may need to take Expanded Knowledge to do so. A Lurk has synergy with Rogue, and so could be useful. It really depends on how you want to balance it - and the problem is that you do need BOTH roles. I hate to say it but your two summoners have really nerfed your party in that respect by duplicating one another's power set.
Toloran 01-31-08, 03:11 PM	The Artificer doesn't make for good in combat healing, only post combat healing. If you know your DM well enough to know you need really good in combat healing, then do the following. 1. Put the Ardent player on your left. Put the Summoner on the right. 2. Grab both of their heads. 3. Bash their skulls together. 4. Tell them they're morons for playing the characters with redundant powers and that one of them gets to take one of the Trapfinding or Healer roles. Actually, the group I DM for has been using their artificer as (basically) a healer for the past 7 or 8 levels (we had a cleric and then later a druid during the first 4 levels or so but neither of them ever healed and ended up leaving the group for various reasons). Between: - Spell Storing Item infusion: Access to every healing spell in existence, requires 1 minute to cast. Minimal amount of exp spent (like 6 i believe for a cure moderate) - Spell Storing Item Infusion /w action point: As above but 10x faster (1 round instead of 1 minute). - Crafted healing potions: Made for well below cost due to making them yourself and because of the artisans feats. A cure moderate is like 12 exp to make before feats. - Wands of Cure * wounds: Cheap to make, lowest cost per cast of any choice (money or exp wise). - Belts of Healing: Costs as much as a wand of Cure Light wounds, heals as much as a cure moderate 3/day (or more if you spend more charges). Lasts forever. Even after all the stuff he crafts he is only about a level below the rest of the party (and thats only because an ogre got a lucky crit on him and killed him a few sessions ago).
Gurv 01-31-08, 03:50 PM	Play a warforged artificer. Finds traps and can heal himself all he wants. What? No one else thought of the party first.
Edymnion 01-31-08, 07:57 PM	Artificer. If you're going to be high enough level for homunculi, then get a Packmate. Use your craft reserve to make healing potions, or buy a partially depleted wand of Cure X Wounds. Use your spell storing infusion and an action point to be able to heal in one round. For more info on what the artificer can do: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=813665
Kreistor2 01-31-08, 11:38 PM	Aw, I like the skull bashing idea so much better. 8P
Vindiction7 02-01-08, 02:42 PM	All I can say is: take the advice of the Healing article linked to earlier. It really covers everything you need to do a great job healing as an artificer. I've played quite a share of artificers, and I've gotta say, they're *great* healers (in fact, it's pretty hard for a cleric to compete with one at lower levels) if you know what you're doing, and they can find traps like nobody's business, getting notably better checks than Rogues with ease thanks to a higher int focus, scrolls, skill infusions, and a propensity for making useful items that help your skills. Greater Healing Armor, Healing Belts for the whole party cheaply, and Lesser Vigor wands or scrolls will set you on your way to being one of the most effective healers possible for *any* class at low-mid level. And of course, the intelligence, skills, and infusions of an artificer will make you a fantastic trapfinder. Grab masterwork tools for good measure. You can do all this from Artificer 3, and a set of 5 healing is only about 1000g out of the party coffers, lesser vigor scrolls are about 10g a pop, and greater healing armor gets you 6d8+30 healing *in battle without wasting actions* for only 50g a pop. A cleric can't really match that at that level. The end result is 4d8 burst healing available from every member of the party, up to 30d8 healing per day at no cost, and 3d8+15 burst healing at a time (twice per 50g) *as a non-action* should a key party member fall to raise them straight back up to full health (so it's practically like they have 3x their health), and lesser vigor to fill in any extra wounds economically. At the same time, you can be a kickass buffer, great skill monkey, and a good fighter. You can do some other great things with help from other party members. For example, with a wizard in the party, you could make a killing with bloodstone infusions, which are only a +1 weapon enhancement. This will increase your party's offensive power while keeping the melee bruisers in full health. Use your craft reserve to make healing potions, or buy a partially depleted wand of Cure X Wounds. Healing potions are bad. Don't do it. Get good items instead. Potions are a hole for wasted money and, honestly, can end up getting your whole party killed if your DM plays his monsters intelligently and isn't the coddling type who purposely lets you live when you do something stupid. They waste money, don't heal enough, and are action-intensive. I've seen newbie players get crushed (and even TPKed) for trying to rely on them for damage mitigation. Honestly, if you're going to use potions, there are far better choice than hp cures for damage mitigation. or buy a partially depleted wand of Cure X Wounds. WHY would you *buy* a healing wand? In fact, why the heck aren't you just using scrolls if you're going to have it "partially depleted"? Use scrolls until you can craft wands. Use your spell storing infusion and an action point to be able to heal in one round. You want to use XP, an AP, and a rather high check just to be able to heal in TWO rounds and probably get interrupted and fail while you're at it? (Yes, it takes two, Edy, not one. AND since you're using a one round casting time, you're very easy to interrupt in combat) HUH? That's extremely inefficient in terms of XP, AP, and perhaps mostly importantly ACTIONS, and just plain bad for an artificer. The spell storing infusion is best used as an emergency contingency: Getting just the right spell for a situation where you really need it. Remember: An artificer is AMAZING. They can do practically anything quite well, so long as they have the funds. The best artificer is a master accountant. Keep track of what things costs, and look for the most potent yet efficient route to success.
Edymnion 02-01-08, 07:38 PM	Healing potions are bad. Don't do it. Get good items instead. Potions are a hole for wasted money and, honestly, can end up getting your whole party killed if your DM plays his monsters intelligently and isn't the coddling type who purposely lets you live when you do something stupid. They waste money, don't heal enough, and are action-intensive. I've seen newbie players get crushed (and even TPKed) for trying to rely on them for damage mitigation. Honestly, if you're going to use potions, there are far better choice than hp cures for damage mitigation.At low levels, you don't have anything else you can spend your craft reserve on. If you're lvl 1, healing potions are pretty much the only thing you can make, otherwise you waste your craft reserve for that level. After that, you can make scrolls, which are much worse for healing than potions. Not only are they limited to you using them on someone, but they have a failure chance, with a misshap chance on top of that. WHY would you *buy* a healing wand? In fact, why the heck aren't you just using scrolls if you're going to have it "partially depleted"?Because the wand is easier to use, doesn't have a misshap chance, and in a pinch can be used by the party cleric/ranger/druid/bard. If you make scrolls as an Artificer, they can only be activated by a UMD check, which means they are useless to everyone but the artificer. For healing, potions > wands > scrolls. You want to use XP, an AP, and a rather high check just to be able to heal in TWO rounds and probably get interrupted and fail while you're at it? (Yes, it takes two, Edy, not one. AND since you're using a one round casting time, you're very easy to interrupt in combat)I didn't say it was efficient, I said that you could do it. And no, it is not a major limitation, and it doesn't take you two rounds. You start it as a full round action, and then it goes off just before you act in the next round. It only costs the caster 1 action. And if you look at Spell Storing Infusion's duration, its 1 hour per caster level. You can infuse curative magic into some bandages before you even go into the dungeon in the first place. The only time you'd need to spend an AP is if you are in a hurry, like if you ran out of healing items and are about to ambush someone.HUH? That's extremely inefficient in terms of XP, AP, and perhaps mostly importantly ACTIONS, and just plain bad for an artificer. The spell storing infusion is best used as an emergency contingency: Getting just the right spell for a situation where you really need it.As I pointed out, it costs the artificer 1 action to make a healing item, and then another action to activate it. I would call using a single action to pull a potion/scroll out of thin air to be a very good use of an action. And honestly, if you're in a situation where every action counts, and you are so unprepared that this is your only option, then you aren't playing the Artificer right. Its like saying your Wizard got attacked, and he hadn't bothered preparing his spells yet. Anyway, healing in the middle of combat is a risky, dangerous thing regardless of level or how its being done. D&D typically relegates healing to after-combat, or emergency situations.
Kreistor2 02-01-08, 11:29 PM	As I pointed out, it costs the artificer 1 action to make a healing item, and then another action to activate it. I would call using a single action to pull a potion/scroll out of thin air to be a very good use of an action. In some campaigns, maybe. In mine, it can take two dedicated healers to keep the tank up during some boss fights. Healing every other round means you're saving every other person from death, and that assumes your heals are as efficient as a Favoured Soul with Augment Healing and Diety's Favour, which I doubt you can achieve. A basic CR3 Ogre from the MM hits at +8 for 2D8+7 damage, for an average 15 damage per hit. A L3 Fighter has 10+2D10+Conx3 HP, for average 31 with 18HP. On the first round he is hit (you don't have to heal until that happens), he is on average down to 16HP. The Fighter's AC is going to be ~20 (Armour+Dex=7, 8, or 9 and probably 8, with shield for +2). At +8, the Ogre hits on a 12 for 45% chance to hit. Half of the time, the damage dealt will be above 15. That means 22.5% of the time, since you can't heal the fighter immediately, the fighter will fall to -ve HP. FO course, if the first hit had been a high damage one (non-crit max of 23), the fighter would actually have a high risk of death on that next round. Please adjust for the actual AC and Con of your own front liner, and recompute (18 Con isn't exactly common). Your healing, though, will only be 2D8+3 every other round, compared to 2D8+7 damage potentially every round. Once someone is hit once, there is a 1/4 chance they'll be hit in both of the next consecutive rounds. You can mostly keep up, if the damage remains average, but the dice rarely maintain the average, and when the DM rolls hot, you can't keep up. A real healer can. The same math holds true for the big hitters throughout the game. Without strong, immediate healing, PC's die. Unless, of course, the DM compensates for your inadequacies by not putting those heavy hitters in your path, in which case, play anything, healer or not. Your DM will compensate whether you take a good healer or a poor one.
