Post/Author/DateTime	Post
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 05:01 AM	Healin'. Patchin' up the wounds. Sewing the Fighter's larynx back in after he took an arrow through the neck and lived and wanted to tell about it. Every player knows the drill. But oddly, a lot of players just use really... silly methods of going about healing themselves, and have some wild misconceptions about how to do it effectively and even how much of a priority it should be. The Problems Some players think they *have* to have a cleric or druid to cover the healing role, and place healing as an extremely high priority, even in combat, and even if they don't. Many even spend inordinate amounts of money on extremely inefficient healing items that may hurt them more than help them. To summarize a few common issues: Players overprioritize healing in combat when there are more effective options available to them. Players spend too much money on healing, often spending wads of cash on things like potions of Cure Moderate Wounds. Players believe they can't heal efficiently without a Cleric or Druid or similar class in the party, and view such as an essential role, to the point where some even *force* others to play a Cleric or Druid just so that they can have a dedicated healer, and then downplay the extraordinary talents of those classes and belittle them to a mere healing role, making for an unenjoyable experience for the victim of this treatment. Many players just don't know how to get the best healing for their buck. Some Information and Comparisons First, an effort at dispelling some of the myths. First off, you should probably never be buying healing potions, perhaps with the exception of Cure Light Wounds or a similar level 1 spell. The reason for this is simple. The cost is exorbitant, and it's really not worth it. A Cure Serious Wounds potion will heal, on average, 18.5 hp, and it will cost you 750gp, and it will take either a standard or a full round action to use, and it will provoke AoOs unless you did some further investment to prevent that, and on top of that it probably smells bad and tastes bitter. Yuck. For the same price, you could have gotten a Wand of Cure Light Wounds (275hp total instead of 18.5hp), a Wand of Lesser Vigor (550hp total instead of 18.5gp), or a Healing Belt (Either 6d8 hp (average 27 hp) a day, or 18 hp (same as the potion!) per day if you burst heal, usable as a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.)) Would you rather get 18 hp, or 18 hp per day? Now would you rather use a standard or full action that provokes AoOs, *and* need to draw the item, or would you rather use a standard action that doesn't provoke AoOs? And hey, wouldn't you like the option to heal even more for efficiency, outside of battle? There's even another option, this one for artificers, that costs a mere 50 gp a pop: Infuse an ally with Greater Healing armor. This will give them 6d8+30 total healing (3d8+15 as a swift action, usable twice). As an added bonus, it will even automatically heal you if you get knocked unconscious. The point is... potions are bad. Potions are inefficient. So are scrolls of Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, and so forth. Second, a dedicated healer is not a necessary combat role. Seriously. First off, healing often does not outpace damage. Moreover, removing an enemy a threat can often be much more effective at saving your allies' necks than going up and poking them with Cure X Wounds. If an enemy were to deal 50 damage to an ally, and you can take that enemy out by either disabling or killing them, then you've "healed" that ally of the 50 damage he would have taken. Additionally, as healing often does not keep up the pace with damage, even if you can't disable the enemy, healing the ally might not be good enough to save them. Instead, you might want to use an ability to help the ally escape, or block the enemy from attacking them (this can be something as simple as Benign Transposition, really). In fact, healing in combat is only situationally a good choice, and is often a subpar tactical option. Prevention is generally better than reaction. Secondly, you can get very efficient out-of-combat healing quite easily without a Cleric or Druid, and indeed a Rogue, Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Factotum, Warlock, or Bard could fill the healing role with a wand of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor. In fact, you can even get good, cheap burst healing comparable to the Cleric or Druid's ability at low levels with items like the Healing Belt. Actually, the Artificer can prove to be a fantastic healer, cheaply (we're talking 37.5% market price here) turning out healing belts, wands of lesser vigor, and providing Greater Healing armor infusions (a mere second level infusion) at an early level. The Paladin and Ranger can use wands of Cure Light Wounds without penalty, and the others can use UMD to master the efficient wands. On top of that, members of *any* class can easily chip in with the very efficient Healing Belt. These things considered, you really can get by without a Cleric or Druid. In fact, if you do have a Cleric or Druid, they're probably going to be more useful in most combats if they are doing something OTHER than healing, since they have considerable talents in many regards. How to Heal Effectively (Author's note: I have excluded a few very potent and efficient means of healing because things like the infinite-healing-for-cheap trap and other such things are just plain abusive, and few sane DMs will allow them) Blessed Bandages (10gp, MiC page 152): 10gp to automatically succeed to stabilize an ally. Can definitely save a friend at very low levels. Wands of Cure Light Wounds (750gp, Core): The hallmark of efficiency. These wands will dish out an average of 5.5hp a pop, and with 50 charges that will add up to 275 total healing. This wand gains an advantage over Lesser Vigor in two respects: Speed of use, and the fact that Lesser Vigor is a Cleric and Druid only spell, and thus is only available to those classes and UMD users, while Paladins and Rangers and the like will stick to Cure Light Wounds. Wands of Lesser Vigor (750gp, Spell Compendium Page 229): These are the most efficient healing wands around! You get 11 hp per pop (though it takes a full minute to gain that 11 hp), and you get a total of 550hp of healing for your 750gp. Healing Belts (750gp, MiC page 110): For 750gp, *anyone* can heal 6d8 hp a day, and even burst heal for 4d8hp as a Standard action with a Touch range, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity like spells and scrolls. Also, with the MiC rules for adding common effects, you don't even need to worry about "keeping the slot free" anymore. You can actually just say, give one of these to everyone in a party of 5 for 30d8 healing per day, and just subsidize your healing costs. This is a great way to keep everyone alive at low levels. As if this weren't good enough, you get feel-good +2 bonus to Heal checks as a bonus. Artificers can heal very effectively with Greater Healing Armor (MiC page 12), dishing out 3d8+15 healing *twice* usable as a swift action, and even automatically healing a character should they fall unconscious. Best of all, this only costs you 50gp for a total of 6d8+30hp healing, and is available at a very low level. Wand of Faith Healing (Spell Compendium): It's kinda cheesy, but it's worth mentioning if your DM allows it. It's exactly the same as Cure Light Wounds, except maximized and only usable on people who share your faith (which can easily just be everyone in your party). I personally don't allow this spell as a DM. Touch of Healing (Reserve Feat, Complete Champion pg 62): This one is for the actual "healers." As long as you have a healing spell of second level or higher ready to cast, you can heal anyone up to half their total hp (but no higher, meaning you have to use more abilities to fully heal them) for free. Basically, for the cost of a feat, you get a lot of free healing. Summon Nature's Ally IV (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonNaturesAllyIV.htm) (Core): Summoning a Unicorn (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/unicorn.htm) nets you a free set of 3 CLWs, 1 CMW, and a Neutralize Poison. It has a caster level of 5th, so that'll total 5d8+20 points of healing (and a neutralize poison). It's even something a druid can cast spontaneously. Not bad. Revivify (Cleric 5, Spell Compendium page 176): Revive your dead buddy for 1000gp as a standard action instead of for 5000gp as a much longer action, and best of all *no level loss.* A no brainer really. You just need to be quick about it, acting within 1 round of the victim's death! Revenance (Cleric 4, Paladin 4, Bard 6): This spell can target any character that died within 1 round / caster level of casting. The subject comes back to life (as if by Raise Dead except with no penalties) and is able to fight (with a +1 morale bonus on attack, damage, and saves against the person who killer her) for 1 minute per level, at the end of which the character dies again. The real seller here is that it has a wider window to cast than Revivify (1 round / level), and moreover the ally will die at the end of the spell (or after being killed again), often allowing you to use Revivify when it would otherwise be impossible (window passed) or too dangerous (in the middle of combat). Delay Death (Cleric 4, Spell Compendium page 63): As an *Immediate Action*, the ally becomes unable to die from hit point damage (they'll still fall unconscious, they just won't die.) This means that you can instantaneously cast this spell when a buddy takes their final hit, and they won't die for 1 round/level (during which time you can finish the encounter, then heal them up.) Can definitely be a lifesaver. Tomb Tainted Soul (Feat, Libris Mortis): This handy feat allows you to be healed by negative energy. This means that a living Dread Necromancer can heal you to full as much as she likes with Charnel Touch, and that you can heal yourself with things like Uttercold metamagiced spells and the like. Amulet of Retributive Healing (2000gp, MiC Page 69): This handy little doodad lets you double up on your healing 3 times per day. When activated (as a swift action) this amulet allows you to cure yourself of an amount of damage equal to however much you cured your buddy of. So, if you cast Heal on your ally, you can activate this item to use a free quickened Heal on yourself. Works with scrolls and everything, too. Collar of Healing (5000gp, MiC page 90): As an *Immediate action* once per day, heal your animal companion of 50hp and cures the Fatigued or Exhausted conditions. Keep your little buddy going. As an added bonus, it works at any range (as long as you're on the same plane), and lets you know your companion's exact hit point total at all times. Heal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heal.htm) (Core): Heal is a great spell. It really is. It's the healing spell you actually might want to use in fights fairly often. It heals a ton of damage, and it takes away ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned. A laundry list of status effects, some of which are quite deadly in their own right! However, Heal is not a necessary party role in and of itself! Again, you don't actually need *any* in-combat healing to have a highly effective party. Still, when you *do* have a Cleric or Druid around, there's no reason they shouldn't have this ready. If you don't have a Cleric or Druid around, you may want to consider a scroll or two of this for those few situations where you really do want a Heal (i.e., your buddy just got blasted for 100 damage and got stunned to boot). Divine Ward (Feat, PHB II): This feat will help out the "true healers," allowing them to use Close Range instead of Touch Range for their healing spells on one ally by spending your Turning attempts. You can get a similar results with Divine Metamagic (Reach Spell) (Which happens to be doubly useful for, say, a ranged Slay Living). Augment Healing (Feat, Complete Divine): Add +2 healing per level of the healing spell cast. Simple and effective for a dedicated healer, should you choose to get one. False Life (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/falseLife.htm) (Sor/Wiz 2, Core): Instead of taking up an action to heal during combat, take an action to heal up to 1 hour / level before combat ever happens! See also, Aid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/aid.htm) (Cleric 2, PHB) Empathic Transfer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/empathicTransfer.htm) (Egoist 2, Psychic Warrior 2, XPH): This useful power is the standy of healing as a Psionic character. The method is a little unique as opposed to standard methods of healing, but it works just as well. You eliminate anywhere from 2d10 to 10d10 (depending on augment) hp of damage from an ally, and transfer half of that damage onto yourself. Combined with Vigor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/vigor.htm) (Psion 1, Psychic Warrior 1, XPH), and Share Pain (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/sharePain.htm) (Psion 2, XPH) both shared to your psicrystal through Share Powers, the temporary hit points will absorb all of the damage. Vigor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/vigor.htm) (Psion 1, Psychic Warrior 1, XPH): This power giives you 5 temporary hit points per power point spent, lasting for a minute per level. It's like healing *before* you ever take damage, and lets you buff beforehand in order to avoid the need to heal in combat. Amulet of Tears (2300gp, MiC page 70): Another source of temporary hit points, this handy item stores 3 charges per day and grants temporary hit points lasting for 10 minutes based on the number of charges spent. For 1 charge, you gain 12 tmporary hit points, and for 3 charges grants 24 temporary hit points. Share Pain (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/sharePain.htm) (Psion 2, XPH): This power transfers half of the damage dealt to you to a willing subject, and thus helps a good deal with damage mitigation. It lasts for an hour per level, so can last for a full day's worth of encounters, and a popular use is to combine it with a Vigor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/vigor.htm) (Psion 1, Psychic Warrior 1, XPH) power shared with your psicrystal and make your psicrystal the subject, effectively doubling the effect of vigor and transferring a good deal of hp damage onto a target that is often a noncombatant. Shield Other (Cleric 2, Paladin 2, Core) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shieldOther.htm): This is much like Share Pain, except it deals half of an ally's damage to you, helping you to protect them. It also adds a +1 resistance bonus to saves and a +1 deflection bonus to AC for the target, as an added plus. Vampiric Touch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/vampiricTouch.htm) (Sor/Wiz 3, Duskblade 3, Core): 1d6 damage per two levels, and gain temporary hp equal to the damage dealt. This spell is notable for combining offensive abilities and effective in-combat "healing" into the same attack. This spell is useful in spell storing weapons, or channeled through a Duskblade's "Arcane Channelling" ability. It is generally *not* a good idea for the average mage to run up into melee and try to touch an enemy with it, because the damage will be low and the temporary hp probably won't save you from a world of pain (unless you have other protective spells and such up). Also note that if you're an Unseen Seer or Arcane Trickster, you can increase the amount healed with sneak attacks! Bloodstone weapon enhancement (+1, page 29 MiC): Stores and casts Vampiric Touch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/vampiricTouch.htm) just like a spell storing weapon, except that it's automatically empowered. Basically, this will deal extra damage on attacks equal to (1d6 per two caster levels)*1.5, *and* give the wielder of the weapon temporary hp equal to the damage dealt. Thus, you're adding to damage and to healing at the same time! See also: Vampiric Touch. Bodyfeeder (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/weapons.htm#bodyfeeder) weapon enhancement (+3 bonus, XPH): This handy enhancement will grant its wielder temporary hit points equal to the damage dealt by any critical hit he dishes out. With an expanded critical hit range, you can expect this to give a steady stream of temporary hp. This enhancement can be granted by an artificer spending a 3rd level infusion and a small amount of gp. (Note: Though "Wrathful Healing" is almost certainly more effective, it's much less likely to be allowed) -Signed, http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u211/SatinFist/Sephiroth.gif
BlackWeasel 08-05-07, 07:05 AM	I play core only so most of this does nothing for me.
Optimized_Commoner 08-05-07, 08:35 AM	It's odd but everyone seems to forget the cheapest method of healing. Rest 3-4 days near someone with a decent heal skill. A barbarian down to negative hit points will be back up to full hit points and ready to go.
runestar 08-05-07, 08:42 AM	Assuming you get 3-4 days of downtime in between each encounter. Few DMs, if any I know of are that generous. A druid using SNA is quite useful. With just a 4th lv slot, you can bring forth a unicorn, which can provide 3 CLW, 1 CMW and 1 neutralize poison. Yes, I am aware that the OP was talking about alternative means of healing, but I thought I would touch on the aspect of efficient healing as well.:)
LazyNinja 08-05-07, 08:43 AM	I play core only so most of this does nothing for me. Ah, an excellent critique. Very insightful. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion... The cost-per-hp analysis holds true no matter what books you're playing with. Unless "core only" means "the way I've always played and I'm not about to change now."
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 09:03 AM	Ah, an excellent critique. Very insightful. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion... The cost-per-hp analysis holds true no matter what books you're playing with. Unless "core only" means "the way I've always played and I'm not about to change now." Exactly. I mean, heck, Cure Light Wounds is on the list. Even with core only, a Rogue, Bard, Ranger, or Paladin can fill the healing role just fine with a wand of cure light wounds. A druid using SNA is quite useful. With just a 4th lv slot, you can bring forth a unicorn, which can provide 3 CLW, 1 CMW and 1 neutralize poison. Meaning for a 4th level slot you get 5d8+20 healing total (or an average of 43.5). Anyways, it is worth noting, as this is certainly better than the usual 4d8+7 or so the average druid will use at this level, though it obviously takes longer than normal. Anywho, I'll take note of it. Please realize, however, that as far as efficient out of combat healing goes, you can still use Vigor or Mass Lesser Vigor (both level 3 spells as opposed to level 4). Vigor'll get you 34 hp when you can first get the unicorn, and Mass Lesser Vigor will give 17 to everyone in the party that needs it (potentially getting a higher total number than the unicorn). Of course, this takes even longer than the unicorn. Edit: On a second look, I realize that runestar was probably replying to Optimized Commoner, rather than the original post.
NinjaPenguin 08-05-07, 09:06 AM	I think perhaps the Crusader deserves an honorable mention among the healing folks? Being able to heal others without taking up your actions in combat is very nice.
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 09:09 AM	I think perhaps the Crusader deserves an honorable mention among the healing folks? Being able to heal others without taking up your actions in combat is very nice. Good point. I'll add it.
Mark_Aged 08-05-07, 09:11 AM	Ummm.... What does MiC stand for?
Optimized_Commoner 08-05-07, 09:15 AM	Belt of Healing is faster and better than potions and many scrolls. Greater Healing Armor infusion is a... well, a swift or *free* action. Something tells me you didn't bother to read the whole post. Uh... you do realise he was responding to me... right? Assuming you get 3-4 days of downtime in between each encounter. Few DMs, if any I know of are that generous. I'm referring more to the end of the adventure. Some players I know go to the bother of getting magical healing for all of their wounds and then relaxing in town for a week or so, ignoring that those wounds would heal naturally. I mean, the entire article is about getting over the addiction to a cleric's healing magic, I thought it was a relevant point to add.
Optimized_Commoner 08-05-07, 09:16 AM	Ummm.... What does MiC stand for? Magic Item Compendium Recently published, rather awesome book full from cover to cover with rebalanced and repriced magical items brought together from all their publications over the last few years. One of my favourite books at the moment.
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 09:29 AM	Magic Item Compendium Recently published, rather awesome book full from cover to cover with rebalanced and repriced magical items brought together from all their publications over the last few years. One of my favourite books at the moment. I second this claim :)
Mark_Aged 08-05-07, 09:40 AM	Looks like I'm going to have to pick up a copy. And by the way, great guide, I'm not even playing D&D at this moment, and my party already no longer fears pain.
runestar 08-05-07, 10:10 AM	I'm referring more to the end of the adventure. Some players I know go to the bother of getting magical healing for all of their wounds and then relaxing in town for a week or so, ignoring that those wounds would heal naturally. I was under the impression that the objective of this thread was on ways to help alleviate the burden of healing off the cleric (despite its somewhat obnoxious-sounding title) during adventuring. A cleric clearly does more than just heal, and his role in a party cannot be so simply written off like that just by procuring a few wands of CLW. For my games at least, it is assumed that the party cleric will eventually heal all the players wounds during their downtime, so we usually gloss over that aspect.:P
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 10:11 AM	Edited: Though I know it's not actually "healing" per se, I felt it was worthwhile to note the usefulness of Delay Death and Revivify in keeping your buddies in health. Added a few other things too.
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 10:17 AM	Healin'. Patchin' up the wounds. Sewing the Fighter's larynx back in after he took an arrow through the neck and lived and wanted to tell about it. Every player knows the drill. But oddly, a lot of players just use really... silly methods of going about healing themselves, and have some wild misconceptions about how to do it effectively and even how much of a priority it should be. The Problems Some players think they *have* to have a cleric or druid to cover the healing role, and place healing as an extremely high priority, even in combat, and even if they don't. Many even spend inordinate amounts of money on extremely inefficient healing items that may hurt them more than help them. To summarize a few common issues: Players overprioritize healing in combat when there are more effective options available to them. Players spend too much money on healing, often spending wads of cash on things like potions of Cure Moderate Wounds. Players believe they can't heal efficiently without a Cleric or Druid or similar class in the party, and view such as an essential role, to the point where some even *force* others to play a Cleric or Druid just so that they can have a dedicated healer, and then downplay the extraordinary talents of those classes and belittle them to a mere healing role, making for an unenjoyable experience for the victim of this treatment. Many players just don't know how to get the best healing for their buck. Some Information and Comparisons First, an effort at dispelling some of the myths. First off, you should probably never be buying healing potions, perhaps with the exception of Cure Light Wounds or a similar level 1 spell. The reason for this is simple. The cost is exorbitant, and it's really not worth it. A Cure Serious Wounds potion will heal, on average, 18.5 hp, and it will cost you 750gp, and it will take either a standard or a full round action to use, and it will provoke AoOs unless you did some further investment to prevent that, and on top of that it probably smells bad and tastes bitter. Yuck. For the same price, you could have gotten a Wand of Cure Light Wounds (275hp total instead of 18.5hp), a Wand of Lesser Vigor (550hp total instead of 18.5gp), or a Healing Belt (Either 6d8 hp (average 27 hp) a day, or 18 hp (same as the potion!) per day if you burst heal, usable as a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.)) Would you rather get 18 hp, or 18 hp per day? Now would you rather use a standard or full action that provokes AoOs, *and* need to draw the item, or would you rather use a standard action that doesn't provoke AoOs? And hey, wouldn't you like the option to heal even more for efficiency, outside of battle? There's even another option, this one for artificers, that costs a mere 50 gp a pop: Infuse an ally with Greater Healing armor. This will give them 6d8+30 total healing (3d8+15 as a swift action, usable twice). As an added bonus, it will even automatically heal you if you get knocked unconscious. The point is... potions are bad. Potions are inefficient. So are scrolls of Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, and so forth. Second, a dedicated healer is not a necessary combat role. Seriously. First off, healing often does not outpace damage. Moreover, removing an enemy a threat can often be much more effective at saving your allies' necks than going up and poking them with Cure X Wounds. If an enemy were to deal 50 damage to an ally, and you can take that enemy out by either disabling or killing them, then you've "healed" that ally of the 50 damage he would have taken. Additionally, as healing often does not keep up the pace with damage, even if you can't disable the enemy, healing the ally might not be good enough to save them. Instead, you might want to use an ability to help the ally escape, or block the enemy from attacking them (this can be something as simple as Benign Transposition, really). In fact, healing in combat is only situationally a good choice, and is often a subpar tactical option. Secondly, you can get very efficient out-of-combat healing quite easily without a Cleric or Druid, and indeed a Rogue, Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Factotum, Warlock, or Bard could fill the healing role with a wand of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor. In fact, you can even get good, cheap burst healing comparable to the Cleric or Druid's ability at low levels with items like the Healing Belt. Actually, the Artificer can prove to be a fantastic healer, cheaply (we're talking 37.5% market price here) turning out healing belts, wands of lesser vigor, and providing Greater Healing armor infusions (a mere second level infusion) at an early level. The Paladin and Ranger can use wands of Cure Light Wounds without penalty, and the others can use UMD to master the efficient wands. On top of that, members of *any* class can easily chip in with the very efficient Healing Belt. These things considered, you really can get by without a Cleric or Druid. In fact, if you do have a Cleric or Druid, they're probably going to be more useful in most combats if they are doing something OTHER than healing, since they have considerable talents in many regards. How to Heal Effectively (Author's note: I have excluded a few very potent and efficient means of healing because things like the infinite-healing-for-cheap trap and other such things are just plain abusive, and few sane DMs will allow them) Blessed Bandages (10gp, MiC page 152): 10gp to automatically succeed to stabilize an ally. Can definitely save a friend at very low levels. Wands of Cure Light Wounds (750gp, Core): The hallmark of efficiency. These wands will dish out an average of 5.5hp a pop, and with 50 charges that will add up to 275 total healing. This wand gains an advantage over Lesser Vigor in two respects: Speed of use, and the fact that Lesser Vigor is a Cleric and Druid only spell, and thus is only available to those classes and UMD users, while Paladins and Rangers and the like will stick to Cure Light Wounds. Wands of Lesser Vigor (750gp, Spell Compendium Page 229): These are the most efficient healing wands around! You get 11 hp per pop (though it takes a full minute to gain that 11 hp), and you get a total of 550hp of healing for your 750gp. Healing Belts (750gp, MiC page 110): For 750gp, *anyone* can heal 6d8 hp a day, and even burst heal for 4d8hp as a Standard action with a Touch range, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity like spells and scrolls. Also, with the MiC rules for adding common effects, you don't even need to worry about "keeping the slot free" anymore. You can actually just say, give one of these to everyone in a party of 5 for 30d8 healing per day, and just subsidize your healing costs. This is a great way to keep everyone alive at low levels. As if this weren't good enough, you get feel-good +2 bonus to Heal checks as a bonus. Artificers can heal very effectively with Greater Healing Armor (MiC page 12), dishing out 3d8+15 healing *twice* usable as a swift action, and even automatically healing a character should they fall unconscious. Best of all, this only costs you 50gp for a total of 6d8+30hp healing, and is available at a very low level. Wand of Faith Healing (Spell Compendium): It's kinda cheesy, but it's worth mentioning if your DM allows it. It's exactly the same as Cure Light Wounds, except maximized and only usable on people who share your faith (which can easily just be everyone in your party). I personally don't allow this spell as a DM. Touch of Healing (Reserve Feat, Complete Champion pg 62): This one is for the actual "healers." As long as you have a healing spell of second level or higher ready to cast, you can heal anyone up to half their total hp (but no higher, meaning you have to use more abilities to fully heal them) for free. Basically, for the cost of a feat, you get a lot of free healing. Summon Nature's Ally IV (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/summonNaturesAllyIV.htm) (Core): Summoning a Unicorn (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/unicorn.htm) nets you a free set of 3 CLWs, 1 CMW, and a Neutralize Poison. It has a caster level of 5th, so that'll total 5d8+20 points of healing (and a neutralize poison). It's even something a druid can cast spontaneously. Not bad. Revivify (Cleric 5, Spell Compendium page 176): Revive your dead buddy for 1000gp as a standard action instead of for 5000gp as a much longer action, and best of all *no level loss.* A no brainer really. You just need to be quick about it, acting within 1 round of the victim's death! Revenance (Cleric 4, Paladin 4, Bard 6): This spell can target any character that died within 1 round / caster level of casting. The subject comes back to life (as if by Raise Dead except with no penalties) and is able to fight (with a +1 morale bonus on attack, damage, and saves against the person who killer her) for 1 minute per level, at the end of which the character dies again. The real seller here is that it has a wider window to cast than Revivify (1 round / level), and moreover the ally will die at the end of the spell (or after being killed again), often allowing you to use Revivify when it would otherwise be impossible (window passed) or too dangerous (in the middle of combat). Delay Death (Cleric 4, Spell Compendium page 63): As an *Immediate Action*, the ally becomes unable to die from hit point damage (they'll still fall unconscious, they just won't die.) This means that you can instantaneously cast this spell when a buddy takes their final hit, and they won't die for 1 round/level (during which time you can finish the encounter, then heal them up.) Can definitely be a lifesaver. Tomb Tainted Soul (Feat, Libris Mortis): This handy feat allows you to be healed by negative energy. This means that a living Dread Necromancer can heal you to full as much as she likes with Charnel Touch, and that you can heal yourself with things like Uttercold metamagiced spells and the like. Amulet of Retributive Healing (2000gp, MiC Page 69): This handy little doodad lets you double up on your healing 3 times per day. When activated (as a swift action) this amulet allows you to cure yourself of an amount of damage equal to however much you cured your buddy of. So, if you cast Heal on your ally, you can activate this item to use a free quickened Heal on yourself. Works with scrolls and everything, too. Collar of Healing (5000gp, MiC page 90): As an *Immediate action* once per day, heal your animal companion of 50hp and cures the Fatigued or Exhausted conditions. Keep your little buddy going. As an added bonus, it works at any range (as long as you're on the same plane), and lets you know your companion's exact hit point total at all times. Heal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heal.htm) (Core): Heal is a great spell. It really is. It's the healing spell you actually might want to use in fights fairly often. It heals a ton of damage, and it takes away ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned. A laundry list of status effects, some of which are quite deadly in their own right! However, Heal is not a necessary party role in and of itself! Again, you don't actually need *any* in-combat healing to have a highly effective party. Still, when you *do* have a Cleric or Druid around, there's no reason they shouldn't have this ready. If you don't have a Cleric or Druid around, you may want to consider a scroll or two of this for those few situations where you really do want a Heal (i.e., your buddy just got blasted for 100 damage and got stunned to boot). Divine Ward (Feat, PHB II): This feat will help out the "true healers," allowing them to use Close Range instead of Touch Range for their healing spells on one ally by spending your Turning attempts. You can get a similar results with Divine Metamagic (Reach Spell) (Which happens to be doubly useful for, say, a ranged Slay Living). Augment Healing (Feat, Complete Divine): Add +2 healing per level of the healing spell cast. Simple and effective for a dedicated healer, should you choose to get one. False Life (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/falseLife.htm) (Sor/Wiz 2, Core): Instead of taking up an action to heal during combat, take an action to heal up to 1 hour / level before combat ever happens! See also, Aid (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/aid.htm) (Cleric 2, PHB) Empathic Transfer (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/empathicTransfer.htm) (Egoist 2, Psychic Warrior 2, XPH): This useful power is the standy of healing as a Psionic character. The method is a little unique as opposed to standard methods of healing, but it works just as well. You eliminate anywhere from 2d10 to 10d10 (depending on augment) hp of damage from an ally, and transfer half of that damage onto yourself. Combined with Vigor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/vigor.htm) (Psion 1, Psychic Warrior 1, XPH), and Share Pain (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/sharePain.htm) (Psion 2, XPH) both shared to your psicrystal through Share Powers, the temporary hit points will absorb all of the damage. Vigor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/vigor.htm) (Psion 1, Psychic Warrior 1, XPH): This power giives you 5 temporary hit points per power point spent, lasting for a minute per level. It's like healing *before* you ever take damage, and lets you buff beforehand in order to avoid the need to heal in combat. Amulet of Tears (2300gp, MiC page 70): Another source of temporary hit points, this handy item stores 3 charges per day and grants temporary hit points lasting for 10 minutes based on the number of charges spent. For 1 charge, you gain 12 tmporary hit points, and for 3 charges grants 24 temporary hit points. Share Pain (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/sharePain.htm) (Psion 2, XPH): This power transfers half of the damage dealt to you to a willing subject, and thus helps a good deal with damage mitigation. It lasts for an hour per level, so can last for a full day's worth of encounters, and a popular use is to combine it with a Vigor (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/vigor.htm) (Psion 1, Psychic Warrior 1, XPH) power shared with your psicrystal and make your psicrystal the subject, effectively doubling the effect of vigor and transferring a good deal of hp damage onto a target that is often a noncombatant. Shield Other (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shieldOther.htm) (Cleric 2, Paladin 2, Core): This is much like Share Pain, except it deals half of an ally's damage to you, helping you to protect them. It also adds a +1 resistance bonus to saves and a +1 deflection bonus to AC for the target, as an added plus. Vampiric Touch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/vampiricTouch.htm) (Sor/Wiz 3, Duskblade 3, Core): 1d6 damage per two levels, and gain temporary hp equal to the damage dealt. This spell is notable for combining offensive abilities and effective in-combat "healing" into the same attack. This spell is useful in spell storing weapons, or channeled through a Duskblade's "Arcane Channelling" ability. It is generally *not* a good idea for the average mage to run up into melee and try to touch an enemy with it, because the damage will be low and the temporary hp probably won't save you from a world of pain (unless you have other protective spells and such up). Bloodstone weapon enhancement (+1, page 29 MiC): Stores and casts Vampiric Touch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/vampiricTouch.htm) just like a spell storing weapon, except that it's automatically empowered. Basically, this will deal extra damage on attacks equal to (1d6 per two caster levels)*1.5, *and* give the wielder of the weapon temporary hp equal to the damage dealt. Thus, you're adding to damage and to healing at the same time! Bodyfeeder (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/items/weapons.htm#bodyfeeder) weapon enhancement (+3 bonus, XPH): This handy enhancement will grant its wielder temporary hit points equal to the damage dealt by any critical hit he dishes out. With an expanded critical hit range, you can expect this to give a steady stream of temporary hp. This enhancement can be granted by an artificer spending a 3rd level infusion and a small amount of gp. (Note: Though "Wrathful Healing" is almost certainly more effective, it's much less likely to be allowed) Close Wounds (Cleric 2, Spell Compendium page 48): This handy low-level spell is castable as an *immediate action* at a time where you're not really doing too much with swifts anyways. The range is close, and it cures 1d4+1 / level hp. The real kicker is that you can do this healing *after* the fact, and it counts as *preventing the damage to begin with.* This means that if your buddy was dropped to -15 hp, you can immediately cast this and he'll stabilize, and *not* be dead. You can also pretend that you have temporary hit points. -Signed, http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u211/SatinFist/Sephiroth.gif
Realms of Chaos 08-05-07, 10:34 AM	Bravo. I hardly realized any of the tips that you provided until you pointed them out. :clap: :clap: :clap: Just...Bravo :clap: :clap:
Ecureuil_Diabolique 08-05-07, 10:39 AM	Great thread, I'll have to invest in some of those items when I make new characters. I never knew about the healing belt, I'll have to take a look at it in my friend's MIC. Thanks for the useful advice.
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 10:59 AM	Edited with a few extra goodies. Admittedly, Revivify and Delay Death aren't "healing" per say, but I felt they were worth a mention anyways for their value in keeping your buddies alive and well.
Nezkrul 08-05-07, 11:05 AM	bravo, but most of your suggestions are non-core material. Not everyone, as I see you claiming (imo), has access to non-core books to use in their games. A Core only game does have greater emphasis on someone playing a class that can, at the very least, use a wand of cure light. but healing in combat at level 11 is much better than relying on mass cure light, or cure critical. The Heal spell is very efficient in combat of wiping away 110 damage instantly + lots of negative effects at that level. Cleric with Healing Domain gets 3 of these, on average, at level 11 (assuming he prepares 2 and has a 22 wisdom which is easily attainable). Other than that, thumbs up :D
Ecureuil_Diabolique 08-05-07, 11:08 AM	Amulet of Retributive Healing (2000gp, MiC Page 69): This handy little doodad lets you double up on your healing 3 times per day. When activated (as a swift action) this amulet allows you to cure yourself of an amount of damage equal to however much your cured your buddy of. So, if you cast Heal on your ally, you can activate this item to use a free quickened Heal on yourself. Works with scrolls and everything, too. I caught something, I believe it's supposed to be "you cured your buddy of." Nothing big, just thought I'd let you know though.
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 11:14 AM	I caught something, I believe it's supposed to be "you cured your buddy of." Nothing big, just thought I'd let you know though. Fixed. Thanks. but healing in combat at level 11 is much better than relying on mass cure light, or cure critical. The Heal spell is very efficient in combat of wiping away 110 damage instantly + lots of negative effects at that level. Cleric with Healing Domain gets 3 of these, on average, at level 11 (assuming he prepares 2 and has a 22 wisdom which is easily attainable).] We all know Heal is awesome, but everyone already knows Heal is awesome. I don't need to tell them that Heal is awesome, do I? I guess maybe I should put in a few words... I was mainly focusing on things that people OTHER than a Cleric could do. Bravo. I hardly realized any of the tips that you provided until you pointed them out. :clap: :clap: :clap: Just...Bravo :clap: :clap: Glad I was helpful :)
Aloki 08-05-07, 11:25 AM	Several more reasons why I want to blow my first paycheck on the Magic Item Compendium:$$:
Mooncalf 08-05-07, 11:36 AM	This is very useful. Currently, most games I play lacking a cleric tends to spend a lot of downtime for natural healing. I could use these ideas. I'm actually playing a Dread Necromancer who took Tomb-Tainted Soul. My DM was a bit upset that I'd get so much free healing, until he realized it'd be useless in combat. A standard action for 1-2 hp? Outside of combat, it's like fast healing. Only problem now is that neither of our two party members can heal each other. If either falls, the best we can hope for is a successful heal check. Also, a few years ago, the current party's ranger wanted to spend the pooled party treasure on a bulk of CLW potions. Given that he drank them like they were sodas, while the rest of us avoided damage better, we refused. After some whining I whipped up a wondrous item with 50 charges of CLW for him. Cost-efficient.
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 11:53 AM	If either falls, the best we can hope for is a successful heal check. Blessed Bandages are 10 gp. Never fail a heal check again. Also, a few years ago, the current party's ranger wanted to spend the pooled party treasure on a bulk of CLW potions. Given that he drank them like they were sodas... *snip* I'm sorry, but your Ranger is being stupid here. He can use wands of CLW. This is far more cost effective than potions, and it's even better action-wise (not that it matters much, as out-of-combat healing.) This is very useful. Currently, most games I play lacking a cleric tends to spend a lot of downtime for natural healing. I could use these ideas. Remember, if you give everyone a Healing Belt, that's like 30d8 hp per day (depends on size of party), spread as you please. It's only 750gp, or ~281.25gp with an Artificer in tow (meaning a party of 5 can be fully outfitted with healing belts for a mere 1406.25gp total, and 150 XP (or 112 if the artificer took the Legendary Artisan feat.)) And he'll need about 3 days out of his busy schedule. Or hand off the project to his Dedicated Wright ;) Basically, everyone can expect to have one at 3rd level. Then you carry around a wand or two of Lesser Vigor or Cure Light Wounds if that's somehow not enough. Bam, you're fully healed between every encounter, and you don't have to take long at all to heal during downtime. A Healing Belt will surpass the efficiency of a Lesser Vigor Wand after a period of 21 days of full use (on average).
TheMonk 08-05-07, 12:26 PM	I know one thing, and that's that a party definitely DOESN'T need a dedicated healer to be good. It's perfectly doable without one, when you are at least semi-experienced. A healer is a good thing to have around of course :) And thanks a lot for those tips, they are great :) I'm sure I'll make use of those in future.
Sunic_Flames 08-05-07, 12:54 PM	While not quite healing I have something else to add. Amulet of Tears (MiC). Either 36 temp hp over 3 uses, or 24 in a burst as a swift action. Not only does it have the same effect as healing by negating damage but it can also act as a buffer, letting you take hits you otherwise could not, and thereby making it easier to delay healing until out of combat allowing you to fight more efficiently as an emergency is less likely to occur. After all, in combat healing is only necessary if you can't take 1 more round of abuse.
Tempest Stormwind 08-05-07, 12:59 PM	Nice! I've been saying something similar for a long time, but this is codified now. (And I missed the healing belts!) In both of our current games, the "healer" is a martial adept. Specifically, a Shadow Sun Ninja. 1 level in that grants Touch of the Shadow Sun -- basically, an at-will ability that deals negative energy damage based on your unarmed strike to a foe you touch, and then, on the following round, a swift action lets you heal yourself or a touched ally the same amount you did the round before. It can be used at will, but you can't use both the dark and light components of it in the same round. In one game, Touch of the Shadow Sun is nicely supplemented by our chameleon, who has recently taken Tomb-Tainted Soul as his rotatable bonus feat. Basically, the Shadow Sun Ninja punches her in the face (the chameleon player associates different stat setups for that class with different personalities and plays the Tomb-Tainted Soul personality as a real *****, and often provokes it). This punch deals negative energy damage, which heals her. He then turns and swift-action heals a member of the party. In the other game, this is supplemented by defensive tactics (such as using disposable astral constructs to take hits whenever possible), whatever potions we've looted from fallen NPCs, the ardent's Touch of Health power (inefficient but cheap, mostly used to stabilize almost-dead NPCs who we want to interrogate or to top up the PCs to within a night's rest of HP at the end of the day), and -- after today's session -- something that does the job rather nicely that you've left out. In the DMG2, they provide a list of interesting teamwork benefits. Most of them are the usual sort with a roster and team leaders, just like in a few other books (Heroes of Battle and the PHB2). However, the DMG2 also introduces Companion Spirits. These work the same way, but can do more. One of the spirit types is Salve, which provides a pool of healing that anyone in the team can draw from. (The pool size, effect, and speed of healing increase as the party gains levels.) In most cases, Salve is one of the better general qualities for a spirit to have, so by all means take it unless your team doesn't need it. (The specific qualities don't heal, but can make it harder for your to be damaged.)
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 01:05 PM	While not quite healing I have something else to add. Amulet of Tears (MiC). Either 36 temp hp over 3 uses, or 24 in a burst as a swift action. Not only does it have the same effect as healing by negating damage but it can also act as a buffer, letting you take hits you otherwise could not, and thereby making it easier to delay healing until out of combat allowing you to fight more efficiently as an emergency is less likely to occur. After all, in combat healing is only necessary if you can't take 1 more round of abuse. I was actually considering adding that when I was writing this up, but dropped it because I figured it wasn't really healing but more like buffing (much like how a +4 Con buff has an effect similar to temporary hp). ^^;;
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 01:11 PM	Nice! I've been saying something similar for a long time, but this is codified now. (And I missed the healing belts!) In both of our current games, the "healer" is a martial adept. Specifically, a Shadow Sun Ninja. 1 level in that grants Touch of the Shadow Sun -- basically, an at-will ability that deals negative energy damage based on your unarmed strike to a foe you touch, and then, on the following round, a swift action lets you heal yourself or a touched ally the same amount you did the round before. It can be used at will, but you can't use both the dark and light components of it in the same round. In one game, Touch of the Shadow Sun is nicely supplemented by our chameleon, who has recently taken Tomb-Tainted Soul as his rotatable bonus feat. Basically, the Shadow Sun Ninja punches her in the face (the chameleon player associates different stat setups for that class with different personalities and plays the Tomb-Tainted Soul personality as a real *****, and often provokes it). This punch deals negative energy damage, which heals her. He then turns and swift-action heals a member of the party. In the other game, this is supplemented by defensive tactics (such as using disposable astral constructs to take hits whenever possible), whatever potions we've looted from fallen NPCs, the ardent's Touch of Health power (inefficient but cheap, mostly used to stabilize almost-dead NPCs who we want to interrogate or to top up the PCs to within a night's rest of HP at the end of the day), and -- after today's session -- something that does the job rather nicely that you've left out. In the DMG2, they provide a list of interesting teamwork benefits. Most of them are the usual sort with a roster and team leaders, just like in a few other books (Heroes of Battle and the PHB2). However, the DMG2 also introduces Companion Spirits. These work the same way, but can do more. One of the spirit types is Salve, which provides a pool of healing that anyone in the team can draw from. (The pool size, effect, and speed of healing increase as the party gains levels.) In most cases, Salve is one of the better general qualities for a spirit to have, so by all means take it unless your team doesn't need it. (The specific qualities don't heal, but can make it harder for your to be damaged.) Thanks for the reply Tempest! Actually, I just got the DMG II, and haven't looked through it fully yet, so I haven't read all the guardian spirit abilities. I'll look it over. I'll have to check out the Shadow Sun Ninja too, and add a bit on the Crusader.
