Why is it so bad to want to heal?

[killem2]

When I was in the process of scouring the D&D 3.5 landscape to build my Goliath Cleric, and reading the splat book, reading the online handbooks, listening to pod casts, reading the forums, and so on and on, one thing seems to be the same through out all of it.

YOU ARE NOT A HEALER

Now, don't get me wrong, I get the thinking behind it, clerics are some of the most versatile classes in D&D history so limiting them to just being a healer is cutting off a fairly good portion of your abilities.

Hell, I'm not even disagreeing with the mindset.

I just don't understand why with all the various ways to build characters and with D&D built around the idea that YOU are roleplaying an entity YOU created that there is just no support for the idea of a healer.

I was actually really taken back when I read one of the handbooks, I think it may have been on the old brilliantgameologists posts, in regards to some healer ability or whatever saying if you do this, you are doing it wrong.

Sorry, I call BS, there is no WRONG way to play this game.

Is it so wrong to want to heal? Is it not viable? Aside from the optimization and well obvious reasons for not limiting yourself, why is it treated like such a bastard child?

Will it just not work to spam heals all day long if that is what you WANT to do?

[mistformsquirrl]

There's nothing wrong with playing how you want to play.

Ultimately I feel it boils down to this:

Are you having fun? Is the group having fun? If the answer to both questions is "Yes"; then nothing else needs be said. There's no 'wrong' way to play D&D.

[Corlindale]

Is it so wrong to want to heal? Is it not viable? Aside from the optimization and well obvious reasons for not limiting yourself, why is it treated like such a bastard child?

Will it just not work to spam heals all day long if that is what you WANT to do?

Of course you can play a healer, and it can be quite viable. What people are usually taking about is that healing is often suboptimal - but that may not be a big concern for you if you aren't going for optimization.

Why is is suboptimal? Because most of the "Cure X" spells heal less than what a character typically takes in damage during a combat round. Therefore, it may be argued that you would be better off trying to either damage the enemy or contribute in some other way, since standard healing cannot generally keep up with damage anyway.

There are exceptions to this, such as the Heal spell which dramatically increases the viability of in-combat healing. But you don't get that until pretty late in the game.

[Gnoman]

Essentially, the majority of guides (both here and elsewhere) assume a fairly high optimization level where a healing cleric just isn't all that viable. At higher op levels, there's no guarantee that there will be damage to heal in the first place (with so many save-or-lose spells thrown about), and any that is taken will be in such large chunks that a cleric won't be able to do much good in-combat.

[tyckspoon]

Will it just not work to spam heals all day long if that is what you WANT to do?

If it's the basic, unmodified, Cure X Wounds series of spells? No. Monster damage significantly outpaces the amount these spells can restore- it's a losing race. You wind up spending extra spell slots keeping your Fighter standing and then even more after the fight to top him off for the next one, when a single well-chosen non-Cure spell (say, Blindness or Bestow Curse or even buffing him with better AC) could have prevented him from ever suffering most of the damage in the first place.

If you want to *build* to be a healer, you can do that- there's a variety of effects that improve healing spells, and when you combine them together you do get pretty effective healing. But the *default package* of a Cleric isn't actually much good at healing, and it's not the Cleric's fault; the basic math of damage in vs. damage restored is weighted against you.

[gartius]

This link sums it up (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19871786/A_Players_Guide_to_Healing_%28And,_why_you_will_be _Just_Fine_without_a_Cleric_to_heal%29)

At the same time what wasn't touched on is you are the only healer in the group, and you only have one action. There might be multiple opponents and all their actions will outweigh your one-therefore you cannot heal the damage that they dish out until you reach level 6 spells which can keep up with damage dealt.

Again action economy is a big issue-If you are playing a cleric or druid to their full tier 1 ability then they will have more to contribute to the combat than just heal-they can then worry about healing after combat is finished.

That is to say some healing hasn't lost it's place-look at the pathfinder oradin build posted a while ago -that is a healer build which can do more than just heal during their turn, making it more effective.

[toapat]

Besides the already well covered point of "Healing isnt good because the investment of spellslots is too severe"

The only good healing classes in the game are Serenity+Divine Spirit Paladin and Crusader. This is because they both get healing of similar effectiveness to the heal spell, and have ways to heal in combat without spending valuable actions when compared to a cleric.

[Kazyan]

Optimization guides want you to squeeze every drop of power out of a character. This is why that, even though Wizards are vastly more powerful than everyone at everything, being an Evoker will get you laughed at. You're not ridiculously powerful enough.

But yeah, if you want to be a healer, you could play a Healer. You know, the class? Which competently does exactly what it says on the tin?

[Toliudar]

There seems to be a confluence of three points here.

1) "I should be able to play a dedicated healer if I want": no one is saying otherwise.

2) "I think that healing is a viable tactic in combat": maybe, at certain levels, and in some situations. See above.

3) "I can't find guides that help me optimize as a healer": Most of the cleric guides at least touch on this, even if they simultaneous pooh-pooh it.

[killem2]

This all makes great sense.

It is too bad really. It could have been a very wide area they could have explored.

[shortround]

This all makes great sense.

It is too bad really. It could have been a very wide area they could have explored.

I think it's best not to dwell on the things that 3.5 did and did not explore.