Vindiction7 02-02-08, 12:27 PM	At low levels, you don't have anything else you can spend your craft reserve on. If you're lvl 1, healing potions are pretty much the only thing you can make, otherwise you waste your craft reserve for that level. Wow, that's the exact opposite of true. You can't make potions until level 2, Edy. You can and SHOULD be making Scrolls, not potions. See page 30 of the ECS. :nonono: After that, you can make scrolls, which are much worse for healing than potions. No. You get Scribe Scroll at first level. You get Brew Potion at 2nd level. See page 30 of the ECS. The basic artificer table. I mean, come on, I can't believe I'm needing to point this out to you. Additionally, scrolls are better than potions for healing because you want to use scrolls to heal [I]out of combat,[/I (with the exception of a few certain spells you can put on them which, incidentally, you can't put on potions) and scrolls are half the price of a potion, and thus far more efficient. And thus far better at healing than potions. Not only are they limited to you using them on someone, but they have a failure chance, with a misshap chance on top of that.Because the wand is easier to use, doesn't have a misshap chance, and in a pinch can be used by the party cleric/ranger/druid/bard. Wands are not easier to use at all. They do not gain the +6 bonus from synergy and having the craft feat (+2 at level 1). For writing such a long guide about Artificers, you sure seem to be oblivious about this stuff... If you make scrolls as an Artificer, they can only be activated by a UMD check, which means they are useless to everyone but the artificer. Or anyone else with UMD. Wands are not easier to use (Any scroll you're going to be using at level 1 or two is going to be 21 DC, which makes it easier than using DC 20 wands, because Artificers automatically get a +2 bonus to use scrolls. They further get a +4 bonus to scrolls from synergies at level 2, since they can put 5 ranks in things) The *only* and I mean *only* time that a potion MIGHT be a decent craft choice is at level 2, if your UMD check is still low enough that you actually have a chance to fail to use a scroll, and you really, REALLY want to be able to heal during combat. By level 3, you can use Greater Healing Armor or outfit the party in Healing Belts, and neither of those have a failure chance. And your UMD check should be good. +2 masterwork tool, +2 artisan bonus, +4 synergy, +6 ranks, and a modest +1 Cha means +15 UMD. Craft a UMD item to go along with that (say +4), and you've got +19. Admittedly, a UMD item is a custom item, but I know that it's one that you personally support. Alternatively, spend a little more money and you can get the canon UMD item "Spellsight Spectacles" (MiC) which gives you +5 UMD (and a spellcraft bonus) for using scrolls for 2500g (a bit less than 1000g crafted with Extraordinary Artisan). A more expensive option is a Circlet of Persuasion (4500) from the DMG. Or, if you're worried about UMD, you could always just use that level 1 skill infusion for a handy +3 or more. Notice that I didn't bother to take Skill Focus (UMD) or anything of the sort. I didn't say it was efficient, I said that you could do it. And no, it is not a major limitation, and it doesn't take you two rounds. You start it as a full round action, and then it goes off just before you act in the next round. No, the spell is *infused into an item* after 1 full round. You still have to activate the "wand with a single charge" to actually heal anyone. Thus, two rounds. It only costs the caster 1 action. To infuse, not to use. As I pointed out, it costs the artificer 1 action to make a healing item, and then another action to activate it. Hey, that's what I said. And then you argued with me, saying it would not take two. Why the contradiction, Edy? I would call using a single action to pull a potion/scroll out of thin air to be a very good use of an action. Well, it's really not. You're taking two rounds to *maybe* heal someone (if you're not interrupted at all during that full 1 round), and if they're in trouble they're probably going to be screwed by then. Instead, you could have helped them immediately. And honestly, if you're in a situation where every action counts, and you are so unprepared that this is your only option, then you aren't playing the Artificer right. Exactly. You generally shouldn't rely on Spell Storing *in the middle of a fight.* And if you DID use a round on spell storing, their are much better actions to use with it than "Cure X Wounds." Seriously. Ones that could turn a battle around full circle, rather than just heal a little bit while the person does 3x that damage in the time you spent creating the scroll and healing the person. Anyway, healing in the middle of combat is a risky, dangerous thing regardless of level or how its being done. D&D typically relegates healing to after-combat, or emergency situations. Healing in the middle of combat is a simple matter with the methods I listed earlier, Edy. Or do you think that 3d8+15 healing as a non-action at level 3 or outfitting the whole party in Healing Belts or carrying lesser vigor scrolls or using party combos like Bloodstone infused tanks (Barring MiC or PGtE, you could replace Bloodstone with Spell Storing Item) aren't effective? I'm sure anyone who's used them would beg to differ. A basic CR3 Ogre from the MM hits at +8 for 2D8+7 damage, for an average 15 damage per hit. That's actually an average of 16 damage. The average of 1d8 is 4.5. 2x4.5+7=16. /nitpick The same math holds true for the big hitters throughout the game. Without strong, immediate healing, PC's die. This isn't actually true. I often play with hard-hitting DMs who use tactics, optimize their monsters, and aren't afraid to cut through less experienced players like a hot knife through butter... and I have *no problem* going without a healer. Now, what *is* true is that if your primary form of damage mitigation is going to be healing, it *does* need to be strong enough to work, yet efficient enough to be maintainable. IF you're going to spend actions on healing, it *does* need to be strong. If you guzzle a cure potion for 300g or cast Cure X Wounds, odds are you're not going to be keeping up with the offensive output of the enemy. Actions are important. It's far better if you use a swift action to heal 3d8+15 hp for 25g than to use two actions to heal 2d8+3 hp for an XP and AP cost and a chance of failure due to the rather high UMD check (26 for a second level spell? Ouch) that Spell Storing Item infusion carries.
Vindiction7 02-02-08, 12:48 PM	((Gah, double post))
Captain_Kobold 02-02-08, 06:32 PM	I think Edymnion's first post makes a little more sense if you read both of the first two sentences, not just the bit you quoted Vindication. He refers to the use of a Packmate Homunculus. In case you didn't understand, this is a storage homunculus that can pass items to you. It can also run over to fallen comrades and feed them cure potions that it has in storage. Thus you can get characters who go down back up while you yourself are still ocontributing to the fight in another way. If nothing else, potions can be used by anyone in the party, so do not require you personally to go apply the healing. This also means that they can be used by other party members on you when you go down, unlike scrolls. You also appear to have misunderstood or missed the point of buying the partially depleted wand. Buying a mostly-used up wand of a high-level healing spell will be cheaper than making your own. The lack of charges in it will not be so much of an issue since it will be casting from Power Surge charges, not its own. While you can make as many Wands of Cure Light Wounds as you need for out of combat healing, to do much good during a fight, you will want to use a much higher level spell to get the greatest amount of healing for your action as possible. The higher level spells also get the most benefit out of the Empower and Maximise metamagic feats if you happen to be able to apply them as well. I get the impression that Edymnion is talking about operating at a somewhat higher level than you are. It might help if the OP had mentioned at what level his character was being created. When he refers to "healing in the middle of combat", I'm guessing that he is talking about using actions to heal. Abilities that you suggested that give preventative healing, do not require actions, or move the responsibility of healing onto others are extremely useful because they do not waste your own actions.
Vindiction7 02-02-08, 08:27 PM	I think Edymnion's first post makes a little more sense if you read both of the first two sentences, not just the bit you quoted Vindication. He refers to the use of a Packmate Homunculus. In case you didn't understand, this is a storage homunculus that can pass items to you. It can also run over to fallen comrades and feed them cure potions that it has in storage. Thus you can get characters who go down back up while you yourself are still ocontributing to the fight in another way. See, that actually makes some sense. Using potions with a Packmate Homunculus can potentially be okay, but it's not helpful for most healing situations. It's just helpful for getting an ally up when he's down, and you carry maybe only a couple of potions for that. But all those other things he said just aren't true. You should definitely be cautious using a packmate to revive allies. Actually bringing back up a party member who has fallen in combat can be a death sentence, because of several things. They need to stand up from prone (so you don't want them to still be in the line of fire) and they'll be vulnerable enough that one more hit may permanently end them, and since they're fully contributing again they once again become a full threat for the enemy to prioritize. If nothing else, potions can be used by anyone in the party, so do not require you personally to go apply the healing. This also means that they can be used by other party members on you when you go down, unlike scrolls. I recommend Blessed Bandages (get those at level 1) and then Healing Belts (at level 3) much more highly. Cure Light Wounds pots could be moderately useful very early on (ONLY at level 2), like I said, but that's it. You never get these things as an artificer unless you're level 2. Ever. Higher potions become too expensive for too little benefit, and cure light wounds quickly becomes outclassed. You also appear to have misunderstood or missed the point of buying the partially depleted wand. No, you just don't seem to understand that you can get scrolls instead of a partially depleted wand. A scroll has the same base cost as a wand charge. There is absolutely no reason to get a scroll instead if you don't want to buy a full wand, provided you have time to craft. Buying a mostly-used up wand of a high-level healing spell will be cheaper than making your own. No, it's not cheaper than making your own scrolls. In fact, it's far more expensive. More than twice as as expensive. The lack of charges in it will not be so much of an issue since it will be casting from Power Surge charges, not its own. Are we assuming infinite action points? If not, you're not going to get much out of that feat, and artificers need all the feats (and AP, for that matter) that they can get. to do much good during a fight, you will want to use a much higher level spell to get the greatest amount of healing for your action as possible. Then use a healing belt (4d8 in an action, easily affordable at level 3) or greater healing armor (3d8+15 hp with a swift action or non-action if you go unconscious, usable at level 3) or weapon infusions (usable at level 1, healing scales). They're all much more cheap and effective than what you're suggesting. I get the impression that Edymnion is talking about operating at a somewhat higher level than you are. He was arguing for the usefulness of potions starting at level ONE. That's not operating at a higher level at all. Further, you don't want to keep wands of healing spells at higher levels EITHER. Once you get higher healing needs, you want to start relying on other things. When he refers to "healing in the middle of combat", I'm guessing that he is talking about using actions to heal. Abilities that you suggested that give preventative healing, do not require actions, or move the responsibility of healing onto others are extremely useful because they do not waste your own actions. Hence, my suggestions are much better.