Magocrat 08-05-07, 01:16 PM	Another excellent article, as usual, OneWinged4ngel. You definitely know what is important in Dungeons & Dragons, and you can phrase it clearly. Congratulations. However, you may want to include the Heal skill. With a few skill ranks and a decent Wisdom modifier and the opportunity to take 10, you can automatically succeed at most of the things you can do with the Heal skill. If you spend a few more skill points on Heal, or take 20, you can even treat most poisons and mundane diseases. For a few skill points, that's a lot of bang for your buck, I think. However, I may be wrong, so feel free to disprove me. (At the very least, the time cost is rather large, but in my opinion, Heal is usually an out-of-combat skill anyway.) But for the rest, this is a well-written article, and you may want to consider compiling your articles somewhere, so that everyone has them in one easy-to-find thread, but that's just a suggestion.
Fallenangel359 08-05-07, 04:50 PM	One way to gain healing in a party that currently has no healers, is to pick up leadership, and get a healer as a cohort. Augment healing draconic aura vigor touch of healing magic of the land spontaneous healer If you take an actual healer (as in the healer base class), with those feats, you'll be fine on healing Whats nice is, she is a simple enough character mechanically to not get in the way
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 05:13 PM	One way to gain healing in a party that currently has no healers, is to pick up leadership, and get a healer as a cohort. Augment healing draconic aura vigor touch of healing magic of the land spontaneous healer If you take an actual healer (as in the healer base class), with those feats, you'll be fine on healing Whats nice is, she is a simple enough character mechanically to not get in the way Well of course, you can do anything if the DM lets you take The World's Most Powerful Feat (tm)
danielinthewolvesden 08-05-07, 05:24 PM	H Players overprioritize healing in combat when there are more effective options available to them. [ Some Information and Comparisons First, an effort at dispelling some of the myths. First off, you should probably never be buying healing potions, perhaps with the exception of Cure Light Wounds or a similar level 1 spell. ... For the same price, you could have gotten a Wand of Cure Light Wounds (275hp total instead of 18.5hp), a Wand of Lesser Vigor (550hp total instead of 18.5gp), or a Healing Belt (Either 6d8 hp (average 27 hp) a day, or 18 hp (same as the potion!) per day if you burst heal, usable as a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.)) Second, a dedicated healer is not a necessary combat role. Seriously. First off, healing often does not outpace damage. Moreover, removing an enemy a threat can often be much more effective at saving your allies' necks than going up and poking them with Cure X Wounds. If an enemy were to deal 50 damage to an ally, and you can take that enemy out by either disabling or killing them, then you've "healed" that ally of the 50 damage he would have taken. Secondly, you can get very efficient out-of-combat healing quite easily without a Cleric or Druid, and indeed a Rogue, Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Factotum, Warlock, or Bard could fill the healing role with a wand of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor. In fact, you can even get good, cheap burst healing comparable to the Cleric or Druid's ability at low levels with items like the Healing Belt. Healing Belts (750gp, MiC page 110): For 750gp, *anyone* can heal 6d8 hp a day, and even burst heal for 4d8hp as a Standard action with a Touch range, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity like spells and scrolls. Also, with the MiC rules for adding common effects, you don't even need to worry about "keeping the slot free" anymore. You can actually just say, give one of these to everyone in a party of 5 for 30d8 healing per day, and just subsidize your healing costs. This is a great way to keep everyone alive at low levels. As if this weren't good enough, you get feel-good +2 bonus to Heal checks as a bonus. [ Touch of Healing (Reserve Feat, Complete Champion pg 62): This one is for the actual "healers." As long as you have a healing spell of second level or higher ready to cast, you can heal anyone up to half their total hp (but no higher, meaning you have to use more abilities to fully heal them) for free. Basically, for the cost of a feat, you get a lot of free healing. Heal (Core): Heal is a great spell. It really is. It's the healing spell you actually might want to use in fights fairly often. It heals a ton of damage, and it takes away ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned. A laundry list of status effects, some of which are quite deadly in their own right! However, Heal is not a necessary party role in and of itself! Again, you don't actually need *any* in-combat healing to have a highly effective party. [/LIST] First of all, only a few classes can use a Wand. So, for them, a wand is not an option. It is a better choice for after combat healing, assuming your party has scads of extra cash. And then there's that- scads of extra cash. With a cleric (and yes Augument healing is a good feat) you get lots of healing for FREE. With wands, you are constantly bleeding cash. After three wands, there is a permanent +1 weapon that the party does not have. Healing Belt- Not Core, takes up the very valuable Belt slot, and by one reading can only be used by a cleric ("channels positive energy"). Nice for PC's around 3-6 level, however. "Touch of Healing" is nice, but it means the party is going to run around at 1/2 HP too much. Toss up between that and Agument healing, IMHO. Now,if you have a Dragon Shaman as the 5th party member, you have that built in, which is nice. Let us compare doing 50 points of damage as opposed to healing 50 points. If you want to cause 50 points, the cleric has to generally TOUCH the enemy, which requires a roll to hit. Even touch attacks can miss. If there is no roll to hit, there is very often a saving throw, and there is also SR- not to mention DR and Energy Resistance. With all that taken into consideration, you have to assume that 1/2 of damage output does not arrive. However, healing is nigh 100% effective, thus healing is twice as effective as dealing damage. I have run a dedicated Healer (yes, the much maligned MH class) in Age of Worms, in a large party of powergamers, with a super powergamer DM- all the way thru Epic. My Healer was consistently voted "most valuable PC" by the players, and the DM paid me the doubtful compliment of having the BBEG make me the #1 target in most encounters. At higher levels, Mass heal can do WAY more healing than any damage spell can do. Now there are other costs of "not healing" and they include a much decreased party damage output. Yes, I said DECREASED party damage output. If the "damage dealers" are casting defensive spells, going full defence, running or drinking potions- they are NOT dealing damage. And of course, if they think the next hit will kill them, they WILL do this. One of my group is a CPA, who calculated that our party had a 50% INCREASE in damage output as no one had to worry about being healed- the very effecient dedicated Healer WOULD heal them. That is a CPA folks, with spreadsheets and all, not just opinion. Then there is the "final " cost of not healing- dead party members. Dead folks do no damage. Raising them costs a LOT. Most importatly, while dead- the players do not get to play, thus they have less FUN. A dedicated healer adds fun for the whole group. Sure, the heal-bot role is the least fun role of all. Thus, for a small party, a Healer as a Cohort is not a bad idea at all.
calronmoonflower 08-05-07, 05:35 PM	I was actually considering adding that when I was writing this up, but dropped it because I figured it wasn't really healing but more like buffing (much like how a +4 Con buff has an effect similar to temporary hp). ^^;; A Constitution score increase isn't temporary hit points. It could work the same, but when the increase goes away so do the extra hit points. If you are not careful it could kill you. I would also like to point out that some classes have supernatural healing abilities. If you are going to relay heavily on magic item the supernatural healing will help stretch out the potential of those item. Monk: Sucky healing, but use it before you use you limited use items. Use out of combat would be best. Paladin: If you dungeon master isn't fascinated by making paladins fall they can stabilize anyone with their Lay on Hands with just one point. It may not always be worth it in battle, but the healing is free. You can also heal moderate amounts of damage in or out of combat. Out of combat doesn't reduce you effectiveness as a melee fighter, but the healing in combat can be used in an emergency. Lay on Hands from other sources: Some prestige classes either offer either lay of hands or an ability like it. It can be used in the same way as a paladin. Dragon Shaman: (Player's handbook II): The vigor aura allows unlimited healing out of battle. It only gets you to 1/2 full hit points, but it is free and unlimited. It also works in battle without wasting your actions. The touch of vitality heals wounds relatively well and at higher levels can remove conditions. Vigor Aura from other sources: If you have Races of the Dragon you can get the vigor aura for any character with just a feat. It works far better if you happen to have the dragonblood subtype. Sorcerers can also give up a spell slot for this aura. It's a big cost, but it allows you to heal up to 4 hit points per person in every round. You can also get it with the Dragon Lord prestige class. Psionic Healing Body Adjustment: Not as useful or efficient as even Cure Light Wounds, it also works as backup healing but only works on yourself. The psychic warrior version is slightly cheaper, but psychic warrior's get less power points. Claws of the Vampire: If you have high damage dealing claws such as from Claws of the Beast his can heal quite a bit. After the first manifestation you do not need additional actions to heal, but you get nothing for manifesting it. Vampiric Weapon: Like Claws of the vampire, but works on a weapon. Best used with a greatsword or fullblade. With multiple hit per round the healing can really stack up, but a psychic warrior have only a medium base attack bonus limiting its usefulness. Touch of Health: Sub-par for healing, but stabilizes a character with 1 power point. Psionic Revivify: Brings a character back to life for an Xp cost instead of a wad of cash. It's a egoist power you you must ask yourself if it is worth a feat or play an egoist. True Metabolism: An 8th level psion/wilder power, but deals a whopping 10 hit points/ per round and last 1 minute per level add that up and you could likely fully heal out of combat with one use. It also can be used to regrow limbs. Reality Revision: The only other psionic power that Can restore a creature to life. Not the best option as it is a 9th level power with a huge Xp cost, but it works just the same as Wish. It has a myriad of other uses so if you can learn this power you should. Arcane Healing Bestow Wounds: Low save spell that deals 1 hit pint of damage per level and heals 1 point. A bit cruel, but you could use it on low hit die animals to heal yourself. Wish: A last resort spell with a huge XP cost. It can be used to bring the dead back to life, but have enough other uses that anyone that can learn this spell should.
Revan54115110 08-05-07, 05:43 PM	Ok how would you rate this skill trick for complete scoundrel Healing Hands? Prerequisites 5 ranks heal and it costs you 2 skill points to acquire and what it douse is heal 1 D6 damage and stabilize a dying character, if succeed on a heal check to stabilize said character
JulesCARV 08-05-07, 05:43 PM	Is hit point damage the only form of damage y'all really worry about? You don't care about diseases, poisons, ability drains, or the like?
Nephlite 08-05-07, 07:15 PM	Is hit point damage the only form of damage y'all really worry about? You don't care about diseases, poisons, ability drains, or the like? Of the three Poison is the most common fter ability damage, but ability damage is just a spell away (restoration).
yrogerg 08-05-07, 09:08 PM	I would include more information on psionic "healing". Empathic transfer may not be healing per se, but it does reduce overall damage to the party, and coupled with Vigor or a decent high-AC build, you keep all your wounds off the people who'll hurt for it, *and* it has full effect even when normal healing won't. Plus, if the character has decent ranks in Autohypnosis, they make secondary poison saves a non-issue. I've definitely played entire campaigns with little other than a Dorje of ET and a multiclass cleric 2 who chose to spontaneously Inflict.
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 09:29 PM	I would include more information on psionic "healing". Empathic transfer may not be healing per se, but it does reduce overall damage to the party, and coupled with Vigor or a decent high-AC build, you keep all your wounds off the people who'll hurt for it, *and* it has full effect even when normal healing won't. Plus, if the character has decent ranks in Autohypnosis, they make secondary poison saves a non-issue. I've definitely played entire campaigns with little other than a Dorje of ET and a multiclass cleric 2 who chose to spontaneously Inflict. I'll be sure to add it, thanks.
Tempest Stormwind 08-05-07, 09:32 PM	I'll be sure to add it, thanks. For the record, the archetypal psionic "healer" involves Vigor, Empathic Transfer, and Share Pain (on your psicrystal). There are other approaches -- Hostile Empathic Transfer is a popular one -- but that's the longest-lasting one. There's also a presige class based around psi-endurance, with always-on fast-healing and DR, that can use Empathic Transfer to great effect. It's called the Sangehirn.
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 09:46 PM	For the record, the archetypal psionic "healer" involves Vigor, Empathic Transfer, and Share Pain (on your psicrystal). There are other approaches -- Hostile Empathic Transfer is a popular one -- but that's the longest-lasting one. I may have only just started using psionics, but I already figured this out. ^^;; There's also a presige class based around psi-endurance, with always-on fast-healing and DR, that can use Empathic Transfer to great effect. It's called the Sangehirn. I'll have to check that out. I'm unfamiliar with it.
tantric 08-05-07, 09:49 PM	let mages cast healing spells. duh.
Crimson_Concerto 08-05-07, 10:20 PM	I'm DMing right now, and while my players had originally designated the Druid as the healer, he actually only does about half of the healing, and hasn't actually ever done any during combat. The Bard takes care of quite a bit too, actually, and the Psychic Warrior usually just heals himself with Body Adjustment to conserve other party resources. I like this setup because it means that nobody ever does JUST healing in combat. There's no dedicated healer per se, but there doesn't need to be because everybody's able to contribute enough to keep the party going. I think I'm going to suggest this to future games I play in: everybody should be able to do a bit of healing so that nobody has to concentrate on it, as it's usually viewed as the boring job. I'll pull some suggestions from this thread to help further accomplish this, thanks. :)
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-05-07, 10:38 PM	The Problems Some players think they *have* to have a cleric or druid to cover the healing role, and place healing as an extremely high priority, even in combat, and even if they don't. Many even spend inordinate amounts of money on extremely inefficient healing items that may hurt them more than help them. No party *has* to have anything in it. However the party with a dedicated healer, will fair better then the one with out. There are 4 essential roles in the party: Damage mitigation, Damage per round (DPR), skills/utility/and the face, battle field controll/buff/debuff. I'm not going to focus on the them all because damage mitigation is really the only one your talking about. Now what damage mitigation does for the party is it prevents them from succumbing to the enemies attack. Healing is but one of the ways this is accomplished. Another common way is for someone to have high hP, and a way of mitigating the damage off him/herself. Then position themselves in such a way as to soak up the damage. A good example of this is the dwarven barbarian with a 20 con. His high HP, and DR mean that that he will be able to take sads of damage before it effect him. Combine that with something like a cloak of displacement, and its not bad way to go. The other way, which this thread focuses on is to heal, or remove the damage after it has landed. The best classes for this are: Cleric, healer, and druid. In that order. Their are many other classes that can do the job, just not as well as those three. And the best one by far an away is the cleric. So I'll being giving proofes with the cleric in mind. To summarize a few common issues: Players overprioritize healing in combat when there are more effective options available to them. Actually healing should be a high proirity in combat. That does not mean that you have to keep the party at 100% all the time, but making sure your DPR guy is up and running will win fights. If everyone has to waste their actions healing themselves, those are actions that are not striking at the bad guy, and actions in which it is striking back at you. The wizard could be activating his item of healing, or dropping a phantasmal killer. Players spend too much money on healing, often spending wads of cash on things like potions of Cure Moderate Wounds. The most affordable, and potent healing comes a from a cleric. It's affordable becuase its free. Its more potent then wands, or anything else because the cleric adds his/her caster level to the healing dai. Among other things. Example: A wand of Cure light wounds (CLW) heals on average 5.5, and costs 15gp a shot. The cleric with the healing domain does 6.5, and costs nothing. the same cleric with with augmented healing does 8.5. NO a clerics spells per day are limited, however a parties gold is also limited, and split more ways then the clerics spells. I recomend you use both. And if the DM allows it instead of a wand of CWL, get a wand of lesser vigor, and use it after combat. Players believe they can't heal efficiently without a Cleric or Druid or similar class in the party, and view such as an essential role, to the point where some even *force* others to play a Cleric or Druid just so that they can have a dedicated healer, and then downplay the extraordinary talents of those classes and belittle them to a mere healing role, making for an unenjoyable experience for the victim of this treatment. Its not that they *can't* heal with out the cleric, or druid. It that they do it best, be far and away. BUt no one should be forced into the heal bot role. However some should be willing to do. Remember there are no small characters, only small players. Many players just don't know how to get the best healing for their buck. Some Information and Comparisons Again the cleric is the most affordable, and effective healing around. First, an effort at dispelling some of the myths. First off, you should probably never be buying healing potions, perhaps with the exception of Cure Light Wounds or a similar level 1 spell. The reason for this is simple. The cost is exorbitant, and it's really not worth it. A Cure Serious Wounds potion will heal, on average, 18.5 hp, and it will cost you 750gp, and it will take either a standard or a full round action to use, and it will provoke AoOs unless you did some further investment to prevent that, and on top of that it probably smells bad and tastes bitter. Yuck. For the same price, you could have gotten a Wand of Cure Light Wounds (275hp total instead of 18.5hp), a Wand of Lesser Vigor (550hp total instead of 18.5gp), or a Healing Belt (Either 6d8 hp (average 27 hp) a day, or 18 hp (same as the potion!) per day if you burst heal, usable as a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.)) Would you rather get 18 hp, or 18 hp per day? Now would you rather use a standard or full action that provokes AoOs, *and* need to draw the item, or would you rather use a standard action that doesn't provoke AoOs? And hey, wouldn't you like the option to heal even more for efficiency, outside of battle? There's even another option, this one for artificers, that costs a mere 50 gp a pop: Infuse an ally with Greater Healing armor. This will give them 6d8+30 total healing (3d8+15 as a swift action, usable twice). As an added bonus, it will even automatically heal you if you get knocked unconscious. The point is... potions are bad. Potions are inefficient. So are scrolls of Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, and so forth. healing belt requires you to "channel positive energy" so unless your a divine caster, or paladin, this aint gonna help you. Further unless you have UMD, or the spell on your list, then wands of healing do as much good as an ordinary stick. This means that unless there is a dedicated healer in the party, you'll have to find another way to mitigate damage. Now if you are playing a class that has good HP then you can probably soak it, until the ranger with a wand gets around to you after combat. However if you happen to be a wizard with a D4 HD your pretty screwed. And chances are if you are wizard your porbally out damaging everybody else in the party, so it is their best interests to keep you up. Now assuming that you can make use of wands, and/or the belts. well that means your divine front line highbrid (Paladin/rnager), a rogue with UMD, or a divine caster. If your the highbrid then your probally also the party tank, and have much better things to be doing with your actions, then healing. Same of your a rogue or bard. If you happen to be the devine caster, you could use a wand, or your belt. Or you use one of your cure spells for an even better effect. While the belt is effective at lower levels, it is neigh useless at higher. Second, a dedicated healer is not a necessary combat role. Seriously. First off, healing often does not outpace damage. Moreover, removing an enemy a threat can often be much more effective at saving your allies' necks than going up and poking them with Cure X Wounds. If an enemy were to deal 50 damage to an ally, and you can take that enemy out by either disabling or killing them, then you've "healed" that ally of the 50 damage he would have taken. Additionally, as healing often does not keep up the pace with damage, even if you can't disable the enemy, healing the ally might not be good enough to save them. Instead, you might want to use an ability to help the ally escape, or block the enemy from attacking them (this can be something as simple as Benign Transposition, really). In fact, healing in combat is only situationally a good choice, and is often a subpar tactical option. Actually I challenge the notion that healing does not keep pace with damage. True the cures loss their effectiveness, kind of, at higher levels. However then you have things like heal, and mass heal to take over. I have yet to see pre-epic damage that is in the same lines as a mass heal. CCW is a 4th level spell. combine it with divine spell power, the healing domain, and augmented healing, and it'll cure 38 points on avergae. Use empower spell and thats 53 from a 6th level spell. I'd still recommend heal, but it'll do in a pinch. and as a full round action you could channel it. Or just burn extra turn undead attempts. Secondly, you can get very efficient out-of-combat healing quite easily without a Cleric or Druid, and indeed a Rogue, Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Factotum, Warlock, or Bard could fill the healing role with a wand of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor. In fact, you can even get good, cheap burst healing comparable to the Cleric or Druid's ability at low levels with items like the Healing Belt. Wands cost money, and if your relying in them will get expensive. Suppose you take on average 50ish points of damage per encounter. Thats 5 charges from the wand of lesser vigor, 2 charges from the wand of wigor, and 10 from the wand of CLW. So assuming 4 encounters a day at the end of the day your looking at 20 charges from the wand of lesser vigor (300gp/day), 450 for the wand of vigor, and 600gp for that wand CLW. At the end of the week your looking at: 2100gp for the lesser vigor,3150 for the wand of vigor, and 4200gp for the wand of CLW. And that assumes that wands are common enough that you can replace them every other week. Don't get me wrong their great for augmenting, or supporting a dedicated healer, but they'll replace one entirely. The other problem with this is that assumes you survive the combat to get after combat healing. With out in combat healing this is dubious at best. Actually, the Artificer can prove to be a fantastic healer, cheaply (we're talking 37.5% market price here) turning out healing belts, wands of lesser vigor, and providing Greater Healing armor infusions (a mere second level infusion) at an early level. The Paladin and Ranger can use wands of Cure Light Wounds without penalty, and the others can use UMD to master the efficient wands. On top of that, members of *any* class can easily chip in with the very efficient Healing Belt. Which is nice an all, but the artificer is still using it's actions for healing, instead of something else. Which then begs the question, if the artificer is going to do, why not be more effeint and have a cleric who focuses on buffs, and healing? These things considered, you really can get by without a Cleric or Druid. In fact, if you do have a Cleric or Druid, they're probably going to be more useful in most combats if they are doing something OTHER than healing, since they have considerable talents in many regards. You can "get by" with out a healer, but who wants to just "get by". And while clerics and druids are good outside of their roles as healer, they excel in them. The cleric more so then the druid. I would recomend that you have one dedicated healer, and then if someone else wants to fill another role with a cleric or druid, then just have a party with two clerics, or druids. One is the damage mitigation while the other is something else. How to Heal Effectively (Author's note: I have excluded a few very potent and efficient means of healing because things like the infinite-healing-for-cheap trap and other such things are just plain abusive, and few sane DMs will allow them) Blessed Bandages (10gp, MiC page 152): 10gp to automatically succeed to stabilize an ally. Can definitely save a friend at very low levels. These are good to just stabilize someone. However if your DPR guy goes down and you can't bring him up again, your pretty crewed. You'd better better off with a potion just in case the cleric goes down. Wands of Cure Light Wounds (750gp, Core): The hallmark of efficiency. These wands will dish out an average of 5.5hp a pop, and with 50 charges that will add up to 275 total healing. This wand gains an advantage over Lesser Vigor in two respects: Speed of use, and the fact that Lesser Vigor is a Cleric and Druid only spell, and thus is only available to those classes and UMD users, while Paladins and Rangers and the like will stick to Cure Light Wounds. Again their good to support, and augment your healer. But they'll never replace him/her. relying on them is not much more then an inefficient money sink. Wands of Lesser Vigor (750gp, Spell Compendium Page 229): These are the most efficient healing wands around! You get 11 hp per pop (though it takes a full minute to gain that 11 hp), and you get a total of 550hp of healing for your 750gp. they're great for after combat. Not sogood in combat. Healing Belts (750gp, MiC page 110): For 750gp, *anyone* can heal 6d8 hp a day, and even burst heal for 4d8hp as a Standard action with a Touch range, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity like spells and scrolls. Also, with the MiC rules for adding common effects, you don't even need to worry about "keeping the slot free" anymore. You can actually just say, give one of these to everyone in a party of 5 for 30d8 healing per day, and just subsidize your healing costs. This is a great way to keep everyone alive at low levels. As if this weren't good enough, you get feel-good +2 bonus to Heal checks as a bonus. Their cool and all but only clerics, and pladins can use them. So unless your party is entirely cleric, and paladins then not everyone can have them. And if your party is all clerics and paladins, then you probably don't need them. Artificers can heal very effectively with Greater Healing Armor (MiC page 12), dishing out 3d8+15 healing *twice* usable as a swift action, and even automatically healing a character should they fall unconscious. Best of all, this only costs you 50gp for a total of 6d8+30hp healing, and is available at a very low level. Thats cool, but whats the difference between having your artificer act as the healer, and your cleric? Wand of Faith Healing (Spell Compendium): It's kinda cheesy, but it's worth mentioning if your DM allows it. It's exactly the same as Cure Light Wounds, except maximized and only usable on people who share your faith (which can easily just be everyone in your party). I personally don't allow this spell as a DM. Again you need your cleric to prep it, and cast it. Touch of Healing (Reserve Feat, Complete Champion pg 62): This one is for the actual "healers." As long as you have a healing spell of second level or higher ready to cast, you can heal anyone up to half their total hp (but no higher, meaning you have to use more abilities to fully heal them) for free. Basically, for the cost of a feat, you get a lot of free healing. And the guy who can cast healing spells, and burns feats to make them better isn't a healer how? Don't get me wrong I think this is a cool optional and all, but aren't you saying that healers aren't necessary? Summon Nature's Ally IV (Core): Summoning a Unicorn nets you a free set of 3 CLWs, 1 CMW, and a Neutralize Poison. It has a caster level of 5th, so that'll total 5d8+20 points of healing (and a neutralize poison). It's even something a druid can cast spontaneously. Not bad. Its great healing spell. But, again wouldn't this indicate a druid being used to heal? Wouldn't calling in a tiger, or a d3 dire wolves be a better combat use of this spell? Revivify (Cleric 5, Spell Compendium page 176): Revive your dead buddy for 1000gp as a standard action instead of for 5000gp as a much longer action, and best of all *no level loss.* A no brainer really. You just need to be quick about it, acting within 1 round of the victim's death! Close wounds is a 2nd level spell that as a immediate action lets you stabilize someone who is about to die within a close range. Its cheaper (free vrs 1000gp) Quicker, as immediate action when they fall verse a standard on your turn. takes up a lower level slot. And best of all it will allow you to heal them on your turn when it comes around. Delay Death (Cleric 4, Spell Compendium page 63): As an *Immediate Action*, the ally becomes unable to die from hit point damage (they'll still fall unconscious, they just won't die.) This means that you can instantaneously cast this spell when a buddy takes their final hit, and they won't die for 1 round/level (during which time you can finish the encounter, then heal them up.) Can definitely be a lifesaver. See close wounds. Further close wounds will allow you to save your higher level slots for other things. Tomb Tainted Soul (Feat, Libris Mortis): This handy feat allows you to be healed by negative energy. This means that a living Dread Necromancer can heal herself to full as much as she likes with Charnel Touch, and that you can heal yourself with things like Uttercold metamagiced spells and the like. Only good if you have lots of negative energy flying around. Otherwise its useless. I'd save the feat for, well anything else really. Amulet of Retributive Healing (2000gp, MiC Page 69): This handy little doodad lets you double up on your healing 3 times per day. When activated (as a swift action) this amulet allows you to cure yourself of an amount of damage equal to however much you cured your buddy of. So, if you cast Heal on your ally, you can activate this item to use a free quickened Heal on yourself. Works with scrolls and everything, too. But it still requires you to be using your spells for healing. I though this thread was about clerics not being the dedicated healer. Collar of Healing (5000gp, MiC page 90): As an *Immediate action* once per day, heal your animal companion of 50hp and cures the Fatigued or Exhausted conditions. Keep your little buddy going. As an added bonus, it works at any range (as long as you're on the same plane), and lets you know your companion's exact hit point total at all times. It ok for druids, but useless on the party, anything other then your animal companion. Further I wouldn't waste the o=money on this since if you have an animale companio you can cast cure X spell, and if you do so when you are within 5ft for you animal companion (Not hard seeing as how the range is touch) you get to double dip your cure spell. E.I cure you and Fido! Heal (Core): Heal is a great spell. It really is. It's the healing spell you actually might want to use in fights fairly often. It heals a ton of damage, and it takes away ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, sickened, stunned, and poisoned. A laundry list of status effects, some of which are quite deadly in their own right! However, Heal is not a necessary party role in and of itself! Again, you don't actually need *any* in-combat healing to have a highly effective party. Still, when you *do* have a Cleric or Druid around, there's no reason they shouldn't have this ready. If you don't have a Cleric or Druid around, you may want to consider a scroll or two of this for those few situations where you really do want a Heal (i.e., your buddy just got blasted for 100 damage and got stunned to boot). yeppers clerics and druids should never waste their actions healing. ;) Divine Ward (Feat, PHB II): This feat will help out the "true healers," allowing them to use Close Range instead of Touch Range for their healing spells on one ally by spending your Turning attempts. You can get a similar results with Divine Metamagic (Reach Spell) (Which happens to be doubly useful for, say, a ranged Slay Living). It is good for healers, and glad to see that you recognise a party auto to have one. Although if damge does not scale with healing as you say, then whats the point? Wouldn't flame strike be a better use of resources? In which case why take this feat at all, unless your planning on being a heal boat? Augment Healing (Feat, Complete Divine): Add +2 healing per level of the healing spell cast. Simple and effective for a dedicated healer, should you choose to get one. See above. The best party about clerics and druid being the heal monkeys of the party is that they can do other things when healing is not needed. And because they can rely on class abilities, or take feats that are good for other things as well they can more easily spread out the resources. Sample cleric: HUman Monk 1 Cleric lots. Feats: augmented healing, divine spell power, stunning fist, extra turning, quicken spell, DMM quicken, etra turning, extend spell, and DMM extend spell. Domains: Healing, and Glory. Deity Pelor works well. You can channel any prepped spell into a cure spell. Which means that you can prep your buffs like divine favor, and righteous might, and save the cures for when you need them. quicken spell gives you two spells a round when you need them. So you could say through up a quicken righteous might, and magic vestment, or sheild of fiath. Or you say drop two cures into someone. Or quicken heal the fighter, and flame strike the BBEG in the same round. You get synergies with your Wisdom with your AC,a nd stunning fist. Investing in con helps you mitigate the damage by soaking it up your self. And if you wanted to you could switch the glory domain for the sun domain, and PrC into radiant servant of Pelor, and pick up the glory domain at 7th ish level. Alturnitively your could drop the glory domain, and go deity less. Then pick up the destruction domain, and then drop divine spell power for extra smite. However divine spell power can be used on other things, such as the a for mentioned flame strike. This built does suffer from made. Using 32 PB I would by scores like so: Str 12 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 8, Wisdom 16, Cha 14. Sample druid: Human druid 20. Feats: Spell focus conj, augmented healing, augmented healing, natural spell, craft wand, it doesn't really make a difference past this point. Craft wand reduces the cost of healing, and other wands. And augmented healing to help the in combat healing. The thing with druids is that they are at best second rate healers. What makes them so great at damage mitigation is their summons. Instead of someone in the party soaking up that damage its a summoned animal. Since they don't actually die, and will be aviable at full HP when the druid casts another one, it really does "heal" the damage by it not landng in the first place.
Watsyurname529 08-05-07, 10:56 PM	In addition, the Spirt Shaman (from CDiv) can Recall Spirits (Su) which acts exactly like Revivify once per week at 11th level. Takes a while to get but quite useful.
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 11:14 PM	But it still requires you to be using your spells for healing. I though this thread was about clerics not being the dedicated healer. Well that assumption would be wrong. It's about healing in general, and providing tools to help parties heal themselves effectively. It focuses on the problems many people encounter, and as such presents ways to cover healing very well without the help of a Cleric or Druid, a concept that some seem to struggle with. That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the benefits of healing that a cleric or druid can bring to the table. Also, as I have already said, emergency healing is situationally useful, and it *can* be a good party role, *if* you focus in it, but it is not a *necessary* party role to the point that you *need* to force someone to play one. And why are you making "comparisons" to the Cleric and Druid? No one ever said they were poor healers! And the guy who can cast healing spells, and burns feats to make them better isn't a healer how? Don't get me wrong I think this is a cool optional and all, but aren't you saying that healers aren't necessary? Man, do you even *read* the things you *quote*? It says right there "This one is for the actual healers." How do you get "isn't a healer how?" from that? Anyways, as I have already said, in-combat healing can be useful, but is not a necessary party role to the point that you have to shoehorn someone into playing a Cleric or Druid. That said, as befits a thread that's all about healing, I include mention of burst heals and true healers. It would be stupid not to. I never said it was useless. I said it was often overprioritized. Anyways, please read before you respond to stuff. It'll keep everyone more sane. Thanks. Only good if you have lots of negative energy flying around. Wow, and here I was thinking I had said that in my post. Oh look, I did, saying that with a dread necromancer in tow you get infinite healing for free, and with uttercold and similar effects that throw around tons of negative energy it does very well for itself while harming others. Are you trying to give a critique, or bait and troll? Seriously, throwing back things people said as if it was missing is just provoking. I'm not even going to bother responding to the rest of this. I appreciate feedback, critical or supportive, but this ranting seems like little more than trolling. :nonono:
Metafictional 08-05-07, 11:16 PM	If you're game includes non-core options, the Dragon Shaman is a great out of combat healer (and he provides some decent in-combat healing as well). A Crusader can be ideal for keeping hit points from dropping too severely, any time you can get healing AND perform other actions in combat, it's a win-win scenario. No, you don't need a Cleric to heal, I've seen that in action myself. As for using cure X wounds in combat, however, while it's inefficient (usually) it's something the Cleric can always do if he has no other options (or doesn't want to use a grenade launcher to swat a kobold), assuming, of course, he wouldn't be better off swinging his morningstar. As a Cleric player myself, it does warm my black little heart to totally counter a full attack from the DM's big bads. But that's more of a metagame thing, a little bit of psychological warfare on my part. Since I like to DM myself, part of me insists on challenging my peers when I'm on the other side of the screen... The Cleric's spells can dramatically reduce the impact of any encounter. While healing spells are the smallest part of this, properly employed, they have their place.* Actually, I tend to prefer longer encounters, they give the party members more chance to shine. If a combat is over in two rounds, I'm always left a bit unsatisfied. *For example, if your DM is overly fond of special attacks or debilitating spells, try this combo: Death Ward + Freedom of Movement. Last time I used these spells, I made the DM stop the game and spend about 20 minutes consulting the rulebooks just to figure out what those spells DON'T make you immune to!
Endarrion 08-05-07, 11:25 PM	The other way, which this thread focuses on is to heal, or remove the damage after it has landed. The best classes for this are: Cleric, healer, and druid. In that order. Their are many other classes that can do the job, just not as well as those three. And the best one by far an away is the cleric. So I'll being giving proofes with the cleric in mind. This thread is about healing OUTSIDE of the cleric. How can anyone have any thing negative to say about this thread? There are no fallacies, no wrong-headed arguments, merely factual evidence that there are viable healing alternatives to the cleric. Using the cleric as an example in your "debunking" (or whatever) of what OneWinged4ngel has said is ... wrong. No one is saying, "The cleric is SUXXORS at healing and here are things that do it better." More like, "People who do not have a cleric in their party and say 'ZOMG no cleric we dies!!' are missing the fact that there are other sources for healing outside of the cleric." Good work OneWinged4ngel. Some of us appreciate free help more than others I suppose.
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 11:28 PM	No one is saying, "The cleric is SUXXORS at healing and here are things that do it better." More like, "People who do not have a cleric in their party and say 'ZOMG no cleric we dies!!' are missing the fact that there are other sources for healing outside of the cleric." Exactly right. And while I focus on healing outside the cleric, I'm obviously including a few goodies for the "mainstay" healers, too. Good work OneWinged4ngel. Some of us appreciate free help more than others I suppose. Glad you found it useful. I actually wrote it late the other night because my new online group was wasting their money on potions of cure moderate and such to keep healed up (when they had an artificer in the party, and note that it's level 4), and wondering why they were short on gear and getting owned in fights. Funnily enough, even a Cleric or Druid will have trouble competing with in-combat healing potential of an artificer at level 3, thanks to the availability of Greater Healing armor dishing out 6d8+30 hp total (or 3d8+15 at a time, usable as a swift action, or automatic effect if you get knocked out). That means that you can blow this on someone in the party, and if they get knocked into the negatives they'll probably spring right back up to full health. Twice. (Even tank with 16 Constitution will only have about 30 hp at this level, and 3d8+15 heals 28.5hp on average). By comparison, a Cleric with Augment Healing and the Healing Domain (basically, all the cards stacked in his favor) is only going to heal 2d8+9 hp (or 18hp average), and at touch range, provoking AoOs, and as a standard action. Of course, the cleric's healing is free, and the artificer's costs 50gp... but dang, it's better burst healing. It made me sad to see them spend hundreds of gp on potions when a mere 50gp would get that sort of much-more-effective resilience, so I took 15 minutes to list a few things they could do. And then I transferred it over here. And then expanded the article a bit. ^^;;
Otto the Bugbear 08-05-07, 11:30 PM	Good stuff. Just a few points to consider. Players overprioritize healing in combat when there are more effective options available to them. Agreed. This is something that needs to be quashed. Sure, there will be times when a critical healing spell (or ability) will be essential, but for the most part, avoid this. First, an effort at dispelling some of the myths. First off, you should probably never be buying healing potions ... Potions are inefficient. So are scrolls of Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, and so forth. Perhaps a drive-by mentioning of the use of these items as found in treasure? One thing I try to do, and to reinforce, it to burn up these items as soon as they're found and identified (through the various skill checks). There's really no reason to hoard these items. Sure, you might be able to sell them off later on and purchase or create an item that's actually good at healing, but don't use that as an excuse. The rate of exchange is sometimes worth it to just smoke 'em if you got 'em. Secondly, you can get very efficient out-of-combat healing quite easily without a Cleric or Druid, and indeed a Rogue, Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Factotum, Warlock, or Bard could fill the healing role with a wand of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor. Not to mention the myriad PrCs out there that just plain give spellcasting. If you have the choice between two that really fit your character concept, and one gives you healing spells but the other doesn't, all things being equal, take the damn thing! In fact, up to a 4 level dip into cleric nets you so much that it might just be worth considering for many characters. It's only 1 BAB down, so the full BAB classes aren't hurt so much, two domains can make up for a lot, access to in-a-pinch healing, but more importantly you get the cleric spell list. I guess that brings up a question; are you going to add a list of classes to consider for use? Or is it just too obvious to bother with? Also, that's a pretty good list of healing stuff. magic of the land I like that feat. It's one I took with a Shifter druid I played for a bit. (With all the substitution levels to boot!) However, it's not terribly great as healing goes, so perhaps doesn't belong on the list. It is certainly a fun little feat to grab onto. The possibility of changing every spell you cast into a dual-nature spell is a really nice idea, it just doesn't go far enough in the healing department.
Endarrion 08-05-07, 11:48 PM	I suppose the biggest problem with parties that don't have a caster with cure X spells on their spell list is if the party hasn't prepared ahead of time for this problem, and 5 levels into the campaign they realize, "Crap. We screwed the pooch on the healing bit." Because, at that point, you're already knee deep in a campaign, and unless someone is an artificer or has lots 'o' ranks in UMD, you really have limited options. At that point, healing potions really ARE your best bet, but then it has become the last resort by default (caused by bad planning). So I suppose that good planning and foresight can account for most any problems a party would face (which goes without saying... even though I just said it).
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 11:55 PM	are you going to add a list of classes to consider for use? Or is it just too obvious to bother with? I suppose I could do something like... Just about everyone can contribute a bit to healing the party! Here's a few examples of how each class can do a solid job (or at least fill in his share of the weight) Artificer: Yadda yadda... Greater Healing Armor... yadda yadda... temporary hit points... yadda yadda... create items... yadda yadda... wands... yadda yadda... heal warforged... Bard: Yadda yadda... UMD... wands... Cleric: Yadda yadda... heal... delay death... revivify... healing combos... Crusader: Blah blah blah... hit people in the face so hard that it cures your friends... blah blah blah... Dread Necromancer: Yadda yadda... Charnel Touch... Yadda yadda... Tomb Tainted Soul... Druid: Yadda yadda... summon nature's ally... yadda yadda... Heal... Psion: Yadda yadda... Vigor... Yadda Yadda... Share Pain... yadda yadda... empathic transfer... Psychic Warrior: Yadda yadda... empathic transfer... yadda yada... Rogue: Blah blah blah... UMD... Shadow Sun Ninja: Blah blah blah... that thing Tempest said that I haven't looked at yet... Warlock: Yadda yadda... UMD... yadda yadda... Wizard/Sorceror: Yadda yadda... heal warforged... yadda yadda... Wall of the Uttercold... yadda yadda... Vampiric X... blah blah blah... temporary hit points... Other: You're one of the classes that actually doesn't have some nifty sort of healing ability! But don't fret, you can still keep up some healing. The easiest way at low levels will definitely be a Healing Belt. For the cost of a single potion of Cure Serious Wounds, you can heal 6d8 hp a day, or 4d8 hp in a burst, and get a +2 bonus to heal checks as an added bonus. While it won't make you a main healer, it will soon pay for itself and help to supplement the party's efficiency healing, and can definitely save lives at lower levels. But really, isn't it kinda all implied by the bulleted listing?