Captain_Kobold 02-02-08, 09:58 PM	Once the potion has stablised them and hopefully put them back on positive HP, its up to them whether they want to lie possum, activate their own healing effects, or jump up and start continuing to fight. The important thing is that you have stopped them bleeding to death and given them the option. Cure light Wounds potions are good enough to stablise, but you will ideally be using fairly high-level potions: we're talking emergencies here. People should not be keeling over as part of your standard battle plan. :) No, you just don't seem to understand that you can get scrolls instead of a partially depleted wand. A scroll has the same base cost as a wand charge. There is absolutely no reason to get a scroll instead if you don't want to buy a full wand, provided you have time to craft. No, it's not cheaper than making your own scrolls. In fact, it's far more expensive. More than twice as as expensive. The idea is that you never, (or at least very rarely) actually have to use a charge up out of the wand since you are using Power Surge to power it. Once you get to a higher level, you can start using Healing Staffs with the same tactic, but even better effect. It doesn't work with scrolls though. Are we assuming infinite action points? If not, you're not going to get much out of that feat, and artificers need all the feats (and AP, for that matter) that they can get. Um, What? What on earth are you talking about? :confused: Healing belts, armour, temporary hit points from Bloodstone items and suchlike are all very useful, and likely to be part of the party's Standard Operating Procdure. Hopefully, they will carry the group through most fights. What (I believe) we are discussing here are those unusual situations whan the midden collides with the windmill, and the Artificer has to actually act as healer, as opposed to their normal role.
Kreistor2 02-03-08, 07:40 AM	A scroll has the same base cost as a wand charge. There is absolutely no reason to get a scroll instead if you don't want to buy a full wand, provided you have time to craft. Heh, my turn to nitpick. Cure Light Wounds wand = 750GP for 50 charges, 750/50 = 15GP/charge Cure Light Wounds Scroll = 25GP Scrolls cost 10GP base more than wand charges. It's far better if you use a swift action to heal 3d8+15 hp for 25g than to use two actions to heal 2d8+3 hp for an XP and AP cost and a chance of failure due to the rather high UMD check (26 for a second level spell? Ouch) that Spell Storing Item infusion carries. Or, how about 1D8+17 for 0GP as an immediate action from someone else that prevents the damage before it kills you? Close Wounds + Augment Healing + Healer Cha bonus. Or how about 4D8+25 from 30' away for 0GP? CCW + AH + Reach Spell. Or even better, the Cure Mass spells, again for nothing. As for it being dangerous, well, the Healer class does not provoke for casting Conj(Heal) spells after a certain level. As an aside (not directed as a response to anyone), IMO, the best class for a dedicated healer is the Favoured Soul. It retains high Armour AC and shields, unlike the Healer which is grossly restricted, and decent weapons. Where the Healer gets a Cha bonus to spells, the FS using the PHB2 alternate class feature adds 3THP/SL initially to only one target, but later to all targets. (Mass Bears End not only confers 2xLevel in HP, but also +18THP.) The FS gets more spells/day and can cast them like a sorcerer, so none sit wasted, where the Healer's prepared spell style can leave her with unused spell slots at the end of the day. This isn't actually true. I often play with hard-hitting DMs who use tactics, optimize their monsters, and aren't afraid to cut through less experienced players like a hot knife through butter... and I have *no problem* going without a healer. Now, what *is* true is that if your primary form of damage mitigation is going to be healing, it *does* need to be strong enough to work, yet efficient enough to be maintainable. I'm wondering what you're using, then. Raw AC? Items or abilities that confer DR? Both are good, but are also situationally dependent. Each form of defense works against different types of offense. Anyway, before I discuss, I'd want to know what exactly you are relying on.
Vindiction7 02-03-08, 11:50 AM	Heh, my turn to nitpick. Cure Light Wounds wand = 750GP for 50 charges, 750/50 = 15GP/charge Cure Light Wounds Scroll = 25GP That's right, I made a mistake. My apologies. Um, What? What on earth are you talking about? :confused: Sorry, for some reason I thought you were talking about Wand Surge. Possibly because you can't even USE Power Surge until you're at wand-crafting level (well, actually, one level before), so it's kinda irrelevant to the argument (I completely agree that you should use wands when you can craft them), and it uses up your highest level infusion slots. The ones you could have been using on Metamagic item. Using up your awesome level 3 infusion slots for out-of-combat healing or healing that is only slightly better than a Healing Belt (in the case of Cure Critical Wounds, 4d8+7 v 4d8) is remarkably inefficient. Not only that, but it takes a Standard Action to use Power Surge, and it only lasts 1 min/level. So that doesn't exactly sound like a great idea, either. You can't use it "just for emergencies" because you almost always can't anticipate emergencies, and thus you can't cast Power Surge 5 minutes beforehand, and again, it uses up your 3rd level infusions for a "meh" return. Healing belts, armour, temporary hit points from Bloodstone items and suchlike are all very useful, and likely to be part of the party's Standard Operating Procdure. Hopefully, they will carry the group through most fights. What (I believe) we are discussing here are those unusual situations whan the midden collides with the windmill, and the Artificer has to actually act as healer, as opposed to their normal role. Those things all let you act as a primary healer. Far better than cure wands and potions, actually. I'm wondering what you're using, then. Raw AC? Items or abilities that confer DR? Both are good, but are also situationally dependent. Each form of defense works against different types of offense. Anyway, before I discuss, I'd want to know what exactly you are relying on. It depends on the party makeup. Really, every character should be doing their part. For example: As a 5th level Kalashtar Seer, I had 23-28 AC (more, when I was hanging out behind the Warforged with a tower shield) depending on whether I buffed or not before a fight (I could get +5 AC from Force Screen), and used Energy Stun and Entangling Ectoplasm to disable enemies. I would also use my abilities as a Seer to scout out areas and gather information, and thus the party would come prepared for the encounter. I would use Skate to increase mobility (while entangling ectoplasm and energy stun would slow enemies), get advantageous positions to strike from with Up The Walls as a feat, and I would use Vigor/Share Pain with my psicrystal to significantly increase my durability. I would carry around power stones of various powers I thought I might occasionally need. Additionally, he carried a Healing Belt, so that he could burst heal for 4d8 hp in emergencies, or do up to 6d8 daily healing. He also had very high detection abilities to spot ambushes, and was very effective at making knowledge checks with his intelligence, skills, and a dorje of Call to Mind. The end result was a character who was very hard to hit and kill, disabled enemies from attacking in melee, and made it very hard for enemies to hit at range (entangled enemies, for example, get -4 to hit on ranged attacks, get their speeds halved, and get a penalty to AC to boot), while doing small amounts of damage (I relied on the party to strike finishing blows), who would scout out situations beforehand with powers like Clairvoyant Sense, Sensitivity to Psionic Impressions, and Object Reading. The battlefield control drastically reduced the amount of damage the party took, as did his own defensive capabilities. A healer wouldn't have done any better. A wizard is even better, before anyone goes around thinking "psionics is overpowered." Glitterdust, Phantom Steed, Mirror Image, Fly, Greater Invisibility, Sleep, and the like make wizards excellent at mitigating damage to themselves, disabling enemies, and generally not dying. The reality is that battlefield control, "tanking" (this is actually battlefield control, but for some reason people like to seperate it), debuffs, and *damage* (removing enemies from play) can often be much, much more effective than going around using HEALING spells. The goal of optimal damage mitigation, reduced to its base effect, is to use the LEAST permanent resources during a fight while having the LEAST amount of risk to party assets (like, say, life and limb). There are a lot more ways to accomplish that besides "using cure spells." And using cure spells tend to take more resources than other options. In fact, in general, you want to reserve healing for AFTER a fight. D&D 3.5e isn't WoW, and constant in-combat healing is *not* an important role (Inexperienced players often ASSUME that it is, but it's not. Optimizers know this. As an example, see here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=956548), where people who think healing is a valuable combat role tend to fall into the "Waste of Space" party role). Carry around a Lesser Vigor wand and full-heal everyone between every fight. If you want to heal during a fight, it has to be big burst healing, or it has to be action-efficient. For example, the level 2 cleric spell "Close Wounds" is good even though it only heals 1d4+5 hp because it is usable as an Immediate Action at range. This thread actually explains it a little bit, as well as giving a lot of good advice about how you actually should go about healing things. http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=900334 It's also here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14997588#post14997588 Each form of defense works against different types of offense. Anyway, before I discuss, I'd want to know what exactly you are relying on. This is ABSOLUTELY true. That said, healing is *actually* just one more type of defense, and it's weak against other types of offense. It's a defense against controllable amounts of hp damage against people who can take a hit. It doesn't do anything for status effects, and generic forms of healing (Cure X Wounds and the like) tend to have trouble with things like "the squishy is getting attacked" or "he does really high damage." Further, things like potions or touch-range heals can easily make you vulnerable. Or, how about 1D8+17 for 0GP as an immediate action from someone else that prevents the damage before it kills you? Close Wounds + Augment Healing + Healer Cha bonus. Close Wounds is great. The Healer class, not so much. Also, I believe we were talking about the artificer. As for it being dangerous, well, the Healer class does not provoke for casting Conj(Heal) spells after a certain level. And here I thought we were talking about the Artificer, not the Healer.
Vindiction7 02-03-08, 12:02 PM	(Wow, gleemax hates me and makes me double post)
Alter_Boy 02-03-08, 07:35 PM	1) Become a Bard with a level in Rogue. Healing and trapfinding! 2) Be a cleric with the Trickery Domain who always prepares Find Traps. Healing and Trapfinding and Useful Spells!
Captain_Kobold 02-03-08, 08:48 PM	A Cleric with the Kobold Domain. (Races of the Dragon web enhancement (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060420a).) Gives you Trapfinding, Search and Disable device as class skills. Downside is, you're probably going to have to play a Kobold. :hides:
Edymnion 02-03-08, 09:18 PM	Wow, that's the exact opposite of true. You can't make potions until level 2, Edy.My bad. I still stand by potions being better than scrolls when it comes to healing, primarily because anyone can use them. Hand somebody a few potions and let them doctor themselves. Wands are not easier to use at all. They do not gain the +6 bonus from synergy and having the craft feat (+2 at level 1). For writing such a long guide about Artificers, you sure seem to be oblivious about this stuff... Or anyone else with UMD. Wands are not easier to use (Any scroll you're going to be using at level 1 or two is going to be 21 DC, which makes it easier than using DC 20 wands, because Artificers automatically get a +2 bonus to use scrolls.No, but you do get bonuses for having activated the wand before, which cancels that out.They further get a +4 bonus to scrolls from synergies at level 2, since they can put 5 ranks in things)And that is, of course, assuming you build the entire character (at low levels) around actually using scrolls. Not everybody has the skillpoints to spare to wrack up all of those synergy bonuses. Especially not if they also have to dump points into things like Disable Device instead of Decipher Script. The *only* and I mean *only* time that a potion MIGHT be a decent craft choice is at level 2, if your UMD check is still low enough that you actually have a chance to fail to use a scroll, and you really, REALLY want to be able to heal during combat.Or, you know, a potion that has no failure rate at all. And your UMD check should be good. +2 masterwork tool, +2 artisan bonus, +4 synergy, +6 ranks, and a modest +1 Cha means +15 UMD. Craft a UMD item to go along with that (say +4), and you've got +19. Admittedly, a UMD item is a custom item, but I know that it's one that you personally support.For one, just where in the world are you getting masterwork tools for a UMD check? UMD doesn't use tools. And since a UMD boosting magic item is a custom item, and a debated one at that, I generally don't suggest those as a default. I try to stick to the actual core mechanics and the ECS, since those are the only things I can be relatively sure everyone can use. No, the spell is *infused into an item* after 1 full round. You still have to activate the "wand with a single charge" to actually heal anyone. Thus, two rounds.But not two *combat* rounds, if you're playing smart. But again, my point was that the option was there as an emergency backup.Hey, that's what I said. And then you argued with me, saying it would not take two. Why the contradiction, Edy?Again, even at lvl 1, the spell storing infusion lasts for an hour, which is more than enough time to prepare things ahead of time.Well, it's really not. You're taking two rounds to *maybe* heal someone (if you're not interrupted at all during that full 1 round), and if they're in trouble they're probably going to be screwed by then. Instead, you could have helped them immediately.Again, emergency measures if you're doing it all in the middle of combat. If you do it ahead of time, its just a single action to activate the spell (and there is debate on if you need to do anything extra to activate the stored spell, depending on how literally you take the one charge wand line, I personally don't think it literally means you have to make another UMD check to activate it).Exactly. You generally shouldn't rely on Spell Storing *in the middle of a fight.* And if you DID use a round on spell storing, their are much better actions to use with it than "Cure X Wounds." Seriously. Ones that could turn a battle around full circle, rather than just heal a little bit while the person does 3x that damage in the time you spent creating the scroll and healing the person.Again, this is what I have been saying, so stop harping on it already.Healing in the middle of combat is a simple matter with the methods I listed earlier, Edy. Or do you think that 3d8+15 healing as a non-action at level 3 or outfitting the whole party in Healing Belts or carrying lesser vigor scrolls or using party combos like Bloodstone infused tanks (Barring MiC or PGtE, you could replace Bloodstone with Spell Storing Item) aren't effective? I'm sure anyone who's used them would beg to differ.I know I personally don't allow automatic healing items. And again, I'm keeping my answers limited to core rules and ECS here. If you want to find ways to spam ultimate healage for no actions for coppers a day, go hit the CharOp boards. I often play with hard-hitting DMs who use tactics, optimize their monsters, and aren't afraid to cut through less experienced players like a hot knife through butter...Yeah, well most DMs I know aren't that gygaxian. They're more about telling a good story and everybody having fun than seeing how fast they can kill their players.
Captain_Kobold 02-03-08, 10:39 PM	Sorry, for some reason I thought you were talking about Wand Surge. Ah. That would explain the earlier comments, yes. No problem. We all make mistakes. (Even Edy. :P ) Possibly because you can't even USE Power Surge until you're at wand-crafting level (well, actually, one level before), so it's kinda irrelevant to the argument Irrelevant how so? Are we talking about lower-level options only? Did you miss the point of buying the partially-depleted wand if your DM allows? No, but you do get bonuses for having activated the wand before, which cancels that out. Hmmm. I think I have mentioned this before. I'm pretty sure that the +2 for having activated the item beforehand only applies on checks to blindly activate an item. This isn't actually true. I often play with hard-hitting DMs who use tactics, optimize their monsters, and aren't afraid to cut through less experienced players like a hot knife through butter. I must admit, that does seem a little on the harsh side. Why do your DMs/groups feel the need to punish players who are new to the game, or who want to try out an interesting concept that doesn't happen to be optimised?
Vindiction7 02-03-08, 11:59 PM	But not two *combat* rounds, if you're playing smart. But again, my point was that the option was there as an emergency backup. These two things don't go together. That's the problem with your logic. You don't get to anticipate that kind of rare emergency, and as a result you don't get to "play smart" and cast it ahead of time. If you have time ahead of time, you might as well be using Greater Healing Armor or Displacement Armor or some other armor augmentation that helps mitigate damage. My bad. I still stand by potions being better than scrolls when it comes to healing, primarily because anyone can use them. Hand somebody a few potions and let them doctor themselves. You shouldn't be doctoring yourself with CLW potions in combat except, maybe, like I already said, at level 2. In almost all cases, you should be healing out of combat, unless you have some really good burst healing or something. And it's still situational. No, but you do get bonuses for having activated the wand before, which cancels that out. You can get a bonus for activating a scroll before, too, you know. According to the DMG, you can have more than one spell on one scroll. It's an obscure point and often overlooked. Or, you know, a potion that has no failure rate at all. In order for a potion to gain efficiency over scrolls, you have to actually expect to fail a UMD check *twice* on a scroll. It's not hard to get enough of a UMD check so that that's not the case. And if it IS hard for you, your artificer is probably in trouble. For one, just where in the world are you getting masterwork tools for a UMD check? UMD doesn't use tools. The PHB. Would you like an SRD link? Here you go: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#toolMasterwork By the PHB, you can make a masterwork tool for any skill as long as you have enough imagination to make up a suitable tool. I can think of a dozen flavors of UMD item off the top of my head, so imagination's not an issue. And since a UMD boosting magic item is a custom item, and a debated one at that, I generally don't suggest those as a default. [quote] I already addressed this. [quote]I try to stick to the actual core mechanics and the ECS, since those are the only things I can be relatively sure everyone can use. I stuck to only the MiC (I call MiC "Complete Artificer." It just has so much great artificer stuff, like the Artificer's Monocle), ECS, and PHB. I could do a lot more with more than that. Your argument about "too many supplements" isn't going to gain any ground, seeing as you actually used at least as many as me, referencing things like Packmates (which are from Magic of Eberron). You got one supplement, but you get up in arms when someone else does. Again, emergency measures if you're doing it all in the middle of combat. If you do it ahead of time, its just a single action to activate the spell If it's emergency measures in the middle of combat, you're not doing it ahead of time! Basic logic, Edy. If you do have time to do things beforehand, you'd use something better, like an armor infusion. Including core or ECS ones. Again, this is what I have been saying, so stop harping on it already.I know I personally don't allow automatic healing items. Then don't use them. There are plenty of other great healing armors that do just as well. They just aren't technically "healing." Also, technically, it only heals automatically if a character falls unconscious. And again, I'm keeping my answers limited to core rules and ECS here. Then an artificer should use Spell Storing, armor infusions, or CLW wands outside of combat. Also, you contradict yourself. Many of your suggestions are not from the ECS, such as the packmate. Don't retreat to hypocrisy just because your argument got defeated, Edy. Yeah, well most DMs I know aren't that gygaxian. They're more about telling a good story and everybody having fun than seeing how fast they can kill their players. *Wow.* Talk about exaggeration and hyperbole, Edy. Edy, please point out where I said that the DMs "try to kill their players as best they can." Wait, did I not say that? Oh right, I just said "they're not afraid to kill players." As in, you know, they don't fudge the rolls so that you're invincible no matter how brain-numbingly stupid you act. Last I checked, that wasn't the definition of gygaxian. And that wasn't "trying to see how fast they can kill the players." Further, you seem to be implying the Stormwind Fallacy, hinting that somehow my groups are lower RP than yours because we use better tactics and appreciate enemies that are more intelligent than a doorpost. Honestly, I would be quite surprised to see your group weave a deeper or more exciting plot, and I've seen your flavor writeups and character backgrounds. I don't appreciate the baseless, implied insult at all. I must admit, that does seem a little on the harsh side. I strongly disagree, and I know many would do the same. I find it boring when monsters have MMO-style intelligence, arbitrarily attack the Fighter for no apparent reason, and show up the same bloody way every time. Maybe you like that. I prefer my combats to be interesting. But to each their own... there's no "right" way to play D&D, and if you want lined-up slack-jawed commoners to bloody your swords in with no opposition for buckets of treasure, more power to you. I wouldn't want to game with you, though. Why do your DMs/groups feel the need to punish players who are new to the game Uhm, not purposely coddling your players, using decently intelligent tactics, and making use of the abilities given in the monster entry means that you "feel a need to punish players that are new to the game?" Wow. I gotta say, my definition of a killer DM is a LOT different than yours. or who want to try out an interesting concept that doesn't happen to be optimised? I'm a long-time heavy roleplayer as well as an optimizer, and I've seen a whole lot of concepts, and I've seen very few that couldn't be optimized one way or another, and in the exceedingly rare case that we have seen such things (honestly can't remember the last time), we houserule some new feats or something to make the idea worthwhile.