OneWinged4ngel 08-05-07, 11:59 PM	Because, at that point, you're already knee deep in a campaign, and unless someone is an artificer or has lots 'o' ranks in UMD, you really have limited options. At that point, healing potions really ARE your best bet, but then it has become the last resort by default (caused by bad planning). Well, remember, a Belt of Healing costs the same as a Potion of Cure Serious Wounds.
TrajanCavalous 08-06-07, 12:04 AM	A good thread! Recently played a Lumi Cleric/Radiant Servant, very specializede in healing. Our party was wiped out and I could have helped a lot more if instead of healing I was dishing out damage. Imho a healer character is really only useful for bringing people back from the dead and in combat dropping Heal. As noted above that might be the only hp healing spell that's regularly useful in combat. At the least a healer type character should also be prepared and committed to fighting effectively.
Endarrion 08-06-07, 12:04 AM	Well, remember, a Belt of Healing costs the same as a Potion of Cure Serious Wounds. True, but they are both only usable once per day. You get more mileage out of the belts because they aren't one use items, but what happens when you use up your belt's healing for the day? And like I said, at higher levels (knee-deep in a campaign) something more effective than the belts or potions, is needed.
Irving 08-06-07, 12:06 AM	Is it beyond the scope of this article to talk about ability drain and damage? Those sorts of damage have a much higher priority than straight hit point damage, and the ability to heal them is a much better argument for having a cleric around.
Franco Un-American 08-06-07, 12:12 AM	Also, perhaps a mention of Healing Hymn? At almost every level, but especially the low levels, the bonus to healing rolls massively increases the efficiency of cure spells.
calronmoonflower 08-06-07, 12:17 AM	I think that the point that you generally need a caster to use wands (paladin, ranger, or bard) is a good one. That they cost money is a second strike. However, if you get a cleric to make wands themselves they can get Divine Metamagic and get supercharged wands for less money and have a backup spell caster use them. Another option is the shaman from Oriental Adventures. Good shamans spontaneously cast curing spells just like a cleric.
OneWinged4ngel 08-06-07, 12:20 AM	Is it beyond the scope of this article to talk about ability drain and damage? Nah, go ahead. I think it could be a worthwhile thing to cover.
Mock26 08-06-07, 12:25 AM	As a DM I allow my clerics to Take 10 and Take 20 when they heal. If they Take 10 they roll 1/2 the die roll and add in the difference. For example, a heal spell for 1d8 would then become 1d4+4. If they Take 20 they apply the maximum amount of the healing. They can still do a normal healing if they are in a hurry or in combat or something like that, but if they have the time I let them take the time to do a proper job of healing.
DM Zoc 08-06-07, 12:45 AM	Of course, you don't need a healer. It all depends on what kind of game you're running. If you're running a mostly social game, with lots of political intrigue and ninjas waiting to sneak attack you when you go to the bathroom, then having a healer in the party isn't going to help much. Likewise, if there's no important impending plot, you can feel free to wait a couple of weeks for your level 1 barbarian to heal up from -7to +14. If someone has been kidnapped, and you need to extract that person from the bottom of a hostile dungeon before the next full moon, then that's not really an option. In that case, the more healing you have, the faster you can get that done. At the low levels (1-3), magic items are not really an option, so having a healer is darn nice. At the high end, having a healer in combat can mean that you are capable of taking on stronger things than you would otherwise be able to, and it's practically essential for those times when you only have three rounds after you take out the guards before their master comes to see what the commotion is. If the DM is the type who alters the reality of the world around what the PCs can handle (like not including any traps, anywhere, when there is no rogue in the party), then he might choose to not include situations where timely healing is an issue (maybe the master has to fumble with his keyring for a couple of minutes, and you'll have plenty of time to use your wand to get everyone back up), but a good number of players will take exception to suspending disbelief that far.
runestar 08-06-07, 12:52 AM	Is it beyond the scope of this article to talk about ability drain and damage? Those sorts of damage have a much higher priority than straight hit point damage, and the ability to heal them is a much better argument for having a cleric around. True. With dungeonscape, clerics can now cast those spells spontaneously. Though a wand of lesser restoration can be quite cheap, if your DM allows you to purchase the paladin version (1500gp) rather than the more expensive cleric version (4500gp). A warlock at higher lvs can be useful for churning out wands of healing cheaply via imbue item (since cure moderate wounds is a 1st lv runescarred berserker spell). Also, you can use Summon Monster 3 to procure a protectar (MH), which can cast CLW 3/day. Generally inferior to CSW, but might be useful if you want to spread the healing around.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-06-07, 12:55 AM	This thread is about healing OUTSIDE of the cleric. How can anyone have any thing negative to say about this thread? There are no fallacies, no wrong-headed arguments, merely factual evidence that there are viable healing alternatives to the cleric. Using the cleric as an example in your "debunking" (or whatever) of what OneWinged4ngel has said is ... wrong. And yet he used many examples which only a cleric or druid could do. Such as a vigor, and heal. I don't see how it follows that he would say clerics shouldn't have to be healers in the party, and that the party can get on fine with out them, and then turn around and say clerics a druids should use their actions from healing. Thats kind of inconsistent. Even if you have the artificer using his actions to do the same thing, it's still someone focusing on healing. All he is saying is to do it effectively, which is in consistent with the first half of his thread where he attempted to prove that healing was ineffective. He offers two solutions to having no dedicated healer in the party. !) get the artificer to do it, and 2) buy lots of items. The problem with one is that the Artificer is an Ebberron class, and has the "broken" rep attached to it. (No I don't think it is broken, I'm just saying some people do.) So this doesn't really work unless your playing in Ebberon, or the DM allows the class outside of Eberron. I wouldn't count on it. Also what happens when no one is playing an artificer either? The problem with 2 is that it is a huge money sink. This; A diferts funds from other areas of the party such as stat enhancement items, or magic weapons, and B assumes the party has lots of gold to spare. It further assumes that McMagic marts are where ever you need them. Again relying heavily on a generous DM. I'd like to see some solutions to the no healer problem that don't rely on the party having more gold then Suadi Arabia's GDP. Well, remember, a Belt of Healing costs the same as a Potion of Cure Serious Wounds. 1) Don't these have a can only be used by poeple who can channel postive energy cluase? 2) It is only once perday. What do you do when your hit multiple times? 3) There are dozen of better things to be wering around your waste then that. except at lower levels, but after that its neigh useless. 4) So what do you do when the DM isn't allowing MiC due to not owning a copy?
runestar 08-06-07, 01:00 AM	2) It is only once perday. What do you do when your hit multiple times? Get more belts? They cost the same as potions anyways.
Obsidianjaerc 08-06-07, 01:27 AM	This is quite a useful resource. Thanks. When I awaken after a rest, I'll throw in my two cents regarding some nit picks and new ideas.
OneWinged4ngel 08-06-07, 01:40 AM	And yet he used many examples which only a cleric or druid could do. Such as a vigor, and heal. Riiight, because Rogues, Warlocks, Artificers, Bards, and Factotums can't use Lesser Vigor or Heal. :rolleyes: 1) Don't these have a can only be used by poeple who can channel postive energy cluase? No. 2) It is only once perday. What do you do when your hit multiple times? If 30d8 points of healing or more per day is not enough, then you can use your wands of lesser vigor, or other healing methods. 3) There are dozen of better things to be wering around your waste then that. except at lower levels, but after that its neigh useless. If you had read my post, you would know that this isn't actually so much of an issue thanks to new rules in the MiC. Common magic enhancements can be layered over other items, thus facilitating the use of a variety of items instead of, you know, EVERY Rogue saving up his glove slot for dexterity bonii. 4) So what do you do when the DM isn't allowing MiC due to not owning a copy? Again, do ya read the bloody threads you respond to? Wand of Cure Light Wounds is typically *good enough,* because it provides fairly efficient out-of-combat healing, and all you actually really need is out-of-combat healing. In-combat healing, while useful, is not an essential role. This is the last time I'm going to restate it for you, TPK, because it really is just flooding the discussion with the same repeated answer that you're utterly ignoring. *Sigh.* Please actually read the material before replying. Otherwise, you might as well be a troll. Questions are fine, but it would help not to be so antagonistic. Thanks.
calronmoonflower 08-06-07, 02:11 AM	here some stuff that a posted in the other thread. I think that the point that you generally need a caster to use wands (paladin, ranger, or bard) is a good one. That they cost money is a second strike. However, if you get a cleric to make wands themselves they can get Divine Metamagic and get supercharged wands for less money and have a backup spell caster use them. Another option is the shaman from Oriental Adventures. Good shamans spontaneously cast curing spells just like a cleric. A Constitution score increase isn't temporary hit points. It could work the same, but when the increase goes away so do the extra hit points. If you are not careful it could kill you. I would also like to point out that some classes have supernatural healing abilities. If you are going to relay heavily on magic item the supernatural healing will help stretch out the potential of those item. Monk: Sucky healing, but use it before you use you limited use items. Use out of combat would be best. Paladin: If you dungeon master isn't fascinated by making paladins fall they can stabilize anyone with their Lay on Hands with just one point. It may not always be worth it in battle, but the healing is free. You can also heal moderate amounts of damage in or out of combat. Out of combat doesn't reduce you effectiveness as a melee fighter, but the healing in combat can be used in an emergency. Lay on Hands from other sources: Some prestige classes either offer either lay of hands or an ability like it. It can be used in the same way as a paladin. Dragon Shaman: (Player's handbook II): The vigor aura allows unlimited healing out of battle. It only gets you to 1/2 full hit points, but it is free and unlimited. It also works in battle without wasting your actions. The touch of vitality heals wounds relatively well and at higher levels can remove conditions. Vigor Aura from other sources: If you have Races of the Dragon you can get the vigor aura for any character with just a feat. It works far better if you happen to have the dragonblood subtype. Sorcerers can also give up a spell slot for this aura. It's a big cost, but it allows you to heal up to 4 hit points per person in every round. You can also get it with the Dragon Lord prestige class. Psionic Healing Body Adjustment: Not as useful or efficient as even Cure Light Wounds, it also works as backup healing but only works on yourself. The psychic warrior version is slightly cheaper, but psychic warrior's get less power points. Claws of the Vampire: If you have high damage dealing claws such as from Claws of the Beast his can heal quite a bit. After the first manifestation you do not need additional actions to heal, but you get nothing for manifesting it. Vampiric Weapon: Like Claws of the vampire, but works on a weapon. Best used with a greatsword or fullblade. With multiple hit per round the healing can really stack up, but a psychic warrior have only a medium base attack bonus limiting its usefulness. Touch of Health: Sub-par for healing, but stabilizes a character with 1 power point. Psionic Revivify: Brings a character back to life for an Xp cost instead of a wad of cash. It's a egoist power you you must ask yourself if it is worth a feat or play an egoist. True Metabolism: An 8th level psion/wilder power, but deals a whopping 10 hit points/ per round and last 1 minute per level add that up and you could likely fully heal out of combat with one use. It also can be used to regrow limbs. Reality Revision: The only other psionic power that Can restore a creature to life. Not the best option as it is a 9th level power with a huge Xp cost, but it works just the same as Wish. It has a myriad of other uses so if you can learn this power you should. Arcane Healing Bestow Wounds: Low save spell that deals 1 hit pint of damage per level and heals 1 point. A bit cruel, but you could use it on low hit die animals to heal yourself. Wish: A last resort spell with a huge XP cost. It can be used to bring the dead back to life, but have enough other uses that anyone that can learn this spell should.
Gedrin 08-06-07, 02:45 AM	I think most people are missing the point here. The question isn't "are the laundry list of healing options presented better than a cleric/druid?". The question is, "Given that you have all sorts of healing options available that don't require a dedicated healer, isn't it reasonable that a party use those options and have a lightning chucking Sorc or dual wielding Barbar instead?". It seems to me, given how damage scales, particularly considering multiple attacks and AoE effects, there are some pretty good points to be made about how, numbers wise, the ability to deny your opponent the chance to use those attacks more quickly is both easier and more valuable than recovering from the damage dealt by those attacks. Two arguments I can think of against switching out a cleric for another offensive class are First death is a bright red line that characters really can't afford to cross. The burst healing that a cleric can provide, can prevent a particularly powerful foe (the proverbial dragon), who is focused on a single character, from killing them. Tactics can mitigate this problem, but it's still a problem. However, in an encounter where sustained attack on a single character isn't likely to result in his death (most CR = Level encounters), you're likely better off with the extra offense. Second, clerics come with a whole toolbox of tallents, and can change that toolbox daily. Your party many not have the restorative items needed to cure every condition that will befall them. Drain, poison, curse, blindness...the list goes on and on and on, and clerics can fix most of it. Stocking up on supplies is possible, but having the dedicated healer around who can cure a condition on the spot, or the next day at worst is nice. Of course, there are hybrids that can solve many of these issues as well, or better in some cases (like pally for lesser restoration), than a cleric/druid. I think it likely comes down to planning and party build. If you've got a Paladin, UMD Bard, and an Articifer...you might not need that dedicated healer if you plan well and a solid death machine could be your fourth. If your party build is a figher, ranger and a wizard...it might be best if no 4 was a cleric. Of course...no one mentions the inherent liablity to a dedicated healer. Once he's dead...there is no serious healing at all in the party. The party without a dedicated healer likely has distributed it's healing (belts, wands, lay hands, bard clw) and it's harder to get rid of it all at once.
Mock26 08-06-07, 02:48 AM	... But having to pay for all those other healing options could seriously eat into the wealth of the group and for those that follow the wealth by level guidelines that could put a big damper on future encounters.
Ics 08-06-07, 03:06 AM	A good combo with the oh-so-useful revivify: cast revenance (cleric 4, Spell Compendium) beforehand, and instantly render the restriction of revivify moot. Never lose levels again!
Lawkeeper 08-06-07, 03:07 AM	I never realized until now to what point Healing Belts were so terribly underpriced. Given ten days of use (at a pace of 4 encounters/day, default for "standard" D&D, it's going through three levels), it's starting to be better than a wand of CLW !:eek:
Otto the Bugbear 08-06-07, 07:52 AM	I suppose I could do something like... Just about everyone can contribute a bit to healing the party! Here's a few examples of how each class can do a solid job (or at least fill in his share of the weight) Artificer: Yadda yadda... Greater Healing Armor... yadda yadda... temporary hit points... yadda yadda... create items... yadda yadda... wands... yadda yadda... heal warforged... Bard: Yadda yadda... UMD... wands... Cleric: Yadda yadda... heal... delay death... revivify... healing combos... Crusader: Blah blah blah... hit people in the face so hard that it cures your friends... blah blah blah... Dread Necromancer: Yadda yadda... Charnel Touch... Yadda yadda... Tomb Tainted Soul... Druid: Yadda yadda... summon nature's ally... yadda yadda... Heal... Psion: Yadda yadda... Vigor... Yadda Yadda... Share Pain... yadda yadda... empathic transfer... Psychic Warrior: Yadda yadda... empathic transfer... yadda yada... Rogue: Blah blah blah... UMD... Shadow Sun Ninja: Blah blah blah... that thing Tempest said that I haven't looked at yet... Warlock: Yadda yadda... UMD... yadda yadda... Wizard/Sorceror: Yadda yadda... heal warforged... yadda yadda... Wall of the Uttercold... yadda yadda... Vampiric X... blah blah blah... temporary hit points... Other: You're one of the classes that actually doesn't have some nifty sort of healing ability! But don't fret, you can still keep up some healing. The easiest way at low levels will definitely be a Healing Belt. For the cost of a single potion of Cure Serious Wounds, you can heal 6d8 hp a day, or 4d8 hp in a burst, and get a +2 bonus to heal checks as an added bonus. While it won't make you a main healer, it will soon pay for itself and help to supplement the party's efficiency healing, and can definitely save lives at lower levels. But really, isn't it kinda all implied by the bulleted listing? Yeah, your right about a list like that. I was thinking, and not doing a very good job of explaining, that something about putting the consideration to grab levels of a class with healing capability if it won't destroy your concept. For example, if you're playing a knight in shining armor, then you have a bunch of choices of what to grab, why not take one that opens up spellcasting for your character. As long as it doesn't destroy your character concept, or cause other in-game problems, grab a class that gives you divine casting. A little self-sufficiency never hurt anyone.
runestar 08-06-07, 08:58 AM	But having to pay for all those other healing options could seriously eat into the wealth of the group and for those that follow the wealth by level guidelines that could put a big damper on future encounters. Like you said, it is an option, not an obligation. All the OP has done is simply present alternatives for your PCs to access healing. At the end of the day, whether or not you adopt them is entirely up to you. Whether you can or not is up to your DM, which is too variable a factor to consider within the parameters of this thread. If you have a dedicated healer in your party and see no need for this sort of advice, good for you. But if no one is willing to take on the mantle of healbot, then the list is invaluable as it still allows your atypical party to function. Is it worth it? Maybe. Maybe not - you decide, not us.:)
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-06-07, 01:04 PM	Riiight, because Rogues, Warlocks, Artificers, Bards, and Factotums can't use Lesser Vigor or Heal. :rolleyes: Ok well it would appear that I'm not the only one who seems to miss things. Lesser vigor is a cleric and druid only spell. So the only ohter way to get it is for someone to max out ranks in UMD and use it as a wand. Which assume three things: 1) There are plenty of magic shops around that stock them. 2) The party has the funds to invest in enough wands to cover them through the adventure. Even more so with heal, and you need staffs at this point. 3) They survive the combat to make use of after combat healing. This can be dubious proposition with out any in combat healing. If 30d8 points of healing or more per day is not enough, then you can use your wands of lesser vigor, or other healing methods. 3750? That could have been the fighters +1 sword. Further if you are toting this as all after combat healing then a wand of lesser vigor at 5th CL heals 750 points of damage, as opposed to 5 healing belts, 135 average, of same price. And for course a cleric, or druid will do more, and cost less (free) also clerics and druid being found in core, means they're more widely accpeted then either MiC, or SC. If you had read my post, you would know that this isn't actually so much of an issue thanks to new rules in the MiC. Common magic enhancements can be layered over other items, thus facilitating the use of a variety of items instead of, you know, EVERY Rogue saving up his glove slot for dexterity bonii. No I read your post. I found it largely uncreative and unhelpful. Like I said you rely on a few things that I don't think you should. Firstly that adventuring parties have enough resources to be continuely pouring into stop gap measures due to lack of someone who can cast heal spells renewably. But this hurts them because A its a constant drain on their resources, B assumes McMagic mart has all those readily available, and C diverts said resources from other areas. You have yet to adress that in your replies. Secondly; your operating on the premise that in combat healing is not needed. This is false, and you have yet to address posters who have disagreed with that premise. Basically what your saying is that it is better to kill the enemy quicker, so as to prevent healing. What about situations where that is not always possible? Say something with a truck load of HP. You won't be able to stop it from dealing its 50 points of damage. The other thing your missing is harmful conditions, debuffs, and ability damage. E.I the bad guys are shooting poison at us. Mr. Wizard is paralyzed, and the Vampire is draining away the con. Someone with restoration would be nice right about here, except that with out a cleric or druid you don't have that. And we'll pretend you do, and they subscribe to the in-combat healing is ineffective theory, so they don't have those things prepped. Things look dark indeed. Oh and wands of X don't help, because whats the difference of them using an action to a cure from a wand in combat, and them channeling a cure in combat? Thirdly; you rely far to heavily on items. Basically you answer is "with enough gold" you can get by. I already know you can get an item to cover just about everything. Thats not new, and not helpful. "Hey guys I just discovered something cool! If I buy a belt of giants strength +6 I can make up for my stregnth score being a 12! Cool huh." Fourthly; Your solutions with feats were at best situational, and for the most part unhelpful. Sure tainted soul is good, IF YOU BUILT YOUR CHARACTER AROUND IT. It useless if you haven't. And it really only covers you, and only you. Unless the entire party takes it. Some of the feats you mentioned were good, but are one sided. As in they are only useful for healing, and nothing else. Which is inconsistent with the healing is ineffective line. You completely ignored feats that could be useful for healing, and other things as well. For example Divine spell power can up the caster level of your Cures, and Flame strikes. But no mention of that at all. Fithly; your toting the artificer as a good heal bot. But like the tomb tainted feat, your relying the DM allowing stuff from Ebberron. Thats cool in an Ebberron game, but not helpful for anything else. Sixthly; Other then a handful of spells, and wands, you offered no core solutions at all. seventhly; You really missed the boat on potions. They are more expensive, and are one shot only. However they A do not require any ranks in anything to use them, nor for the spell to be on your list. Meaning everyone can use them, and B being core they're widely accepted they're non core counter parts. Again, do ya read the bloody threads you respond to? Wand of Cure Light Wounds is typically *good enough,* because it provides fairly efficient out-of-combat healing, and all you actually really need is out-of-combat healing. In-combat healing, while useful, is not an essential role. This is the last time I'm going to restate it for you, TPK, because it really is just flooding the discussion with the same repeated answer that you're utterly ignoring. *Sigh.* Do you? Here tell you what, when I have time I'll make a more comprehensive guide to damage mitigation.
Max Octavious Xavier 08-06-07, 01:31 PM	This thread is about healing OUTSIDE of the cleric. How can anyone have any thing negative to say about this thread? There are no fallacies, no wrong-headed arguments, merely factual evidence that there are viable healing alternatives to the cleric. Using the cleric as an example in your "debunking" (or whatever) of what OneWinged4ngel has said is ... wrong. No one is saying, "The cleric is SUXXORS at healing and here are things that do it better." More like, "People who do not have a cleric in their party and say 'ZOMG no cleric we dies!!' are missing the fact that there are other sources for healing outside of the cleric." Well that assumption would be wrong. It's about healing in general, and providing tools to help parties heal themselves effectively. It focuses on the problems many people encounter, and as such presents ways to cover healing very well without the help of a Cleric or Druid, a concept that some seem to struggle with. That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the benefits of healing that a cleric or druid can bring to the table. Also, as I have already said, emergency healing is situationally useful, and it *can* be a good party role, *if* you focus in it, but it is not a *necessary* party role to the point that you *need* to force someone to play one. And why are you making "comparisons" to the Cleric and Druid? No one ever said they were poor healers! You may not have said it, but why then did you make the title "A Player's Guide to Healing (And, why you will be Just Fine without a Cleric to heal) "? "The players guide to healing without a cleric" is a nice title, but you had to say "why you will be Just Fine without a Cleric to heal". So you start with a title biased against clerics. Then you proceed to say;...Some players think they *have* to have a cleric or druid to cover the healing role, and place healing as an extremely high priority, even in combat, and even if they don't.... Players overprioritize healing in combat when there are more effective options available to them... Players believe they can't heal efficiently without a Cleric or Druid or similar class in the party, and view such as an essential role, to the point where some even *force* others to play a Cleric or Druid just so that they can have a dedicated healer, and then downplay the extraordinary talents of those classes and belittle them to a mere healing role, making for an unenjoyable experience for the victim of this treatment.... Second, a dedicated healer is not a necessary combat role. Seriously. First off, healing often does not outpace damage. Moreover, removing an enemy a threat can often be much more effective at saving your allies' necks than going up and poking them with Cure X Wounds. If an enemy were to deal 50 damage to an ally, and you can take that enemy out by either disabling or killing them, then you've "healed" that ally of the 50 damage he would have taken. Additionally, as healing often does not keep up the pace with damage, even if you can't disable the enemy, healing the ally might not be good enough to save them. Instead, you might want to use an ability to help the ally escape, or block the enemy from attacking them (this can be something as simple as Benign Transposition, really). In fact, healing in combat is only situationally a good choice, and is often a subpar tactical option.... These things considered, you really can get by without a Cleric or Druid. In fact, if you do have a Cleric or Druid, they're probably going to be more useful in most combats if they are doing something OTHER than healing, since they have considerable talents in many regards.... And when others point out that clerics are the most effective at healing (I haven't played Ebberon, so I can't comment on Artificers) or that in-combat healing isn't as unnecessary as you say, you get all defensive. Thus your anti-cleric bias overshadows the good points you made. Post 26: Man, do you even *read* the things you *quote*? It says right there "This one is for the actual healers." How do you get "isn't a healer how?" from that? Anyways, as I have already said, in-combat healing can be useful, but is not a necessary party role to the point that you have to shoehorn someone into playing a Cleric or Druid. That said, as befits a thread that's all about healing, I include mention of burst heals and true healers. It would be stupid not to. I never said it was useless. I said it was often overprioritized. Anyways, please read before you respond to stuff. It'll keep everyone more sane. Thanks. Post 36:Again, do ya read the bloody threads you respond to? Wand of Cure Light Wounds is typically *good enough,* because it provides fairly efficient out-of-combat healing, and all you actually really need is out-of-combat healing. In-combat healing, while useful, is not an essential role. This is the last time I'm going to restate it for you, TPK, because it really is just flooding the discussion with the same repeated answer that you're utterly ignoring. *Sigh.* Please actually read the material before replying. Otherwise, you might as well be a troll. Questions are fine, but it would help not to be so antagonistic. Thanks.You do have some good points and your cost analyis of potions vs wands is very nice. It is a very informative post. The fact remains, "heal-bots" help groups run better and Clerics are the single best core class at being a "heal-bot". Why else are posts like "My group doesn't have a cleric, what should we do" (and variations on this theme) posted on a regular basis? Can a group function without a cleric? Yes. Do groups run better with a cleric? Almost always (with the exceptions being stupid/evil/poorly played/etc.. clerics/players).
OneWinged4ngel 08-06-07, 01:36 PM	Why else are posts like "My group doesn't have a cleric, what should we do" (and variations on this theme) posted on a regular basis? Like I said, many people just don't *know* what to do without a Cleric or Druid, and thus overvalue them to the point where they give otherwise very enjoyable classes a bad rap for being "unfun" by forcing someone who doesn't want to play one into the role, which just sucks in every way. You may not have said it, but why then did you make the title "A Player's Guide to Healing (And, why you will be Just Fine without a Cleric to heal) "? Because so many people have the delusion that they NEED a cleric to heal, when they *DON'T.* Also, I'm not, *anti-cleric.* I love clerics. In fact, probably one of my favorite characters ever is a cleric of the Silver Flame. I have no idea where you're getting that silly notion from. And when others point out that clerics are the most effective at healing (I haven't played Ebberon, so I can't comment on Artificers) or that in-combat healing isn't as unnecessary as you say, you get all defensive. 1) NO ONE argued that Clerics weren't good at healing. It's an argument against a straw man. I never made a claim that they were not good at healing, I made a claim that you didn't need one in order to have a perfectly run group taking on 4 to 6 encounters a day of a CR *above* their level, stay fully healed throughout the day, and not have a Cleric in your party, so you don't need to panic when you don't have one. 2) Where did anyone say that in-combat healing was so very necessary that you needed a Cleric? So far, the only ones vouching for the cleric that have had *any point at all* so far have been mentioning abilities other than restoring hit points. (And, why you will be Just Fine without a Cleric to heal) Check this out. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/and Yeah, see, it says "and" there. And proper reading comprehension answers the question ^^;; It's not "The Player's Guide to Healing without a cleric." It's "The Player's Guide to Healing, and Why You Shouldn't Panic Stupidly If You Don't Have a Cleric." And is a cool word. You should go and learn what it means. :nonono: ___ I've had a good number of campaigns with no cleric or druid, and we've never had a problem keeping the party in perfect health while fighting challenging encounters all day, for all the reasons I've listed.
OneWinged4ngel 08-06-07, 02:18 PM	Anyways, does anyone have any input on how to heal *status* effects efficiently? I'm going to be adding a section on that, since a few people brought it up.
DM Zoc 08-06-07, 03:02 PM	As long as it doesn't destroy your character concept, or cause other in-game problems, grab a class that gives you divine casting. A little self-sufficiency never hurt anyone. Am I the only one who finds this hilarious? Divine casters are the only type of character that are not self-sufficient; they have to beg their powers from a higher power/cause.
Empiro 08-06-07, 08:27 PM	I agree with a good deal of what was posted. I often play a cleric, and any time I have to resort to casting a heal in combat, I always say that the battle isn't going well. However, there are times when a timely heal can save the day. Combat in D&D is inherently very random, and while in an "average" battle, a good party should see to it that no one is in dire need of healing, it's really those exceptional times when clerics play a crucial role. For example, if in the first or second round of combat, that nasty troll with 3 attacks somehow managed to hit with all three attacks (and then rended your fighter), it's probably a good time to let loose with the best healing spell you've got. Sure, it's possible that if you whacked at him, you might take him down or incapacitate him, but what if you don't? It's the same situation if you're facing a raging Orc Barbarian that just critically hit your fighter with his greataxe. Your Hold Person might work, but then again, it might not. Basically, the Cleric is great at creating a buffer between the average combat and the very unlucky ones, ensuring that everyone comes out alive. However, the main reason I dislike playing in any game without a cleric is that clerics just have a good number of spells that are indispensible. I just don't want to be in a game without anyone with spells like (mass) Align Weapon, Magic Vestment, Greater Magic Weapon, and so on. I also prefer to have someone with spells like Protection from Evil and Remove Fear (who's unlikely to be affected himself by a Dominate or Fear, unlike the Rogue with UMD).
Obsidianjaerc 08-06-07, 08:57 PM	Like I promsied. ~ My view is that some items are simply more economical than others. Given how efficient most people want their PCs to be, and the fact that different class, feat, and skill choices will apply to each PC, it is the use of your variable resources (magic items, etc) that will carry the day moreso than your static resources (class options, etc). Generally speaking. It is the Dungeon Masters job to ensure, in a finely balanced game,that the PCs have the appropriate amount of wealth. Whether in the form of liquid coin or magical item resources, the actual amount should follow the guidelines for your level given in the DMG, for the entirety of that level. This means that although, by purely crunching the numbers, it appears that a belt of healing is a more efficient use of wealth over time, it actually isn't. Precisly because the wand or (more distastefully) the potion is expendable, makes it more worth purchasing, since a responsible DM will replace that fraction of your wealth. So even if you are a filling the healing archetype (cleric, etc.), or especially if you are a class with limited healing capability, consider using variable resources to supplement your own healing.
Sphyre 08-06-07, 09:37 PM	I play core only so most of this does nothing for me. Wand of Cure Light wounds. Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, and Bard, all cast it without problem. Add the rogue in there, with a good UMD, and you're fine. The only core classes who can't heal now are Barbarians, Fighters, Wizards, Sorcerers, and to an extent monks. More than 50% of the core classes have the ability to out of combat heal, and with 4 characters in the normal party, you'd pretty much have to specifically want to create a party against healing for it to happen. That was the gist of the post. But there's a lot more if you add a lot more sources.
Mock26 08-06-07, 10:04 PM	Sticks of healing. These magical sticks range from 1" to 16" in length. When you eat one inch of the stick (and it has the consistancy of a potato and tastes like you're eating, well, a stick) you will heal at the rate of 1hp per hour, regardless of the activity. If you eat one inch of the stick and rest completely (as in no stenuous activity) you will heal at the rate of 4 hp per hour. I made these up for my campaign just as something different and they have worked out quite well. They cost less than a potion of healing, but during the course of a single night they can greatly help the group recover serious losses of hit points.
runestar 08-06-07, 10:18 PM	Precisly because the wand or (more distastefully) the potion is expendable, makes it more worth purchasing, since a responsible DM will replace that fraction of your wealth. I disagree with your bolded part. Wealth spent is wealth gone, regardless of what it was used for. Even if you spent it on getting the party fighter resurrected, the DM is not supposed to reimburse you for this expenditure by arbitrarily upping the treasure you get later on. Likewise, if you blow all your money on healing wands, and end up using them all, don't expect the DM to compensate you for this. Simply put, the wealth you get is a one-off thing, and should have no impact on how you accrue wealth later on in the game. If you add up the total amount of treasure you get at each lv, and compare this with the suggested amount a PC starting at that lv gets, you will notice that the former is actually greater than the later by about 10-15%. This is because the designers have assumed that you will spend roughly that amount on misc consumables. It has all been factored in, so further factoring in your own factors will just upset it further.:P
Obsidianjaerc 08-06-07, 10:38 PM	PC wealth is PC wealth. If you have less because it has been expended, broken, lost, destroyed, eaten, or stinkified, the DM needs to replace the equipment in the course o the game and, not only replace it, but increase it as you proceed to the next level of play (and therefore wealth). Further the DMG actually says flat-out that the 'wealth per level' tables already factor in things like consumables used, gear sold/traded in, etc, to reach that level. It's factored into the DM being a thinking human being monitoring the PCs' wealth level ... if the PCs are lower than expected (because of trading in, for example), the DM should adjust the treasure in the next few encounters to compensate.
InkBlot 08-06-07, 10:58 PM	There's also a presige class based around psi-endurance, with always-on fast-healing and DR, that can use Empathic Transfer to great effect. It's called the Sangehirn. I'll have to check that out. I'm unfamiliar with it. The Sangehirn (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040625c), from in The Mind's Eye. The Mind's Eye may be only a web enhancement, but it's the best support we psi fans have seen since the Expanded Psionics handbook! The Sangehirn gets a d6 HD, 3/4 BAB, 9/10 manifesting, 4 skillpoints/level, two good saves, DR/-, Fast Healing, and the ability to use personal healing powers on others. In exchange, a Sangehirn can only learn powers from a small themed list. A psion/sangehirn will actually gain more powers than there are on that list. For this reason, the class is better for Psychic Warriors, who can benefit most from the DR and fast healing; Wilders, who don't have many powers known anyway and can benefit from access to the Egoist powers on the Sangehirn list; and Ardents, who can benefit from both of the above and are perhaps most suited to be fulfilling the healer role. The above classes would need to multiclass to get Heal as a class skill, but since the requirements are ML 5 and 9 ranks in Heal this isn't much of a problem (a Kalashtar Monk5/FoZ1 with Practiced Manifester can qualify). Trivia Alert: Sangehirn is a concatenation of Latin word for blood and the German word for brain. A good translation could be "Blood Mind."
Psikerlord 08-06-07, 11:01 PM	I don't think you must have a cleric healer, but it does make things easier for those "free" overnight type heals. At low-mid level, all party members should have belts of healing, they're just too good. I would also agree with a party funded 750gp wand of cure light: cheap, emergency healing usable by your bard, cleric, ranger, whoever, for when your cleric is out of freebies, or saving his last few spells for the big showdown.
Tempest Stormwind 08-06-07, 11:08 PM	Actually, the general strategy with sangehirn is to stagger your levels in it -- If you're an Egoist 6 / Sangehirn 2, take level 9 in Egoist. You'll gain two new powers of a new power level off of the *egoist* list, not the sangehirn one, and it leads to more diverse powers as you level up. That said, it's phenominally hard to take down a good sangehirn. They take a beating and keep on healing -- often right before your eyes. They're not invincible by a longshot (although I'd *love* to see a gestalt crusader/sangehirn... Even pulp graphic novel protagonists would fall before he woud!), but they're among the toughest manifesters out there. And if he's your healer, you want him to survive. Note that including Sangehirn probably strays a bit from the intent of this thread, though -- it's a class focused on healing. The CLERIC is a class that several people assume to be focused on healing. If we're trying to debunk that, I'm not sure classes are the best option to illustrate (although a sangehirn is definitely good at his job). I'm also leaving off third-party resources. There's some deliberate synergy between the sangehirn and the society mind that would work *very* well here -- Empathic Transfer at a distance, spreading fast healing to others without spending resources, *and* being able to customize your power selection from one day to the next! ...Of course, that's in Untapped Potential, which isn't a WotC book.
runestar 08-06-07, 11:08 PM	PC wealth is PC wealth. If you have less because it has been expended, broken, lost, destroyed, eaten, or stinkified, the DM needs to replace the equipment in the course o the game and, not only replace it, but increase it as you proceed to the next level of play (and therefore wealth). Further the DMG actually says flat-out that the 'wealth per level' tables already factor in things like consumables used, gear sold/traded in, etc, to reach that level. Your quote does not seem to correlate with your stance. I agree with Sean's quote in principle, in that I have had times when even after following the treasure allocation guidelines, my players still ended up short because they sold all the treasure at 1/2 price (most of the gear they got was inferior to what they already had, or at least not superior to), so I had to make up the shortfall by giving them extra gold to make up the difference. In hindsight, I admit that it is probably as much my fault for poor planning. However, your suggestion seems to be rewarding the players for wastefulness. I mean - why wouldn't they be encouraged to blow the bulk of their wealth on consumables if they knew that whatever they spent this way would be readily replenished? Why wouldn't a wizard spam wands in combat, or a fighter quaff potions like no tomorrow, if they were effectively free? Or am I missing something?:confused:
InkBlot 08-06-07, 11:24 PM	a gestalt crusader/sangehirn :drool: Do want (http://i184.photobucket.com/albums/x149/Gnomick/midna_want.jpg)! It figures I'd completely forget the straightforward way around that limitation. Just a note, it seems to me that the best way for a sangehirn to heal people is to use share pain and empathic transfer, and just let his fast healing soak it up over time. But maybe I didn't need to state that. But then again, the statement could be extended to say that any creature with fast healing or regeneration can be a very effective healer with share pain and empathic transfer.
navar100 08-06-07, 11:30 PM	I disagree with your premise. Potions of healing can be found in treasure, so it's not like characters are always spending money for them. There's no exhorbitant cost. In addition, when a character does use a potion, in or out of combat, it is one less spell a cleric has to convert to healing. It is a good thing for clerics (or druids) to cast non-healing spells. As for healing in combat, I actually care about my party members. I don't want them to die or the equivalent, be in death's door. That's one party member not taking actions against the bad guys. Casting a spell against the bad guy instead is no gaurantee of anything. He could make his save; he has more hit points than the damage you deal. The player of the character in death's door certainly isn't having fun just sitting there doing nothing while I lob spell after spell when I could cast one Cure Wounds on him or shove a potion down his throat and let him take care of the rest. A bad guy may coup de'gras the in death's door party member and actually be dead. You think potions are expensive, how about Raise Dead? The party doesn't exist just so I can survive at their expense to kill the enemy. We work as a team. Playing the cleric (or druid), I'm happy to help my party members. I am just as happy casting my spells to buff myself or attack the enemy. It's great there are ways for characters to heal without a cleric or druid in the party. However, it's not a "burden" to play a cleric.
runestar 08-07-07, 12:26 AM	That and if no one is willing to play a cleric (I got a scenario like that once), you at least have an alternative, rather than sucking your thumb and praying you don't get injured in combat. I saw the healing belt in MIC, and damn, that is good. Healing 6d8 hp/day for just 750gp? Sign me up anytime.:)
Obsidianjaerc 08-07-07, 12:32 AM	I don't see it as rewarding wastefulness. Instead I see it as reacting appropriately to efficient use of wealth. Ultimately, if you read my position, you'll see that consumables are worth spending your wealth upon. Wands have a lower CL then the wizard. Potions just don't pack enough punch in the long run. Even so, those items are not effectively free, so much as items that (like any others) would have their equivalence's replaced by a DM who follows wealth suggestions. Again, this are just my thoughts on wealth, runestar.
runestar 08-07-07, 12:42 AM	I don't see it as rewarding wastefulness. Instead I see it as reacting appropriately to efficient use of wealth. Ultimately, if you read my position, you'll see that consumables are worth spending your wealth upon. Yes, I do not deny that certain consumables are invaluable for the benefit they bring. What I was asking is if it is apt for the DM to effectively reimburse you for consumables you use? Say the earlier example of either acquiring a healing belt or a wand of CLW (both cost 750gp each). If I interpret your statement correctly, what you are saying is that when the wand of CLW gets used up, the DM is expected to compensate the players by somehow giving them an extra 750gp worth of extra treasure to make up for this (over and above what they would normally be accrued), so that they would not be any worse off at the end of the day. Conversely, if the party relied on the belt as a renewable source of healing, they would receive no such benefit, simply because the belt has been with them since day 1, and will continue to accompany them for the rest of their adventuring career. How then does this seem fair to the PCs who choose economy over effectiveness by favouring a reusable magic item over an expendable (albeit much more useful) one?:confused:
Me, Myself, & 101 others 08-07-07, 01:13 AM	PC wealth is PC wealth. If you have less because it has been expended, broken, lost, destroyed, eaten, or stinkified, the DM needs to replace the equipment in the course o the game and, not only replace it, but increase it as you proceed to the next level of play (and therefore wealth). Further the DMG actually says flat-out that the 'wealth per level' tables already factor in things like consumables used, gear sold/traded in, etc, to reach that level. Do you DM? If so, can I join your game? :P So, by this philosophy, a player could (nay, should even) make proliferate use of consumables and be confident that the DM will either replace the lost/used items or provide treasure of equal value? I'm sorry, that's just absurd. What if I, as an individual player, spend the bulk of my assets on disposable consumables? Say I use nothing but potions of cure serious wounds (750 gp), disdain +2 weapons, instead just using oil of Great Magic Weapon (3,000 gp) as necessary so that I have the maximum bonus? Go through scrolls like mad, get and use charged wish items... It wouldn't take long at all to go from my estimated wealth by level amount to flat broke doing that. Then what? According to you, the DM should boost me back up to whatever wealth level I'm "supposed" to be at? Hardly. Because, doing so would be rewarding me for spending irresponsibly. And, what if the rest of the party doesn't spend like I do? How do you boost my wealth back up without raising theirs? Generally speaking, treasure is split... So, either I'm getting something they're not (thus encouraging them to spend everything on disposable products, too) or you're increasing them above their "appropriate" wealth level. It's reason like this that "wealth by level" is a guideline, not a rule. And, it's a guideline that I think some people put way too much stock in. If your players spend indiscriminately and waste their money, let them suffer for awhile trying to keep up with inferior equipment, don't just re-make the world so that everything is easier and/or carries more loot. They'll soon learn how to better manage their funds. If your players are economically minded and find ways to maximize their wealth, let them enjoy the benefits they earned, don't lower the treasure drops to bring them back to their "appropriate" level.