Captain_Kobold 02-04-08, 04:17 AM	Uhm, not purposely coddling your players, using decently intelligent tactics, and making use of the abilities given in the monster entry means that you "feel a need to punish players that are new to the game?" Certainly not. But cutting through less experienced players like a hot knife through butter certainly does sound like you are. That is what struck me as a tad harsh. Wow. I gotta say, my definition of a killer DM is a LOT different than yours. . Sounds like it. I would at least expect a DM to give each party character an even chance, independent of how long the player had been playing D&D for. I strongly disagree, and I know many would do the same. I find it boring when monsters have MMO-style intelligence, arbitrarily attack the Fighter for no apparent reason, and show up the same bloody way every time. Maybe you like that. I prefer my combats to be interesting. But to each their own... there's no "right" way to play D&D, and if you want lined-up slack-jawed commoners to bloody your swords in with no opposition for buckets of treasure, more power to you. I wouldn't want to game with you, though. I don't appreciate the baseless, implied insult at all. Likewise. Vindication, please understand that I have no problem with the DMs using tactics, making things interesting, and generally making the party work for its victory. I likewise see no reason why this would in any way affect the actual roleplaying going on. The sole thing in your statement that I objected to, and the reason for my comment was your crack about the DMs cutting through less experienced players like a hot knife through butter. Now, if you didn't actually mean to say that, or it just came out wrong, then fair enough, my comments are then unnecessary. But all I have to go on to understand you is what you did actually say.
Bruize 02-04-08, 04:55 AM	My DM and I came to a bit of an understanding the other day. He saw that if he didn't do somehting, I was going to use an artificer with twin spell and the metamagic item infusion to shatter his campaign. So, we settled on allowing a 5ht man into the team to play the rogue and I built a Middle Aged Sivis Gnome Archivist 5 (20 Int after applying lvl 4 stat boost) w/ Augment Healing (to break Mass Lesser Vigor) and Draconic Archivist (Use Dark Knowledge against Dragons and Constructs) as my feats. Then I picked up a whole host of wierd and unusual spells and a couple of powerful choices. 1st Level Spells Bless Cure Light Wounds Divine Favor Entropic Shield Identify* (Cloistered Cleric) Magic Weapon Obscuring Mist Remove Fear Lesser Restoration* (Paladin) Shield of Faith Sporefield* (Druid) (from Complete Scoundrel, was either this or Path of Ice) Urchin's Spines* (Ranger) (Perfect for the tank) Lesser Vigor Winged Watcher* (Druid) 2nd Level Spells Barkskin* (Druid) Bull's Strength Close Wounds Cure Moderate Wounds Find traps Remove Paralysis Snake's Swiftness, Mass* (Druid) Splinterbolt* (Druid) 3rd Level Spells Animate Dead Lightning Bolt* (Druid) Lesser Vigor, Mass Storm Mote* (Druid) For gear, I picked up the obligatory scrolls, a belt of healing, elverlasting mug, Everlasting Rations, Magic Bedroll, Tome of Worldly Memory (To synergize with Dark Knowledge!), Dull Grey Ioun stone w/ Continual Flame cast on it, Handy Haversack to carry it all, armor and other assorted gear and tools. Part of the agreement to get a 5th player was that I wouldn't be the star of the game. Little does the DM know that I don't need to be. With Mass Snake's Swiftness and properly placed allies, I make everyone else look like the star while knowing it was all me. If anyone wants to suggest some alterations to the spell list, I have until 7pm Est today to adjust it.
Edymnion 02-04-08, 09:13 AM	You know, nevermind. Its pretty clear you're just in this for the sake of arguing, and I'm not going to play that game.
Vindiction7 02-04-08, 12:43 PM	Tome of Worldly Memory This is just plain one of my favorite items. :D 1st Level Spells Bless Cure Light Wounds Divine Favor Entropic Shield Identify* (Cloistered Cleric) Magic Weapon Obscuring Mist Remove Fear Lesser Restoration* (Paladin) Shield of Faith Sporefield* (Druid) (from Complete Scoundrel, was either this or Path of Ice) Urchin's Spines* (Ranger) (Perfect for the tank) Lesser Vigor Winged Watcher* (Druid) 2nd Level Spells Barkskin* (Druid) Bull's Strength Close Wounds Cure Moderate Wounds Find traps Remove Paralysis Snake's Swiftness, Mass* (Druid) Splinterbolt* (Druid) 3rd Level Spells Animate Dead Lightning Bolt* (Druid) Lesser Vigor, Mass Storm Mote* (Druid) For gear, I picked up the obligatory scrolls, a belt of healing, elverlasting mug, Everlasting Rations, Magic Bedroll, Tome of Worldly Memory (To synergize with Dark Knowledge!), Dull Grey Ioun stone w/ Continual Flame cast on it, Handy Haversack to carry it all, armor and other assorted gear and tools. Sounds like good choices, though I honestly know little about the archivist class. From what I've heard, though, sounds like it would be a good choice for a trapmonkey/healer. Other good choices that aren't an artificer can be a Rogue, Factotum, or Cloistered Cleric (especially with the Kobold domain). Now, you may not think of a Rogue or Factotum as a healer, but really, the ability to use a Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor wand is enough to make you a healer. All you really need to do as a healer is heal OUT OF COMBAT. Being able to heal in combat is just a bonus. "Healer" is not a main combat role. Heck, even an Unseen Seer or Beguiler would work. Really, anyone with the UMD to consistently use healing wands is going to be just fine as a healer. The sole thing in your statement that I objected to, and the reason for my comment was your crack about the DMs cutting through less experienced players like a hot knife through butter. I should rephrase. I tend to say "inexperienced" as a matter of political correctness. What I actually mean is "stupid." The amount of time playing, I find, has little relevance to people's performance. I've seen players who've played for ten years who still manage to be unable to grasp even the most basic tactics, and in the words of TreantMonk, take up the "Waste of Space" role. By contrast, even an inexperienced player who knows next to nothing about the rules who has a head on his shoulders can quickly learn from more experienced players at the table, and it's a simple matter to get help with things like builds outside of the game, provided you have a constructive environment and are playing with, you know, friends or friendly people (if you're not, you may have cause to worry). Inexperienced players can learn, and they can get maybe a little bit of leeway while they're doing so. Stupid players just kinda screw up and die. Or kill other players. I apologize for the misleading statement, anyway. I actually find that it's pretty easy to get an inexperienced player up and playing at a high level pretty quickly. You just help them out with a build, give them a few pointers on basic tactics, and put them with a group of players that knows what they're doing, and unless they're stupid, they catch on pretty quick. By contrast, it's much, much harder to turn someone into a very skilled RPer (it's hard to teach someone to be creative)... so when we're recruiting we always look for that first and foremost. That said, I know many of the DMs I've played with kill off stupid people like flies, not because they're out to do it, but just because those players can't meet the challenges provided, be they puzzles, combat encounters, either conventional or more unique set piece fights, or social encounters. Much of the time, I see that it doesn't have much to do with numbers. I have horror stories about things like paladins forgetting that gravity exists and "healers" trying to heal dread necromancers with CLW potions despite having undeniable IC and OOC knowledge that she has the effects of Tomb Tainted Soul and a rogue/scout jumping across a chasm apart from the rest of the party to attack a bunch of obvious CONSTRUCTS on the other side where the party couldn't help her... in the dark... without darkvision... or a light source... Those people die horribly. And honestly, using a potion in the middle of combat tends to qualify as "doing something stupid" in most of the cases I've seen people do it. A fighter steps out of combat and tries to heal... and either gets AoOed or, stopping tanking, gets one of the other party members killed. A rogue steps out to heal and, having a d6 hit die and having been in a precarious position to flank, ends up not killing that enemy with her glass cannon attacks, opening herself for a return shot, and dying. A wizard steps out to heal and, with max hp, still can't weather a decent attack by the enemy (instead, they could have cast Mirror Image or something), and loses his valuable casting action that could have turned the tide of battle. It just... is extremely situational, at best. And potions are expensive, too. And there are wonderful defensive potions out there like "Enlarge Person" instead for your tank. If you AoO an enemy as he approaches and trip them, for example, then you just stopped their attack altogether. By contrast, if you don't stop their attack, you could take 30 points of damage, and then Cure Serious Wounds would cost you your action, your positioning, your 750gp, and possibly the fight, and after all that it would still only heal an average of 18.5 hp, so you'd still have taken half of that damage. Part of the drawback of potions is that you have to heal yourself, and that means you're trying to take this dangerous action while you're the one under fire and at risk. The only curative potion that isn't very expensive is Cure Light Wounds, and that's only going to heal enough to be situationally useful at very low level. And an artificer can't craft them until level 2. Hence, my statement that potions of Cure X Wounds are only going to possibly be useful at level 2. Maybe, MAYBE higher if you have to go core only except for Sharn: City of Towers and Magic of Eberron, get a packmate and potion bracers, and really want people to be able to self-heal and have cash to spare. Seriously though, odds are that if you want to use a Cure X Wounds potion, there's a tactically better option for you to take. You know, nevermind. Its pretty clear you're just in this for the sake of arguing, and I'm not going to play that game. You make personal attacks, and are going out on a "last word" personal attack when your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, and I've given more advice to the OP than you. I've pretty much only responded to your own attacks (and the comments of others), or stayed perfectly on topic. Yeah, it was totally me who just wanted to win an argument. :rolleyes:
Kreistor2 02-04-08, 10:47 PM	And here I thought we were talking about the Artificer, not the Healer. Please review the OP. This is not an Artificer thread. Artificer is one of the options under review, and not the only option. That's right, I made a mistake. My apologies. Might want to tone down the snarkiness quotient. I found it ironic that you nitpicked me and left one for me to reveal. I'm still chuckling. It depends on the party makeup. Really, every character should be doing their part. For example: As a 5th level Kalashtar Seer, I had 23-28 AC [snip] Psionic and Arcane classes get great AC buffs. But these cost exactly the same resources as heals (spell resources), and need to be up before the combat starts, or you're casting without them, or not performing your primary role while getting them up. Some are hour long, but many are short. The Psion, specifically, has a huge resource problem. Yes, he can cast lots of low level spells, but those are short, and so he has to do it every fight. Your DM may allow you to never be surprised, but my campaign breaks down to about a 1:1:1 PC surprised: no surprise:enemy surprised ratio. Ultimately, no matter how optimized your spotter is, the Hider can optimize just as much, and put you right back to the 50% chance you had to start with. (There are also undetectables, like ghosts in walls or the ethereal, underground creatures with tremorsense, dragons with their insane senses, etc.) High AC also has the problem of being unreliable. It succumbs to a hot DM die. It probably helps, but at some point the law of randomness hits and it doesn't matter how much you spent, and then what do you have to save you? Over the long term, the laws of probability say that you will face non-average events. Healing is reliable, even in the face of hot or cold dice. The end result was a character who was very hard to hit and kill, disabled enemies from attacking in melee, and made it very hard for enemies to hit at range (entangled enemies, for example, get -4 to hit on ranged attacks, get their speeds halved, and get a penalty to AC to boot), while doing small amounts of damage (I relied on the party to strike finishing blows), who would scout out situations beforehand with powers like Clairvoyant Sense, Sensitivity to Psionic Impressions, and Object Reading. I thought part of your argument was about healing wasting resources. You're throwing resources like water with no guarantee of a positive result, since you're throwing them as detection before meeting any resistance. At least when you heal you know you're getting something for your resources. The reality is that battlefield control, "tanking" (this is actually battlefield control, but for some reason people like to seperate it), I find many DM's do not use an AI model for their monsters. I disagree with that concept: I have 5 or 6 AI's I use, including the standard agro/hate/threat models used by MMORPG's. I've seen too many DM's use a die to determine who gets attacked next. Myself, I will use that with certain monsters with no Intelligence, a chaotic planar attachment, or some other random event (like a broken machine), but never with anything with motives. So, yes, battlefield control in my games is achievable: I just disagree that it is achievable with an unknown DM at the helm, and thus cannot be counted on by the average reader. We don't know their DM, so we don't know if he uses dice to determine who gets hit. debuffs, and *damage* (removing enemies from play) can often be much, much more effective than going around using HEALING spells. Can be. But the reverse can also be true. As you said, it's situational. The goal of optimal damage mitigation, reduced to its base effect, is to use the LEAST permanent resources during a fight while having the LEAST amount of risk to party assets (like, say, life and limb). Myopic view. Wasting resources pre-fight is just as bad as mid-fight. You're ignoring certain costs to make your situation better, and I don't agree with the premise. All resources must be included -- pre-, mid-, and post- fight. If you blow 20 spells and 150GP of resources, while I blow 16 and 150GP, even though you spent 8 of yours mid-fight and I spent 12 of mine mid-fight, I come out ahead in the end analysis. There are a lot more ways to accomplish that besides "using cure spells." And using cure spells tend to take more resources than other options. Actually, I find mid-fight curing to be rare. I've seen a lot of groups recently, and I'm pretty much the only one that I know that translated MMO style healing into DND, and discovered it murders monsters. You can throw all the theoretical analysis at it that you want: I've seen it crush monsters at the table. Ultimately, high AC gets slammed by a hot die, and DR becomes increasingly ineffective as damage/hit increases. Healing works far more often, against a broader array of effects, than any other form of defense, except running away and giving up adventuring. In fact, in general, you want to reserve healing for AFTER a fight. That's an ideal, but you don't get to pick the enemies and whether you can achieve that ideal. The DM does that. You may not have the choice. where people who think healing is a valuable combat role tend to fall into the "Waste of Space" party role). More often than not, theorists have never actually seen what they argue against at the table. Sorry, I've seen both sides played. I'll take the healer every time. Carry around a Lesser Vigor wand Cheapest heal/GP in the game, yep. Kinda slow and annoying at L14, though, especially if you're in a time-constrained event. The delay to full heal may exceed the duration on minute/level buffs. If you want to heal during a fight, it has to be big burst healing, or it has to be action-efficient. That depends. Your suggestion is that everyone needs to do their part. Well, if one character takes on the lion's share of that part, that frees everyone else up to do less of the defensive part and become more offensive. By shifting the onus to one character, the others' actions become more efficient, shortening the fight. Damage/fight tends to stay constant, since damage/round increases, but rounds/fight decreases. A tank sacrifices AC for a bigger bonus on the sword. The wizard doesn't spend as many rounds self-buffing on a surprise encounter, and so gets offensive actions earlier. And so on. Your statement presumes an individualist perspective with the goal of doing something other than healing, when the team perspective suggests a different conclusion. This is ABSOLUTELY true. Please quote if you're making a comment like that. I don't have time to read all those threads, sorry. If you have a specific thing you want me to see, copy it for me. So, what is "ABSOLUTELY" true? That said, healing is *actually* just one more type of defense, and it's weak against other types of offense. Last I checked, Cure spells work against melee damage, ranged damage, and any spell that deals HP damage. AC works on only 2 of those. Cure spells defend against the most common death threat (death from -10HP) and from every ptoential cause of that type of death. AC helps against one subset (the most common one), while Saves help against a different source. Sorry, but you're denigrating the single most powerful defense in the game when all the defenses you support affect a subset of what it does. Further, I said Healing, not Cure spells. The Heal spell removes a large number of status ailments, including those with no saves or attack roll. Further, Healing includes the Restoration series, which also removes status ailments. It's a defense against controllable amounts of hp damage against people who can take a hit. If something can one-shot melee a party memeber, then you can never save them in the long run. There's always a 5% chance of death, no matter what your AC. (Heh, Ironically, Close Wounds is a defense against a one-shot like this.) It doesn't do anything for status effects, and generic forms of healing (Cure X Wounds and the like) tend to have trouble with things like "the squishy is getting attacked" or "he does really high damage." WRT status effects, see Restoration, Heal, and Panacea. See also Close Wounds as defense against a killing blow. Further, things like potions or touch-range heals can easily make you vulnerable. See "Invisibility" in reference to non-aggressive actions, like healing. Or the Healer's non-provocation for Conj(Heal). Or Defensive Casting. Or Reach Spell. Close Wounds is great. The Healer class, not so much. Like I said, my fave is Favoured Soul with Augment Healing and Deity's Favour. Can take pretty much all the worthwhile Conj(Heal) spells, and still have room left over to take an offensive spell each spell level, for when the heals aren't required.
Vindiction7 02-05-08, 01:14 AM	Psionic and Arcane classes get great AC buffs. But these cost exactly the same resources as heals (spell resources) I had 23 AC without using a single standard action. And if I used Force Screen, it would be before a battle started. How do you figure? and need to be up before the combat starts, or you're casting without them, or not performing your primary role while getting them up. Did I not already say that I got 23 AC *without* taking any time to buff or getting any help from party members? Your argument has no grounds in reality or evidence. I've never wasted standard actions during combat raising my AC as that character. Some are hour long, but many are short. The Psion, specifically, has a huge resource problem. Yes, he can cast lots of low level spells, but those are short, and so he has to do it every fight. Your DM may allow you to never be surprised, but my campaign breaks down to about a 1:1:1 PC surprised: no surprise:enemy surprised ratio. So either I have 23 AC (or whatever I have with long term buffs), or 28 AC and disable the enemy in the surprise round. A well-played Seer or Diviner or scout, though, will raise the ratio of surprises. Ultimately, no matter how optimized your spotter is, the Hider can optimize just as much, and put you right back to the 50% chance you had to start with. (There are also undetectables, like ghosts in walls or the ethereal, underground creatures with tremorsense, dragons with their insane senses, etc.) And then I still have 23 AC, and then use all the other tools I mentioned, like entangling and energy stunning the foe to lock them down. High AC also has the problem of being unreliable. It succumbs to a hot DM die. It probably helps, but at some point the law of randomness hits and it doesn't matter how much you spent, and then what do you have to save you? Over the long term, the laws of probability say that you will face non-average events. You might have noticed that there were several other things mentioned. You know, like battlefield control, buffs, debuffs, disabling enemies, and so forth? Yeah, all that. Those are abilities that prevent damage to the party. Healing is reliable, even in the face of hot or cold dice. Based on what logic? With "hot dice" the player is incapacitated and healing isn't going to help them anyways, because the psion doesn't have the hp to take a hit unless he's using something like Vigor/Share Pain. It's generally far less efficient than good battlefield control. I thought part of your argument was about healing wasting resources. You're throwing resources like water with no guarantee of a positive result since you're throwing them as detection before meeting any resistance. At least when you heal you know you're getting something for your resources. I've never had a shortage maintaining the example character for 5 challenging encounters. Also, healing does not have guaranteed results, whether you imagine it to or not. For reasons already mentioned. You keep making claims as if they were factual based wholly on assumptions. We don't know their DM, so we don't know if he uses dice to determine who gets hit. Bwahahahhaha... I've had a lot of DMs, and I've NEVER heard of someone using dice to determine who gets attacked. That's gotta be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. And of course, it would slaughter any NPCs or monsters with things like AoOs and battlefield control before they could do a bloody thing. Monsters would almost never get an attack off if they tried to attack randomly, unless they were up against the World's Most Clueless Party. What you're suggesting here is something called an "unreasonable assumption." Myopic view. Wasting resources pre-fight is just as bad as mid-fight. You're ignoring certain costs to make your situation better, and I don't agree with the premise. All resources must be included -- pre-, mid-, and post- fight. If you blow 20 spells and 150GP of resources, while I blow 16 and 150GP, even though you spent 8 of yours mid-fight and I spent 12 of mine mid-fight, I come out ahead in the end analysis. Incidentally, none of these statements actually addresses how the quote "The goal of optimal damage mitigation, reduced to its base effect, is to use the LEAST permanent resources during a fight while having the LEAST amount of risk to party assets (like, say, life and limb)." represents a myopic view in any form. You have yet to present supporting evidence for your claim. I see no distinction in that quote of "pre, post, or mid-fight" resources. Looks like a Straw Man argument on your part. Actually, I find mid-fight curing to be rare. I've seen a lot of groups recently, and I'm pretty much the only one that I know that translated MMO style healing into DND, and discovered it murders monsters. You can throw all the theoretical analysis at it