Obsidianjaerc 08-07-07, 02:50 AM	I agree that you have a point. If you are to take me completely literally without affording any logical inferences.
Ezram 08-07-07, 03:49 AM	I play Clerics so no one else has to :D That said, more options in this case isn't a bad thing.
Me, Myself, & 101 others 08-07-07, 05:52 AM	Anyways, does anyone have any input on how to heal *status* effects efficiently? I'm going to be adding a section on that, since a few people brought it up. A paladin can make a wand of lesser restoration as a first level spell. Healers (from minature's handbook) can do remove blindness/deafness, and remove disease as a 2nd level spell, and restoration as a 3rd level spell. Healers, rangers, and druids get neutralize poison at 3rd. Panacea (minature's handbook and spell compendium) is a 4th level spell for healers and clerics, and removes pretty a lot of afflictions. All that is wand-worthy. How often do you actually get these statuses? An eternal wand (magic item compendium) would cost a bit more than a regular wand, but can cast the spell twice a day, every day, without charges. Other than panacea, all the spells listed above can be put on an eternal wand. The Talisman of Undying Fortitude (magic item compendium) grants you the benefits of being undead twice per day for 8,000 gp. Undead are immune to poison, disease, and many other negative effects... Not particularly cheap, but very versatile, Keoghtom's Ointment (DMG) costs 4,000 gp and has five doses, each dose acts as a cure light wounds, neutralize poison, or remove disease. Back to regular healing, the feat 'Spellfire Wielder' (magic of faerun) allows a character to absorb spells and use them either to do damage or to heal. So, everyone with spells leftover can cast them at the spellfire wielder when they rest for the night, and the wielder can then convert them to healing.
OneWinged4ngel 08-07-07, 06:02 AM	Not particularly cheap, but very versatile, Keoghtom's Ointment (DMG) costs 4,000 gp and has five doses, each dose acts as a cure light wounds, neutralize poison, or remove disease. Eww, that's anything but efficient, versatility or no! Thanks for the other feedback though XD
Optimized_Commoner 08-07-07, 09:33 AM	Well thankyou for that, it's a comprehensive list. Though I can't help but be reminded of a comic in Dragon magazine a few years ago, "Oh no, I just realised, we don't have a cleric in the group. We're all going to die." "That's okay I bought three potions of healing" ... next panel is them all walking along happily.
Treantmonklvl20 08-07-07, 09:54 AM	A couple things: a) I appriate the list - I will point out that (at least in my group) some campaigns do not allow the purchase of magic items. In those cases - you better have a good healer in the Party. Cleric isn't your only option, but is certainly a good one. A Pally just won't cut it. b) Don't forget a high level Wizard can summon a Coatl (not necessarily the most efficient way of healing - but if you are minus a healer in the party) - there are lesser summon monsters that can also summon monsters that heal - but I'm on vacation and don't have my books at the moment.
runestar 08-07-07, 09:57 AM	b) Don't forget a high level Wizard can summon a Coatl (not necessarily the most efficient way of healing - but if you are minus a healer in the party) - there are lesser summon monsters that can also summon monsters that heal - but I'm on vacation and don't have my books at the moment. For the price of a summon monster 9, your wizard might as well just planeshift the whole party to the positive energy plane where they will benefit from fast healing.:) I agree that you have a point. If you are to take me completely literally without affording any logical inferences. What sort of logical inferences are you referring to?:confused:
runestar 08-07-07, 10:08 AM	Depending on how liberally you interpret Iron Heart Surge, it can be used to negate just about any sort of status effect with a duration and then some.:P The Sage has ruled that it can remove poison, disease and negative lvs, but not ability damage/drain.
Lawkeeper 08-07-07, 10:40 AM	For the price of a summon monster 9, your wizard might as well just planeshift the whole party to the positive energy plane where they will benefit from fast healing.:) True. But : - you'll need a second one for the return trip - plus a teleport or greater teleport to return where you came from originally - and you face potential positive-energy-explosions for the weakest members, unless you start hurting them enough every few rounds (might be a way to resolve the in-party arguments : hitting your friend all you want)
Tempest Stormwind 08-07-07, 10:54 AM	True. But : - you'll need a second one for the return trip - plus a teleport or greater teleport to return where you came from originally - and you face potential positive-energy-explosions for the weakest members, unless you start hurting them enough every few rounds (might be a way to resolve the in-party arguments : hitting your friend all you want) In fact, I once dubbed the Positive Energy Plane's delightfully head-explodey conditions "Death By Awesome". It's since caught on, particularly on the CO boards. However, it'd be easier to produce a mildly positive-dominant, flowing time (1 day < 1 round (material)) demiplane of your own at that point. There's several different Genesis spells... and the one that's open to wizards gives you control over planar traits and doesn't restrict the time trait.
Keenath 08-07-07, 11:12 AM	I never realized until now to what point Healing Belts were so terribly underpriced. Given ten days of use, it's starting to be better than a wand of CLW !:eek: It's not really "underpriced"; it's just cheap. What you're paying for in the Wand is using it more than 3 times per day -- in a lot of cases, you're gonna need more than just three uses, and the higher you get, the less interesting those three uses are. If you have 120 HP, 6d8 healing is barely worth mentioning. I will side note that I would strongly suggest a restriction (as with most uses-per-day equipment) that you have to wear it for 24 hours to 'attune' it before you can use it -- this is to prevent the abuse of wandering around with six belts of healing that you trade out each time one runs dry. Or alternatively, once you use a charge out of the belt, no other belt will operate for you for 24 hours. (You can get a lesser abuse where they carry around a Belt of Giant Strength or something, swapping to the healing belt to drain it and then go back to Strength boosts before moving on.)
Lawkeeper 08-07-07, 12:38 PM	In fact, I once dubbed the Positive Energy Plane's delightfully head-explodey conditions "Death By Awesome". It's since caught on, particularly on the CO boards. However, it'd be easier to produce a mildly positive-dominant, flowing time (1 day < 1 round (material)) demiplane of your own at that point. There's several different Genesis spells... and the one that's open to wizards gives you control over planar traits and doesn't restrict the time trait. Death By Awesome. Fitting name.:) Just a question : where do you find that Genesis spell ? I just checked SC, PHB, PH2, CM, CA, don't find it.
Keenath 08-07-07, 01:02 PM	Death By Awesome. Fitting name.:) Just a question : where do you find that Genesis spell ? I just checked SC, PHB, PH2, CM, CA, don't find it. It was in the old Manual of the Planes, and I think it's a psy power too, as of XPH. However, I do want to mention that I think the intent was that you have to use normal time when you create demiplanes. Just sayin'.
InkBlot 08-07-07, 01:09 PM	The spell genesis is in the SRD as well. It's hidden under "Non Epic Spells" in the epic section. Genesis Conjuration (Creation) Level: Sor/Wiz 9, Creation 9 Components: V, S, M, XP Casting Time: 1 week (8 hours/day) Range: 180 ft. (see text) Effect: A demiplane coterminous with the Ethereal Plane, centered on your location Duration: Instantaneous Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No The spellcaster creates a finite plane with limited access: a demiplane. Demiplanes created by this power are very small, very minor planes. A character can only cast this spell while on the Ethereal Plane. When he or she casts the spell, a local density fluctuation precipitates the creation of a demiplane. At first, the fledgling plane grows at a rate of 1 foot in radius per day to an initial maximum radius of 180 feet as it rapidly draws substance from surrounding ethereal vapors and protomatter. The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize. The spellcaster determines factors such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain. This spell cannot create life (including vegetation), nor can it create construction (such as buildings, roads, wells, dungeons, and so forth). The spellcaster must add these things in some other fashion if he or she desires. Once the basic demiplane reaches its maximum size, the spellcaster can continue to cast this spell to enlarge the demiplane, adding another 180 feet of radius to the demiplane each time. Material Component: A crystalline sphere. XP Cost: 5,000 XP.
OneWinged4ngel 08-07-07, 01:19 PM	The spell genesis is in the SRD as well. It's hidden under "Non Epic Spells" in the epic section. Sneaky! I was wondering where the 3.5 version of that spell was hiding.
Aubri 08-07-07, 01:52 PM	Sneaky! I was wondering where the 3.5 version of that spell was hiding. I guess that means it's in the (bleh) ELH. Tho I think I'd rather have the effect produced by some kind of arcane machinery -- which is then stolen by the Khan of Bakluna. KHAAAAAAAAAN!
Keenath 08-07-07, 01:58 PM	See, that's what I'm talking about: "The spellcaster determines the environment within the demiplane when he or she first casts genesis, reflecting most any desire the spellcaster can visualize. The spellcaster determines factors such as atmosphere, water, temperature, and the general shape of the terrain." It seems clear to me that this is talking about physical traits of the demiplane, and not temporal manipulations. I don't think "time flows ten times faster there" can be considered a "factor such as atmosphere... and shape of the terrain". In any case, do what you like, but in my games nobody will be creating a little pocket of supertime where they can go sleep for the night and come back thirty seconds later.
Tempest Stormwind 08-07-07, 02:02 PM	A Brief History of Genesis in 3e It started in Defenders of the Faith, as a 9th level Creation domain spell. (Note: It wasn't a wizard spell at the time.) It was later reprinted in Deities & Demigods, this time as a Sor/Wiz 9, Creation 9 spell. There were subtle changes, mostly to area, but that was pretty much it. A psion power -- 9th level Metacreativity (Int) -- version of it appeared in the Psionics Handbook. This version had a few other limitations, but also added an antigenesis effect (basically a localized planar low-level reformat). The Epic Level Handbook hit with its revised spell -- still Sor/Wiz 9, Creation 9. This is the version you see on the SRD, under Epic Rules (it would also appear in the Divine rules, with the Creation domain, but the ELH is clear that it replaces the Deities & Demigods version). Then the 3.5 revision hit. The first true revision of it was the 3.5 XPH's Genesis psionic power -- now a Shaper-only power. It has a decreased XP cost (1/5 that of the original), but, notably, it also contains text which FINALLY prevented alteration of the Time trait and limited you to working with cheap, mundane materials. No more planes of powdered diamond with Flowing Time, thank you. (It did retain 3.0's antigenesis ability, though, which is still unique to the psionic version of Genesis.) Complete Divine didn't have Genesis in it, but it *did* revise the Creation domain. Instead of Genesis, the 9th level spell is now Pavilion of Grandeur. (This was later reprinted in the Spell Compendium.) The Tome of Magic has a Word of Genesis spell in it, I'm told, but apart from the truespeak requirements I know next to nothing about it (I read the pact magic section over and over and skimmed the rest of the book). It's a cleric spell, though, likely replacing the Genesis lost from the Creation domain. No WotC publication has challenged the Epic Level Handbook's version of Genesis for sorcerers and wizards. Thus, it still stands. With its ability to set Flowing Time and everything.
Witch 08-07-07, 02:04 PM	Tempest - Word of Genesis is a Cleric spell with a Truenaming component, not an utterance.
Tempest Stormwind 08-07-07, 02:16 PM	Tempest - Word of Genesis is a Cleric spell with a Truenaming component, not an utterance. 's what I get for posting AFB. Thanks. I'll update with more details when I return to my books.
Mercurius 08-07-07, 03:13 PM	Having considered the matter when I first got Libris Moris and Heroes of Horror together, I do not think that a Dread Necro with Tomb Tainted Soul can heal themselves infinitely... Tomb Tainted Soul makes negative energy heal you and positive energy harm you, just like undead. However, while a Dread Necro's Charnel Touch ability does specify that it heals undead, it does not say that it is a negative energy effect. As a character with TTS is not actually undead, but rather healed by negative energy, and the Charnel Touch heals undead but does not specifically deal negative energy, they are incompatible. It may be a bit of a mistake, but I personally like to think that it's actually intentional - unlimited, at will healing via a feat everyone in a Dread Necro's party would be idiots not to take disrupts game balance drastically. It's infinite healing, forcing a DM to either kill a player every fight or never really challenge them except by decreasing the spells/powers/per day uses of the constituant members. I'm sure that I'll meet some disagreements here, but I'm pretty sure that a reading of the rules, rather than a general inference thereof, backs this up. Because I kinda wanted it to work from a munchkinny standpoint myself, and I read it closer and determined that it just flat out doesn't.
OneWinged4ngel 08-07-07, 03:27 PM	Having considered the matter when I first got Libris Moris and Heroes of Horror together, I do not think that a Dread Necro with Tomb Tainted Soul can heal themselves infinitely... Tomb Tainted Soul makes negative energy heal you and positive energy harm you, just like undead. However, while a Dread Necro's Charnel Touch ability does specify that it heals undead, it does not say that it is a negative energy effect. As a character with TTS is not actually undead, but rather healed by negative energy, and the Charnel Touch heals undead but does not specifically deal negative energy, they are incompatible. It may be a bit of a mistake, but I personally like to think that it's actually intentional - unlimited, at will healing via a feat everyone in a Dread Necro's party would be idiots not to take disrupts game balance drastically. It's infinite healing, forcing a DM to either kill a player every fight or never really challenge them except by decreasing the spells/powers/per day uses of the constituant members. I'm sure that I'll meet some disagreements here, but I'm pretty sure that a reading of the rules, rather than a general inference thereof, backs this up. Because I kinda wanted it to work from a munchkinny standpoint myself, and I read it closer and determined that it just flat out doesn't. Everyone could just be a necropolitan or something.
hoshisabi 08-07-07, 03:36 PM	It may be a bit of a mistake, but I personally like to think that it's actually intentional - unlimited, at will healing via a feat everyone in a Dread Necro's party would be idiots not to take disrupts game balance drastically. It's infinite healing, forcing a DM to either kill a player every fight or never really challenge them except by decreasing the spells/powers/per day uses of the constituant members. From a rules viewpoint, you may be right. I want to say that the amount of healing provided is trivial. A dragon shaman provides a similar amount of healing, and does it to all party members without taking an action. The amount of healing provided by this combo (which requires a feat and a class combination) is outshone by a first level spell you have available. My current character is a dread necro with tomb tainted soul, I have yet to use that ability in combat in a situation where I wasn't just "punting." (Well, I have nothing else to do. I'll just heal myself 3 points.) In every situation, were the trick to not have worked, I could have just healed the zombie next to me. Negative energy burst, however, does work. So, I know that the class features the ability to channel negative energy that functions like the rules say that inflict wounds spells work. The text of the ability says "negative energy flows through the dread necromancer's body, concentrating in her hands." This leads me to believe that the charnel touch is a form of negative energy being channeled. The Tomb-Tainted Soul ability specifically says "healed by negative energy" and not "inflict spells" or anything according to that language. So, if we rule that the charnel touch is not a form of negative energy channeling, that would make it free from being affected by various forms of immunities and resistances to negative energy. I'm sure that the loss of the ability which the player spent a feat for wouldn't necessarily be worth that amount of extra headaches. Oh, one additional note: Tomb Tainted Soul is at best a "break even feat" as it stands. Healing potions no longer work for you, your local cleric that heals the rest of the party cannot bring you up from unconsciousness, things like Close Wounds -- not available on you. Lots of piddly little things that will end up making you regret Tomb Tainted Soul on a regular basis. And this is all without regarding the fact that many dread necromancers look forward to picking up a template such as Necropolitan as soon as possible. (Also from Libris Mortis). Now you're actually undead, so as written everything will work. So, once they reach that point they have a dead feat. (Though, the player will probably plead with the DM to allow the PHBII retraining rules to swap it out for something more suitable.) Anyhow, just figured I'd add my two cents. I just don't think that the combo is so abusive that it warrants specific action to prevent.
Tempest Stormwind 08-07-07, 04:50 PM	The related trick that I described on page 1 -- Tomb Tainted Soul + Touch of the Shadow Sun -- has yet to prove unbalancing either. Especially because the in-combat action of slugging something with the "dark" aspect of ToSS is significant enough that no one would waste it on an ally unless that ally was nearly dead (rather, you slug your *enemy* with the "dark" aspect, then on the next round heal yourself or a nearby ally with a swift action from the "light" aspect). Out of combat it swiftly heals the party back to full, provided the Tomb-Tained Soul person doesn't mind being slapped around.
tarkin 08-07-07, 05:13 PM	I can't believe this thread got to 3 pages without mentioning False Life. Choice 1: Cast a cure spell during battle? Giving up a round where you could attack? Choice 2: Cast a False Life spell hours before battle. I go with Choice 2.
OneWinged4ngel 08-07-07, 05:53 PM	I can't believe this thread got to 3 pages without mentioning False Life. Choice 1: Cast a cure spell during battle? Giving up a round where you could attack? Choice 2: Cast a False Life spell hours before battle. I go with Choice 2. I thought I mentioned it before, but... yeah, I didn't mention temporary HP sources because, like con boosters, are a buff I feel to be a bit seperate from healing. If you really want though, I can cover that too.
Mercurius 08-07-07, 08:15 PM	Yes, you could just become Necropolitan, but at least then you're out an LA and I'm not even entirely sure the Necropolitan makes 100% sense. But I remember looking at the "Infinite but small healing" problem back in 3.0 with Savage Species and some eladrin or other... If you can cast CLW or something at will, the party will be at full hit points at the beginning of every fight. Ergo, unless hit point loss in combat is so extremely massive that a character finds themselves threatened with death in every encounter, how much damage you take is simply a minor delay in you moving along. Combats become infinite unless you deal with other limited resources like spellcasting, and, really, unless you like playing casters in that case, why not just play predominantly beaters who heal up between fights for free eternally? If the only way to really challenge and threaten an adventuring party is with a massive, single assault, it throws everything out of whack because small nuisance monsters like kobolds or other lower CR monsters simply become inconsequential entirely. Every fight has to have monsters that either kill instantly or do so much damage that they can put down a fully healed fighter in one or two rounds. It seems to me that it could very easily and rapidly become unbalancing. Lord knows it is in video games. It might work in some cases, but I'd be leery of it, myself. It might be my play style, though (often, my dungeons are endurance runs - the players can't just leave, heal up, and come back to finish their objective, but a few minutes of patching everyone up to full is potentially viable, so hit points and healing do become something rather important).
Alpha_Moose 08-07-07, 08:55 PM	(often, my dungeons are endurance runs - the players can't just leave, heal up, and come back to finish their objective, but a few minutes of patching everyone up to full is potentially viable, so hit points and healing do become something rather important). If it really becomes a problem, don't give them that minute. Force them to either set up huge defenses in order to rest, or plow though the enemies until they reach a safe zone (as dictated by you). Time limits are another way to force players to not heal between encounters. "The princess will be killed in an hour" can make your players get in and out quickly with no time to heal up.
OneWinged4ngel 08-07-07, 08:57 PM	Yes, you could just become Necropolitan, but at least then you're out an LA and I'm not even entirely sure the Necropolitan makes 100% sense. But I remember looking at the "Infinite but small healing" problem back in 3.0 with Savage Species and some eladrin or other... If you can cast CLW or something at will, the party will be at full hit points at the beginning of every fight. Ergo, unless hit point loss in combat is so extremely massive that a character finds themselves threatened with death in every encounter, how much damage you take is simply a minor delay in you moving along. Combats become infinite unless you deal with other limited resources like spellcasting, and, really, unless you like playing casters in that case, why not just play predominantly beaters who heal up between fights for free eternally? If the only way to really challenge and threaten an adventuring party is with a massive, single assault, it throws everything out of whack because small nuisance monsters like kobolds or other lower CR monsters simply become inconsequential entirely. Every fight has to have monsters that either kill instantly or do so much damage that they can put down a fully healed fighter in one or two rounds. It seems to me that it could very easily and rapidly become unbalancing. Lord knows it is in video games. It might work in some cases, but I'd be leery of it, myself. It might be my play style, though (often, my dungeons are endurance runs - the players can't just leave, heal up, and come back to finish their objective, but a few minutes of patching everyone up to full is potentially viable, so hit points and healing do become something rather important). Past very low level, many competent adventuring parties will expect to be fully healed at the beginning of every encounter. The difference tends to be how many resources they expend doing that. Also, kobolds inconsequential? Bwahahahahhahahhahaa.... ha...
runestar 08-07-07, 10:49 PM	False life is personal range, meaning only the wizard can typically benefit from one. I suppose if you could find some way of accessing aid at will...but the few sources which do offer this benefit are extremely dear. The cheapest way I know of is for a wizard to obtain a lantern archon familiar (aid at will as a SLA), though if one of your PCs is willing to play a ghaele, all the better.:)
Metafictional 08-07-07, 11:14 PM	Temporary hit points are better, since they are proactive, but the game designers seem to realize this, because the sources of such bonus h.p. are generally limited. As a 0-level spell you can give someone one temporary h.p.. This is as good as it gets! Aid is a 2nd-level spell, but it gives out a small amount of temporary h.p., although it does grant a 'bless' effect. False Life isn't bad, but it's a self-buff (nice for a potion, though). I think the best source of temporary h.p. is Psionic Vigor. I've seen an Overchanneling, Surging Wilder set themselves up with a huge stockpile of h.p., enough to more than off-set their d6 Hit Die. Higher-level Bardic Music is also nice, but, it's, well, higher-level, and probably not so hot next to other effects of the same level.
Tempest Stormwind 08-07-07, 11:21 PM	I think the best source of temporary h.p. is Psionic Vigor. I've seen an Overchanneling, Surging Wilder set themselves up with a huge stockpile of h.p., enough to more than off-set their d6 Hit Die. However, you cannot use both Overchannel and Wild Surge at the same time. Furthermore, Vigor grants 5 temp HP per power point. If you're overchannelling to increase your ML so you can spend more power points, you're also *taking* damage -- 1d8 (4.5) for +1, 3d8 (13.5) for +2, and 5d8 (22.5) for +3. The exception is if you're using Talented, which you might be since this isn't combat, but now it's getting expensive in terms of feats. In other words, with Overchannel, you gain half a hit point for one power point, or LOSE 3.5 or even 7.5 HP for more than that. Not worth it without Talented. And don't get me started on Wild Surge. In short, Vigor's best when you DON'T try to boost your ML. Still a good power, for what it does.
runestar 08-07-07, 11:26 PM	False Life isn't bad, but it's a self-buff (nice for a potion, though). Would have been nice as a potion, if you could brew personal range potions.;) Spell-storing might be nice for your fighter, if your wizard is willing to refill it with a vampiric touch before each combat.
Gavinfoxx 08-07-07, 11:55 PM	You forgot the spell "Panacea" from the Miniatures Handbook (and I think also Spell Compendium), for healing status ailments. Archivist 4, Cleric 4, Druid 5, Healer 4. Hmmm. though that kinda means you do need a dedicated healer... for status ailments...
Vicerious 08-08-07, 12:29 AM	Thanks for the great article! I'll be archiving it in my own records for future reference. This stuff would be great for supplementing any group, regardless of the presence of a "dedicated healer."
OneWinged4ngel 08-08-07, 12:33 AM	Would have been nice as a potion, if you could brew personal range potions.;) Spell-storing might be nice for your fighter, if your wizard is willing to refill it with a vampiric touch before each combat. If you're going to use Vampiric Touch, may as well use Bloodstone (MiC)
runestar 08-08-07, 12:39 AM	MIC should have quite a few weapons which let you heal when you hit your foe as well. One grants you temp hp on a successful crit. Properly set up, you should have quite a regenerative fighter.:)
Tempest Stormwind 08-08-07, 02:40 AM	MIC should have quite a few weapons which let you heal when you hit your foe as well. One grants you temp hp on a successful crit. Properly set up, you should have quite a regenerative fighter.:) Bodyfeeders have actually been around since the PsiHB, or in 3.5 in the XPH. By combining a bodyfeeder with a lifedrinking crystal or *gasp* the old Wrathful Healing enhancement, you get to be a font of incoming HP.
OneWinged4ngel 08-08-07, 11:15 AM	Bodyfeeders have actually been around since the PsiHB, or in 3.5 in the XPH. By combining a bodyfeeder with a lifedrinking crystal or *gasp* the old Wrathful Healing enhancement, you get to be a font of incoming HP. I remember wrathful healing, but I forget where it is.
Keenath 08-08-07, 11:20 AM	Bodyfeeders have actually been around since the PsiHB, or in 3.5 in the XPH. By combining a bodyfeeder with a lifedrinking crystal or *gasp* the old Wrathful Healing enhancement, you get to be a font of incoming HP. Of course, that brings us back around to the Devoted Soul maneuvers -- the Crusader's "I'm gonna hit you so hard it makes my friends heal!" thing.
Tempest Stormwind 08-08-07, 11:27 AM	I remember wrathful healing, but I forget where it is. Enemies and Allies, page 23, I believe. It's a 3e book no one bought and few people even know about -- a collection of prestatted (and often uninspired, but there were a few notable exceptions) NPC allies and opponents, both generic and specific, along with the stats for the PHB iconics at three different levels. Wrathful Healing was on a particular NPC's weapon and was statted out in a sidebar, and then forgotten, as it never appears anywhere else (to the best of my knowledge). I believe it's +3 equivalent, and I also believe that any sane DM would replace it with Bodyfeeder. (Keenath: It's Devoted SPIRIT. Also, see What Hit Points Represent in your PHB and the Martial Spirit stance. You aren't closing their wounds by slashing an enemy. You're screaming Aure Entuluva! and smiting your enemies with zeal and fervor, inspiring your allies to press on in spite of their wounds and exhaustion.)
OneWinged4ngel 08-08-07, 12:28 PM	(Keenath: It's Devoted SPIRIT. Also, see What Hit Points Represent in your PHB and the Martial Spirit stance. You aren't closing their wounds by slashing an enemy. You're screaming Aure Entuluva! and smiting your enemies with zeal and fervor, inspiring your allies to press on in spite of their wounds and exhaustion.) Absolutely right. We only say that it means "you hit people in the face so hard that it heals your allies" when kidding around =P
aelryinth 08-08-07, 01:06 PM	Bodyfeeder got quite nerfed in the errata, where Wrathful healing did not. Wrathful healing basically replaced the effect of a Ring of Vampiric Regeneration from 2E...it's quite powerful (heal half the hp in damage you inflict). There's a Stone Dragon stance granting temporary hp = 2x BAB sacked (up to 5 BAB) which renews every round. Sort of like grabbing for DR instead of AC with Expertise. Enemies and Allies also introduced Reckless Offensive, which is statistically simply the reverse of Defensive Fighting...but it costs you a feat to learn it. ===Aelryinth
OneWinged4ngel 08-08-07, 02:13 PM	I personally wouldn't allow Wrathful Healing in place of Bodyfeeder, so while I added mention of it, I noted that it was less likely to be allowed.
Keenath 08-08-07, 05:13 PM	(Keenath: It's Devoted SPIRIT.Look, a nit! Quick, pick it! Also, see What Hit Points Represent in your PHB and the Martial Spirit stance. You aren't closing their wounds by slashing an enemy. You're screaming Aure Entuluva! and smiting your enemies with zeal and fervor, inspiring your allies to press on in spite of their wounds and exhaustion.)Uh, yeah, no kidding. That's why it's a funny comment and not a serious complaint about maneuvers. I was just saying that the bodyfeeder plus lifedrinker thing is similar to running a devoted SPIRIT crusader.
ZocckCastlestorm 08-08-07, 06:36 PM	Yeah, your right about a list like that. I was thinking, and not doing a very good job of explaining, that something about putting the consideration to grab levels of a class with healing capability if it won't destroy your concept. For example, if you're playing a knight in shining armor, then you have a bunch of choices of what to grab, why not take one that opens up spellcasting for your character. As long as it doesn't destroy your character concept, or cause other in-game problems, grab a class that gives you divine casting. A little self-sufficiency never hurt anyone. As for Self-Sufficiency; I call your collective attention to the Combat Vigor Feat. This Feat Requires only a WIS of 13+, Combat Focus Feat and can be gained by 9th Level. By a lot of PC's. This Feat grants (situational) Fast Healing 2(or Fast Healing 4 if another Combat Form Feat is added) for 11+ Rounds(10 Rounds + 1 per each Feat in the chain beyond Combat Focus)! This is a PER ENCOUNTER Fast Healing at 22-64 HP's of Fast Healing at each encounter! For those Fighters and Martial Adepts(any Class) who Qualify have NO EXCUSE for not taking this(Especially Fighters who have no other 'In Combat' Healing Ability, but do have lots of Bonus Feats). As to Basic Stuff, Heal Skill can be helped along nicely with a simple Healer's Kit (PHB Item). It adds +2 to the Skill Check. Adding just a few Skill Ranks to this Skill and having the Kit handy can allow may PC's to save another's life. After all, it only needs to save a PC once to be worth it.
Nephlite 08-08-07, 06:39 PM	Enemies and Allies also introduced Reckless Offensive, which is statistically simply the reverse of Defensive Fighting...but it costs you a feat to learn it. ===Aelryinth It was reprinted in Expanded Pasionic Handbook. And not a Psionic feat.
OneWinged4ngel 08-09-07, 02:59 AM	As for Self-Sufficiency; I call your collective attention to the Combat Vigor Feat. This Feat Requires only a WIS of 13+, Combat Focus Feat and can be gained by 9th Level. By a lot of PC's. This Feat grants (situational) Fast Healing 2(or Fast Healing 4 if another Combat Form Feat is added) for 11+ Rounds(10 Rounds + 1 per each Feat in the chain beyond Combat Focus)! This is a PER ENCOUNTER Fast Healing at 22-64 HP's of Fast Healing at each encounter! For those Fighters and Martial Adepts(any Class) who Qualify have NO EXCUSE for not taking this(Especially Fighters who have no other 'In Combat' Healing Ability, but do have lots of Bonus Feats). As to Basic Stuff, Heal Skill can be helped along nicely with a simple Healer's Kit (PHB Item). It adds +2 to the Skill Check. Adding just a few Skill Ranks to this Skill and having the Kit handy can allow may PC's to save another's life. After all, it only needs to save a PC once to be worth it. On the Heal skill: -Blessed Bandages (10g) auto-succeed on heal checks to stabilize. Basically, everyone should carry at least one, at least at low levels. -In addition to their great healing, Healing Belts give a +2 bonus to heal checks that stack with a healing kit. As for the fast healing, I'll take a look at the feat. Edit: I've looked at it, and it's not really that great. I can think of lots of excuses for not getting it, namely that two feats is a big cost for 22 points of healing at level 9 or higher.
hat 08-09-07, 04:37 AM	The title of this thread makes me think of: "Dr Strangelove (or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb)" :)
Keenath 08-09-07, 10:04 AM	The title of this thread makes me think of: "Dr Strangelove (or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb)" :) Yeah. And actually, that in itself was a reference to a number of old Vaudeville acts that had a pithy title that told you nothing about the show, followed by "Or," and a longer, more informative subtitle.
DracoPhoenix 08-09-07, 11:43 AM	While not really all that viable for direct healing, there's a few Incarnum melds that can bolster hp, provide resistance (and thus reduce damage), prevent disease, AC boosts and ability damage reduction. I think there's one that provides a limited empathic transfer style healing ability. Some might be worth a shape meld feat or two. Don't know if that helps.
ZocckCastlestorm 08-10-07, 01:36 PM	On the Heal skill: -Blessed Bandages (10g) auto-succeed on heal checks to stabilize. Basically, everyone should carry at least one, at least at low levels. -In addition to their great healing, Healing Belts give a +2 bonus to heal checks that stack with a healing kit. As for the fast healing, I'll take a look at the feat. Edit: I've looked at it, and it's not really that great. I can think of lots of excuses for not getting it, namely that two feats is a big cost for 22 points of healing at level 9 or higher. I both agree and dis-agree with you,OneWinged4ngel. First off, I agree with the assessment of the Equipment you posted- they are better. Secondly, I dis-agree about the Feats for 2 reasons: 1) It is the only Non-Item Method for a Fighter (And most non-Divine/Non-Casters) to Heal in Combat. 2) I view it like this; Every single HP a Fighter(or similar) can Heal by themselves(Especially In Combat) is a HP that does not need expendable resourses(Spells/Potions/Charges from Anything/Psi Points) to deal with. This alone is a very good idea. I am all for self sufficiency, especially in a Party that has few Members in it. The Fighter has very few options in such matters and even Paladins/Rangers can benefit from these Feats, although I do admit that those two Classes need these Feats less than other Classes(Like Barbarians, or Knights) .
OneWinged4ngel 08-10-07, 01:43 PM	So you want to focus on healing as a cleric? Level 1: Here, a casting of Lesser Vigor will generally heal an ally to full, but a spontaneous casting of Cure Light Wounds can save a life and isn't even far behind. With the feat Augment Healing and the Healing Domain, you cure 1d8+4 points of damage spontaneously, or about 8.5 points. Lesser Vigor will do 14 points of healing, but cannot be cast spontaneously and cannot be used in battle. With your precious few spells, you might want to hold back on this. Inhibit (level 1, Spell Compendium) can just prevent enemies from attacking your allies to begin with if they fail a will save. Protection from Evil is just great in myriad ways, namely that it saves people from enchantments. Other useful healin' cleric feats can include Divine Spell Power (boost your caster level), Reach Spell (with Divine Metamagic later, this doubles as a handy way to deliver things like Slay Living without gettin' up in melee if you're a backrow sort of cleric), Extra Turning (for more divine feat effects), and Divine Ward. Level 3: You get Touch of Healing as a feat, and your caster level for healing spells rises by 1, and you can heal allies to half their total hp for free. At least, as long as you keep that domain slot filled with Cure Moderate Wounds uncasted, or keep that Close Wounds spell in reserve. You'll want to prepare Close Wounds (Spell Compendium) to heal 1d4+9 damage (+1 healing domain, +1 touch of healing, +3 CL, +4 Augment Healing) as an immediate action, and at range to boot. The real kicker here is that this healing counts as having prevented damage to begin with, so it can save allies from a deathblow. You also should probably buy a Wand of Lesser Vigor to cover your out of combat healing, since you should be able to afford it by now. You also get Shield Other, which will let you take half the damage for an ally pretty much all day. If you're a back row sort of cleric, this is pretty useful, especially since you probably have fairly high hp compared to everyone else since you probably got 14 Con or so, and your d8 hp. The best part of all this is, you can reduce an ally's damage by half and instantly restore about 11.5 hp without even using one of your standard actions. You can use those to kill people or buff people. With access to 1st and 2nd level spells, you should have plenty of options to kill or buff people. Look around a bit ;) Level 5: You gain 3rd level spells, which is pretty cool. You also get Vigor (heal 34 damage a pop) Mass Lesser Vigor (heal 17 damage a pop to the whole party), but you probably will want to stick with your Wands of Lesser Vigor for now, since you'll want to keep these third level slots for cooler stuff than out of combat healing. Those spells will be useful later for efficiency healing, however (and they'll scale with caster level to be better, too). In fact, you should probably stick with your 1st and second level slots for healing. Close Wounds is still useful with its ability to grant 11 hp when ya need it (though it hasn't scaled at all since 3rd level), and while you could spend a 3rd level slot to dish out 3d8+13 hp (average 26.5) a healing conscious party probably stocked up on healing belts by now and can heal almost that much on their own (about 18 points average once per day). If you have Divine Ward, though, at least you can cast it at range, and you can cast that spontaneously if you need to. Really though, you got Prayer, Wind Wall, Magic Circle Against Evil, Mass Aid, Sonorous Hum, Knight's Move, Hesitate, Dispel Magic, and more. Why do you want to waste those precious few slots of asskickery on Cure Serious Wounds? You might want to fill up the domain slot with it if your other domain's 3rd level spell kinda sucks, but otherwise I'd keep on other things. Try using Hesitate as a swift action to stop an enemy from attacking your buddies altogether. Or, note that with Mass Aid on the party, combined with Close Wounds, you can pretty much pretend like everyone has 20 temporary hit points, and give a +1 attack bonus on top of that. Level 7:
ZocckCastlestorm 08-10-07, 01:56 PM	So you want to focus on healing as a cleric? No, I don't. I am pointing out that most warrior-type Classes have few other options for Self-Healing, especially in Combat, and so could really benefit from these Feats. Also, don't forget that by having a Third Combat Form Feat the Bonuses/Effects for every Feat in the Chain Double! This means that if Combat Stability was taken at, say 6th Level, the Combat Vigor(Taken at 9th) would be Fast Healing (4) for 12 Rounds(Maximum = 48 HP's)! It would also increase the weak Will Saves (In Combat Focus only) to + 4 ! That's got to be worth a set of Feats that are each useful alone.:D
Keenath 08-10-07, 02:16 PM	I am pointing out that most warrior-type Classes have few other options for Self-Healing, especially in Combat, and so could really benefit from these Feats. The healing from Combat Vigor is pretty bad unless you have an extra combat form feat (though that's not a bad idea, as you point out). Even so, a 10th level fighter can't expect Combat Vigor to give him more than half his HP at best. But doesn't combat focus end when the combat ends? I don't think you get to activate combat focus in round 2, kill the enemy in round 3, and then stand around fast-healing for 10 more rounds. It's gone once the encounter is over, IIRC, which makes that a lot less attractive. ...having a Third Combat Form Feat the Bonuses/Effects for every Feat in the Chain Double!That's rampant shift-key abuse, there.
Tempest Stormwind 08-10-07, 02:19 PM	That's still two or three feats. I could use those two or three feats to take a feat chain that helps end the battle now, or keep me alive without damage, or pick up other options. If those feats were instead fighter class features that didn't cost anything to pick up, then yeah, I'd say they'd be worth it. As is? Not so much. Furthermore, as a martial character, I guarantee you could find something with those three feats that would work out better. Recall that if a monster can deal more than 22 points of damage to you (or any damage to anyone else), then killing it a round faster is effectively better than those combat form feats at healing. Part of the point of this thread is that in-combat healing really isn't all that hot, and you don't need to invest all that many resources into healing to get by well. Three feats is a substantial amount of resources.
OneWinged4ngel 08-10-07, 02:30 PM	1) It is the only Non-Item Method for a Fighter *Completely does not care about Fighters anyways, because Warblades are cooler, but...* Anyways, here's the thing. 3 feats are going to be far better spent... lots of other places. If you could have the offensive or defensive ability to prevent 22 or more points of damage in a fight from ever happening, then that guy made a better investment than the guy who took the combat vigor. And I'm not going to take 4 feats to heal 48 hp, either. Besides, with a cleric in the party at 9th level, just using a 3rd level spell slots (he's using 4th and 5ths for Killing Things and Buffing Things now), he can heal a total of 27 hp *per party member*, and that's *after* he just used Touch of Healing to restore everyone's hit point to half their total. He can also use that same slot to heal 48 hp to a single person. It's an expendable slot at that level, and he can throw four or five of those without worry. If a party of, say, 5 spent 750gp each, (at a level where you're getting 4500gp per encounter!), then they'd have 2750hp worth of healing in the form of wands. If you have an artificer in the party, that cost becomes 1406.25 gp for the whole party... less than a 3rd of the amount you got from one encounter, and more than enough to last for many encounters. And a Rogue can use those wands, and save the Fighter *4 feats.* For the same cost, they could be dealing 30d8 hp of healing a day (or about 135hp / day), usable by anyone, with Healing Belts. Looking at how damage tends to work... well, it's pretty easy to beat that number even if you don't use healing, just by reducing the damage taken by increasing your combat potency. As such, they don't really seem like such good feats, let alone the "must haves" you make them out to be. They have a very large cost (*four* feats), and only produce a cheap benefit as far as healing goes.
InkBlot 08-10-07, 03:08 PM	Has anyone mentioned Tome Of Magic yet? The vestige Buer, Grandmother Huntress, can turn a Binder into an effective healer. Other vestiges, combined with a wand of shield other or a dorje of share pain, can turn you into a damage sponge for the party.
OneWinged4ngel 08-10-07, 03:15 PM	Has anyone mentioned Tome Of Magic yet? The vestige Buer, Grandmother Huntress, can turn a Binder into an effective healer. Other vestiges, combined with a wand of shield other or a dorje of share pain, can turn you into a damage sponge for the party. I don't have Tome of Magic, so I can't add it to the guide.
Otto the Bugbear 08-10-07, 10:08 PM	Binder: The binder can make an excellent healer, but only after attaining binding level 7. With the vestige Buer, a binder give a party unlimited healing between battles. Buer also gives a binder (and the party he's in) a few other benefits as well, but not all of them apply to the topic of this thread. Self: Fast Healing. The binder just gets this for binding Buer. (I keep wanting to type Buell there. Like the motorcycle. Go figure.) It even increases in potency as the binding level increases Binding Level 7 - 9 = Fast Healing 1 BL 10 - 12 = FH 2 BL 13 - 15 = FH 3 BL 16 - 18 = FH 4 BL 19+ = FH 5 For the party: This one is actually two powers rolled into one. For the first part, the binder can cure 1 damage as a standard action with a touch. This part is usable at will. The second part is the ability to use a full-round action to heal a creature touched 1d8 points of damage, +1 point per effective binder level (maximum 1d8+10 points). If this one is used, it cannot be used again for 5 rounds. In either case, it specifies that it's channeling positive energy, so it harms undead. Other effects: The other effects Buer grants are skill bonuses, Track, delayed effects of poison and disease as long as allies stay within 30 ft. (though the effects occur of the ally leaves the area), and the binder is immune to disease and poison.
Tempest Stormwind 08-10-07, 11:02 PM	FINALLY got my MIC to confirm what I was saying earlier. Lifedrinking crystals. Slotless items (effectively; you can't use other weapon augment crystals while using these) that restore HP when you make a successful weapon attack. Least ones (400gp) heal 1/hit (max 10 per crystal per day, requires a masterwork weapon), lesser (1500) heal 3/hit (max 30, requires a +1 weapon), and greater (6000) heal 5/hit (max 50, requires a +3 weapon). Note that this is per crystal, not per weapon, and attaching or removing crystals is a move action. Not the most economical of items, but they're cheap, function automatically, and can be swapped between fights if you have spare ones. Basically, they're cheap (and transferrable) ways to turn your weapon into a weak source of secondary healing. Unlike many similar effects, these don't necessarily require melee weapons either.
Dazzer 08-10-07, 11:24 PM	Hey, I realize it's a bit of an investment but a player in my old eberron game did this and never regretted it. Party Setup Paladin (Aasimar) Scout (Elf) Spell-Thief (Gnome) Wizard (Halfling) The paladin never prepared or carried healing items, he was a charger type and never bothered getting them. The halfling wizard took all 3 levels in the Siberys Class which gives extra action points and +2 effective caster level So for the loss of one caster level, she got Mass Heal 2/day at 15th caster level as a spell-like ability. The party never really needed a healer again. Especially when they got the item that allows a siberys marked character use her ability as a swift action 3/day...Then it was unstoppable, quick, effective, healing. It's a bit of an investment, and it's a higher level solution, but I found it was worth it. Especially for a wizard (since the siberys gets 4 + int, all good saves and d6's as opposed to wizard stuff....as well as a good mix of class features on the missed level for casting)
DungeonMogrii 08-10-07, 11:35 PM	I haven't got the time to read thru all this thread, but in case it hasn't been already told somewhere.... Complete Scoundrel has a healing trick, you need a few ranks in heal, the skill point cost of the trick and you can heal something lower than a lv 1 CLW automatically whenever you use heal to stabilize a dying character. Just thought it was worth mentioning
InkBlot 08-11-07, 12:51 AM	Binder: The binder can make an excellent healer, but only after attaining binder level 7. With the vestige Buer, a binder give a party unlimited healing between battles. The Improved Binding feat lets you bind vestiges as if you were two levels higher. So you can get 4th level vestiges like Buer at level 5.
Otto the Bugbear 08-11-07, 07:05 AM	The Improved Binding feat lets you bind vestiges as if you were two levels higher. So you can get 4th level vestiges like Buer at level 5. Yes, I know. I'' change it to "binding level" since that's what I meant. Thanks.
InkBlot 08-12-07, 02:46 AM	No big. I just wanted to clarify the various options, for people who haven't taken more than a glance at Tome Of Magic.
OneWinged4ngel 08-13-07, 05:05 PM	No, I don't. K... won't bother to write a class-by-class guide then if no one wants 'em.
MiscDebris 08-13-07, 05:43 PM	magic of the land I like that feat. It's one I took with a Shifter druid I played for a bit. (With all the substitution levels to boot!) However, it's not terribly great as healing goes, so perhaps doesn't belong on the list. It is certainly a fun little feat to grab onto. The possibility of changing every spell you cast into a dual-nature spell is a really nice idea, it just doesn't go far enough in the healing department. There is alot to be said about that simple little feat though. My spirit shaman (sig) has Magic of the Land. Killorn pretty much auto the Knowledge Nature check from level 5 (ranks + int + character level). Our scout likes to be rather far ahead of the party, and likes to roll badly on spot, listen, and init. (yes, we need a new scout). I often find myself readying an action to drop an entangle on him from 400 feet when the bad guy moves more than his speed away from the poor scout. With Magic of the Land, it's a nice long range stabilizer and while it also heals the bad guy, it keeps said bag guy from attacking the downed and stabilized character. I also rather enjoy Magic of the Land on Mass Snakes Swiftness. I also played a Living Greyhawk level 1 Healer (base class) with Augmented Healing and Magic of the Land. Lessor Vigor worked pretty well in combat in that case. 1/round for 11 rounds + 6 more in the first round. Too bad the Healer has to memorize unlike beguiler, warmage, and dread necromancer. I might actually play one more than once.
Otto the Bugbear 08-13-07, 08:40 PM	Races of the Wild In a nutshell, with an easy skill check, it imbues a spell you're casting with 2 points of positive energy per spell level. So casting Bull's Strength, for example, also heals the target 4 hit points. The other side of that coin is that casting spells on undead, this feat deals those 2 points per spell level as damage.
Lawkeeper 08-14-07, 02:57 AM	Races of the Wild In a nutshell, with an easy skill check, it imbues a spell you're casting with 2 points of positive energy per spell level. So casting Bull's Strength, for example, also heals the target 4 hit points. The other side of that coin is that casting spells on undead, this feat deals those 2 points per spell level as damage. The only drawback of this feat is that it works only in natural settings (one without buildings and/or a community (unworked underground areas count), according to the feat). This excludes all settlements and dungeons. This might also exclude inhabited caves (there's a community, even if they're kobold), ruins of an ancient city (there're buildings), mines (the underground has been worked), etc. Depending on the campaign's style, the feat's utility might be seriously curtailed.
Aubri 08-16-07, 10:16 AM	There's an excellent blog post my brother just linked me to that relates to this topic: http://relmstein.blogspot.com/2006/08/what-makes-healer-class-unpopular.html It's written from a MMO perspective, but the key points certainly apply.
Urlithani 08-16-07, 11:12 AM	Just curious, but has anyone done well at higher levels without a healer? I'm running the Shackled City at the moment. I told the players they can play whatever they want, but I will not change any of the encounters if they suffer from any sort of party imbalance(i.e. no mages, no healing, not enough tanks, etc.). Well, I just shudder to think about how many more people would have died during Lords of Oblivion and Foundation of Flame without a healer. A Carcerian beholder, advanced fiendish morkoth, and a mature adult red dragon are just some of them. The advantage I see, is that one less healer means one more damage dealer and/or support class, so the fight ends sooner. The disadvantage is that you will be using more money as a PC to buy gear that heals. The fighter in my game would probably only have a +1 cold iron holy greatsword instead of the +1 cold iron holy vicious greatsword if he has to spend money on buying items to heal. Great article and I enjoyed reading it. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around levels 13+ without someone that could pump out fast healing really quickly. :)
Aubri 08-16-07, 12:18 PM	Just curious, but has anyone done well at higher levels without a healer? At higher levels, you're even worse off healing than before. The opportunity cost of those rounds is huge -- with access to all kinds of save-or-dies, battlefield control, and powerful buffs, you're giving up the chance to cast a very powerful spell. Heal is worth it, as 4ngel noted, but the only other really useful "healing" spells are going to be acting as debuff removers (like using Greater Restoration to brush off negative levels) rather than HP heals.
Tempest Stormwind 08-16-07, 12:31 PM	Furthermore, at higher levels, the ability to have efficient out-of-combat healing is expanded, to the point where you're always at full when battle starts anyway. Focus on ending the opponent first; the only time you should be patching up the wounded is if their wounds prevent them from fighting (either through debilitating conditions, death, or similar; HP damage rarely amounts to this). Incidentally, the main reason you do this, mechanically, is to keep the action loss down. (If there's a party of four and one of them is crippled, having someone remove the cripple so he can act means the party's down to 3 actions for one round before returning to 4 per round. Compare this to always healing, which practically means the healer's never contributing, thus you're effectively at 3/round all the time.)
Aubri 08-16-07, 02:10 PM	You're having your anectdote skewed by your view of the game. First, in a large group (especially 6+), each individual is more fragile against a single large damage source (like a dragon) compared to a 'standard' 4-man party. (By the same token, a 2- or 3-man party is tougher per-person for a given CR. A lone character is toughest.) Suppose, for a moment, you're fighting a horde of orcs. There's 10 orcs and 4 PCs. Each orc goes down to a single hit by the PCs, and has a hard time hitting the PC. Now suppose it's 10 PCs and 4 ogres. By the same token, each ogre can probably mash a PC each round, while the PCs have a hard time bringing the ogres down. Thus a dedicated healer becomes more vital as the low individual HP supply means that "one quarter of the party's resources" is more likely to mean "one quarter of the party dies". Likewise, every time an area effect goes off, it generates more total damage due to the multiplicity of targets, while in the extreme case of a lone adventurer it might as well be single-targeted. The second point is similar; in a large party, there's more latitude for a dedicated healer because there's enough duplication of effort. If the 10 PCs can all attack the ogre at the same time in their various ways, a loss of 1 action to healing is much less valuable than the lost of 1 out of 4 actions. The spell you could have cast or the attack you could have made is far less valuable. Both of these statements invert for small parties; for example, in a 1-man party, each round spent healing is literally wasted unless it heals more than 1 round's worth of damage. It is almost always to the lone adventurer's advantage to press the attack and heal afterwards, unless he's in dire straits already (in which case he should be fleeing). Lastly, your later paragraphs generate a bit of a strawman. 4ngel's comments always included the "emergency clause" -- "except to save the life of a party member". Naturally, losing a party member represents a large fractional decrease in actions and thus in combat power, as well as concentrating the remaining enemies' damage. However, if someone is in danger of death and it wasn't the result of simple bad luck, the party should already be in retreat mode or they're in danger of TPK.
Obsidianjaerc 08-16-07, 02:39 PM	Well Aubri, it's somewhat difficult to determine how wrong your first paragraph is since you don't give a party level. But for PCs that take down orcs in one hit, no questions asked they are at least 3rd level. Now the PCs get 6 friends to join. They are no longer the EL 4 party they were, in fact they have as a group a higher EL. When they face the ogres (who are an EL 5) they can expect about an even fight, thought the PC part has a slightly higher EL. This means that they will loose slightly under 1/4 of their resources. Now, lets look at this math-wise. If each PC would use up a quarter of their own resources and there are 10 PCs, there are about 40 total "bits of resource" to be used up. Which means that the PCs in this fight should use slightly under 10 "bits. Now if a PC were to die, they would have "used/lost" a larger number of "bits" than predicted. That's fairly unlikely. I have to admit I don't understand what you are getting at with your last sentance regarding the multiplicity of targets. You seem to be arguing against yourself. ~ "(By the same token, a 2- or 3-man party is tougher per-person for a given CR. A lone character is toughest.) " Nope. Two CR 1 characters in combat against one another are both likely to expend 100% of their resources on the others, since the EL of the encounter from either side is 4 higher than what they "should" be facing. Each has a 50% chance to live. Where as a party of 1st level characters against a CR 1 character are liekly to expend 1/4 of their resources killing it. ~ Otherwise I agree with you.
Aubri 08-16-07, 03:44 PM	Well Aubri, it's somewhat difficult to determine how wrong your first paragraph is since you don't give a party level. But for PCs that take down orcs in one hit, no questions asked they are at least 3rd level. I think you're misunderstanding me. Suppose you have three groups, each facing one ogre (CR 3). Group A consists of 4 level 3 characters (party level 3). Group B consists of 2 level 5 characters (also party level 3). Group C consists of 6 level 2 characters (again, party level 3). Suppose the tank of each group is a fighter with average HP for his level and 16 Con. Now suppose the ogre hits the tank of each group with his club and deals 16 damage. Group A: The level 3 fighter has 30 hp. He's down to 14, so he can't take another of those, but if they drop the ogre quickly he'll be OK. Group B: The level 5 fighter has 47 hp. He's down to 31. The ogre is unlikely to seriously hurt him before dying. Group C: The level 2 fighter has 21 hp. He's now at 5 hp and needs a heal immediately! For group A, a loss of 1/4 of their resources represents one full character's worth of hp, magic, etc. spread among the group. For group B, it represents half of one character's supplies, divided between the two of them. For group C, it represents 1.5 characters' worth of resources. The ogre isn't going to be kind enough to hit each individual for 1/4 of their HP; if that club had hit the rogue instead of the fighter, he'd be down for the count... and if the ogre rolled well, a gooey red paste! Likewise, while Group C gets more actions per turn, their BAB is a point lower, they have much less wealth (and thus lower AC), and only 1st level spells. It's going to take a lot more hits to burn through the ogre's hp and he's more likely to hit them in addition to his hits being more deadly. Conversely, Group A has fewer people, but their attacks are much more skilled, their magic is level 3, and they have plenty of magical equipment to protect them. The more individuals make up a group of a given ECL, the less capable they are of absorbing any given hit. If the party is sufficiently large, a single hit can be enough to kill an individual outright -- exactly what happens when a mass of kobolds or goblins attack a small group of adventurers. (Kobold tactics aside.) My second point is that, instead of an ogre, suppose each group is targeted by a fireball. Let's just assume for the sake of argument that everyone succeeds the save and takes half damage -- for each person with evasion, someone failed the save, so it comes out even. In total, Group A absorbs 200% of the rolled damage (4*50%). Party B both succeed, or maybe one fails and one has evasion. Either way, they only take 100% damage. Party C has the same mix of success and failure, but they take 300% damage because there are 6 targets! Each individual only takes the rolled damage (or half), but the party as a whole loses more hp simply because more people are exposed to the effect. Watch what happens when you target a mass of kobolds with a fireball -- even half damage is probably sufficient to put them out of the fight. This isn't even taking into account that Group B has a greater chance to succeed at the save in the first place as well as more magic that can protect them against the fireball. Group C has proportionally less of both. Now, this isn't to say it's impossible to run large groups. Instead of an ogre, a group of orcs are a fair challenge; the individuals of Group C can split up their attention, as if they were a few smaller groups each taking on a single orc. Large groups do well against similar groups of opponents, but the more concentrated the threat is, the crunchier each PC is. Instead of a single powerful dragon, a pair of proportionally weaker dragons are a better "boss" challenge.
Keenath 08-17-07, 01:12 PM	I think Aubri has the right of it, though he's not exactly addressing the same issue. Aubri's point is that a large group -- and thus a group with a lower individual level relative to the monsters -- is both more in need of a dedicated healer, and at the same time more able to handle the opportunity cost of a dedicated healer (that is, one character spending virtually every turn healing HP damage rather than killing the enemy). I had that exact experience in a throwdown game at a con -- we had ten players or so, and the DM threw us up against a Salt Mummy. My light-armor skirmisher ran in and hit it -- and immediately thereafter took two slams and *died*. Mathematically we were an equal challenge, but realistically, it was dealing more than half my health with each hit -- and had no problem hitting my AC. While that's not the best example of "why big groups need a healer", a less extreme case should clearly show why. On the other hand, a big group is more likely to have at least one person who's willing or even eager to play a dedicated healer, so maybe that particular aspect is self-balancing. However, I totally agree with the original intent of the thread -- if nobody wants to play a healer, it really isn't that big a deal!
Aubri 08-17-07, 04:21 PM	Pretty much, yeah. I was just saying that Daniel's point about playing his own healer is mostly irrelevant -- in a smaller-sized (read "typical") group, I seriously doubt he would have had as much fun or gotten such kudos.
OneWinged4ngel 08-17-07, 05:08 PM	Pretty much, yeah. I was just saying that Daniel's point about playing his own healer is mostly irrelevant -- in a smaller-sized (read "typical") group, I seriously doubt he would have had as much fun or gotten such kudos. Well, the bigger the party, the more you'll want things like Vigorous Circle.
Nephlite 08-17-07, 06:12 PM	I had that exact experience in a throwdown game at a con -- we had ten players or so, and the DM threw us up against a Salt Mummy. My light-armor skirmisher ran in and hit it -- and immediately thereafter took two slams and *died*. Mathematically we were an equal challenge, but realistically, it was dealing more than half my health with each hit -- and had no problem hitting my AC. Was your AC low for your level? Or is the Salt Mummy under CR'd? Both explain how that happened: or bad luck. On the other hand, a big group is more likely to have at least one person who's willing or even eager to play a dedicated healer, so maybe that particular aspect is self-balancing. Granted, it would'nt have saved your guy: as you ad, you never got a chance: 2 hits before anyone else could go.
Carthrat 08-18-07, 02:32 AM	Anyways, does anyone have any input on how to heal *status* effects efficiently? I'm going to be adding a section on that, since a few people brought it up. Panacea (SC pp152) is pretty rad. It's a 4th level spell that's like a minor Heal; it cures most status conditions and recovers a few HP, too. Very useful for dealing with status! Edit: Ah, beaten to it. But! It's a 4th level spell, which means it is wandable- so you still just need someone wiht UMD, really.
OneWinged4ngel 08-18-07, 02:43 AM	You forgot the spell "Panacea" from the Miniatures Handbook (and I think also Spell Compendium), for healing status ailments. Archivist 4, Cleric 4, Druid 5, Healer 4. Hmmm. though that kinda means you do need a dedicated healer... for status ailments... Actually, it's totally wandable, so you don't. Same goes for Restoration, Lesser Restoration, and so forth. Yes, they are costly. Unless you're being very commonly bombarded with some really nasty statuses, though, they'll last a while.
PhaedrusXY 08-18-07, 02:51 AM	How many places did you post this? I swear I've seen it in 3 different forums... Psions (Egoists mainly) can heal several "status ailments" via Empathic Transfer, Body Purification, and Psionic Restoration. They can also bring people back from the dead (Psionic Revivify).
Robotic_Christmass_Elf 08-18-07, 10:30 PM	hrrmmm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAw490qUAjs skip to 3:18, everything before that is unimportant. It's James Wyatt, he talks a bit about character roles and "needing a cleric". Slightly disappointing, but not completely so.
OneWinged4ngel 08-19-07, 02:03 PM	It's James Wyatt, he talks a bit about character roles and "needing a cleric". Slightly disappointing, but not completely so. ...Wow, that's really disappointing. You need 5 players to use a Druid? It makes you wonder if WotC actually believed the really exceedingly crappy character building advice they gave us in PHB II and especially Complete Mage (in both cases, the advice was ACTIVELY HARMFUL to creating a useful character) o.0 And Gamer Zero is talking about Damage Per Second... wtf?
Gavinfoxx 08-19-07, 02:52 PM	Someone has been playing too many MMORPG's! Its damage per ROUND, not damage per Second! :) Anyway, they said that in 3.5, you needed 5 players to have a druid, cause you needed someone specialized in healing, and they were fixing that so you don't need it in 4E. Personally, I think a druid in 3.5 can heal just fine... if they have the right equipment!
OneWinged4ngel 08-20-07, 01:13 AM	..
Aubri 08-20-07, 08:58 AM	Anyway, they said that in 3.5, you needed 5 players to have a druid, cause you needed someone specialized in healing, and they were fixing that so you don't need it in 4E. Personally, I think a druid in 3.5 can heal just fine... if they have the right equipment! Well, healing HP is pretty simple (as OW4 showed) but when you need stat damage repairs, curse breaking, negative level removal, and so on, a healing-focused class is REALLY nice. In my current game, we've had some minor problems on that front because of the lack of a cleric. (My warlock is saving up for a wand of Lesser Restoration.) Certainly, magic items can reproduce any given spell... if you know you need it ahead of time. Certainly you should be prepared by the time you get to mid-level play, but the cleric/druid is much more efficient at the job.
Robotic_Christmass_Elf 08-20-07, 10:42 AM	...Wow, that's really disappointing. You need 5 players to use a Druid? It makes you wonder if WotC actually believed the really exceedingly crappy character building advice they gave us in PHB II and especially Complete Mage (in both cases, the advice was ACTIVELY HARMFUL to creating a useful character) o.0 And Gamer Zero is talking about Damage Per Second... wtf? Since Gamer zero doesn't seem to know what the hell he's talking about, I've been assuming James meant "incarnate" or "core rules bard" and was dumbing it down for him. It makes me feel better about it all. Anyway, he's right that there are important functons and that a character who doesn't fill at least one them is a dead weight in a smaller party, someone just needs to explain to him what they actually are, and how D&D classes are generally used to fill them. Ultimately, it seems they've been listening to their fans, which is why he's spouting the same misinformation you see on the boards all of the time. Can't really expect too much more than that.
Alyri 08-20-07, 01:27 PM	Each round is measured in seconds. Why the dig when someone says damage per second? Big problem when your healing comes from magic items, they are not part of the character's abilities
Tempest Stormwind 08-20-07, 05:13 PM	Big problem when your healing comes from magic items, they are not part of the character's abilities Big problem when your damage comes from magic weapons, they are not part of the character's abilities Seeing the problem with that statement? A character's abilities include appropriate treasure for their character level; experienced adventurers tend to accumulate vast quantities of wealth and wise ones invest this in themselves through magic gear. Most of the time this amounts to magic weapons, magic armor, wonderous items to improve your existing abilities (saves, ability scores, resistances, DR, and so on), and wonderous items to expand your capabilities. Healing items typically fall into the last two categories -- either things like wands that let you cast the healing spells you normally could but without expending your valuable and powerful personal spell slots each time, or magic items that grant you healing capability even if you don't actually have such a power as a class feature (i.e. healing belts). Hell, there are even some classes out there that have class features based on creating magical gear -- from the core Wizard's automatic Scribe Scroll and bonus feats (which can be applied to item creation) to the SRD/XPH Soulknife (which creates its own weapon) to the EbCS Artificer (who *is* his toys), magic equipment is part of your character's abilities. I should also hasten to note that it's exceedingly difficult to shut down *just* a person's gear permanently. Targeted dispels on a person don't disable that person's gear (you only disable a given peice of it if you target the dispel on the object!), antimagic fields bone far more than a person's gear, and the only permanent way I know of to destroy magic equipment -- Mordenkainen's Disjunction -- is arguably one of the more broken effects in the entirety of 3.5 (and is also a legacy holdover from earlier editions) that introduces a host of other problems as well. The only variable here is that some classes are rather gear-independent (the usually-cited example is the psion, since it's a "full-caster" type that doesn't even require a component pouch; full casters tend to be able to use their spells and class features to shore up any lack of equipment so that magic items become 'gravy') while other classes tend to be rather gear-dependent (the archetypal examples are the warrior-classes, who pre-ToB relied almost exclusively on good weaponry to put their combat feats to good use). Even then, everyone should be able to afford a healing belt sooner or later -- and if you're using the belt slot to improve your stats (i.e. Belt of Strength), don't worry about it because the MIC makes such adjustments "free" (doesn't cost more to add them to the belt). The only reason you wouldn't be able to use a healing belt is if you were using the belt slot on an unusual belt -- such as a Monk's Belt -- and even then, I've yet to see a single party where no one would be able to use them.
Alyri 08-20-07, 06:40 PM	Seeing the problem with that statement? Yeah. A +4 Keen Longsword does d8+4 If you lose the magic it does d8 still A wand of Cure Light Wounds is just a stick A Healing Belt just holds up your breeches And so on. This game is about teamwork. You know that whole working together to overcome obstacles thingy. I have watched the clerics scoff at combat healing. Stating various reasons why they shouldn't/wouldn't. What it comes down to is they 'need' to do damage to feel good about themselves. There is no 'average' healing done by healing belts or wands or anything else that has a random die roll in it. It is theory and conjecture not fact. I wish I could find the article on the fallacy of average dice rolling. Much like the average number rolled on a d6 is not 3.5 it is 1,2,3,4,5,6 meaning there is no average.
OneWinged4ngel 08-20-07, 06:50 PM	You fail to understand the meaning of the word "average." I believe that's something that's typically defined in 3rd or 4th grade curriculum, but whatever... I'll explain it for you. To take the average, you take all values in a set, and divide them by the total number of values in a set. Thus, with a d6, you would add (1+2+3+4+5+6), and divide that by 6. Believe it or not, 21/6 = 3.5, and that's the average. There is no "fallacy." It's purely fact.
Nephlite 08-20-07, 07:54 PM	You fail to understand the meaning of the word "average." I believe that's something that's typically defined in 3rd or 4th grade curriculum, but whatever... I'll explain it for you. To take the average, you take all values in a set, and divide them by the total number of values in a set. Thus, with a d6, you would add (1+2+3+4+5+6), and divide that by 6. Believe it or not, 21/6 = 3.5, and that's the average. There is no "fallacy." It's purely fact. I always found it simpler to get same result by adding 1+max die/2 for each die. 1d6 is 1 +6= 7/2 =3.5. Same result. But that explaination is good.
Tempest Stormwind 08-20-07, 08:46 PM	Yeah. A +4 Keen Longsword does d8+4 If you lose the magic it does d8 still At a lower attack bonus (less likely to hit) and critical hit rate (less likely to threaten a crit, less damage on a critical hit, and thanks to the lower attack bonus, less likely to confirm critical hits as well). These are not insignificant things. (See below for more.) Add on additional damage effects (which varies from character to character; a critical hit specialist can get devastating effects with Bodyfeeder and Dessicating Burst while a charger would probably prefer Valorous and Collision) and you'll find that magic accounts for far more than just a number added to the end of the die roll. A wand of Cure Light Wounds is just a stick A Healing Belt just holds up your breeches And so on. I never said otherwise. However, you still deny that a character is entitled to his wealth in just the same fashion he's entitled to his XP. This means that he's likely to obtain items, isn't it? This game is about teamwork. You know that whole working together to overcome obstacles thingy. I have watched the clerics scoff at combat healing. Stating various reasons why they shouldn't/wouldn't. What it comes down to is they 'need' to do damage to feel good about themselves. It's more a matter of "since monsters attack just as well at 1 HP as they do at full HP, if that monster doesn't die, he'll dish out more damage on the following round. I can choose between killing him (perhaps saving the life of an ally) and healing some of the damage he's already done (which will likely be less than he can dish out on the following round, putting us behind". Or something similar. 1) The healbot/walking band-aid is not a fun role to play, but healing (in some form) is essential. 2) The best defense in D&D is an overwhelming offense, due to the lack of something like Saga's condition track. 3) Non-healbot characters can still heal outside of combat, and some characters can heal enough damage in combat to make it worthwhile (though until Heal shows up, this is exclusively dependent on equipment). Conclusion: Kill the monsters, heal the party afterward, because you'll have more of an impact that way. There is an exception to this: If you have an ally that is about to die, and your offensive contribution will not guarantee the death of the monster or the survival of your teammate. I also find it amusing that you consider this poor teamwork when you're being a team player by helping save everyone's lives! There is no 'average' healing done by healing belts or wands or anything else that has a random die roll in it. It is theory and conjecture not fact. I wish I could find the article on the fallacy of average dice rolling. Much like the average number rolled on a d6 is not 3.5 it is 1,2,3,4,5,6 meaning there is no average. Bollocks. Roll a six-sider fifty times or more. Add up the values you get, then divide by 50. This gives you the total of all the dice you rolled, divided by the number of times you rolled -- mathematically, the average result of 1d6. You'll get 3.5, or something very, very close to 3.5. You can use set theory or statistics to demonstrate that as the number of times you roll the die increases toward infinity, the average value you get is going to get closer and closer to 3.5. (This is because each outcome -- each side of the die -- is independent, so you're expecting to get an equal number of each result (that is, each side has a 1 in 6 chance of showing up), and since there are an equal number of results above 3.5 as there are below 3.5, especially high rolls and especially low rolls will cancel out toward that point.) You can extend this to multiple dice easily (i.e. average damage on a greatsword (2d6) = 3.5+3.5 = 7; average damage on a +1 flaming longsword = 1d8+1d6+1 = 4.5+3.5+1 = 9). I should mention that while the *average* is extremely easy to calculate and will be the most common result, the *distribution* of results is going to be a little bit different. For instance, on 1d6, there's 6 possible outcomes and each has a 1/6 chance of showing up. For 2d6, there's 11 possible outcomes, but 36 possible ways for the dice to land -- meaning that there's only one possible way of rolling a 2 or a 12 (both dice roll the same; each one has a 1/36 chance of occurring) while there are 6 different ways of rolling a 7 (meaning a 1/6 chance of occurring). You can express this variation through a measure known as the standard deviation (well, technically you'd use the variance, but the standard deviation isn't a bad measure either). Basically, the lower a standard deviation, the more focused numbers in a sample are to the mean (average). Slightly more importantly, you can use a standard deviation to make judgements about how frequently certain numbers show up. For most intents and purposes in D&D, you can assume that the values you get are normally distributed, which means that 68.2% of the values you get are within 1 standard deviation of the mean. (In layman's terms, if I say something like "CR 3 creatures have an average Will save of +3.35 (std. dev 2.05)", it means that of the 155 CR 3 creatures, roughly 105 of them have a Will save between +1.3 and +5.4, with roughly 25 monsters above or below those values. Those values are drawn from actual D&D monster manual data.) Furthermore, you can also determine the probability of scoring a hit on a monster, given your attack bonus and the monster's AC. You can also factor in the probability of scoring a critical hit using a similar trick, and from that you can determine the impact of a critical hit on your average damage. It's really not all that difficult. Here's a simple example, using a level 1 elf warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm) against a goblin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm). The elf has an attack of +2 (1d8+1, 19-20/x2), while the goblin has an AC of 15 and 5 hit points. The elf therefore needs to roll a 13 or higher (goblin AC 15 - elf attack 2 = 13 required) on 1d20 to score a hit (20-13= 7 possible numbers, 7/20 = 35% chance of hitting). On average, the elf will deal 5.5 damage on any given round (1d8+1 averages to 4.5+1 = 5.5). The elf also has a 10% chance of threatening a critical hit (19 or 20 on 1d20 = 2 numbers, 2/20 = 10%; since all of these numbers normally hit the goblin we don't need to skew it either way), a 35% chance of confirming a critical hit (the same chance as scoring a regular hit), and a critical hit deals 10 total damage (an extra 5.5, since the elf has no damage sources that don't multiply). I'm leaving off Power Attack since he doesn't have it, but Power Attack just means you calculate this at multiple possible attack/damage values. Thus, the elf will, on any given round, deal weighted damage (chance to hit * damage done) of ((0.35*5.5)+(0.1*0.35*5.5)) = (0.35)*(5.5+.55)) = 2.1175. This is 42.35% of the goblin's hit points. This means, accounting for chance to hit, critical hits, and so on, a party of four stock Monster Manual elf warriors (each doing 42.35% of the goblin's HP), the goblin will go down (take 100% or more of its HP in weighted damage) in less than one round with one elf's actions to spare (which is fitting considering he's CR 1/2). Interestingly, there's a quick-and-dirty shortcut you can apply here. The elf deals more than enough average damage on a successful hit to kill the goblin. Thus, the probability of the elf killing the goblin on any particular round is slightly less than his chance of successfully hitting the goblin (accounting for the fact that a roll of 2, 3, or 4 damage won't beat the goblin). Since the elf has a 35% chance of hitting the goblin, this means the goblin drops roughly 1/3 of the time. Thus, three elf warriors attacking it are more than likely to kill it in one round (35%*3 > 100% chance to kill it), which is the same conclusion reached above. This doesn't always apply but it gives you a rough estimate. You can also apply similar numbers to the goblin, to find that a single goblin dishes out 1.84 weighted damage, which is 46% of the elf's HP in one round (statistically). This means that if the goblin gets fewer than 3 attacks (that is, if it dies in two rounds or less), it is not likely to dish out enough damage to kill an elf warrior. In the party of four elf warriors, it is almost certain to die before it gets a second attack off, meaning that a lone goblin won't kill even a single elf in such a scenario. This technique is what you use to gauge the importance of healing, by the way -- the goblin needs 3 rounds in melee to guarantee the death of one elf, so if you kill him before 3 rounds, you are more likely to emerge without any casualties. (This is, of course, more significant on monsters that are more likely to kill someone -- or more than one target -- in 2 rounds or less, but have enough HP to survive 2 or more rounds of the party's attacks.) On a side note, I mentioned above about the importance of attack rolls. If those elves had even masterwork swords, the elf sees his damage increase by 14%. Attack rolls aren't insignificant here. As levels increase, you measure what you can in terms of increased probability of making an attack, decreased incoming enemy damage, or equivalent effective damage (i.e. a save-or-die does the equivalent of 100% of the monster's HP if the monster fails the save). But that complicates things far beyond the scope of this post. Applying similar analysis to an actual PC party and their actual opponents can show you, statistically, how quickly particular monsters go down under your continued attacks. Let's say that Regdar, Lidda, Mialee and Jozan are up against a monster that has HP such that the weighted output from Regdar, Lidda and Mialee isn't enough to kill it, but if Jozan adds his attacks to the mix it goes down in one round. This means that if Jozan decides to heal the party instead of attack the monster, the monster gets an extra round of activity in, dealing *more* damage. Let's say that monster can deal 20 weighted damage in one round. If he attacks, and then Jozan heals the damage, and then the monster attacks again, the party has taken 40 damage and Jozan has spent some of his resources to heal up to 20 of that (net -20 or worse depending on the strength of Jozan's first heal; Jozan must heal again to break even, meaning two "heals" are spent from Jozan). If the monster attacks, and Jozan joins the fray to help kill it before it attacks again, the party has taken 20 damage and Jozan has healed none (net -20, Jozan must heal to break even, meaning one "heal" is spent from Jozan). Note the effect? Both parties end up in the same place (needing one heal to break even after combat), but the party has spent fewer resources if Jozan joins in the battle to kill the monster than if Jozan decides to heal in the middle of the battle. Furthermore, this doesn't factor in the fact that if he decided to heal, Jozan forces the other players to expend more resources of their own to put out the same output on round 2. If this costs the wizard another spell (or similar daily resource), that's something you can't use in later battles. Statistically, you are better equipped to handle "just one more encounter" if you focus your fire and take down the enemy quickly rather than going slow and healing as soon as it's needed. This means you're more likely to survive if ambushed and more likely to have the resources you need when fighting a significant BBEG-style battle. Even if everything else is equal, those are two significant advantages. Is this theory? Yes. In the example above with the elf, just because he deals ~40% of the goblin's HP in one round doesn't mean he can't kill it in one round of actual gameplay (if he hits it, he'll kill it) Is this conjecture? Hell no. It's just difficult to apply in the middle of a game session, although mercifully it's also hard to debate the numerical details of tactics in the middle of a game session as well. Good theory can be applied to the real world just fine. D&D is a mathematical set of rules with a heavy element of probability (via die rolls); it can therefore be analyzed statistically to determine your optimal maneuver at any given point. We just make sure to do that analysis behind the scenes and report the results on this forum. Now go on and enjoy your game with your newly improved knowledge of tactics. I always found it simpler to get same result by adding 1+max die/2 for each die. 1d6 is 1 +6= 7/2 =3.5. Same result. But that explaination is good. Incidentally, OW4's working on the definition of an average, while you're using a calculational technique derived from Gauss' technique for rapid calculation (he developed such a technique while he was very young -- 10, I believe -- and forced to add the first hundred integers on the blackboard as punishment for not paying attention. He derived it on the spot and answered almost instantly). I use that technique as an introduction to mathematical proofs when I tutor basic math. OneWinged4ngel: Feel free to borrow/steal whatever you want from this post to illustrate your point; you know the drill (SBlock my loquacious ass and cite as you've done before).
therationalpi 08-21-07, 12:01 AM	Just wanted to point out a character ability that we've been using for out of combat healing. Our dragon shaman uses his vigor aura to give the party fast healing (The amount is based on his level) that heals up to half your health. Can save you a lot of charges on your wands if you only have to go from half health up. I also wanted to thank you for this guide, as it's been a big help in keeping my group on their feet. We have two campaigns going. One doesn't have a cleric of any sort, only a master-of-many-forms druid with lots of wands of CLW to heal us up between fights. The other has as cleric and a favored soul, so keeping their spells open for offensive buffs and such helps fights not last three weeks.
Tempest Stormwind 08-21-07, 12:52 AM	Just wanted to point out a character ability that we've been using for out of combat healing. Our dragon shaman uses his vigor aura to give the party fast healing (The amount is based on his level) that heals up to half your health. Can save you a lot of charges on your wands if you only have to go from half health up. This thread has two other mirrors; the one on the Classes & Prestige Classes forum already has that one on it. Thanks for mentioning it, though. I also wanted to thank you for this guide, as it's been a big help in keeping my group on their feet. We have two campaigns going. One doesn't have a cleric of any sort, only a master-of-many-forms druid with lots of wands of CLW to heal us up between fights. The other has as cleric and a favored soul, so keeping their spells open for offensive buffs and such helps fights not last three weeks. In the other threads, I've mentioned that neither of our games have a healer or even a true divine magic user (none whatsoever in one, a chameleon in the other). We don't even use healing wands. Instead, the vast majority of of our healing in both groups comes from Touch of the Shadow Sun -- the first level Shadow Sun Ninja ability. In one game, we have an ardent who can use Touch of Health to cover for any losses (he's also a kalashtar with the mental power mantle; power points aren't an issue for him). In the other, the chameleon occasionally takes Tomb-Tainted Soul as her bonus feat, which lets the Touch serve as unlimited out of combat healing.