that you want: I've seen it crush monsters at the table. Ultimately, high AC gets slammed by a hot die, and DR becomes increasingly ineffective as damage/hit increases. Healing works far more often, against a broader array of effects, than any other form of defense, except running away and giving up adventuring. How does it "slam monsters"? Take a look at the healing guide linked near the top of the thread, and look at all the examples where people have run the math. The reality is that you're imagining this "hot die" result as being something that affects all defenses except for healing. That just isn't reality. You imagine that sacrificing actions that could have been used for other effects, moving your character into position, and doing a set amount of hp healing is somehow exempt from odds in every way. Again, that's just not reality. The odds of success of different strategies, be they using web to prevent an enemy attack or using healing after the fact, can be cut apart, analyzed, and measured. And healing tends to have lower odds of success. That's an ideal, but you don't get to pick the enemies and whether you can achieve that ideal. The DM does that. You may not have the choice. There's another fallacy here. You create a false dilemma here with the implication that you have to heal as a form of defense as opposed to any other form of defense. You claim that "if the enemies are difficult and the odds favor them, you must use healing to recover." This simply isn't true. There are tons of other ways to defend yourself, such as battlefield control. More often than not, theorists have never actually seen what they argue against at the table. That's quite a claim to make. Knowing a number of the builders off the CharOp boards, I can tell you that they play a *lot* of D&D. And seen what they argue against at the table. Sorry, I've seen both sides played. I'll take the healer every time. What you're doing here is making a claim based on "anecdotal evidence" without actually providing either the evidence or the logical support for why something works. You're just saying "no, I'm right, sorry." You even actually say sorry. You have no support for your position at all. You just make claims like "theorists are wrong and I don't think they really play D&D." And then call OTHERS myopic. That depends. Your suggestion is that everyone needs to do their part. Well, if one character takes on the lion's share of that part that frees everyone else up to do less of the defensive part and become more offensive. Going around casting Cure X Wounds spells doesn't cover your part. D&D isn't a game where you take tiny increments of controllable damage. You get debuffed, disabled, locked down, and killed by high damage attack options unless the DM does not have the capability to play a monster to its capabilities. How does your curing stop the threat of a Balor? By shifting the onus to one character, the others' actions become more efficient, shortening the fight. That's just not how D&D's mechanics works. Further, a potent offense helps your defense. Shortening an enemy's lifespan by a round can save a character's life. Damage/fight tends to stay constant This notion is patently ridiculous. The wizard doesn't spend as many rounds self-buffing on a surprise encounter If a wizard is spending rounds buffing on a surprise encounter, you're playing a game with newbs who don't have a bloody clue what they're doing, plain and simple. That's one of the worst things you can do. and so gets offensive actions earlier. You should be bringing the brunt of your offensive power to bear *at round one.* And so on. Your statement presumes an individualist perspective with the goal of doing something other than healing, when the team perspective suggests a different conclusion. Your "team perspective" is based entirely on faulty logic. You have this idea that you can't have this "defensive specialist" function with anything other than healing, and give *no basis* for that argument. You're making broad, sweeping statements based wholly upon assumptions. You have made no objective comparisons *at all.* In your entire post. Please quote if you're making a comment like that. I don't have time to read all those threads, sorry. If you have a specific thing you want me to see, copy it for me. So, what is "ABSOLUTELY" true? I *did* quote. Last I checked, Cure spells work against melee damage, ranged damage, and any spell that deals HP damage. Counterexample: "You're a level 5 wizard. You have 18 hp. You just got hit for 28 damage." Oh boy, your healing is really helping. I see how it's totally working against unmanageable hp damage. Bam, your claim is soundly disproven. AC works on only 2 of those. Did I only mention AC? No. There are buffs, debuffs, battlefield control, disabling enemies, and saves. You ignore almost all of your opponent's argument, quote little bits, make straw man arguments and false dilemmas and wild, unsupported claims, and neglect to offer even a single objective comparison to support your points in any way. Cure spells defend against the most common death threat (death from -10HP) Strictly, healing deals with manageable amounts of hp damage, *as I already said.* It will not stop you from dying at -10 hp. A sufficient hp damage output or any form of offense (there's a lot of them, and in D&D they're really good, straight off of level 1 and the introduction of Color Spray and Sleep) that doesn't target hp damage will not be helped by healing. Delay Death will stop you from dying at -10 hp, though. and from every ptoential cause of that type of death. Strictly, provably false. Healing will not stop you from dying from a 28 damage attack when you have 18 hp. In fact, a single level 5 healer won't stop you from dying if you have 19 hp either, because the enemy is probably dealing more damage that you're healing. Thus, your statement is patently ridiculous. AC helps against one subset (the most common one), while Saves help against a different source. And battlefield control, buffing, debuffing, and disabling opponents affects a host of other things. Healing, too, helps against only against a portion of offense. All types of defenses in D&D do. Sorry, but you're denigrating the single most powerful defense in the game when all the defenses you support affect a subset of what it does. That's patently ridiculous. AC will stop that 28 damage attack from killing the 18 hp mage. So will having Mirror Image. So will using Web to stop the enemy from REACHING the wizard. So will having a tank divert the attack to himself with tactical maneuvering. You know what form of defense won't stop that attack from killing the mage? Healing. Thus, your statement is again soundly proven false. Honestly, you seem to have ignored more than half of everything I said *in the post you're responding to.* And you make blatantly, easily provably untrue statements. Healing does not stop hp damage from killing you. It's not Delay Death. It stops the kind of hp damage I already described. And that accounts for a *small* subset of situations that arise in D&D combat. If something can one-shot melee a party memeber, then you can never save them in the long run. Also false. There's always a 5% chance of death, no matter what your AC. I really love how you keep acting like the only factor besides healing is AC. Really. It's not annoying at all how you just ignored the entire rest of the game when I mentioned it. It's like you're so dead-set in your mindset that you don't even see the rest of the post, mentioning things like *battlefield control.* If you would use things like *battlefield control,* you would see an improvement over your "MMO style healing" that you think crushes monsters. There is not always a 5% chance of death. You can do all sorts of things to stop that enemy from reaching you. AC is just one layer of the wall. (Heh, Ironically, Close Wounds is a defense against a one-shot like this.) It sure is, but I'm not sure where you see irony in that. It doesn't fall under the category of conventional healing. It actually reduces the damage of one attack by whatever amount, and thus actually functions like a sort of universal DR against one attack. This is why I recommend it. Of course, Close Wounds has already been addressed, and you just kinda choose to ignore it.
Kreistor2 02-05-08, 05:10 PM	I had 23 AC without using a single standard action. And if I used Force Screen, it would be before a battle started. How do you figure? Either I overlooked your statement, or you never stated it. And, BTW< repeating the same complaint about something I said multiple times is redundant. But, here's my response to that. Anything you can do, my NPC's can do. That means if you've achieved 23AC, well, my NPC's are going to have the same. You haven't solved a problem: now both you and the enemy have high AC. Remember that the standard CR-EL rules are that PC's and NPC's are built on the same rules, in order to maintain balance. It is easy to get high AC. You aren't impressing me. I've seen base AC28 at level 6. (In fact, I achieved that. Mithril BP +1, Shield +1, near full Dex (4 AC), Shield Spec, Stance from ToBattle, Combat Expertise breaks AC 30, actually, and I still have one more feat to assign.) High AC is easy. I still got hit. Surprise! Took a crit from a Mino on a 20/x3 Greataxe. Had the DM used normal HP rules, I might have been into the negatives, in a single blow. The laws of probability slam you, eventually. Incidentally, none of these statements actually addresses how the quote "The goal of optimal damage mitigation, reduced to its base effect, is to use the LEAST permanent resources during a fight while having the LEAST amount of risk to party assets (like, say, life and limb)." represents a myopic view in any form. You have yet to present supporting evidence for your claim. I see no distinction in that quote of "pre, post, or mid-fight" resources. Looks like a Straw Man argument on your part. It's not different from your techniques, so I can't agree with your complaint. You choose an example an arbitrarily declare your way works best. You think high AC is enough. Good for you. If ti works for you, then great. I know from my table that high AC doesn't work for my players. They thought like you two years ago. They think differently now. HAving seen a dedicated healer at work they won't go back. So, sorry, man, but your theory just doesn't match the reality at the table. Crits happen. Massive damage happens. AC can't change that, only reduce how often it occurs. When it does happen, if you don't have equally massive healing available, you die. Crunch numbers all you want. When it comes down to the final analysis, even if it uses more resources (which I don't agree with, but am fine allowing simply for argument's sake), fewer PC's will die by relying on powerful healing than by relying on high AC. Did I only mention AC? No. There are buffs, debuffs, battlefield control, disabling enemies, and saves. You ignore almost all of your opponent's argument, quote little bits, make straw man arguments and false dilemmas and wild, unsupported claims, and neglect to offer even a single objective comparison to support your points in any way. And yet, you assume the other three members of my party are picking their noses. You're attacking one member of my party by using the actions of your entire party. You're comparing a team to an individual. You seem to complain that I am picking at single individual techniques, and yet, that is exactly what you are doing by focusing entirely on the single healer in the group. That's patently ridiculous. AC will stop that 28 damage attack from killing the 18 hp mage. So will having Mirror Image. So will using Web to stop the enemy from REACHING the wizard. Okay, how exactly is this not using resources? Mirror Image and Web are great. But what happens when the enemy misses the image, hits you, and crits? There is a finite probability of that happening, and it can never be 0. What can happen will happen, and then you're either dying, or you're being healed. Anyway, I'm done with this. You're using all the same techniques that I am, and complaining that I'm using them, so you're hypocritical and boring. Ciao.