OneWinged4ngel 08-21-07, 01:25 AM	I always found it simpler to get same result by adding 1+max die/2 for each die. Well yes, but that isn't the definition of averages or anything, it's just a shortcut for sets with a range of 1 to n, where the average will always be (n+1)/2. Also, Gauss is awesome. *thumbsup* At a lower attack bonus (less likely to hit) and critical hit rate (less likely to threaten a crit, less damage on a critical hit, and thanks to the lower attack bonus, less likely to confirm critical hits as well). These are not insignificant things. (See below for more.) Add on additional damage effects (which varies from character to character; a critical hit specialist can get devastating effects with Bodyfeeder and Dessicating Burst while a charger would probably prefer Valorous and Collision) and you'll find that magic accounts for far more than just a number added to the end of the die roll. I never said otherwise. However, you still deny that a character is entitled to his wealth in just the same fashion he's entitled to his XP. This means that he's likely to obtain items, isn't it? It's more a matter of "since monsters attack just as well at 1 HP as they do at full HP, if that monster doesn't die, he'll dish out more damage on the following round. I can choose between killing him (perhaps saving the life of an ally) and healing some of the damage he's already done (which will likely be less than he can dish out on the following round, putting us behind". Or something similar. 1) The healbot/walking band-aid is not a fun role to play, but healing (in some form) is essential. 2) The best defense in D&D is an overwhelming offense, due to the lack of something like Saga's condition track. 3) Non-healbot characters can still heal outside of combat, and some characters can heal enough damage in combat to make it worthwhile (though until Heal shows up, this is exclusively dependent on equipment). Conclusion: Kill the monsters, heal the party afterward, because you'll have more of an impact that way. There is an exception to this: If you have an ally that is about to die, and your offensive contribution will not guarantee the death of the monster or the survival of your teammate. I also find it amusing that you consider this poor teamwork when you're being a team player by helping save everyone's lives! Bollocks. Roll a six-sider fifty times or more. Add up the values you get, then divide by 50. This gives you the total of all the dice you rolled, divided by the number of times you rolled -- mathematically, the average result of 1d6. You'll get 3.5, or something very, very close to 3.5. You can use set theory or statistics to demonstrate that as the number of times you roll the die increases toward infinity, the average value you get is going to get closer and closer to 3.5. (This is because each outcome -- each side of the die -- is independent, so you're expecting to get an equal number of each result (that is, each side has a 1 in 6 chance of showing up), and since there are an equal number of results above 3.5 as there are below 3.5, especially high rolls and especially low rolls will cancel out toward that point.) You can extend this to multiple dice easily (i.e. average damage on a greatsword (2d6) = 3.5+3.5 = 7; average damage on a +1 flaming longsword = 1d8+1d6+1 = 4.5+3.5+1 = 9). I should mention that while the *average* is extremely easy to calculate and will be the most common result, the *distribution* of results is going to be a little bit different. For instance, on 1d6, there's 6 possible outcomes and each has a 1/6 chance of showing up. For 2d6, there's 11 possible outcomes, but 36 possible ways for the dice to land -- meaning that there's only one possible way of rolling a 2 or a 12 (both dice roll the same; each one has a 1/36 chance of occurring) while there are 6 different ways of rolling a 7 (meaning a 1/6 chance of occurring). You can express this variation through a measure known as the standard deviation (well, technically you'd use the variance, but the standard deviation isn't a bad measure either). Basically, the lower a standard deviation, the more focused numbers in a sample are to the mean (average). Slightly more importantly, you can use a standard deviation to make judgements about how frequently certain numbers show up. For most intents and purposes in D&D, you can assume that the values you get are normally distributed, which means that 68.2% of the values you get are within 1 standard deviation of the mean. (In layman's terms, if I say something like "CR 3 creatures have an average Will save of +3.35 (std. dev 2.05)", it means that of the 155 CR 3 creatures, roughly 105 of them have a Will save between +1.3 and +5.4, with roughly 25 monsters above or below those values. Those values are drawn from actual D&D monster manual data.) Furthermore, you can also determine the probability of scoring a hit on a monster, given your attack bonus and the monster's AC. You can also factor in the probability of scoring a critical hit using a similar trick, and from that you can determine the impact of a critical hit on your average damage. It's really not all that difficult. Here's a simple example, using a level 1 elf warrior (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/elf.htm) against a goblin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm). The elf has an attack of +2 (1d8+1, 19-20/x2), while the goblin has an AC of 15 and 5 hit points. The elf therefore needs to roll a 13 or higher (goblin AC 15 - elf attack 2 = 13 required) on 1d20 to score a hit (20-13= 7 possible numbers, 7/20 = 35% chance of hitting). On average, the elf will deal 5.5 damage on any given round (1d8+1 averages to 4.5+1 = 5.5). The elf also has a 10% chance of threatening a critical hit (19 or 20 on 1d20 = 2 numbers, 2/20 = 10%; since all of these numbers normally hit the goblin we don't need to skew it either way), a 35% chance of confirming a critical hit (the same chance as scoring a regular hit), and a critical hit deals 10 total damage (an extra 5.5, since the elf has no damage sources that don't multiply). I'm leaving off Power Attack since he doesn't have it, but Power Attack just means you calculate this at multiple possible attack/damage values. Thus, the elf will, on any given round, deal weighted damage (chance to hit * damage done) of ((0.35*5.5)+(0.1*0.35*5.5)) = (0.35)*(5.5+.55)) = 2.1175. This is 42.35% of the goblin's hit points. This means, accounting for chance to hit, critical hits, and so on, a party of four stock Monster Manual elf warriors (each doing 42.35% of the goblin's HP), the goblin will go down (take 100% or more of its HP in weighted damage) in less than one round with one elf's actions to spare (which is fitting considering he's CR 1/2). Interestingly, there's a quick-and-dirty shortcut you can apply here. The elf deals more than enough average damage on a successful hit to kill the goblin. Thus, the probability of the elf killing the goblin on any particular round is slightly less than his chance of successfully hitting the goblin (accounting for the fact that a roll of 2, 3, or 4 damage won't beat the goblin). Since the elf has a 35% chance of hitting the goblin, this means the goblin drops roughly 1/3 of the time. Thus, three elf warriors attacking it are more than likely to kill it in one round (35%*3 > 100% chance to kill it), which is the same conclusion reached above. This doesn't always apply but it gives you a rough estimate. You can also apply similar numbers to the goblin, to find that a single goblin dishes out 1.84 weighted damage, which is 46% of the elf's HP in one round (statistically). This means that if the goblin gets fewer than 3 attacks (that is, if it dies in two rounds or less), it is not likely to dish out enough damage to kill an elf warrior. In the party of four elf warriors, it is almost certain to die before it gets a second attack off, meaning that a lone goblin won't kill even a single elf in such a scenario. This technique is what you use to gauge the importance of healing, by the way -- the goblin needs 3 rounds in melee to guarantee the death of one elf, so if you kill him before 3 rounds, you are more likely to emerge without any casualties. (This is, of course, more significant on monsters that are more likely to kill someone -- or more than one target -- in 2 rounds or less, but have enough HP to survive 2 or more rounds of the party's attacks.) On a side note, I mentioned above about the importance of attack rolls. If those elves had even masterwork swords, the elf sees his damage increase by 14%. Attack rolls aren't insignificant here. As levels increase, you measure what you can in terms of increased probability of making an attack, decreased incoming enemy damage, or equivalent effective damage (i.e. a save-or-die does the equivalent of 100% of the monster's HP if the monster fails the save). But that complicates things far beyond the scope of this post. Applying similar analysis to an actual PC party and their actual opponents can show you, statistically, how quickly particular monsters go down under your continued attacks. Let's say that Regdar, Lidda, Mialee and Jozan are up against a monster that has HP such that the weighted output from Regdar, Lidda and Mialee isn't enough to kill it, but if Jozan adds his attacks to the mix it goes down in one round. This means that if Jozan decides to heal the party instead of attack the monster, the monster gets an extra round of activity in, dealing *more* damage. Let's say that monster can deal 20 weighted damage in one round. If he attacks, and then Jozan heals the damage, and then the monster attacks again, the party has taken 40 damage and Jozan has spent some of his resources to heal up to 20 of that (net -20 or worse depending on the strength of Jozan's first heal; Jozan must heal again to break even, meaning two "heals" are spent from Jozan). If the monster attacks, and Jozan joins the fray to help kill it before it attacks again, the party has taken 20 damage and Jozan has healed none (net -20, Jozan must heal to break even, meaning one "heal" is spent from Jozan). Note the effect? Both parties end up in the same place (needing one heal to break even after combat), but the party has spent fewer resources if Jozan joins in the battle to kill the monster than if Jozan decides to heal in the middle of the battle. Furthermore, this doesn't factor in the fact that if he decided to heal, Jozan forces the other players to expend more resources of their own to put out the same output on round 2. If this costs the wizard another spell (or similar daily resource), that's something you can't use in later battles. Statistically, you are better equipped to handle "just one more encounter" if you focus your fire and take down the enemy quickly rather than going slow and healing as soon as it's needed. This means you're more likely to survive if ambushed and more likely to have the resources you need when fighting a significant BBEG-style battle. Even if everything else is equal, those are two significant advantages. Is this theory? Yes. In the example above with the elf, just because he deals ~40% of the goblin's HP in one round doesn't mean he can't kill it in one round of actual gameplay (if he hits it, he'll kill it) Is this conjecture? Hell no. It's just difficult to apply in the middle of a game session, although mercifully it's also hard to debate the numerical details of tactics in the middle of a game session as well. Good theory can be applied to the real world just fine. D&D is a mathematical set of rules with a heavy element of probability (via die rolls); it can therefore be analyzed statistically to determine your optimal maneuver at any given point. We just make sure to do that analysis behind the scenes and report the results on this forum. Now go on and enjoy your game with your newly improved knowledge of tactics. Incidentally, OW4's working on the definition of an average, while you're using a calculational technique derived from Gauss' technique for rapid calculation (he developed such a technique while he was very young -- 10, I believe -- and forced to add the first hundred integers on the blackboard as punishment for not paying attention. He derived it on the spot and answered almost instantly). I use that technique as an introduction to mathematical proofs when I tutor basic math. OneWinged4ngel: Feel free to borrow/steal whatever you want from this post to illustrate your point; you know the drill (SBlock my loquacious ass and cite as you've done before). That's a lot of text for something that should be basic, but I guess some people have a very hard time grasping concepts that might seem basic to others... Basically, the point is the same as the other times it's been explained; you can actually do better without healing in combat much of the time. You can often conserve more resources and keep people alive better *without* much in the way of healing. In fact, there's a number of situations where trying to heal will actually get your party killed (For example, cleric stops tanking, takes an AoO, and goes to heal an ally, then ally gets killed next turn anyways, and weakened cleric goes down as well. Meanwhile, the no-longer-tanked enemy can go and kill the squishy party member). In any of those cases, healing in combat is actually pretty danged *bad* teamwork.
Alyri 08-21-07, 11:38 AM	That's a lot of text for something that should be basic, but I guess some people have a very hard time grasping concepts that might seem basic to others... Basically, the point is the same as the other times it's been explained; you can actually do better without healing in combat much of the time. You can often conserve more resources and keep people alive better *without* much in the way of healing. In fact, there's a number of situations where trying to heal will actually get your party killed (For example, cleric stops tanking, takes an AoO, and goes to heal an ally, then ally gets killed next turn anyways, and weakened cleric goes down as well. Meanwhile, the no-longer-tanked enemy can go and kill the squishy party member). In any of those cases, healing in combat is actually pretty danged *bad* teamwork. Put-downs aside onewing, I never implied that your original post is wrong. You, however, have implied that it is 100% correct, which it is not. Why should a cleric have to take an AoO to heal someone? They have a divine feat that allows them to heal at short range. You examples are nice and showy, but if you take the average of combats...... The science of probability was invented by Blaise Pascal to answer a question raised by a gambler friend of his, which was more or less the following: Two people are playing a dice game (2d6). Each man will roll the dice, and the first player to win three times in a row wins the bet. The bet is 32 francs from each man (64 total). They roll the dice three times, but the game is interrupted. If the first man won twice and the second once, how should the money be divided? What if the game stopped after only two rolls? Neither the question, nor Pascal's answer, had anything to do with winning the game; it had to do with predicting the likelihood of the specific outcomes, and thereby determining the percentage of the winnings due the participants. But Pascal's answer could never predict who would actually win, and neither can probability science. As for the phrase mentioned earlier "it all evens out," that is a false assumption. It's called "The Gambler's Fallacy" and has made casino owners filthy rich. The chance of any result happening on the roll of a die (or two dice or whatever) is always the same. So for a d6, the chance of rolling a 6 is always 1 in 6, no matter what was rolled before. In fact, it is entirely possible that you can roll a perfectly fair d6 a thousand times, and never roll a 6. It just isn't probable (i.e., don't bet on it). On the flip side, rolling a 6 is no guarantee that the next roll will (or will not) be a 6. Nor is rolling 1000 times and not getting a 6 any guarantee that the next roll will be a 6. The individual odds remain against you. Take a 50-50 chance, say 1-3 versus 4-6 on a d6. While the individual roll chance is 50%, the total distribution of rolls over time is not predictable to be evenly divided. It can be predicted to be close, but never certain. Just because your opponent rolls 4 or better 55 times out of 100 and you roll 45 doesn't mean that the dice aren't fair, or that you will ever reach an even state of equal rolls up or down if you continue to roll. If that were the case, it wouldn't be random. Tempest Stormwind's post was nice, you can however see(below) that there is a slight difference between probabilities and averages. Probability: Statistics. a. the relative possibility that an event will occur, as expressed by the ratio of the number of actual occurrences to the total number of possible occurrences. b. the relative frequency with which an event occurs or is likely to occur. Arithmetic Mean(average): the mean obtained by adding several quantities together and dividing the sum by the number of quantities: the arithmetic mean of 1, 5, 2, and 8 is 4.
Lawkeeper 08-21-07, 12:52 PM	Aliry, The Gambler's Fallacy refers to the prediction of a particular result. Tempest's post has to do with statistics, not predicting any single result : any particular die may have any result, but statistically it evens out. This has nothing to do about predicting what will happen. Apples and oranges. BTW, neither did anyone here (beside you) assume that the averages that were discussed were predictions on particular results.
Alyri 08-21-07, 01:14 PM	Aliry, The Gambler's Fallacy refers to the prediction of a particular result. Tempest's post has to do with statistics, not predicting any single result : any particular die may have any result, but statistically it evens out. This has nothing to do about predicting what will happen. Apples and oranges. BTW, neither did anyone here (beside you) assume that the averages that were discussed were predictions on particular results. or a Healing Belt (Either 6d8 hp (average 27 hp) a day, or 18 hp (same as the potion!) per day if you burst heal, usable as a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.)) Would you rather get 18 hp, or 18 hp per day? Now would you rather use a standard or full action that provokes AoOs, *and* need to draw the item, or would you rather use a standard action that doesn't provoke AoOs? Assumption by the Op on an assumed result. Yes if 10,000 people are using the Healing belt at the same time. The probability of 27 being the averaged result is likely. However at that one table where that one group is playing the probability of 27 being the average is much, much less. My ranger used a wand of cure mod on our paladin not that long ago. It was not to keep her in the fight as she only had 5 hitpoints left. What it did do is keep her from dieing by the BBEG. Yeah she went into the negs, however she didn't die.
Tempest Stormwind 08-21-07, 01:26 PM	My ranger used a wand of cure mod on our paladin not that long ago. It was not to keep her in the fight as she only had 5 hitpoints left. What it did do is keep her from dieing by the BBEG. Yeah she went into the negs, however she didn't die. Recall that no one is saying that healing in combat is a bad idea if it saves the life of an ally. However, in general, barring any other circumstances, an overwhelming assault will save more lives (by saving more resources) than in-combat healing. Since D&D is played by so many people and each adventurer does so many things, you can make claims about which strategies are more likely to work simply by looking at probabilities and statistical outcomes. I'm not saying which event *will* happen. I'm saying which event is most likely to maximize your result with a minimum of cost over time. This is NOT always going to be true, by definition (as it lacks a probability of 1), but it is more likely to pay off more often than adopting any other strategy. It's like greatsword vs. greataxe. While both do 12 maximum damage, the greataxe does so with a 1/12 probability, while the greatsword does it with a 1/36 probability. Thus, the greatsword is less likely than the greataxe to do 12 damage. HOWEVER, the greataxe also has a 1/12 chance of rolling a 1, while the greatsword has a 1/36 chance of getting a 2 and a probability of 0 of rolling a 1. Similarly, the greatsword's damage over time will tend toward 7 -- which is also its most probable damage value, I might add, at a 1/6 chance, which can be expressed as a 2/12 chance, meaning he's twice as likely to get that particular value than the greataxe -- while the greataxe's over time will tend toward 6.5. (This is not including critical hits in the mix, for the sake of simplicity.) I want to know why you're thinking that just because the game has so many variables means that it can't be analyzed this way, so you reject the results. I could say the same thing about physics (ever looked at quantum theory? It's purely probabilistic and deals with expected values in much the same way we do, albiet with far mroe variables), but that hasn't stopped science. Just because each side of a die is equally probable doesn't mean that the average result is irrelevant. Over time -- say, over an adventure, or even over an encounter -- you will see that the high rolls will counter the low rolls and you will tend toward the average roll of the die. Thus, we use the average in our calculations. You're likely to roll above that, but you're equally likely to roll below that. Thus, the average is the best indication of what your output is going to be like round-to-round, even if it isn't your output on any specific round. Yes if 10,000 people are using the Healing belt at the same time. The probability of 27 being the averaged result is likely. However at that one table where that one group is playing the probability of 27 being the average is much, much less. While the belt may provide more or less than 27 on any specific round... at that one table, where that one group is playing, the belt will average out at supplying 27 healing over time. We cannot predict the outcome of a single roll at all, let alone 2d8 three times per day... but we can say that over time, your results will tend toward 27. This gives us a basis for comparison. And this, Alyri, is how statistics springs from probability.
OneWinged4ngel 08-21-07, 01:49 PM	or a Healing Belt (Either 6d8 hp (average 27 hp) a day, or 18 hp (same as the potion!) per day if you burst heal, usable as a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.)) Would you rather get 18 hp, or 18 hp per day? Now would you rather use a standard or full action that provokes AoOs, *and* need to draw the item, or would you rather use a standard action that doesn't provoke AoOs? Assumption by the Op on an assumed result. That's not an assumed result. It's a statement that it's going to get *about* the same result as a Potion of Cure Serious Wounds... except it's less action-intensive, and isn't used up after one use. Nowhere in that post does it say that you will ALWAYS get 18HP or 27HP. In fact, it ACTUALLY says "average 27 hp, or 18hp with burst, and this 18hp average is almost the same as the average for the CSW potion (which is 3d8+5, or 18.5 average)." There is no assumption on my part... those numbers are purely factual. So you can stop trolling now.
Alyri 08-21-07, 03:12 PM	There is no assumption on my part... those numbers are purely factual. So you can stop trolling now. Those numbers aren't factual they are averages. Have you actually recorded your 'results' from the healers belt? Luckily for you I have. My last character(scout/ranger/highland stalker) was given a healers belt at level 1(our group starts new characters at lvl1) He was retired at lvl 17. Of those 17 levels the last 7 levels I used my healers belt a total of 11 times. prior to lvl 10 it was used 78 times. Of these 88 times used I rolled 'average' 3 times. 47 times I rolled below average, 38 times I rolled above. Averaging all numbers together I get a result of 22. Because I have a different opinion than you do does not mean I am 'trolling'. I have not been the one using veiled insults. The whole guide is elementary. It is akin to making a guide for wizards and saying not to focus on pure blasting and make sure to take some other spells 'just in case'
Tempest Stormwind 08-21-07, 04:05 PM	Those numbers aren't factual they are averages. Have you actually recorded your 'results' from the healers belt? Luckily for you I have. My last character(scout/ranger/highland stalker) was given a healers belt at level 1(our group starts new characters at lvl1) He was retired at lvl 17. Of those 17 levels the last 7 levels I used my healers belt a total of 11 times. prior to lvl 10 it was used 78 times. Of these 88 times used I rolled 'average' 3 times. 47 times I rolled below average, 38 times I rolled above. Averaging all numbers together I get a result of 22. And if you consider the normal distribution of every single possible roll outcome of the belt, you'll find that 27 is the mean but 22 falls well within one standard deviation of the mean. In other words, ~68% of your rolls were likely pretty damn close to 27. Last I checked, 68% is considered "most". Also, the 27 is from rolling 2d8 three times, not from using the belt's other options. The average per day is obviously lower if you burst-heal (that is, spend more charges in a pinch to get more healing NOW). Of the 88 times you used your belt, were all of them the single-charge expenditure? Honestly. Your result is expected, statistically. The gambler's error would come in saying that it was predicted (because we can't predict exact results, only probabilities). However, the probability of that particular outcome is still pretty high, and once I get home I can confirm that it isn't statistically significantly different from the mean. All you've shown is that you don't understand how statistics work or how to apply them to reality. Because I have a different opinion than you do does not mean I am 'trolling'. I have not been the one using veiled insults. The whole guide is elementary. It is akin to making a guide for wizards and saying not to focus on pure blasting and make sure to take some other spells 'just in case' 1) Clever. Claim you aren't making insults and then claim this guide is elementary (an insult to the comprehensiveness it covers and the intelligence of its author). 2) Ummm... you do realize that the CO board wizard feedback -- in other words, suggestions made for wizards by the people who understand the game mechanics the most -- is "avoid blasting, it sucks"? At *every* level outside of the narrow level range of 5-7 (or maybe 5-9 if you're playing wizards badly or are a VERY good evoker), blasting is inferior to save-or-die or battlefield control effects. This says to me that you don't really understand how the game works at more than a basic level. Which explains why you're attacking this thread because you percieve us to be saying "don't heal" (when in truth we're saying "focus on the enemy and heal only in a pinch; there's plenty of time for real healing outside of combat").
Lawkeeper 08-21-07, 04:19 PM	It's not because you have a different opinion that you "troll", indeed. It's because you wrongly assume things people didn't claim, and pretend yourself knowledgeable about statistics and probability while obviously you don't grasp everything about this subject. Or rather : you know some things, but don't understand the whole concept. "Trolling" might be a bit too harsh though (for now). 88 uses of an item ? Sorry, but that's not a big sample. A real sample would be 1000 or 10.000 rolls. But at 88, each roll matters for more than 1% of the result. For comparison, I'm currently in a string of high-rolled d6 for my whole group's character creations (average of 4.5 or close) - it does not have as consequence that a d6's average result is 4.5 instead of 3.5 ; it's just a "lucky string". Or take a look at polls. They usually interview 1500 people, and still have mostly 2-5% margin of error. That's nearly 20 times more "tests" than your own "experience". Rolled 3 times the average ? As Tempest explained above, it's not as much the fact of getting right to the average, but more about the average of the rolls getting closer and closer to the mathematical average, and more and more inside the standard deviation. How many times were your results within, say, 6 points of the average of 27 ? With all that said, I don't see what you can reproach to OneWinged4ngel's post. If statistics are "wrong" for a Healing Belt, they're surely as "wrong" for weapon damage, potion healing and clerical cure spells.;)
Alyri 08-21-07, 04:39 PM	And if you consider the normal distribution of every single possible roll outcome of the belt, you'll find that 27 is the mean but 22 falls well within one standard deviation of the mean. In other words, ~68% of your rolls were likely pretty damn close to 27. Last I checked, 68% is considered "most". do the math and tell me how close most of my rolls were 27. Also, the 27 is from rolling 2d8 three times, not from using the belt's other options. The average per day is obviously lower if you burst-heal (that is, spend more charges in a pinch to get more healing NOW). Of the 88 times you used your belt, were all of them the single-charge expenditure? 27 is the 'mean' for the 6d8 usage of the belt. I assumed since I used that result it would be understood that was what I was using. Honestly. Your result is expected, statistically. The gambler's error would come in saying that it was predicted (because we can't predict exact results, only probabilities). However, the probability of that particular outcome is still pretty high, and once I get home I can confirm that it isn't statistically significantly different from the mean. All you've shown is that you don't understand how statistics work or how to apply them to reality. I shall wait with baited breath for you to rush home then. 1) Clever. Claim you aren't making insults and then claim this guide is elementary (an insult to the comprehensiveness it covers and the intelligence of its author). elementary: pertaining to or dealing with elements, rudiments, or first principles... aka the basics 2) Ummm... you do realize that the CO board wizard feedback -- in other words, suggestions made for wizards by the people who understand the game mechanics the most -- is "avoid blasting, it sucks"? At *every* level outside of the narrow level range of 5-7 (or maybe 5-9 if you're playing wizards badly or are a VERY good evoker), blasting is inferior to save-or-die or battlefield control effects. I'm sorry I don't follow the CO boards and what 'slang' they use. Would you prefer the term 'spellchucker'? This says to me that you don't really understand how the game works at more than a basic level. Which explains why you're attacking this thread because you percieve us to be saying "don't heal" (when in truth we're saying "focus on the enemy and heal only in a pinch; there's plenty of time for real healing outside of combat"). I find 'basic' or even better elementary to mean in this case:(when in truth we're saying "focus on the enemy and heal only in a pinch; there's plenty of time for real healing outside of combat") I've been playing a long time and have never come across a group that doesn't do this. Hence my saying this is elementary.
Tempest Stormwind 08-21-07, 04:39 PM	Rolled 3 times the average ? As Tempest explained above, it's not as much the fact of getting right to the average, but more about the average of the rolls getting closer and closer to the mathematical average, and more and more inside the standard deviation. How many times were your results within, say, 6 points of the average of 27 ? Precisely. Look at 1d6. The mathematical average is an unrollable number (3.5 when the rolls have only integer values), so you cannot actually roll the average. However, since you have a 1/6 chance of rolling each individual value, you should expect (over a large sample) to get a roughly equivalent number of 1s as you have 6s. This means that, approximately, you have as many rolls above the average as you do below the average. Over the entire spread, your good streaks and bad streaks cancel each other out and your rolls tend toward the average, even if they can't actually roll the average. Note that the only way your average roll is *guaranteed* to be *exactly* the mathematical mean is in extremely large samples -- that is, as your number of rolls tends toward infinity. However, given the relatively low variance of the values the dice deal with (the greatest number of sides on an individual die is only 20), it will converge to really freaking close to the average LONG before you get that many rolls.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-21-07, 04:45 PM	Recall that no one is saying that healing in combat is a bad idea if it saves the life of an ally. However, in general, barring any other circumstances, an overwhelming assault will save more lives (by saving more resources) than in-combat healing.<cut for length> I bolded the part where the theory that it is better to kill the monster then heal your alley fails. In order for the threory to be sound it has to rely on number ideal circumstances. Primarily that you can deal sufficient damage to it to neutralize it before it has a chance to respond. In most circumstances this is highly dubious. However in combat healing on the other hand, simply relies on the premise that you can heal the monsters damage +1, in order to save the alley. Lets do this: We have a cleric, and a fighter fighting an Orc barbarian, all first level. (the rest of the party is out taking a leak) we'll build them with elite array, and using the PHB. (No need to get fancy.) Cleric: Stats are: Str13 Dex8 Con12 Int10 Wis15 and Cha 14 Feats: Scribe scroll and extend spell. For armour and weapons we'll give him some scale, and a heavy mace. Fighter: Str 15, dex 12, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 10 Feats Power attack clkeave and weapon focus greatsword. We'll say he's wearing scale, and has a greatsword, along with a cross bow. Orc: Str 16 (12), Dex 14, Con 15, Int 6 (8), Wis 11 (13), Cha 8 (10) Feats: Power attack. Weapons Great axe, and for armour, scale seems to be popular this season. So we'll pretend that the orc got off a lucky hit, and the fighter is now a -3. Now becuase the orc is likely raging, his AC is only a 14, but his HR are 9.5 (average for an NPC). The cleric has two choices A. He can swing and try to kill the orc. With his attack of +1 he has a 30% chance of success with a 70% chance to miss. And even if he does mangae to connect he need to roll max damage to take the orc to zero. which isn't enough to drop him. However if he misses, or fails to roll max damage the orc has a 65% to hit him, and his average is 13.5. The cleric has 9 HP. B. He can pump a cure light wounds into the fighter. Which will heal on average 5.5 (6.5 with the healing domain) meaning the fighter will get his chance to swing, and he deals 10 points of average damage. Thats a basic example. The point is that the ideal circumstances in which it is better to attack then to heal the damage damage per round specialist are not as numerous as the situations in which it is more advantageous for you to heal the DPR guy. Going with more complex examples, monsters begin to have more methods of damage mitigation, which if your ignoring your damage mitigation, then you are leaving yourself seriousely vulnerable. For example many monster s will have more HP then you. Which means that if your trading them blow for blow, they'll win. This get more exaggerated when you factor in other methods of mitigation, such as DR, and fast healing, which many many monsters bring to the table. Take a 7 headed Hydra for example (CR 6 I think) It is healing 17 HP/round, and putting out on average something like a 14.5 X 7 damage around. If you can't do something with that damage other then soak it up with your face, it will win the fight.
Tempest Stormwind 08-21-07, 04:49 PM	do the math and tell me how close most of my rolls were 27. You give me the data first. You can't do statistical analysis on incomplete data. I'm sorry I don't follow the CO boards and what 'slang' they use. Would you prefer the term 'spellchucker'? ANY spellcaster. Blasting is inferior to save-or-dies and battlefield control effects by virtue of the spells, not by virtue of the class that uses them. Not even the warmage can make blasting worthwhile. Consider: Damage spells usually add +1d6 per level (+3.5). Consider how monster hit points scale with CR (which you can check for yourself here (http://www.cuberocks.net/DnD/CritterFilter/CritterFilter.php)) and you'll see they go up by far more than +3.5 every CR. This is before we factor in saving throw increases, resistances, immunities, or damage caps on the spells. Furthermore, as was mentioned above, a wounded monster fights just as well as an unwounded monster. A damage spell that doesn't kill the monster outright is one that gives it another round to fight. A damage spell that *does* kill the monster outright is effectively a save-or-die anyway, except the save or die scales better (dealing "effective damage" equal to the monster's HP all the time, and not being limited by resistances, means that it's only subject to immunities (sometimes) and save increases). A battlefield control spell means the monster wastes actions recovering from it instead of killing the party -- effectively removing it from combat for a short while, which makes it easier for the rest of your party to fight with it. Consider the first-level example: Magic Missile or Burning Hands to deal 1d4 or 1d4+1 damage to monsters who tend to have more than 5 hit points... or Color Spray or Sleep to utterly kill large areas of them?
Alyri 08-21-07, 05:04 PM	88 uses of an item ? Sorry, but that's not a big sample. A real sample would be 1000 or 10.000 rolls. But at 88, each roll matters for more than 1% of the result. That is exactly my point No player is going to use a Healers belt 10,000 times.
Tempest Stormwind 08-21-07, 05:10 PM	That is exactly my point No player is going to use a Healers belt 10,000 times. Good thing D&D isn't just played by one person, then. Across all the players in the world since the healing belt was published, how many picked up the MIC, bought the item, and used it multiple times? You don't need 10,000 uses, although that many practically guarantees a result nigh-identical to the mathematical average. You just need several uses -- as Lawkeeper asked, how many of your rolls were betwen 21 and 33? (Note that this is a back-of-the-envelope guess; I'm not absolutely certain that the standard deviation on 2d8x3 is 6. I suspect it's close, though.)
Alyri 08-21-07, 05:26 PM	Good thing D&D isn't just played by one person, then. Across all the players in the world since the healing belt was published, how many picked up the MIC, bought the item, and used it multiple times? I figure about a couple dozen on average You don't need 10,000 uses, although that many practically guarantees a result nigh-identical to the mathematical average. You just need several uses -- as Lawkeeper asked, how many of your rolls were betwen 21 and 33? (Note that this is a back-of-the-envelope guess; I'm not absolutely certain that the standard deviation on 2d8x3 is 6. I suspect it's close, though.) 27 hp on average from the healers belt. YMMV and most likely will
Robotic_Christmass_Elf 08-21-07, 10:04 PM	I figure about a couple dozen on average ??? As has been explained, an average only applies to a group of results, in this case there is only one result, the amount of PC's who have used this item multiple times. Now I couldn't find any sales figures, however since the figure for people playing D&D regularly in 2000 was 1.5 million, (and I believe it's quite a bit higher these days) and there are more than a couple of dozen PC's in the gauntlet alone with healing belts, my guesstimate is going to be closer to the tens of thousands. 27 hp on average from the healers belt. YMMV and most likely will Yes, we know, 27 is a statistical probability, an expectation of the average over a large sample size, not a promised outcome for any particular roll or small group of rolls.
Lawkeeper 08-22-07, 06:02 AM	I bolded the part where the theory that it is better to kill the monster then heal your alley fails. [...] Lets do this: We have a cleric, and a fighter fighting an Orc barbarian, all first level. (the rest of the party is out taking a leak) we'll build them with elite array, and using the PHB. (No need to get fancy.) Do you realize that you 1°) set a difficult situation where the damage has already been done, and 2°) that you actually put an encounter with too high an EL for two 1st-lvl PCs ? An orc barbarian is a CR1, which is a decent encounter for a party of four 1st-lvl characters. In order for an orc barbarian to be an appropriate encounter for a party of only two, the PCs would need to be 3rd-level. No wonder it's problematic. But, let's continue looking at the situation. This guides says "dealing with the encounter is better than healing". Compare your situation with your suggested way of continuing the encounter. The cleric heals the fighter - of an average of 5.5 hp, bringing him to 2.5 on average (and you actually need to roll a 3 on your d8 to bring him to positives). Even if he gets to make an attack (see later), he only hits AC14 on a 10+ for an average of 10 damage per hit - or a weighted damage per round of 5.5 (better with PA : hits on 11+ but average is 12, for a weighted avg of 6) ; even a single hit (at average 10, or 12 with PA) is not enough to put the orc out, because of his 16hp (12 max, +4 Con in a rage). Looking at the dmg/rnd, the fighter will need three rounds to put the orc out - or maybe 2 if the cleric comes in the fray (doing a weighted avg of 2.2 : hits on 13+, avg dmg of 5.5). The orc does hit the fighter's 15AC on 10+ doing an average per hit of 15.5 dmg (acknowledging a PA - if the orc is not stupidly played, he'll assure a simple hit on 9+ for a 13.5 avg) doing a weighted avg of 8.525 (or 8.1 without PA). Any hit of the orc (55% or 60% of probability on first round) will send the fighter back to negatives, most probably dead - but on average, the fighter is back to negative after one round. Now, remember the fighter was unconscious - prone. He has to get up before attacking : this gives an AoO for the orc. So, on average the fighter won't even be able to make an attack. Counting that the orc only has 45% chances of missing his AoO and that any hit would prevent the fighter from acting, the result of a CLW by the cleric is to deal a weighted avg damage of 2.475, or 2.2 if the orc opts not to PA his AoO. It is no more than the cleric's weighted avg dmg/rnd. But more importantly : there's a 55/60% chance that the healing will have been useless if the orc hits on the AoO - wasted action for the cleric. Another remark : if on the initiative count the fighter should normally come before the cleric (which is over 60% of the times, since the Ftr's Init is +1 while the Clc's is -1), the fighter will have to act after the orc has made his next attack. So, in 60% of the times the orc gets an additional 60% chances of dropping the fighter before he attacks. So, in the end the fighter has only 25% chances (~64*40%) of making an attack ! Apply that to the weighted avg dmg/rnd of 5.5, and you get an average of 1.4 dmg (dropping centimals) - less than the cleric's weighted avg/rnd. And you could additionnally reduce this number by 25% to represent the cases where the cleric fails to cure enough damage to bring his fellow back on his feet. Please note I discarded the crits for my averages : I'm not a masochist.;) Tempest, if I made math errors, feel free to correct. EDIT: already found an omission myself. I forgot to include the prone situation in the orc's attack roll(s). If he acts before the fighter (because the Ftr's initiative was higher than the cleric's), that's 80% chances of a hit, and same on his AoO for the stand-up. (Note that this is a back-of-the-envelope guess; I'm not absolutely certain that the standard deviation on 2d8x3 is 6. I suspect it's close, though.) Yes, it should be close but I didn't actually calculate it. No time enough.
Aubri 08-22-07, 11:00 AM	Math Man to the rescue! The standard deviation for rolling n k-sided dice simplifies to sqrt(n*(k^2-1)/12), so for 2d8 the standard deviation is 3.24 (call it 3). In layman's terms, standard deviation indicates how fast a distribution "falls off". For example, if you have lots of measurements that fall very close to average and only a handful that fall far from it, you'll have a very sharp graph and a small standard deviation. If the measurements often fall far from average, you have a broad graph and thus a large standard deviation. The "first standard deviation" is the range from average in which you can expect 68% of results to fall. (Don't ask where that number came from, it's mathematical.) 95% of results will fall within 2 standard deviations. >99% fall within 3 standard deviations. Note that this only works for a "normal distribution", which means the event is totally random -- such as a die roll. What that means is that more than 2/3 of the time, your 2d8 roll will fall within 3 points of average -- between 6 and 12. You have a 95% chance of rolling within 6 of average. Over the course of using all 3 charges separately in a day (6d8), the standard deviation will be 5.61 -- more than 2/3 of days will provide between 21 and 33 healing. Note that although the standard deviation rises for more dice, it actually represents a smaller percentage of the total healing (33% vs. 21%), which means that you're actually approaching average.
OneWinged4ngel 08-22-07, 11:06 PM	1) Clever. Claim you aren't making insults and then claim this guide is elementary (an insult to the comprehensiveness it covers and the intelligence of its author). Well, to be fair, I really *do* think it's elementary, or at least the concept is.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-22-07, 11:09 PM	Well, I really *do* think it's elementary, or at least the concept is. I wrote it up because some of my less experienced (mechanically) players were getting squashed because they were trying to heal amazingly ineffectively during combat for some reason (Seriously, you know a party is screwed when someone casts invisibility and chugs potions for 3 rounds... and have essential skills that would just end the encounter...) If by elementary you mean simplistic, then yes it is. However as I've said earilier it certainly is not comprehensive. Also relying on DPR, and forsaken in combat mitigation is just plain foolish.
OneWinged4ngel 08-22-07, 11:23 PM	Also relying on DPR, and forsaken in combat mitigation is just plain foolish. Don't use straw men arguments, it's just playing annoying. I never said to rely on DPR... I said there were *lots* of tactics to prevent dying other than healing.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-23-07, 01:29 AM	Don't use straw men arguments, it's just playing annoying. I never said to rely on DPR... I said there were *lots* of tactics to prevent dying other than healing. *sigh* Ok we'll take this slow. Are you, or are you not advocating killing the enemy before they can act, instead of mitigating damage?
OneWinged4ngel 08-23-07, 02:05 AM	*sigh* Ok we'll take this slow. Are you, or are you not advocating killing the enemy before they can act, instead of mitigating damage? Obviously, if you can expect to kill an enemy before they can act, that would be an optimal course of action.
Lawkeeper 08-23-07, 02:40 AM	Math Man to the rescue! The standard deviation for rolling n k-sided dice simplifies to sqrt(n*(k^2-1)/12), so for 2d8 the standard deviation is 3.24 (call it 3). [...] Over the course of using all 3 charges separately in a day (6d8), the standard deviation will be 5.61 -- more than 2/3 of days will provide between 21 and 33 healing. Great, I was not too far off (hardly 6.5% of error). I didn't knew that simplified formula, thanks.:) By any chance, O Great Math Man, do you happen to have another simple formula for the averages and standard deviations of sets of dices whose you have to only keep a few (like the ability generation) ? (That's totally unrelated to the subject I know, sorry for the short hijack OneWinged4ngel)
Aubri 08-23-07, 08:48 AM	By any chance, O Great Math Man, do you happen to have another simple formula for the averages and standard deviations of sets of dices whose you have to only keep a few (like the ability generation) ? (That's totally unrelated to the subject I know, sorry for the short hijack OneWinged4ngel) I'm afraid I don't. Adding the ability to drop the lowest die complicates things drastically because now you have to actually know what the rolls are. I don't even know how the math would work... I'd have to slap together a dice roller program and run 10,000 or so trials through Excel and get an approximation.
Lawkeeper 08-23-07, 08:53 AM	I'm afraid I don't. Adding the ability to drop the lowest die complicates things drastically because now you have to actually know what the rolls are. I don't even know how the math would work... I'd have to slap together a dice roller program and run 10,000 or so trials through Excel and get an approximation. Too bad. Ten years I've been looking for such a formula.:weep:
Aubri 08-23-07, 09:32 AM	Too bad. Ten years I've been looking for such a formula.:weep: Well, here... experimentally speaking, I got an average of 12.22 (mathematical average 12.25) and standard deviation 2.86 for 4d6 drop low. However, that's not the whole story -- dropping the low die "bends" the probability curve upward, so you're more likely to roll above average than below; it's no longer a normal distribution and standard deviation doesn't quite work anymore. There's a 48.8% chance that you roll above average, a 12.9% chance of a 12, and a 38.3% chance of rolling below average. Dumping "hopeless" characters bends it upward even farther, but can't be accounted for statistically because it involves an intelligent decision on whether to keep or dump the set of 6 rolls as a whole. (Source: http://sullivan.pgh.pa.us/~ksulliva/ralph/dnd-stats.html )
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-23-07, 04:23 PM	Obviously, if you can expect to kill an enemy before they can act, that would be an optimal course of action. Ok so then would say that as a group the players should focus on ways to kill the enemy faster to the exclusion of other tactics? Say like a cleric taking the destruction and strength domain over healing, and something else? Or a barbarian should put more points into strength then con?
Tempest Stormwind 08-23-07, 04:35 PM	Ok so then would say that as a group the players should focus on ways to kill the enemy faster to the exclusion of other tactics? Say like a cleric taking the destruction and strength domain over healing, and something else? Or a barbarian should put more points into strength then con? If such a thing can guarantee success, yes. However, since they can't always guarantee success, you use fall-back plans. Those fall-back plans typically involve healing. The point is, however, that it's a fall-back tactic. Healing should *never* be your first choice in battle EXCEPT when an ally's life is critically in danger (and even then, you should weigh it against your other options).
OneWinged4ngel 08-23-07, 04:54 PM	Ok so then would say that as a group the players should focus on ways to kill the enemy faster to the exclusion of other tactics? Heck no. You want to have your tactics be flexible and adaptable, so that you can take the optimal course of action to succeed in a situation with as little loss, or risk of loss, to yourself as possible. The best plan has the least chance of failure with the fewest resources expended. Simple.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-23-07, 08:43 PM	If such a thing can guarantee success, yes. However, since they can't always guarantee success, you use fall-back plans. Those fall-back plans typically involve healing. The point is, however, that it's a fall-back tactic. Ok now this is making some sense. However I disagree that healing is a fall back plan. It is one the better forms of mitigation out there. I say better because it is the most most stable, and has a better chance of working in more situations then others. Also healing keeps more poeple in the fight which gives you a greater return on actions. E.I you trade a standard action to heal, and you gain a full round worth of actions through your now functioning ally. Healing should *never* be your first choice in battle EXCEPT when an ally's life is critically in danger (and even then, you should weigh it against your other options). This I disagree with. First some should take damage mitigation as their focus. Doing other wise is kind of like pulling your goalie, you'll have more forwards but be very vulnerable to attack. Focusing on healing is probably the most flexible and easy to do of all mitigation specialists, which makes it a strong choice. Now I'm not saying that the mitigation specialist should come running when ever anyone gets a scratch. But generally should try to keep everyone at or above half. That way they don't have to worry about dropping below zero, and thus losing actions to bleeding. Heck no. You want to have your tactics be flexible and adaptable, so that you can take the optimal course of action to succeed in a situation with as little loss, or risk of loss, to your party as possible. The best plan has the least chance of failure with the fewest resources expended. Simple. Fixed. It's a team game after all.