OneWinged4ngel 02-05-08, 08:10 PM	What a mess of a thread. Let's see if this helps. A trapmonkey/healer can come in many forms. An artificer is an *excellent* choice, but anything with the ability to use wands of CLW will be able to fill the role of healer, and any number of things can fill the role of trapmonkey... and not just things with disable device/trapfinding (though that is usually ideal). Anyways, both of these things are important *out of combat* roles. In combat roles can pretty much be defined as falling into 3 categories: Negating actions (such as by controlling or healing), changing the odds (such as by buffing or debuffing), or disabling enemies (such as by killing them or afflicting them with some sort of status that takes them out of the fight. This is the part that makes you win). Healing (in combat) is a subset of negating actions (If you spend your actions literally undoing the actions of enemies, that is indeed equivalent to team bad guys having had less actions), but controlling works at least as well (and killing enemies works even better! But that's usually harder to immediately accomplish. Just make sure you're doing it as fast as you can). A lot of people get confused and seem to think that healing is some whole big combat role all on its own, and that's just wrong. Since healing (in combat) is only one means to an end (and, as many will tell you, not the best means to that end), it is *not* the essential party function that many less mechanically inclined D&D players make it out to be. Any class with UMD can use wands of CLW or, more efficiently, Lesser Vigor. That opens up things like Beguiler, builds like Unseen Seer and Arcane Trickster, Factotum, Scout, Rogue, Bard (with that one variant that gives you trapfinding; I don't remember the precise source and I'm AFB), Artificer, and so forth. Really, all you need to do is to be able to heal *out of combat.* Access to effective healing in combat is a useful option to have in some situations, but hardly a party role that you need to have. If you are going to want to heal in combat, make sure you can either burst heal enough to make a difference, and/or can heal with "lesser" actions. Sure, Close Wounds may not *seem* like a lot, but that immediate action can save an ally's life in a pinch without detracting from those important things you should be doing, and moreover is preventative. If *all you do* in combat is heal, however, odds are you're not playing anywhere near your potential, regardless of what class you are (unless maybe it's Healer. But who plays Healer? It's like taking the Cleric and cutting off his arms and legs and stealing a kidney). Make sure to avoid wasting your valuable money if you choose an artificer, though. As an artificer, you should be "The Master Accountant." You can do absolutely anything quite well, so long as you balance your finances and avoid going bankrupt. This is what makes it one of the most complex (and powerful!) classes in D&D. Even more than any other class, an artificer should always be searching for the most efficient route to his goal. After all, he has access to most of the routes in the entire game. My own guide to healing already got linked on the first page, and I humbly suggest having a look at my own thread for ideas of how to heal well with just about any class, both in combat and out. But I also can't emphasize enough that you should realize that healing is actually just a subset of the role of negating actions, and there are other ways to accomplish that role that can often be more effective in many situations. Just for the sake of ease of use, here it is again: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=900290 (Ironically, I wrote this one night after I DMed a session with some new players and the artificer couldn't figure out for the life of him why the party was getting screwed over so hard while he was relying on potions. Sorry Edy ;)) Anyways, I'm sure the people here would be able to help you much better if you gave more details, such as what level you are and what kind of concept you would be interested in. You can seriously make a healer / trapmonkey out of almost any theme, be it arcane, divine, warrior, sneak, or whatever. The choices are myriad, and most of them can be quite effective in capable hands. Decide what you want for a concept, then look to fill out the details. ~signed, http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u211/SatinFist/Sephiroth.gif *snip* Wow... you managed to entirely miss the point of absolutely everything Vindiction7 said, even when he clarified things to you. That's impressive. I don't think I'm going to succeed in convincing you where he failed, though, and I honestly don't have that sort of patience anymore anyways. He clearly wasn't trying to impress you with high AC, he clearly wasn't trying to say AC was the best way to do things, and you constantly seem to be responding to something other than what you quoted. My eyes bled reading that.
Kreistor2 02-06-08, 07:32 AM	He clearly wasn't trying to impress you with high AC, he clearly wasn't trying to say AC was the best way to do things, and you constantly seem to be responding to something other than what you quoted. My eyes bled reading that. No, I agree, he wasn't. But on a single turn you get a single choice of action. You may debuff, crowd control, heal, attack for damage, attack for instant kill, etc. Broadly claiming that you have an array of defenses that my group doesn't, when you're comparing against only one individual in my group, is prejudicial. His group appears to have a whole lot of options that I don't only because he is treating the healer's group as undefined and therefore without ability, instead of undefined with potentially any ability. My group can debuff, crowd control, and in fact do anything his group might potentially do. It may also focus on extreme damage. In fact, any of these they choose to do, they will do better than any individual in his group, because they are not devoting as many resources to defense, due to the presence of the healer. Yes, he has one character doing an additional thing that my group doesn't, but so do I: healing specifically. I give up either a debuffer, or damage dealer, or crowd controller, in order to mitigate damage, but I give up only one of those defenses in his group. The other three I choose get more powerful. That's the fallacy of his argument. He's comparing a group against an individual, and no single character can ever hope to win that argument. That's straw man, which is his own complaint against me. That's why I decline to continue.
OneWinged4ngel 02-06-08, 12:03 PM	No, I agree, he wasn't. So you were what, trolling? But on a single turn you get a single choice of action. False statement. Anyone can make a move+standard or full round action, a swift action, an immediate action (you can actually do another one in the same round, after you're done with your other actions, because it uses up the swift action of your NEXT turn), as many free actions as the DM will let you use, and possibly a 5 foot step. Further, you can take actions outside of the initiative count before a fight ever starts, provided the effects have a significant enough duration. I give up either a debuffer, or damage dealer, or crowd controller, in order to mitigate damage Your problem is that you don't seem to think that all those other things are a form of damage mitigation, even though they are. See my last post, or the linked thread. He's comparing a group against an individual, and no single character can ever hope to win that argument. That's straw man, which is his own complaint against me. That's why I decline to continue. I don't think you understand what that phrase means. This is what a straw man is: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
WizO_Kayn 02-06-08, 12:42 PM	Without a doubt its time to take a step, - make that Two Steps back people. No more baiting, no more trolling. Both are disallowed according to the Code of Conduct. If you cant post with civility... then refrain please. Thanks WizO Kayn
Kreistor2 02-06-08, 07:19 PM	The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. He's ignoring 3/4 of my group (by assuming they are not doing anything defensive), and presenting my only defense as healing. That fits straw man's re.
OneWinged4ngel 02-06-08, 09:08 PM	The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Yep. Now, I'm sure if you think for a second, Kreistor2, you'll realize that your claim does not fit that model at all. He's ignoring 3/4 of my group (by assuming they are not doing anything defensive) Even if that were true (I see absolutely no evidence of it. Instead, it appears as if he is saying that you don't *have* to be a healer to accomplish the goals you wanted your single dedicated healer to accomplish), it has absolutely nothing to do with the Straw Man Fallacy, which refers to arguing against a position one does not actually hold. You are actually accusing him of a wholly different sort of fault here, claiming that he is ignoring a crucial point. presenting my only defense as healing. Even if that were true (I see absolutely no evidence of that, either. Instead, he claims that you are ignoring the potential of alternative forms of defense, which by all evidence you are), it has absolutely nothing to do with the Straw Man Fallacy, which refers to arguing against a position one does not actually hold. You are actually accusing him of a wholly different sort of fault here, claiming that he is ignoring certain capabilities of your party. Neither of these claims have to do with misrepresenting your argument. That fits straw man's re. No, it doesn't. A straw man fallacy would actually be ignoring a person's actual position and substituting a misrepresented version of that position. For example, Person A says "I think the sky is red." Person B says "The sky clearly isn't green," though person A's position was actually that the sky was red. This confirms my earlier hypothesis that you don't understand the meaning of the phrase you used. And with that bit of public service, I don't want to get any more inane PMs from you flooding my crowded inbox urging me to reply to inane posts like this one, so I'm going to use the ignore function for this forum. As I already said, I don't have the patience to deal with this sort of thing like I used to.
Kreistor2 02-07-08, 09:35 AM	As per the request of the mod, I am not continuing this argument here. I will only continue this in PM. Ignore it if you like. I'm not breaking rules by PM'ing you what a mod has declared to be unacceptable in this thread.
kelvinaw273 02-11-08, 04:46 AM	Wow ... just wow. Now, while insta-healing (that is, healing mid-combat) is used a lot in MMORPGs, I find it is much less frequently used in table-top games. Case in point, in the current game I'm playing in, I'm playing the healer in the form of a Spirit Shaman. And the last few encounters, I have hardly bothered with healing spells. For healing in combat we use healing belts, wands and potions. We found that my character was far more effective buffing the party in advance, using battlefield control spells to limit the foes who could attack us and straight up offensive spells to take down the opposition faster. When we tried the combat healing thing, all that happened was my character got taken down fast by dint of having cruddy AC (now rectified) and having to get too close to the enemy in order to heal our own side. What's more, while I was healing I wasn't using spells and/or abilities against the enemy. Now that's anecdotal, I know, and it won't apply to every encounter, but it works for us, and plain common sense says that if you don't take damage to begin with, healing isn't needed. Kreistor2 makes the valid point of everything that the players have, the opposition can have, but to be serious if the DM plays things that way then the opposition also have combat healers, so net gain is nothing and every encounter is a 50/50 chance, depending on how the dice goes. My party have found that high AC and good buffs avoids most damage for the same outlay in spells cast, while items can deal with the on-the-spot healing, and this is not a bad way to go, especially when you have two roles to fill as this character does.