OneWinged4ngel 08-23-07, 10:02 PM	Fixed. It's a team game after all. Quick, it's a nit, let's pick it! Seriously though, I absolutely do mean *your party.* I kinda think of the party as an extension of yourself and your resources (That is to say, the party's resources are also your resources), hence the wording. This I disagree with. First some should take damage mitigation as their focus. Doing other wise is kind of like pulling your goalie, you'll have more forwards but be very vulnerable to attack. Focusing on healing is probably the most flexible and easy to do of all mitigation specialists, which makes it a strong choice. Now I'm not saying that the mitigation specialist should come running when ever anyone gets a scratch. But generally should try to keep everyone at or above half. That way they don't have to worry about dropping below zero, and thus losing actions to bleeding. Now hold on a second. Tempest Stormwind said HEALING, not DAMAGE MITIGATION. Damage mitigation basically means being able to lessen the amount of hurt your party takes and make it more manageable. Healing isn't damage mitigation any more than, say, casting Displacement on your whole party through a War Weave or disabling an enemy with Hold Person or getting a higher AC. In fact, even killing an enemy with a full attack is a form of damage mitigation. What we've been saying is that doing any of those things can actually be more effective at mitigating the damage your team will take than actually going out and casting cure X wounds. Also, I have NO IDEA where you get the idea that if you have at least half hp you'll magically not lose actions from bleeding and be "safe". If you have half hp, and the enemy is still up and running and at least decently challenging, there's actually a pretty good chance he can *kill* the ally you just healed to a bit over half in his next turn, because he's still standing there full attacking your tank or casting spells or whatever the hell it is that took your ally down to below half in the last round. Heck, lots of characters will go down the first round they're actually put into the line of fire and someone scores a hit on them. If you are going to heal, you have to heal efficiently enough so that it's actually going to effectively mitigate the damage. Otherwise, you're not actually helping that teammate out as much as you think you are. Of course, it's entirely possible that you play with less threatening encounters, but in that case a well-played party will just charge over them without a second thought.
Nephlite 08-23-07, 10:31 PM	Lets do this: We have a cleric, and a fighter fighting an Orc barbarian, all first level. (the rest of the party is out taking a leak) we'll build them with elite array, and using the PHB. (No need to get fancy.) Cleric: Stats are: Str13 Dex8 Con12 Int10 Wis15 and Cha 14 Feats: Scribe scroll and extend spell. For armour and weapons we'll give him some scale, and a heavy mace. Fighter: Str 15, dex 12, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 10 Feats Power attack clkeave and weapon focus greatsword. We'll say he's wearing scale, and has a greatsword, along with a cross bow. Orc: Str 16 (12), Dex 14, Con 15, Int 6 (8), Wis 11 (13), Cha 8 (10) Feats: Power attack. Weapons Great axe, and for armour, scale seems to be popular this season. So we'll pretend that the orc got off a lucky hit, and the fighter is now a -3. Now becuase the orc is likely raging, his AC is only a 14, but his HR are 9.5 (average for an NPC). The cleric has two choices A. He can swing and try to kill the orc. With his attack of +1 he has a 30% chance of success with a 70% chance to miss. And even if he does mangae to connect he need to roll max damage to take the orc to zero. which isn't enough to drop him. However if he misses, or fails to roll max damage the orc has a 65% to hit him, and his average is 13.5. The cleric has 9 HP. B. He can pump a cure light wounds into the fighter. Which will heal on average 5.5 (6.5 with the healing domain) meaning the fighter will get his chance to swing, and he deals 10 points of average damage. Thats a basic example. The point is that the ideal circumstances in which it is better to attack then to heal the damage damage per round specialist are not as numerous as the situations in which it is more advantageous for you to heal the DPR guy. Going with more complex examples, monsters begin to have more methods of damage mitigation, which if your ignoring your damage mitigation, then you are leaving yourself seriousely vulnerable. For example many monster s will have more HP then you. Which means that if your trading them blow for blow, they'll win. This get more exaggerated when you factor in other methods of mitigation, such as DR, and fast healing, which many many monsters bring to the table. Take a 7 headed Hydra for example (CR 6 I think) It is healing 17 HP/round, and putting out on average something like a 14.5 X 7 damage around. If you can't do something with that damage other then soak it up with your face, it will win the fight. A. Cleric with 14 Charisma? Wha! Is he like a Turn Undead lover? Is he going Divine Metamagic?! Why!? 12 Charisma is reasonable for me to believe. Personally, he could be a melee dude and go with 14 Strength (he can put 1 in Dex or Con from the Charisma) or Focus on Casting with 16 Charisma by dumping Charisma by 2. Sure, maybe he just likes Charisma, but this seems weird. Turning sucks as you level. Sure at low levels it is okay, but only okay. B. Orc's lucky hit did 15 damage! Did he deal 5 with a greataxe with x3 crit? Pretty good rolls to confirm. C. even if the Cleric heals the Fighte: the Fighte must waste a action on his turn getting up with chance of attack od opportunity or take -4 penalty to hit from prone. D. Spells that able to cast: Cause Fear: DC 13 (14 if my advice followed). Chance versus 35% chance or 30% success. This means Fear is going to work most of the time. Orcs have -2 Wis with 8 elite stat (they always dump Wisdom in warriors in Monster Manual) means 6 Wis=-2 Will +2 from Rage =+0. Fear holds off enemy for 1d4 rounds. Fear is save and still suck. Eithe he saves and is shaken lowering saves and attack bonus or panicked (disarms them and they must move away at top speed read this as Run). Command is good also: Just need to choose the right command. So you see, this shows how much better spells would help.
Aubri 08-23-07, 10:34 PM	However I disagree that healing is a fall back plan. It is one the better forms of mitigation out there. Complete. Hooey. It's one of the WORST ways available to mitigate damage! Healing can only take place after the damage has occurred (so no pre-battle buffs) and repairs MAYBE 1 round's worth of damage (meaning you spent a round AND a spell to counter the monster's 1 round of action). Buffing his AC, giving him a miss chance, or, I don't know, taking out the monster BEFORE he gets hit is AT WORST equally effective! If he gets hit more than once in the encounter, your round would have been better spent using a spell that would mitigate damage for more than a single round. Finally, you can ALWAYS heal HP damage after the battle; you can't prevent it afterwards. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure spells. (Coming out next month: the final entry in the Complete line of books, the Complete Hooey!)
OneWinged4ngel 08-23-07, 10:49 PM	Complete. Hooey. It's one of the WORST ways available to mitigate damage! Healing can only take place after the damage has occurred (so no pre-battle buffs) and repairs MAYBE 1 round's worth of damage (meaning you spent a round AND a spell to counter the monster's 1 round of action). Buffing his AC, giving him a miss chance, or, I don't know, taking out the monster BEFORE he gets hit is AT WORST equally effective! If he gets hit more than once in the encounter, your round would have been better spent using a spell that would mitigate damage for more than a single round. Finally, you can ALWAYS heal HP damage after the battle; you can't prevent it afterwards. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure spells. Yep, more or less. (Coming out next month: the final entry in the Complete line of books, the Complete Hooey!) Ha! :rofl: I bolded the part where the theory that it is better to kill the monster then heal your alley fails. In order for the threory to be sound it has to rely on number ideal circumstances. Primarily that you can deal sufficient damage to it to neutralize it before it has a chance to respond. In most circumstances this is highly dubious. However in combat healing on the other hand, simply relies on the premise that you can heal the monsters damage +1, in order to save the alley. Lets do this: We have a cleric, and a fighter fighting an Orc barbarian, all first level. (the rest of the party is out taking a leak) we'll build them with elite array, and using the PHB. (No need to get fancy.) Cleric: Stats are: Str13 Dex8 Con12 Int10 Wis15 and Cha 14 Feats: Scribe scroll and extend spell. For armour and weapons we'll give him some scale, and a heavy mace. Fighter: Str 15, dex 12, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 10 Feats Power attack clkeave and weapon focus greatsword. We'll say he's wearing scale, and has a greatsword, along with a cross bow. Orc: Str 16 (12), Dex 14, Con 15, Int 6 (8), Wis 11 (13), Cha 8 (10) Feats: Power attack. Weapons Great axe, and for armour, scale seems to be popular this season. So we'll pretend that the orc got off a lucky hit, and the fighter is now a -3. Now becuase the orc is likely raging, his AC is only a 14, but his HR are 9.5 (average for an NPC). The cleric has two choices A. He can swing and try to kill the orc. With his attack of +1 he has a 30% chance of success with a 70% chance to miss. And even if he does mangae to connect he need to roll max damage to take the orc to zero. which isn't enough to drop him. However if he misses, or fails to roll max damage the orc has a 65% to hit him, and his average is 13.5. The cleric has 9 HP. See, this here is pretty much BS. A cleric who's actually going to want to mix it up in melee is unlikely to have a mere +1 to hit. In fact, he's more likely to have something like +6 or 7 to hit, or +9 or 10 if he feels like it (Bless, Magic Weapon, Divine Favor, Law Devotion, and even Guidance are all notable here. Guidance is a great little orison when you expect an encounter, giving you a +1 to attack on that first round). B. He can pump a cure light wounds into the fighter. Which will heal on average 5.5 (6.5 with the healing domain) meaning the fighter will get his chance to swing, and he deals 10 points of average damage. Except that the Fighter will be PRONE, and as such the orc will probably use Power Attack or something on him, and will ALSO get an AoO if the Fighter tries to stand, so the Fighter will NOT get to swing. Anyways, if the orc hits, he's going to do 1d12+9. Now then, you just healed the fighter from -3 up to 2... and he just took an average of 15.5 damage. That means your fighter just DIED. If you had left him unconscious, there's actually a chance the orc would look towards the remaining threat instead of finishing off an ally, even if you didn't manage to kill him. Now, let's combine that with your ACTUAL ability to defeat the orc. Thats a basic example. And an unrealistic one that fails to prove its point, because it ignores all the OTHER options that the Cleric has, and seemingly purposefully creates a very sucky melee cleric. If you have a to-hit roll of +1, you have no business whacking things in melee. What happened to Command? Note that if you cast Command, the orc has a +2 to will saves, So if you have the most basic cleric, casting it with only a 15 Wis and no special feats to enhance it (Because you spent your feat on Extend Spell for some reason, even though you can't actually metamagic anything yet), the Orc will fail 50% of the time against the DC of 13. Now then, compare that to the chance of the orc hitting and killing the Fighter if you heal him. If you've got all averages for healing, attack, and damage, the orc actually hits and kills the Fighter (because even using Power Attack, he has +5 to hit, and the Fighter is at -4 AC from being prone.) In fact, it takes less than average for it to work. He needs to only roll a 5 to hit, and to kill him after you healed the fighter up to 3 hp, he only needs to roll a 3 on his greataxe to outright kill the poor Fighter. Even if he rolls a 1, you may not be able to stabilize him in time, and he doesn't have a huge chance on his own. If the Fighter tries to attack as you suggested, he gets *two tries* at this, because he just got an AoO from the guy trying to stand up. What about Cause Fear? Same effect as Command, except with a duration of 1d4 rounds instead of just 1! What about making an actually decent melee cleric with a good +9 to hit (16 Strength, +1 War Domain, +3 Law Devotion, +2 charging. Heck, could be +10 with a masterwork weapon, which isn't that hard to come by at level 1, though you won't have it at character creation), who's dishing out 2d6+1d8+4 damage? (2d6 greatsword, +4 strength, +1d8 Powerful Charge. Note that even a non-human can have both Law Devotion and another combat feat at level 1, because you can actually sacrifice a domain for Law Devotion. Also note, average damage here is 15.5) Or maybe one who has +6 or 7 to hit (No +3 from Law Devotion), and is dealing 5d6+4 damage with Blade of Blood? (average damage for that one would be 21.5. If you actually took powerful charge along with that, it'd be 26 damage.) I mean, geez, if you're going to actually try to use a melee attack in your example, don't make the crappiest melee cleric you can possibly imagine. Of course that's going to skew your results! In reality, the level 1 melee cleric is more likely to kill the orc than save the Fighter with healing. In fact, the Fighter is *MORE LIKELY* to die if you heal him than if you do nothing at all (Because he's a weakened Fighter, at level 1 where Fighters are actually able to go out and kill things easily, and the orc wants to eliminate the threat.) Anyways, even if you *did* make a halfway decent argument, I've *already* mentioned that Cure Light Wounds can actually be fairly nifty at level 1 due to the amount of damage being dealt by many monsters, and I've *also* mentioned that using healing to save the life of an ally in situational circumstances is a good idea, and thus would actually *support* what I've said. However, the circumstance you gave is, well, a really HORRIBLE time to heal. I have no idea where you get an average of 10 damage, because a greataxe deals average 6.5, a 16 strength (+4 from raging) will give +7 damage, and a +2 damage from power attack will give him a total of +9 against the prone fighter. In fact, if I were that Fighter, and you did that? You know what I'd do? I'd probably get angry at you for making a stupid decision that would get my character that I had spent so much time filling out a personality and backstory and such for killed at level 1. And I'd probably wonder why you didn't prepare Command or Cause Fear or something, instead of limiting your only offensive option to your *pitiful* +1 attack bonus and puny damage from your cleric that you obviously didn't build to be a melee fighter. You're a level 1 CoDzilla, not a level 1 NPC Warrior! Basically, your argument is pure hooey. If you heal, the Fighter does *not* get a new attack as you posited, but instead just gets AoOed and DIES if he tries to do that. If you attack, the Orc is actually *very likely to die or become incapacitated for a few rounds,* and then you've won the fight. The problem with your example was that you, seemingly purposefully, made the cleric *really* bad at melee attacking, then for some reason stated that that was his only offensive option, completely ignoring his ability to force the orc to make a will save or... well, lose, and that you presented inaccurate information. Your skewed example presents inaccurate information (raging barbarian orc does not do an average of 10 damage with a greataxe and 20 strength and power attack, which he's going to use if an enemy is prone!), presents skewed circumstances (you offer only two options for the cleric, even though he definitely has more an if he ever planned to make a melee attack he would not have a +1 to hit), and even says that a Fighter can actually somehow get up and swing, even though that would *actually* cause an AoO and cause the Fighter to go down again, and likely DIE. You know what the cleric got from healing in this situation? He got one less spell slot, a dead party member, and a triumphant orc. On the other hand, he could have used that spell slot for Blade of Blood, sufferred a mere 5 points of damage to himself, and obliterated the orc. Or he could have cast Command and made the orc Flee, making him Full Run away from you, and unable to attack on his turn *or* the following turn while he tries to get back to you, and you can then charge him or pick him off with ranged. Or even heal the Fighter to do the same thing (though now, you can do it safely), if you're so inclined. Basically, in these *specific circumstances constructed by you,* healing is actually a *horrible* idea. :mage: YOU FAIL. THOROUGHLY. (http://www.youfail.org/) :mage:
Timlagor 08-24-07, 12:21 AM	I haven't read the whole thread so I may well be repeating stuff but these points were decidedly lacking from the first post (and I didn't notice them elsewhere). 1) Healing by spell is guarranteed -you can't be sure of dropping the enemy (or even hitting them) ..and you don't want to wait for the fighter to fall over to do it. 2) Clerics do so much more than just heal -most notably buffing. 3) Healing isn't just about HP -Restorations are essential and it's hard to get those without a Cleric. Still.. Healing Belts do completely trash everything else for out of combat healing/gp efficiency (10% better than a pearl of Power 1 even with an Augment Healing Cleric casting Lesser Vigours and the generous interpretation of Healthful Rest -2.5x as good at my table since I don't allow HR to work on spell effects ..and that was the most efficient long term healing by a considerable margin before the HB came along) ..and they have a significant in combat utility too! Without the HB, everyone should have a potion of CLW so that anyone in the party can bring round a dying ally. Without HB it's also worth considering getting the biggest potion you can so that it can actually be a productive action in combat (HB takes over that function too). With the HB... buy at least 1 each every level.
OneWinged4ngel 08-24-07, 12:43 AM	I haven't read the whole thread so I may well be repeating stuff but these points were decidedly lacking from the first post (and I didn't notice them elsewhere). Well yeah, I've pretty much addressed all these things. 1) Healing by spell is guarranteed -you can't be sure of dropping the enemy (or even hitting them) ..and you don't want to wait for the fighter to fall over to do it. Uhhhm... the fact that it's guaranteed doesn't mean that it's actually going to be a good idea for you to do it. As I mentioned in the first post, taking the oppurtunity to heal may have more of a cost than a benefit, or at least not be as good as certain other options. And, even if you heal, the Fighter can *still* drop, and you will have just used up a healing spell. See the above rebuttal to On The Wings of TPK's rather ridiculous post. 2) Clerics do so much more than just heal -most notably buffing. Exactly! Which is why they shouldn't be relegated to just being heal bots. What's your point? How is this not covered in the first post? 3) Healing isn't just about HP -Restorations are essential and it's hard to get those without a Cleric. You can use wands, really. Sure, it's costs money, but so is replacing *any* party role. I do need to cover this more in the first post, though.
Lawkeeper 08-24-07, 04:57 AM	a lot. Nice show of what a cleric can do. Actually, even his poorly-designed cleric is doing more damage by attacking himself than by healing the fighter. 3) Healing isn't just about HP -Restorations are essential and it's hard to get those without a Cleric. Curing ability damage and conditions is a much rarer condition than having to heal hit points. Having a PC hold a few slots busy with these spells even without knowing IF they'll be useful is just a waste of ressources. So, even in a full-cleric party I'd recommend to have a couple of scrolls or wands (depending on party wealth) of these, and focus on combat-useful spells.
runestar 08-24-07, 06:29 AM	Curing ability damage and conditions is a much rarer condition than having to heal hit points. Having a PC hold a few slots busy with these spells even without knowing IF they'll be useful is just a waste of ressources. Note that the complete champion book has an option which lets a cleric cast restoration and some other curative magic spontaneously. Now he makes the perfect bandaid. He can safely memorize other combat/utility spells without having to worry that he will never have the correct healing spell at hand.:)
Lawkeeper 08-24-07, 06:42 AM	Note that the complete champion book has an option which lets a cleric cast restoration and some other curative magic spontaneously. Now he makes the perfect bandaid. He can safely memorize other combat/utility spells without having to worry that he will never have the correct healing spell at hand.:) But isn't he losing something important to get that ability ?
Aubri 08-24-07, 08:40 AM	Having a PC hold a few slots busy with these spells even without knowing IF they'll be useful is just a waste of ressources. That's true if Restoration is in his top 3 spell levels. After level 9 (lesser restoration) and 13 (restoration), it's a fine idea to prepare a couple of them against need since he's unlikely to get enough rounds during the day to dig into those lower level spells anyway. Lesser Restoration is always useful to counter poisons, ability penalties, and fatigue. And vampires.
Nephlite 08-24-07, 10:53 AM	Orc has AC of 16: Fighter while prone has +0 attack bonus (or risk attack of opportunity to stand up) means he has 20% chance at hitting the Orc. Orc has irregular stats I notice. He isn't Orc in Monster manual... I guess I was wrong on DCs. 13 or 14 DC means: Success to save 45 or 40%. Still better chances than Fighter has at hitting.
OneWinged4ngel 08-24-07, 12:43 PM	Curing ability damage and conditions is a much rarer condition than having to heal hit points. Having a PC hold a few slots busy with these spells even without knowing IF they'll be useful is just a waste of ressources. So, even in a full-cleric party I'd recommend to have a couple of scrolls or wands (depending on party wealth) of these, and focus on combat-useful spells. This is also true. The average cleric will not usually have a bunch of restorations prepared until they have slots to spare. As such, you'll want to be buying the expensive scrolls and wands *anyways.* Of course, there's always that Dungeonscape variant that lets you use those spontaneously. Orc has AC of 16: Fighter while prone has +0 attack bonus (or risk attack of opportunity to stand up) means he has 20% chance at hitting the Orc. Moreover, the orc will AoO him and almost certainly KILL HIM as soon as he tries to attack. As I already explained.
OneWinged4ngel 08-24-07, 12:44 PM	((Double post.... blargh))
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-24-07, 02:15 PM	Quick, it's a nit, let's pick it! Seriously though, I absolutely do mean *your party.* I kinda think of the party as an extension of yourself and your resources (That is to say, the party's resources are also your resources), hence the wording. I'm sorry for the confusion. Perhaps if you say what you mean, instead of assuming I'll decipher it from your babble things will go better. Now hold on a second. Tempest Stormwind said HEALING, not DAMAGE MITIGATION. Damage mitigation basically means being able to lessen the amount of hurt your party takes and make it more manageable. Healing isn't damage mitigation any more than, say, casting Displacement on your whole party through a War Weave or disabling an enemy with Hold Person or getting a higher AC. In fact, even killing an enemy with a full attack is a form of damage mitigation. What we've been saying is that doing any of those things can actually be more effective at mitigating the damage your team will take than actually going out and casting cure X wounds. Well yes displacement, and getting a higher AC, are means of mitigation. And yet your OP missed both...odd. Which was my point, that at best your "guide" to healing or whatever your intentions where, is incomplete at the best of times. Hold person, is technically a debuff, as it imposes a negative situation on the enemy, or limits it's ability to effectively attack. So no it is not a form of damage mitigation. If it heals I'm planning on doing an article on buffing/debuffing soon. I'll be covering DPR first though. Also killing the enemy is not mitigation ether. You really don't have any idea what your talking about do you? You really should just repeat the things you hear blindly until you understand them first. Anyways onto the topic at hand: While high ACs and miss chances are good from of mitigation, they are not fool proof. And so you can't rely on them alone. The monster could still over come your high AC. Case in point a 20th level barbarian could spend 1/3 of his gear to achieve + a couple of feats an AC of 50. However a green dragon of equivalent level would be able to hit that on a 7 or better with 80% of it's attacks. It will have on average twice to three times as many HP as the barbarian, and deal roughly 200 or so points of damage. Now assuming that the barbarian has around 300hp it's life expectancy is 2 rounds. Even with a 50% miss chance, and DR 10, it only increases its life expectancy to 3 rounds, with out any other form of mitigation. With a clerics heal on the other hand, the barbarians chances become significantly higher. Now in a full party situation the barbarians job is going to be keeping the dragon off the the squishies (rogue and wizard). He won't be very effective at that if he is dead, or incapacitated. Further because the dragon can deal 150-200 points of damage to him in a single round, the cleric will want to keep him, and everyone else fort hat matter, above the 200-150 HP mark. Least the dragon take some one out of the fight. But you say the cleric in that situation should focus on killing the dragon. well no, not really. Chances are that DPR is the wizards focus, and the cleric trying to perform that instead of his role would be redundant. Now I'm not saying that a cleric has to only be damage mitigation. Or that that is the only role they are capable of fulfilling. They could focus on any of the roles they want to, but that isn't the point. My point is that you should not ignore the mitigation role. As in some should do it, maybe not the cleric, but someone. And for the record, while the cleric can do many other things, they are still the best at healing. On that note for best results you should want some of all three of mitigation forms in your party. And relying on one to the exclusion of all others is suboptimal. Hit points run out, mischances will fail, DR can be over come, and a high AC can be beat. when that happens healing is probably your best option. And lastly, if you are going to rely on one form to the exclusion of others then healing has the least chance of failure. Of course, it's entirely possible that you play with less threatening encounters, but in that case a well-played party will just charge over them without a second thought. I have a feeling that you would not be up to the task of handling the encounters I generally put my group up against. They require both tactical thinking, and teamwork. Two things I fear you lack. A. Cleric with 14 Charisma? Wha! Is he like a Turn Undead lover? Is he going Divine Metamagic?! Why!? very well, we'll assume a 14 strength then if you prefer. (Although for the record a cleric will get more mileage from DMMs then a stregnth score being 1 point higher.) The cleric now has a 5% better chance of hitting the orc, and needs to only deal one off max...I'm still not liking his chances on this one folks. Turning sucks as you level. Sure at low levels it is okay, but only okay. Depends on what, and how you use it i guess. But this way off topic. B. Orc's lucky hit did 15 damage! Did he deal 5 with a greataxe with x3 crit? Pretty good rolls to confirm. Well its raging, its dice damage is d12 +7 before power attack. d12 +9 with power attack, so without power attack he'd have to roll 2 better then average, and with he has to roll average. Doesn't seem that unbelievable to me. Also given that the orc has the highest intiative modifier in the group +2 it isn't hard to believe that it went first either. C. even if the Cleric heals the Fighte: the Fighte must waste a action on his turn getting up with chance of attack od opportunity or take -4 penalty to hit from prone. Well the fighter certainly isn't doing anything while unconsciouses. And the cleric isn't going to be able to handle this on his own, so what would you suggest? Edit: Forgot to mention this: The cleric could after healing the fighter draw an AoO by moving through the orc's threatened squares into flanking position. Either the orc uses it's AoO, and the fighters stands up with impunity, or the fighter gains a flanking bonus to his attack from prone. Since both parties have enough gold left over to afford a healing potion (CLW) they could have that for if the orc does decide to take the AoO on the cleric. D. Spells that able to cast: Cause Fear: DC 13 (14 if my advice followed). Chance versus 35% chance or 30% success. This means Fear is going to work most of the time. Orcs have -2 Wis with 8 elite stat (they always dump Wisdom in warriors in Monster Manual) means 6 Wis=-2 Will +2 from Rage =+0. Fear holds off enemy for 1d4 rounds. Fear is save and still suck. Eithe he saves and is shaken lowering saves and attack bonus or panicked (disarms them and they must move away at top speed read this as Run). Command is good also: Just need to choose the right command. So you see, this shows how much better spells would help. You did actually look at the stats before posting this right? No i guess not. Ok the orc has an 11 in its wisdom, and while raging that bumps its will save up to +2, so with the clerics save being Dc 13, that gives the a 45% of making the save...so at best you've got slightly better then 50-50 to end the fight.. and if you loss your gamble chances are you die...I thought you guys were suppose to be good at this... Some else mentioned that the orc wasn't typical for the mon man. Yaa but i never use things straight out of the book. If this were to be an example from my party, the orc would a be a warblade, as would the fighter. Everyone would have 32 PB. The cleric would probably be healing for a d8 +4. And the warblade would more likely then not tumble up from prone (I rule that if it is a move action you can do it with a tumble check DC 15, same as moving. Unless something else is going on, such as moving through someone else's square.) In either event I'm done with this nonsense. You've failed to show how healing is ineffective, or tactically unsound. You've failed to present a better alternative. And in this battle of wits you've proven yourself unarmed. There is nothing further I can gain here, good day.
Tempest Stormwind 08-24-07, 03:15 PM	I don't have a lot of time here, so I'll only counter one point: Killing the enemy quicker *is* damage mitigation. Observe below, in the simple case where the monster deals 20 weighted damage per round (that is, chance to hit * average damage, just to simplify things for discussion; the result will hold if you expand it mathematically) Normal party: Round 1: The monster attacks. (Party HP -20) Round 2: The monster attacks. (Party HP -40) Round 3: The monster attacks. (Party HP -60) Round 4: The party has slain the monster. (Total: Party HP -60, or -80 if the monster acts on this round before it dies) Rapid-kill party: Round 1: The monster attacks. (Party HP -20) Round 2: The party has slain the monster. (Total: Party HP -20, or -40 if the monster acts on this round before it dies) Conclusion: The party that kills the monster earlier sustains less damage because the monster isn't around on subsequent rounds to keep up the onslaught. Therefore, the party takes less damage by adopting this tactic. Thus, killing the monster quicker *does* mitigate damage, by denying the monster the actions it would have had if you didn't kill it that fast (above, the actions it would have been entitled to on round 3 and 4, and maybe even round 2 as well). Note that you can get similar results by causing the monster to waste actions instead of killing it (i.e. you can't kill the monster in one round, but you can Grease the area and are confident it'll slip, meaning it needs to waste an action to stand and even if it doesn't slip it can't move as far; alternatively, you could throw the monster, hit it with a Stun or Daze effect, blanket the area in a battlefield control spell, or so on). You might see: Round 1: The monster attacks (-20) Round 2: The monster has been stunned (-20) Round 3: The monster is prone and away from the party, unable to attack (-20) Round 4: The party has slain the monster (Total: -20). The important part isn't that you kill the monster, so much as you deny the monster its actions. Killing it just does that definitively. If killing it isn't an option, hitting it with appropriate action-loss effects works just fine. (This is partly why Color Spray is so freaking lethal at lower levels.) Note that this is NOT the only bit of damage mitigation you should be using, but it *is* the only one open to absolutely everyone. Ideally, you'd combine it with other options (i.e. a Crusader moving up and making sure he's the one taking the hits, since he can reduce the damage he takes and has the HP to manage it).
Downtym 08-24-07, 03:18 PM	snip... I would question your premise in a few places. First off, you should probably never be buying healing potions, ... [because] Potions are inefficient. So are scrolls of Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, and so forth. Of course they're inefficient. So is gasoline. Their use, however is to provide a stopgap in healing when no other sources of healing can be found. Specifically, they speed the healing process allowing you to invest in increasing your potential power per day. Their purpose is not to heal you to full immediately, but rather to push back the flow of damage and allow the party time to reconcile the threat. Second, a dedicated healer is not a necessary combat role. Of course a dedicated healer is not a necessary combat role. If it was, every class would be able to heal itself or the only spells clerics could cast would be "Cure X". However, it is highly suggested from a rudimentary examination of the system that at least one individual take on the role of healing when needed. "Dedicated Healer" makes it sound like there must exist a character whose only purpose is to heal others - which is blatantly false in the face of the other abilities of druids and clerics. First off, healing often does not outpace damage. And? What is your point here? Just because healing does not outpace damage means that combat doesn't turn into an EQ style slugfest where a breakeven point between damage input and healing is found and the enemy is taken down through the slow erosion of hitpoints. What healing does manage to do is "Buy Time". For example, a character knocked to 25% hit points can be healed back to 90% hit points. Next round, he'll be knocked to 15% hit points and healed back to 80% hitpoints. On the third round he'll be knocked to 5% hit points. Notice how we bought 2 rounds of actions out of healing the character? If we had not, that would have been 1 character down and not doing anything. Which is bad. Secondly, you can get very efficient out-of-combat healing quite easily without a Cleric or Druid, and indeed a Rogue, Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Factotum, Warlock, or Bard could fill the healing role with a wand of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor. Out of combat healing is degenerate and useless to contemplate unless you place time constraints on it. If you only have 2 rounds before the next fight, it becomes much more important to have a specialist healer then if you have 2 days before the next fight. So without time constraints, you are correct. With time constraints you may be correct or incorrect based on the situation. These things considered, you really can get by without a Cleric or Druid. In fact, if you do have a Cleric or Druid, they're probably going to be more useful in most combats if they are doing something OTHER than healing, since they have considerable talents in many regards. My anecdotal experience has shown that a Cleric or Druid spends 1/4 or less of hits time in combat healing. Only in exceptionally hard fights will the healer need to "Chain heal" to keep the party active. In general, a number of fights end quickly enough to either require post combat healing or a single heal during the fight. Assuming the average combat lasts 4 rounds, that's the derivation for my 1/4. So, once again, you're pointing out something that's a non-issue. In fact, I don't even really know what you're addressing. Most groups I've played in or observed have a Cleric or Druid not because they *need a dedicated healer* but rather because they know that healing will be needed at some point and Clerics and Druids happen to be really good at healing. I've seen groups function without a Cleric or Druid (By using a Bard, Rogue with UMD, Lots of potions, Ranger with a Wand, Paladin with a Wand, or doing insane amounts of damage in incredibly short periods - "Burning down the opponent"). However, all of these groups had very little buffer room for mistake. If a character ate an unlucky crit or the damage was higher than average or the healing was lower than average then they were on the ropes. A Cleric or Druid with healing spells memmed gives you a lot more room to maneuver.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 08-24-07, 03:32 PM	Rapid-kill party: Round 1: The monster attacks. (Party HP -20) Round 2: The party has slain the monster. (Total: Party HP -20, or -40 if the monster acts on this round before it dies) Conclusion: The party that kills the monster earlier sustains less damage because the monster isn't around on subsequent rounds to keep up the onslaught. I'm just passing through after editing my post, so I'll respond to this. This fails because it is based on the assumption that a party can reliable kill the monster in the first round. What if you *can't* kill the monster on the first, or even the second round of combat?
Downtym 08-24-07, 03:55 PM	I'm afraid I don't. Adding the ability to drop the lowest die complicates things drastically because now you have to actually know what the rolls are. I don't even know how the math would work... I'd have to slap together a dice roller program and run 10,000 or so trials through Excel and get an approximation. To the best of my knowledge, you'd have to do a combinatorial analysis on the number of possibilities of getting a given result. I wrote it down somewhere, stared at the length of the formula, was convinced that there was an easier way, then just plugged some numbers in Excel and got an experimental value which made me happy. I'm left to wonder if throwing some weird matrix manipulation; maybe a 6 row by n dice column matrix could help express the result? All I'm convinced of is that there is probably no "easy" formula to express the probability of "Roll X dice, drop the (Lowest | Highest | Anything under y value)". Edit: Actually....a matrix transformation function might be exactly what you need! I'll play with this and see what happens.
OneWinged4ngel 08-24-07, 04:00 PM	I'm sorry for the confusion. Perhaps if you say what you mean, instead of assuming I'll decipher it from your babble things will go better. Well yes displacement, and getting a higher AC, are means of mitigation. And yet your OP missed both...odd. Which was my point, that at best your "guide" to healing or whatever your intentions where, is incomplete at the best of times. Hold person, is technically a debuff, as it imposes a negative situation on the enemy, or limits it's ability to effectively attack. So no it is not a form of damage mitigation. If it heals I'm planning on doing an article on buffing/debuffing soon. I'll be covering DPR first though. Also killing the enemy is not mitigation ether. You really don't have any idea what your talking about do you? You really should just repeat the things you hear blindly until you understand them first. Anyways onto the topic at hand: While high ACs and miss chances are good from of mitigation, they are not fool proof. And so you can't rely on them alone. The monster could still over come your high AC. Case in point a 20th level barbarian could spend 1/3 of his gear to achieve + a couple of feats an AC of 50. However a green dragon of equivalent level would be able to hit that on a 7 or better with 80% of it's attacks. It will have on average twice to three times as many HP as the barbarian, and deal roughly 200 or so points of damage. Now assuming that the barbarian has around 300hp it's life expectancy is 2 rounds. Even with a 50% miss chance, and DR 10, it only increases its life expectancy to 3 rounds, with out any other form of mitigation. With a clerics heal on the other hand, the barbarians chances become significantly higher. Now in a full party situation the barbarians job is going to be keeping the dragon off the the squishies (rogue and wizard). He won't be very effective at that if he is dead, or incapacitated. Further because the dragon can deal 150-200 points of damage to him in a single round, the cleric will want to keep him, and everyone else fort hat matter, above the 200-150 HP mark. Least the dragon take some one out of the fight. But you say the cleric in that situation should focus on killing the dragon. well no, not really. Chances are that DPR is the wizards focus, and the cleric trying to perform that instead of his role would be redundant. Now I'm not saying that a cleric has to only be damage mitigation. Or that that is the only role they are capable of fulfilling. They could focus on any of the roles they want to, but that isn't the point. My point is that you should not ignore the mitigation role. As in some should do it, maybe not the cleric, but someone. And for the record, while the cleric can do many other things, they are still the best at healing. On that note for best results you should want some of all three of mitigation forms in your party. And relying on one to the exclusion of all others is suboptimal. Hit points run out, mischances will fail, DR can be over come, and a high AC can be beat. when that happens healing is probably your best option. And lastly, if you are going to rely on one form to the exclusion of others then healing has the least chance of failure. I have a feeling that you would not be up to the task of handling the encounters I generally put my group up against. They require both tactical thinking, and teamwork. Two things I fear you lack. very well, we'll assume a 14 strength then if you prefer. (Although for the record a cleric will get more mileage from DMMs then a stregnth score being 1 point higher.) The cleric now has a 5% better chance of hitting the orc, and needs to only deal one off max...I'm still not liking his chances on this one folks. Depends on what, and how you use it i guess. But this way off topic. Well its raging, its dice damage is d12 +7 before power attack. d12 +9 with power attack, so without power attack he'd have to roll 2 better then average, and with he has to roll average. Doesn't seem that unbelievable to me. Also given that the orc has the highest intiative modifier in the group +2 it isn't hard to believe that it went first either. Well the fighter certainly isn't doing anything while unconsciouses. And the cleric isn't going to be able to handle this on his own, so what would you suggest? Edit: Forgot to mention this: The cleric could after healing the fighter draw an AoO by moving through the orc's threatened squares into flanking position. Either the orc uses it's AoO, and the fighters stands up with impunity, or the fighter gains a flanking bonus to his attack from prone. Since both parties have enough gold left over to afford a healing potion (CLW) they could have that for if the orc does decide to take the AoO on the cleric. You did actually look at the stats before posting this right? No i guess not. Ok the orc has an 11 in its wisdom, and while raging that bumps its will save up to +2, so with the clerics save being Dc 13, that gives the a 45% of making the save...so at best you've got slightly better then 50-50 to end the fight.. and if you loss your gamble chances are you die...I thought you guys were suppose to be good at this... Some else mentioned that the orc wasn't typical for the mon man. Yaa but i never use things straight out of the book. If this were to be an example from my party, the orc would a be a warblade, as would the fighter. Everyone would have 32 PB. The cleric would probably be healing for a d8 +4. And the warblade would more likely then not tumble up from prone (I rule that if it is a move action you can do it with a tumble check DC 15, same as moving. Unless something else is going on, such as moving through someone else's square.) In either event I'm done with this nonsense. You've failed to show how healing is ineffective, or tactically unsound. You've failed to present a better alternative. And in this battle of wits you've proven yourself unarmed. There is nothing further I can gain here, good day. I like how you totally ignored my long, detailed refutation. :rolleyes:
OneWinged4ngel 08-24-07, 04:24 PM	*My edit button seems to be broken for some reason, so...* On The Wings of TPK, you recently sent a very inflammatory post on my thread claiming that I had not responded to your arguments, had not demonstrated how healing was ineffective in a situation completely designed by you to be skewed to favor healing, and had not demonstrated better options in that situation. These claims are all false, as EVERYONE else can see if they actually read the posts, since I actually did respond to your post, did demonstrate how healing was ineffective in that situation to the point that the Fighter would probably get killed and be fully justified in blaming you for killing his character, and even offerred several better options in that situation. Basically, all you said was claim that my response didn't exist, when it clearly did, and then top it off with a bunch of baseless insults and flames. Since you somehow missed it (or, I suspect, are just trying to be a troll), here it is again so you have NO EXCUSE to claim to have not seen my rebuke. For the sake of being a decent contributor to the boards, please take the time to completely read other people's posts, especially before posting inflammatory responses, and stick to the facts instead of, well, just plain making false claims and pretending things never happened when they did. Thanks. The post is as follows: Complete. Hooey. It's one of the WORST ways available to mitigate damage! Healing can only take place after the damage has occurred (so no pre-battle buffs) and repairs MAYBE 1 round's worth of damage (meaning you spent a round AND a spell to counter the monster's 1 round of action). Buffing his AC, giving him a miss chance, or, I don't know, taking out the monster BEFORE he gets hit is AT WORST equally effective! If he gets hit more than once in the encounter, your round would have been better spent using a spell that would mitigate damage for more than a single round. Finally, you can ALWAYS heal HP damage after the battle; you can't prevent it afterwards. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure spells. Yep, more or less. (Coming out next month: the final entry in the Complete line of books, the Complete Hooey!) Ha! :rofl: I bolded the part where the theory that it is better to kill the monster then heal your alley fails. In order for the threory to be sound it has to rely on number ideal circumstances. Primarily that you can deal sufficient damage to it to neutralize it before it has a chance to respond. In most circumstances this is highly dubious. However in combat healing on the other hand, simply relies on the premise that you can heal the monsters damage +1, in order to save the alley. Lets do this: We have a cleric, and a fighter fighting an Orc barbarian, all first level. (the rest of the party is out taking a leak) we'll build them with elite array, and using the PHB. (No need to get fancy.) Cleric: Stats are: Str13 Dex8 Con12 Int10 Wis15 and Cha 14 Feats: Scribe scroll and extend spell. For armour and weapons we'll give him some scale, and a heavy mace. Fighter: Str 15, dex 12, Con 14, Int 8, Wis 13, Cha 10 Feats Power attack clkeave and weapon focus greatsword. We'll say he's wearing scale, and has a greatsword, along with a cross bow. Orc: Str 16 (12), Dex 14, Con 15, Int 6 (8), Wis 11 (13), Cha 8 (10) Feats: Power attack. Weapons Great axe, and for armour, scale seems to be popular this season. So we'll pretend that the orc got off a lucky hit, and the fighter is now a -3. Now becuase the orc is likely raging, his AC is only a 14, but his HR are 9.5 (average for an NPC). The cleric has two choices A. He can swing and try to kill the orc. With his attack of +1 he has a 30% chance of success with a 70% chance to miss. And even if he does mangae to connect he need to roll max damage to take the orc to zero. which isn't enough to drop him. However if he misses, or fails to roll max damage the orc has a 65% to hit him, and his average is 13.5. The cleric has 9 HP. See, this here is pretty much BS. A cleric who's actually going to want to mix it up in melee is unlikely to have a mere +1 to hit. In fact, he's more likely to have something like +6 or 7 to hit, or +9 or 10 if he feels like it (Bless, Magic Weapon, Divine Favor, Law Devotion, and even Guidance are all notable here. Guidance is a great little orison when you expect an encounter, giving you a +1 to attack on that first round). B. He can pump a cure light wounds into the fighter. Which will heal on average 5.5 (6.5 with the healing domain) meaning the fighter will get his chance to swing, and he deals 10 points of average damage. Except that the Fighter will be PRONE, and as such the orc will probably use Power Attack or something on him, and will ALSO get an AoO if the Fighter tries to stand, so the Fighter will NOT get to swing. Anyways, if the orc hits, he's going to do 1d12+9. Now then, you just healed the fighter from -3 up to 2... and he just took an average of 15.5 damage. That means your fighter just DIED. If you had left him unconscious, there's actually a chance the orc would look towards the remaining threat instead of finishing off an ally, even if you didn't manage to kill him. Now, let's combine that with your ACTUAL ability to defeat the orc. Thats a basic example. And an unrealistic one that fails to prove its point, because it ignores all the OTHER options that the Cleric has, and seemingly purposefully creates a very sucky melee cleric. If you have a to-hit roll of +1, you have no business whacking things in melee. What happened to Command? Note that if you cast Command, the orc has a +2 to will saves, So if you have the most basic cleric, casting it with only a 15 Wis and no special feats to enhance it (Because you spent your feat on Extend Spell for some reason, even though you can't actually metamagic anything yet), the Orc will fail 50% of the time against the DC of 13. Now then, compare that to the chance of the orc hitting and killing the Fighter if you heal him. If you've got all averages for healing, attack, and damage, the orc actually hits and kills the Fighter (because even using Power Attack, he has +5 to hit, and the Fighter is at -4 AC from being prone.) In fact, it takes less than average for it to work. He needs to only roll a 5 to hit, and to kill him after you healed the fighter up to 3 hp, he only needs to roll a 3 on his greataxe to outright kill the poor Fighter. Even if he rolls a 1, you may not be able to stabilize him in time, and he doesn't have a huge chance on his own. If the Fighter tries to attack as you suggested, he gets *two tries* at this, because he just got an AoO from the guy trying to stand up. What about Cause Fear? Same effect as Command, except with a duration of 1d4 rounds instead of just 1! What about making an actually decent melee cleric with a good +9 to hit (16 Strength, +1 War Domain, +3 Law Devotion, +2 charging. Heck, could be +10 with a masterwork weapon, which isn't that hard to come by at level 1, though you won't have it at character creation), who's dishing out 2d6+1d8+4 damage? (2d6 greatsword, +4 strength, +1d8 Powerful Charge. Note that even a non-human can have both Law Devotion and another combat feat at level 1, because you can actually sacrifice a domain for Law Devotion. Also note, average damage here is 15.5) Or maybe one who has +6 or 7 to hit (No +3 from Law Devotion), and is dealing 5d6+4 damage with Blade of Blood? (average damage for that one would be 21.5. If you actually took powerful charge along with that, it'd be 26 damage.) I mean, geez, if you're going to actually try to use a melee attack in your example, don't make the crappiest melee cleric you can possibly imagine. Of course that's going to skew your results! In reality, the level 1 melee cleric is more likely to kill the orc than save the Fighter with healing. In fact, the Fighter is *MORE LIKELY* to die if you heal him than if you do nothing at all (Because he's a weakened Fighter, at level 1 where Fighters are actually able to go out and kill things easily, and the orc wants to eliminate the threat.) Anyways, even if you *did* make a halfway decent argument, I've *already* mentioned that Cure Light Wounds can actually be fairly nifty at level 1 due to the amount of damage being dealt by many monsters, and I've *also* mentioned that using healing to save the life of an ally in situational circumstances is a good idea, and thus would actually *support* what I've said. However, the circumstance you gave is, well, a really HORRIBLE time to heal. I have no idea where you get an average of 10 damage, because a greataxe deals average 6.5, a 16 strength (+4 from raging) will give +7 damage, and a +2 damage from power attack will give him a total of +9 against the prone fighter. In fact, if I were that Fighter, and you did that? You know what I'd do? I'd probably get angry at you for making a stupid decision that would get my character that I had spent so much time filling out a personality and backstory and such for killed at level 1. And I'd probably wonder why you didn't prepare Command or Cause Fear or something, instead of limiting your only offensive option to your *pitiful* +1 attack bonus and puny damage from your cleric that you obviously didn't build to be a melee fighter. You're a level 1 CoDzilla, not a level 1 NPC Warrior! Basically, your argument is pure hooey. If you heal, the Fighter does *not* get a new attack as you posited, but instead just gets AoOed and DIES if he tries to do that. If you attack, the Orc is actually *very likely to die or become incapacitated for a few rounds,* and then you've won the fight. The problem with your example was that you, seemingly purposefully, made the cleric *really* bad at melee attacking, then for some reason stated that that was his only offensive option, completely ignoring his ability to force the orc to make a will save or... well, lose, and that you presented inaccurate information. Your skewed example presents inaccurate information (raging barbarian orc does not do an average of 10 damage with a greataxe and 20 strength and power attack, which he's going to use if an enemy is prone!), presents skewed circumstances (you offer only two options for the cleric, even though he definitely has more an if he ever planned to make a melee attack he would not have a +1 to hit), and even says that a Fighter can actually somehow get up and swing, even though that would *actually* cause an AoO and cause the Fighter to go down again, and likely DIE. You know what the cleric got from healing in this situation? He got one less spell slot, a dead party member, and a triumphant orc. On the other hand, he could have used that spell slot for Blade of Blood, sufferred a mere 5 points of damage to himself, and obliterated the orc. Or he could have cast Command and made the orc Flee, making him Full Run away from you, and unable to attack on his turn *or* the following turn while he tries to get back to you, and you can then charge him or pick him off with ranged. Or even heal the Fighter to do the same thing (though now, you can do it safely), if you're so inclined. Basically, in these *specific circumstances constructed by you,* healing is actually a *horrible* idea. :mage: YOU FAIL. THOROUGHLY. (http://www.youfail.org/) :mage:
OneWinged4ngel 08-24-07, 07:18 PM	Hey, I just realized that Vampiric Touch supposedly benefits from Sneak Attack. That means that Unseen Seers and Arcane Tricksters can totally heal themselves by a whole lot when attacking. At least, this is what I've heard on the CharOp boards, but I'll need to go and confirm the sneak attack on weaponlike spells interaction... Edit: Checked, and it seems like it works... Unfortunately, it looks like if you do this with a spell storing or bloodstone weapon, the sneak attack damage would still be weapon damage, rather than spell damage (which, in turn, heals you). Sorry, straight rogues!
Nephlite 08-24-07, 07:52 PM	You did actually look at the stats before posting this right? No i guess not. You didn't mention it was a boss or special Orc so I assumed a normal Barbarian Orc. Thus 6 wisdom. As the Monster Manual and DMG puts all warriors that are'nt PCs are special. Ok the orc has an 11 in its wisdom, and while raging that bumps its will save up to +2, so with the clerics save being Dc 13, that gives the a 45% of making the save...so at best you've got slightly better then 50-50 to end the fight.. and if you loss your gamble chances are you die...I thought you guys were suppose to be good at this... The Cleric has a less than 50% chance of the Fighter hitting or hitting the Orc too. It is the best chance in this situation. Have you ran the numbers for the Fithters attack? +0 (since prone) or +4 if survives attack of opportunity. He has 40% chance. Any attack from the Orc will knock the Fighter into negatives too so attk of opportunity=stupid idea for fighter. Some else mentioned that the orc wasn't typical for the mon man. Yaa but i never use things straight out of the book. If this were to be an example from my party, the orc would a be a warblade, as would the fighter. Everyone would have 32 PB. The cleric would probably be healing for a d8 +4. And the warblade would more likely then not tumble up from prone (I rule that if it is a move action you can do it with a tumble check DC 15, same as moving. Unless something else is going on, such as moving through someone else's square.) If he is a Warblade he ha a lot more options. Plus, manuevers can do stuff like Stone Bones: now he blocks 5 damage (meaning he can take the next hit so won't die). Healing is a good idea. Steely Strike would increase hit by 20%. He can hit on a 12 now (60% opposed to only 40% for Fighter). The Cleric is better in 32 point buy: meaning healing might be worth it (might be). In either event I'm done with this nonsense. You've failed to show how healing is ineffective, or tactically unsound. You've failed to present a better alternative. And in this battle of wits you've proven yourself unarmed. There is nothing further I can gain here, good day. See, I assumed normal Orc. A Boss or special Orc might be an exception.
Alpha_Moose 08-24-07, 08:25 PM	Hey, I just realized that Vampiric Touch supposedly benefits from Sneak Attack. That means that Unseen Seers and Arcane Tricksters can totally heal themselves by a whole lot when attacking. At least, this is what I've heard on the CharOp boards, but I'll need to go and confirm the sneak attack on weaponlike spells interaction... Edit: Checked, and it seems like it works... Unfortunately, it looks like if you do this with a spell storing or bloodstone weapon, the sneak attack damage would still be weapon damage, rather than spell damage (which, in turn, heals you). Sorry, straight rogues! Don't you blow up or something when your temporary HP equals double your HP (as Death by Awesome)? If so you would need to watch out with that spell a bit. Otherwise that is a cool idea.
OneWinged4ngel 08-24-07, 08:29 PM	You didn't mention it was a boss or special Orc so I assumed a normal Barbarian Orc. Thus 6 wisdom. As the Monster Manual and DMG puts all warriors that are'nt PCs are special. The Cleric has a less than 50% chance of the Fighter hitting or hitting the Orc too. It is the best chance in this situation. Have you ran the numbers for the Fithters attack? +0 (since prone) or +4 if survives attack of opportunity. He has 40% chance. Any attack from the Orc will knock the Fighter into negatives too so attk of opportunity=stupid idea for fighter. If he is a Warblade he ha a lot more options. Plus, manuevers can do stuff like Stone Bones: now he blocks 5 damage (meaning he can take the next hit so won't die). Healing is a good idea. Steely Strike would increase hit by 20%. He can hit on a 12 now (60% opposed to only 40% for Fighter). The Cleric is better in 32 point buy: meaning healing might be worth it (might be). See, I assumed normal Orc. A Boss or special Orc might be an exception. Don't assume. Go by what's provided in the post. Read what people wrote. Anyways... no more point arguing it, I already countered it quite thoroughly. Don't you blow up or something when your temporary HP equals double your HP (as Death by Awesome)? If so you would need to watch out with that spell a bit. Otherwise that is a cool idea. Not that I'm aware of... Temporary Hit Points Certain effects give a character temporary hit points. When a character gains temporary hit points, note his current hit point total. When the temporary hit points go away the character’s hit points drop to his current hit point total. If the character’s hit points are below his current hit point total at that time, all the temporary hit points have already been lost and the character’s hit point total does not drop further. When temporary hit points are lost, they cannot be restored as real hit points can be, even by magic. Increases in Constitution Score and Current Hit Points An increase in a character’s Constitution score, even a temporary one, can give her more hit points (an effective hit point increase), but these are not temporary hit points. They can be restored and they are not lost first as temporary hit points are. Nothin's mentioned about it here.
Tempest Stormwind 08-24-07, 08:31 PM	Don't you blow up or something when your temporary HP equals double your HP (as Death by Awesome)? If so you would need to watch out with that spell a bit. Otherwise that is a cool idea. As the guy who coined the phrase "death by Awesome" I'll clarify: No. That rule has to do with the major positive-dominant planar trait only. The alternative would be things like high-level psions using Vigor and blowing themselves up -- and we left the whole psions-blowing-themselves-up thing back in 2e. If you want to blow someone up using that from low levels, the Planescape Fappy Meal Planar Handbook allows you to summon Vivacious (I believe that's the name) creatures instead of celestial/fiendish ones, and they come with a positive energy aura that invokes the major positive-dominant trait, in all of its delightfully head-explodey goodness.
Alpha_Moose 08-24-07, 09:22 PM	As the guy who coined the phrase "death by Awesome" I'll clarify: No. That rule has to do with the major positive-dominant planar trait only. The alternative would be things like high-level psions using Vigor and blowing themselves up -- and we left the whole psions-blowing-themselves-up thing back in 2e. If you want to blow someone up using that from low levels, the Planescape Fappy Meal Planar Handbook allows you to summon Vivacious (I believe that's the name) creatures instead of celestial/fiendish ones, and they come with a positive energy aura that invokes the major positive-dominant trait, in all of its delightfully head-explodey goodness. I must have read a thread talking about that and assumed that it worked with any temp HP. Thanks for the correction. I have to say though, this is a very nice article. I remember that my party always used to think that we needed a Cleric. The person who played one would get bored just sitting around and if they were new would just not want to play anymore.
OneWinged4ngel 08-24-07, 11:23 PM	The person who played one would get bored just sitting around and if they were new would just not want to play anymore. This is an unneeded travesty. No one should ever be forced to play something they don't want to. And that's something I hope to help reduce with this article.
Always-Late 08-25-07, 02:30 AM	Combat healing is awesome. So a party member was bleeding from everywhere you can possibly bleed from because a gigantic turtle was eating him. If he hadn't been healed he would have died and become dead. Healing FTW.
OneWinged4ngel 08-25-07, 02:32 AM	Combat healing is awesome. It's situationally useful, as I already said. It's often overrated by inexperienced players.
Alyri 08-25-07, 01:02 PM	It's situationally useful, as I already said. So isn't every facet of the game. You haven't stated anything earth-shattering. Every group plays for different reasons, plays in different ways, etc.
OneWinged4ngel 08-25-07, 02:04 PM	You haven't stated anything earth-shattering. Of course I haven't. I never claimed I did. In fact, these principles have been true and have been understood since the inception of 3e and the core rulebooks. The guide is mostly to dispel some misconceptions of inexperienced players, and to create a handy list for people.
OneWinged4ngel 08-25-07, 02:52 PM	Huh, I'm surprised I missed this. There's a druid spell called Rejuvenation Cocoon, which is basically Heal, except level 5 instead of level 6, and it takes 2 rounds intstead of 1 to work. Spell Compendium. Edit: Another thing worth noting, Healer's Vision (Complete Scoundrel) can add some minor efficiency to your healing spells at later levels with a throwaway spell slot. Hardly worth a mention though, as it's so minor...
High Octane 08-26-07, 09:59 PM	Ok the orc has an 11 in its wisdom, and while raging that bumps its will save up to +2, so with the clerics save being Dc 13, that gives the a 45% of making the save...Minor note: 50% actually. 1-10 fail 11-20 pass. Still a valid point. Really yes in that situation a cure spell may not be the best course of action, simply because of the prone status of your friend caused by him being unconscious. In combat healing is quite effective if the character is conscious or is not within another creature's threat range. And at the very least stabilization may be necessary. After all, is it in character to know if your unconscious friend is at -1 or -9? I don't really think so. Still the best course of action WOULD be to try to disable or otherwise defeat the orc in question with a spell of you have it, then move next to your friend to give the orc a second target so he doesnt coup de gras your fallen friend. Having played a cleric most recently (from level 1 to 21) I have found my healing to have saved the party many times. It is often possible to not have a will save spell to use at your command, and in that case the fighter who is prone can sometimes be a more effective combatant even with the -4 to hit. The fighter's to hit will likely be 2 or 3 higher than the clerics normally, (1 BAB, 1 weapon focus, 1 higher strength modifier at least) so the prone position he will only be slightly less likely to hit then the clerics, and he will almost certainly do more damage (due to a higher strength score in all likelihood, and having a higher damage weapon. Clerics only have simple weapon proficiency and the best damage they can get is 1d8 on a melee weapon, which has a x2 crit only on a 20. If they go 2 handed they can get a longspear which is a x3 crit which would certainly drop the orc on a crit, but most clerics prefer to carry shields. If the fighter is using a greatsword, that is 2d6 damage instead. Even if he is sword and boarding, he at least has a 19-20 crit on his longsword, and in both cases he will get more damage benefit from using two hands.) So the reason to raise the fighter is, simply, because he has more chance of dropping the orc even with the -4 penalty than the cleric would without any penalties. It has been pointed out before that a melee oriented cleric who puts his feats and stats into melee oriented fields CAN be almost as effective as a fighter on the field in dropping orcs with his weapon (by taking the war domain and all.) Most don't. Not every cleric is a cleric of Kord with the war domain and thus able to swing a greatsword around. The fighter will in most cases have a higher strength and a more damage dealing weapon. Most of the time a fighter will have a masterwork weapon before the cleric as well. A prone fighter actually still has a decent chance of hitting the orc. In many possible situations healing may be the best option. In other cases it's not. There is no one course of action for this since different circumstances may dictate different things. If you don't have a command or cause fear memorized, and you aren't a melee cleric build, then healing can be the best option.
OneWinged4ngel 08-26-07, 10:34 PM	Minor note: 50% actually. 1-10 fail 11-20 pass. Still a valid point. I actually mentioned that in my response already. Really yes in that situation a cure spell may not be the best course of action, simply because of the prone status of your friend caused by him being unconscious. In combat healing is quite effective if the character is conscious or is not within another creature's threat range. And at the very least stabilization may be necessary. After all, is it in character to know if your unconscious friend is at -1 or -9? I don't really think so. Certainly, saving a character is definitely important. At level 2 or 3, thankfully, you can get a Healing Belt so everyone can just burst 4d6 to save. I recommend this, because dying at low levels sucks. Still the best course of action WOULD be to try to disable or otherwise defeat the orc in question with a spell of you have it, then move next to your friend to give the orc a second target so he doesnt coup de gras your fallen friend. Right. Throwing out a Command, Cause Fear, or melee attack would be an ideal course of action. Unfortunately, considering the orc's very high damage, you might not be doing yourself a favor by moving towards the enemy to prevent the coup de grace. *IF THE CLERIC FAILS* there's a good chance he'll actually *die* and the party will be TPKed. Having played a cleric most recently (from level 1 to 21) I have found my healing to have saved the party many times. It definitely can. Again, no one is saying that it isn't good when it will save a party member. It is often possible to not have a will save spell to use at your command, and in that case the fighter who is prone can sometimes be a more effective combatant even with the -4 to hit. The fighter's to hit will likely be 2 or 3 higher than the clerics normally, (1 BAB, 1 weapon focus, 1 higher strength modifier at least) so the prone position he will only be slightly less likely to hit then the clerics, and he will almost certainly do more damage (due to a higher strength score in all likelihood, and having a higher damage weapon. Clerics only have simple weapon proficiency and the best damage they can get is 1d8 on a melee weapon, which has a x2 crit only on a 20. If they go 2 handed they can get a longspear which is a x3 crit which would certainly drop the orc on a crit, but most clerics prefer to carry shields. If the fighter is using a greatsword, that is 2d6 damage instead. Even if he is sword and boarding, he at least has a 19-20 crit on his longsword, and in both cases he will get more damage benefit from using two hands.) This is true. The thing is, you don't want to be in that situation, because you're basically taking a big gamble that the fighter will hit (or crit). So the reason to raise the fighter is, simply, because he has more chance of dropping the orc even with the -4 penalty than the cleric would without any penalties. This is actually false. The Fighter in the hypothetical has +1 from BAB, +2 from strength, and +1 from weapon focus, and a -4 from being prone, for a total of +0 against an AC 16, meaning Command is going to succeed a good deal more often than his attack. The Cleric in the hypothetical that has a mere 13 strength and spent his feat on Extend Spell for *no reason* has a +3 to attack. That means the Cleric is actually going to hit 15% more often than the Fighter, and moreover that the Fighter is going to succeed much less often than Cause Fear or Command. Note that he actually has an ADDITIONAL +2 advantage over the Fighter if the orc charged the Fighter to take him down, in which case the Cleric's chance to hit is now 25% greater than the Fighter (if the Fighter would have had to attack next round). Throw in Blade of Blood and the enemy is going to take more damage than that Fighter would have dished out. And of course, the cleric would have a greater chance than the Fighter does of rolling a 16 to take the orc down with a Will Save, which you should be carrying around if you're not a melee cleric and stuck at level 1, because the most dangerous enemies at this level are melee beasts with low will saves that can put out more damage than you have hp every round (like the hypothetical barbarian). You're a cleric, so you're not so afraid of Wizards at this level, because the dangerous thing they do is try to hit your party with a Will Save or Lose Color Spray or Sleep, and you can just beat them down in melee. It has been pointed out before that a melee oriented cleric who puts his feats and stats into melee oriented fields CAN be almost as effective as a fighter on the field in dropping orcs with his weapon (by taking the war domain and all.) When you're talking about +7 or more to hit, and 20 damage or so at level 1, then I'd say "yeah, that's gotta be at least almost." Anyways, even a Cleric with a mere +1 to hit normally is actually going to have +3 when he charges the orc. If he has Command, he's going to take the orc out AT LEAST 50% of the time (more with a higher Wis). Most don't. Not every cleric is a cleric of Kord with the war domain and thus able to swing a greatsword around. But every level 1 cleric can cast Blade of Blood, or Cause Fear. A prone fighter actually still has a decent chance of hitting the orc. Actually, he hardly has a chance in hell, with a +0 attack against an AC of 16. In many possible situations healing may be the best option. In other cases it's not. This is absolutely true, but it is NOT true for the posted scenario. There is no one course of action for this since different circumstances may dictate different things. If you don't have a command or cause fear memorized, and you aren't a melee cleric build, then healing can be the best option. Uhhm, yeah, but then you're a really poorly played Cleric and have a different problem altogether to worry about. Seriously. Where are your scrolls? And did you actually *prepare* Cure Light Wounds? Why did you do that? Why don't you have Blade of Blood or Command or Cause Fear ready? Did you think that Divine Favor was actually a good idea for some reason at level 1? Or were there a few fights already and all you had left was your Healing Domain spell? Sure, if you don't have other options, the cure spell will be a better idea, but we're debating whether there are better options, so it's irrelevant. OBVIOUSLY if you have no other options then it's the best choice. =P Anyways, if you don't have any other options... sure, you can heal your friend the Fighter, then HOPE TO YOUR GOD that he hits from prone (He has to roll a 16!), and take advantage of the fact that the orc is going to spend a shot finishing him off, and then you can get a shot... basically giving you two attempts at hitting (one from you, one from fighter) instead of 1, except you take a gamble with the Fighter's life, since the orc will probably *kill him* with that next attack. And then, since you didn't have any other spells prepared except that heal, and you can't hit the orc's AC 16, he'll finish you too, and the party will have been TPKed. The Fighter has a 25% chance to hit. With his greatsword and 2d6+3 damage, he's got a very small chance to actually kill the orc if he hits. Basically, it's not a good bet.
MiscDebris 08-27-07, 01:12 AM	You know, I can't seem to find anything that says unconscious = prone. Would someone be able to direct me to that rule? Conditions don't just happen without a rule causing them.
High Octane 08-27-07, 01:44 AM	I actually mentioned that in my response already. Where? Certainly, saving a character is definitely important. At level 2 or 3, thankfully, you can get a Healing Belt so everyone can just burst 4d6 to save. I recommend this, because dying at low levels sucks. Nice item. But off topic. Right. Throwing out a Command, Cause Fear, or melee attack would be an ideal course of action. Unfortunately, considering the orc's very high damage, you might not be doing yourself a favor by moving towards the enemy to prevent the coup de grace. *IF THE CLERIC FAILS* there's a good chance he'll actually *die* and the party will be TPKed. Well if the command or cause fear fails, he will either attack you (getting a charge bonus) or coup de gras your friend. Moving in means he cant charge and won't coup de gras your friend (or if he does you get a free attack.) He can still attack you, but that was inevitable anyway (unless you are HOPING he takes the time to coup de gras for some reason) It definitely can. Again, no one is saying that it isn't good when it will save a party member. More than just saving them, it helps you since it is possible that the downed character can be more effective then you in combat This is true. The thing is, you don't want to be in that situation, because you're basically taking a big gamble that the fighter will hit (or crit). Taking a choice between the cleric melee and the fighter melee I choose the fighter. This is actually false. The Fighter in the hypothetical has +1 from BAB, +2 from strength, and +1 from weapon focus, and a -4 from being prone, for a total of +0 against an AC 16, meaning Command is going to succeed a good deal more often than his attack. The Cleric in the hypothetical that has a mere 13 strength and spent his feat on Extend Spell for *no reason* has a +3 to attack. That means the Cleric is actually going to hit 15% more often than the Fighter, and moreover that the Fighter is going to succeed much less often than Cause Fear or Command. Note that he actually has an ADDITIONAL +2 advantage over the Fighter if the orc charged the Fighter to take him down, in which case the Cleric's chance to hit is now 25% greater than the Fighter (if the Fighter would have had to attack next round). I didn't say hit the orc. I said DROP the orc. 1d8+1 is average 5.5 (cleric) whereas the fighter is 2d6 + 3 (average 10) So the fighter hits almost twice as hard as the cleric so the cleric has to hit twice as many times to get the same effect. If the orc has average hit points, he has 8 or 9 hit points. The cleric would have to roll a 7 or 8 on a d8 (12.5%-25% chance) whereas the fighter only has to roll 5 or 6 or higher on 2d6 (72.22%-83.3% chance) in order to drop the orc. By the way the orc has an AC of 14, not 16, since he is raging. Throw in Blade of Blood and the enemy is going to take more damage than that Fighter would have dished out. Only if the cleric sacrifices 5 hit points. Otherwise, even with the added d6, the fighter would do more damage on average. Of course, if you heal the fighter you can try both. (subsequent rounds) And of course, the cleric would have a greater chance than the Fighter does of rolling a 16 to take the orc down with a Will Save, which you should be carrying around if you're not a melee cleric and stuck at level 1, because the most dangerous enemies at this level are melee beasts with low will saves that can put out more damage than you have hp every round (like the hypothetical barbarian). You're a cleric, so you're not so afraid of Wizards at this level, because the dangerous thing they do is try to hit your party with a Will Save or Lose Color Spray or Sleep, and you can just beat them down in melee. Usually I carry bless and magic weapon to make my allies hit more often and better. I depend on my allies for damage (fighter) and knockout pills (wizard) When you're talking about +7 or more to hit, and 20 damage or so at level 1, then I'd say "yeah, that's gotta be at least almost." Once per day. Funny how Blade of blood actually costs 2 spells. One to cast it, another to heal the 5 points you just lost (assuming you empower it). Funny also that if you miss the one hit, you still take the damage, but don't get the effect (1 round/level, level 1) So if you miss that one shot you are currently in the face of your enemy with half your hit points and 2 lower AC. Hey even at +7 or even +9, that still misses that 16 AC on an 8 or a 6. But since you will do over twice the damage necessary to kill it, it sure is worth the risk. Anyways, even a Cleric with a mere +1 to hit normally is actually going to have +3 when he charges the orc. If he has Command, he's going to take the orc out AT LEAST 50% of the time (more with a higher Wis). Well not so much take out so much as remove from combat for 2 rounds. But every level 1 cleric can cast Blade of Blood, or Cause Fear. They could. But some prefer to help their group. Actually, he hardly has a chance in hell, with a +0 attack against an AC of 16. This is absolutely true, but it is NOT true for the posted scenario. 14 actually, the barbarian is raging. Still lets compare the chances of dropping the orc. Hit on an 11 = 50% chance of hitting. Chance of dropping if hitting is 12.5% - 25%. Overall chance of dropping orc, 6.25%-12.5%. If AC were 16: 5-10% Hit on a 14 = 35% chance of hitting. Chance of dropping if hitting = 72.22%-83.33%. Overall chance of dropping orc, 25.77%-29.165%. If AC were 16, 18.4%-20.8% In all cases, the chance of the fighter dropping the orc from a melee hit is twice the chance the cleric would have if he hit with melee (including the charge) Uhhm, yeah, but then you're a really poorly played Cleric and have a different problem altogether to worry about. Seriously. Where are your scrolls? And did you actually *prepare* Cure Light Wounds? Why did you do that? Why don't you have Blade of Blood or Command or Cause Fear ready? Did you think that Divine Favor was actually a good idea for some reason at level 1? Or were there a few fights already and all you had left was your Healing Domain spell? Sure, if you don't have other options, the cure spell will be a better idea, but we're debating whether there are better options, so it's irrelevant. OBVIOUSLY if you have no other options then it's the best choice. =P Anyways, if you don't have any other options... sure, you can heal your friend the Fighter, then HOPE TO YOUR GOD that he hits from prone (He has to roll a 16!), and take advantage of the fact that the orc is going to spend a shot finishing him off, and then you can get a shot... basically giving you two attempts at hitting (one from you, one from fighter) instead of 1, except you take a gamble with the Fighter's life, since the orc will probably *kill him* with that next attack. And then, since you didn't have any other spells prepared except that heal, and you can't hit the orc's AC 16, he'll finish you too, and the party will have been TPKed. Or you could rush in with your mace, pray to your god that you hit (which isnt THAT much better of a chance) and hope that you roll max damage or near it since otherwise the orc will have a shot on you which will result in a TPK if he hits no question! (which he will have a +2 increased chance to do since you CHARGED) This is a BAD situation I must say and yes a command or a cause fear would be the best plan in this situation but there are other spells like bless that could be carried instead since the cleric counts on his allies being up for more than one round and there being 4 allies instead. Also accounting for more than one encounter per day. Or of course he could be carrying lesser vigor to increase his total amount of hit points he could heal from his spells. The Fighter has a 25% chance to hit. With his greatsword and 2d6+3 damage, he's got a very small chance to actually kill the orc if he hits. Basically, it's not a good bet. He has a much greater chance then the 1d8+1 cleric mace hit. Edit: I am tired right now so I am not going to check whether I forgot to account for the barbarians increased hit points from raging, but if I do, the chance of the fighter dropping the orc drops signifigantly. And the chance of the mace dropping the orc drops to 0. Short of a crit. Actually I forgot to add in the crit chance, which is DOUBLE on the greatsword, so that math works to your benefit instead of mine.
High Octane 08-27-07, 01:51 AM	Edit: Double post
OneWinged4ngel 08-27-07, 01:56 AM	He has a much greater chance then the 1d8+1 cleric mace hit. Actually, the chance is very small (he has to hit, and hope for a crit or a very high roll), and moreover, as I said, the cleric shouldn't be doing a 1d8+1 mace hit. If he is, then that's a case of "you have no other options," and as I mentioned before, if it's a case of "he has no other options" then it's a moot point in an argument about what options are better. If the cleric was prepared with other options, he'd be doing 1d8+3d6+1 with Blade of Blood, or something similar.
High Octane 08-27-07, 02:00 AM	Actually, the chance is very small (he has to hit, and hope for a crit or a very high roll), and moreover, as I said, the cleric shouldn't be doing a 1d8+1 mace hit. If he is, then that's a case of "you have no other options," and as I mentioned before, if it's a case of "he has no other options" then it's a moot point in an argument about what options are better. If the cleric was prepared with other options, he'd be doing 1d8+3d6+1 with Blade of Blood, or something similar. Call the cleric crazy, but he might have figured the group might be facing more than one enemy in a day.
OneWinged4ngel 08-27-07, 02:02 AM	Call the cleric crazy, but he might have figured the group might be facing more than one enemy in a day. So... what else would he prepare? The only other thing at that level you might want to have up is Bless... and that's only if you have a big party. Oh, and Protection from Evil, but that's situational. Anyways, the "but it's a good option if he has no other options" argument is actually a logical fallacy in an argument about what option is better, because it's irrelevant to that topic. It's called a red herring, or "ignoratio elenchi." 14 actually, the barbarian is raging. My mistake. Still lets compare the chances of dropping the orc. Hit on an 11 = 50% chance of hitting. Chance of dropping if hitting is 12.5% - 25%. Overall chance of dropping orc, 6.25%-12.5%. If AC were 16: 5-10% Hit on a 14 = 35% chance of hitting. Chance of dropping if hitting = 72.22%-83.33%. Overall chance of dropping orc, 25.77%-29.165%. If AC were 16, 18.4%-20.8% In all cases, the chance of the fighter dropping the orc from a melee hit is twice the chance the cleric would have if he hit with melee (including the charge) Yes, but the alternative options, such as using Command, Cause Fear, or Blade of Blood, all give a SUBSTANTIALLY higher chance than healing the Fighter (The will saves offer at *least* a 50% chance of success), offerring more than twice the chance of success, even though the cleric is pretty suboptimal. That means that if you have options that will take out an enemy instead of healing, they will be more effective at saving the Fighter's life than if you had healed. Which is what I argued to begin with, so that argument has pretty much been won.
OneWinged4ngel 08-27-07, 02:33 AM	Now that that's done with, does anyone have anything constructive to contribute? I know there's more material for the guide to cover ;)
Lawkeeper 08-27-07, 03:19 AM	More than just saving them, it helps you since it is possible that the downed character can be more effective then you in combat Fine, in theory. But actually, I showed that based on On_the_wings_of_TPK's own situational example, which clearly favored healing, the cleric would be doing more damage by attacking himself than healing the fighter. Just read my post - it's long, yes, but it's mathematics. And I didn't even factor in the prone penalties in the maths.
Robotic_Christmass_Elf 08-27-07, 09:31 AM	*snip* You know what I'm seeing here? (and it's not just you, it's kinda common in this thread.) I'm seeing you read the description of what the PHB says the the cleric is supposed to do and figuring out the best way to do that, as opposed to actually looking at the actual options and situation. Maybe it's just me, but you seem to be under the impression that preparing bless and vigor is the best option because it fits with what you feel the Clerics role should be (a party buffer and healer) as opposing to look at what they can be (an effective tank and battle controller), even if the second is more helpful in combat, and thus better for the party, you feel that if they do this they're not filling what the flavor text tells you the Clerics role is, thus you feel this is bad teamwork. Or, as I said, maybe it's just me.
Alyri 08-27-07, 09:48 AM	Now that that's done with, does anyone have anything constructive to contribute? I know there's more material for the guide to cover ;) Well if you want your guide to be really constructive you should break it down further. Do a core guide and go from there.
OneWinged4ngel 08-27-07, 12:41 PM	You know what I'm seeing here? (and it's not just you, it's kinda common in this thread.) I'm seeing you read the description of what the PHB says the the cleric is supposed to do and figuring out the best way to do that, as opposed to actually looking at the actual options and situation. Maybe it's just me, but you seem to be under the impression that preparing bless and vigor is the best option because it fits with what you feel the Clerics role should be (a party buffer and healer) as opposing to look at what they can be (an effective tank and battle controller), even if the second is more helpful in combat, and thus better for the party, you feel that if they do this they're not filling what the flavor text tells you the Clerics role is, thus you feel this is bad teamwork. Or, as I said, maybe it's just me. That's the feeling I'm getting as well. Yes, Clerics are great buffers, but when you have scant few spells available and the best you can get is +1 attack and damage on your buffs, you probably want the stuff that can actually remove an enemy from play. Later, when you have more spells available, those other spells are more useful. However, Bless is obviously going to be more or less useful depending on the number of players. Also, you should absolutely stock up with scrolls, especially for things that don't scale. Bless is something you put on a scroll. Scrolls are only 25gp... so you can afford to get a couple at first level if need be. I like to get scrolls of Protection from Evil, Bless, and Lesser Vigor. Actually, since the cleric in the hypothetical has Scribe Scroll, he'll be getting them for 12.5 gp, which is even more of a reason for him to *not prepare Bless, just get a scroll of it.* You rarely care about bless lasting for more than 1 minute (you either cast it at the start of a fight or the round before it starts, and combats don't often last more than 10 rounds), and nothing else scales. You don't care about save DC. You have very few spells to spare. Basically, it's a prime candidate for putting on a scroll, while things like Command, Cause Fear, and Blade of Blood are things you actually want to spend your 1st level prepared slots on when you're level 1. Divine Favor isn't good at level 1. Shield of Faith is also better in a scroll at level 1 (but Protection from Alignment is usually a BETTER scroll, since it'll *also* save your party from enchantments, summoned creatures, and give the same AC bonus, so when cash is short I'd usually buy that first), since you don't have enough levels to make it scale. When you have 2+1 spells for the day, you want to have at least 2 helping to end an encounter, instead of using all your mainstay power to give a +1. And of course, when you have a mere 2+1 spells per day, you want to spend some money to supplement it.
Aubri 08-27-07, 03:32 PM	I'm left to wonder if throwing some weird matrix manipulation; maybe a 6 row by n dice column matrix could help express the result? All I know is that I'm a computer programmer, not a statistician. :) I managed to absorb the bulk of the "basic statistics" class, but that's about as far as I go. (And Differential Equations And Linear Algebra, but I'm not sure how to apply that.)
EvilVegan 10-05-07, 10:11 AM	Excellent guide. One point of contention: "No sane DM will allow unlimited free healing." I am both sane and allow unlimited free healing. Resting is free and unlimited. Fast healing can be free and is unlimited. There are several classes available that give "free" unlimited healing (dread necro, crusader, dragon shaman, reserve feat), well, okay, not free "free", but inexpensive. If the amount of healing is very low (1-9) limiting it becomes moot at higher levels, mainly due to the options presented in this guide. It becomes so cheap and efficient it may as well be effectively free.
bone_naga 10-06-07, 02:11 AM	I've seen that Vampiric Touch was already mentioned. I thought it a noteworthy point that a multiclassed spellcaster with sneak attack can deliver the spell in conjunction with the sneak attack, thereby bypassing the normal max damage of the spell and gaining extra healing in the process. Also, I love Artificers.
Nephlite 10-06-07, 11:48 AM	I've seen that Vampiric Touch was already mentioned. I thought it a noteworthy point that a multiclassed spellcaster with sneak attack can deliver the spell in conjunction with the sneak attack, thereby bypassing the normal max damage of the spell and gaining extra healing in the process. Also, I love Artificers. Vampiric Touch does not heal. No, not even than. It offers Temp hps. A Buffer for being damage (it gets damaged first), but not actual life.
Matopi 10-06-07, 07:46 PM	This is a fantastic post.
allenthailand 01-23-08, 03:07 PM	One minor point- the Artificer trick does not actually work. In order to have the greater healing ability, a suit of armor must have the healing ability first. It's a synergy thing, first introduced in the MiC.
Sunic_Flames 01-23-08, 06:21 PM	One minor point- the Artificer trick does not actually work. In order to have the greater healing ability, a suit of armor must have the healing ability first. It's a synergy thing, first introduced in the MiC. I'm guessing this is Shin Ji. I was just about to ask that here. Also I'd like to add: Using 1 minute or 1 round pre battle to get that effect usable anytime within the next 10 minutes/level as a swift or non action > using a standard action in combat for a likely lesser effect (you need a CL 9th Augment Healing CSW or a CCW to equal or exceed it). And to whoever said magic item availability (I just flipped through it, searching for the word artificer in case someone else mentioned the nonlegitness of the quoted tactic): Artificer means craft anything. Who cares how low magic the game is, you have it covered. Artificers - saving players from overcontrolling DMs since June 2004. :D
Voran 01-23-08, 07:15 PM	I'm fond of the Dragon Shaman's ability to "Kay, everyone less than half hitpoints after this fight is now at half hitpoints" then assuming decent attribute bonuses, can healing touch most of the leftovers. Even a lowbie DS can raise everyone back to half-health in like what? 2 minutes tops? Post encounter, that's effectively 'no time spent'. Having Book of Nine Swords moves can do much for boosting personal healing or group healing. Heck the White Raven stuff is great for "I hit him, and I heal everyone in like 30 feet radius allied with me".
Vindiction7 02-03-08, 12:11 PM	One minor point- the Artificer trick does not actually work. According to *your* interpretation of the interaction of rules not printed together. Seeing as the point of synergy abilities was to streamline to the transition of things like Flaming to Flaming Burst (instead of the old situation where you couldn't just upgrade it), I would contend that most reasonable DMs would allow you to stack together the costs of the two abilities to determine whether you can use it with an infusion. Thus, a Greater Healing Armor effect would count as 32000g, and thus can be used with a second level infusion. Through a more literal reading of the rules (RAW, as opposed to a reasonable inference of how new rules would interact with old rules), the requirements on the artificer are even easier than that. They can totally ignore the Synergy requirements, just like they can ignore the enhancement bonus requirements. Thus, even RAW says you are wrong. OneWinged4ngel is right.
OneWinged4ngel 02-05-08, 06:50 PM	Pretty much. Either you use the common sense adaptation of synergy for the artificer abilities, or artificers just get to use it straight out. They've never need to meet prerequisites before, such as "you need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to get anything else" (which, if you think about it, is a universal synergy requirement in its own right). Greater Healing Armor most definitely works by RAW as well as with the common sense adaptation.