[HunterOfJello]

Want to heal? Here's what you need:

Heal (the spell, for in combat)
Mass Heal (at high level)
Lesser Vigor pretty much at-will (for out of combat)

aaaaaaaaaaannnnnd that's about it... Everything else having to do with hit points is pretty lousy and not worth their spell slots. In that sense, you should either go Archivist to get access to Heal a spell level early, or take the Domain Substitution with the Healing Domain (Healing Domain?!?!?! Blasphemy!!!) so that you can spontaneously cast Heal and Mass Heal.

A few other spells that can come in handy would be:

Lesser Restoration
Restoration
Remove Blindness/Deafness
Dispel Magic
Great Dispel Magic
Remove Curse
Remove Disease

~

If you really want to heal, then at least go the route of being a healer+buffer or healer+debuffer or healer+diviner. Just don't spend all of your time sitting on a large prepared spell list full of Remove and Restore spells that you aren't even likely to use all day. Get yourself in the position to cast the Heal spell spontaneously as a Domain Subsitution Cleric or as an Archivist/Dweomerkeeper or something. Then use your spells to debuff the crap out of enemies or buff the crap out of your friends or divine the future so that your friends don't get into extra ****ty situations in the first place.

Healers are hated the most because they sit on an amazing bag of tricks that they may refuse to use at all just because they only feel like curing their dying ally who wouldn't be dying at all if they divined the situation beforehand, buffed him up better, or gave the enemy a Curse at the beginning when they had the chance.

[lsfreak]

Is it bad to want to heal? No. Is it bad to want a game where magic items don't exist? No. Is it bad to want to incorporate economics into an urban campaign? No.

But 3.5e does all these things very, very poorly - so while you may want to, without heavily houseruling or a very specific style of DM'ing, it may be bad to actually incorporate them into the game.

Do note that healing its much, much better in an unoptimized game. There's a much smaller gap between Cure X wounds and damage output when both players and enemies are primarily doing 2d6 + Strength mod per round, compared to 2d6 + Strength mod boosted with items + pounce + power attack.

[Acanous]

Healing Starts out as a viable tactic. At lv 1, things are lucky to deal 1d8+1 per round, and you keep up just fine. Enemies have problems hitting Player AC as it is, with the average enemy boasting +2 to hit and the average player's AC being 16. So supposing you're fighting 10 enemies, at CR 1/4th or so, with your party of 4. you're looking at average 2 hits for 1d4-1 at most. So a cleric can keep up with that, no problem.

Then you hit lv 3. Now you can heal for 2d8+3 damage at max, but level 3 encounters start being able to deal significantly more damage. Same situation as before, but now it's 8 CR 1 Orcs. Your AC scaling is less at this point- average AC has only actually increased one point. Sure the Fighter might be rocking a 22, but the Wizard is still sitting there with a 12. The Rogue probably has an 18. You're still sitting on a 16 more than likely, maybe an 18. The orcs have what, +5 to hit? And when they DO hit, now it's 1d8+4. So now even though the same number hit (2 on average) you're looking at 17 damage. You heal 2d8+3, average of 12. You aren't doing terrible, and it's still useful, but you're beginning to fight a losing battle.

Next level of healing is at 5. You heal 3d8+5. Things deal more than that individually. If you were to be fighting a CR5 solo enemy, you could potentially keep up. A group of CR 2's lead by a 3 or 4, though, and you rapidly lose ground. Also, things now are going to start dealing ability damage/drain, or inflicting status effects, meaning you have to choose between fixing conditions or hit points. Between levels 5-8 are where Healing as a strategy REALLY earns it's sub-optimal designation. You get Restoration at 7, but again, that's healing HP OR ability damage, you don't get to channel for it, and you might need to address more than one party member.

Then you get Heal. Heal makes everything better. Heal can carry you all the way to lv 15 before it starts losing ground.

The Cure X Mass, however, suck. Bad. Fireballs outdamage the healing done by Cure Critical Wounds Mass. For the same slot level, it could be Maximized, Empowered, and have Fell Drain tacked on.

So really, healing as a strategy is good for the early game, poor for the mid game, OK for the late game, and poor for the end game.
Plus, in all circumstances, it is binary. Either people require healing or they do not. You could have an encounter where nobody takes damage because Wizard. That's great, but now you as a player aren't contribuiting, and that's causing the Wizard to lose more of his prepped spells. Next encounter, it could be a real slog if all you do is heal and he can't shut down the fight.

Personally, I have the strategy that damage is a tax. If you make a poor decision? Damage. Did not prepare for an eventuality? Damage. If your tactics were not applicable? Damage.

A healer is someone who goes out donating to people who have to pay that tax, which encourages poor decision making. By playing a healer, you may be enabling poor play, which will make things harder the longer the game goes on.

[Spuddles]

It's backlash against two or three decades of "YOU MUST HAVE A HEALER OR YOU WILL DIE".

Dedicated healers are detrimental to parties. It's like getting a half character, or an NPC that demands a full share of xp and treasure. Healers are a liability because they are action inefficient. Action efficiency is what gives the party edge, and throwing away a quarter of it kind of sucks if you're attached to your character. I try to discourage people from playing monks for the same reasons. It's a team game, and if you aren't contributing, I am going to get frustrated.

So yeah, healing is kind of detrimental to the party, except at very low levels where mean damage, hp, and heals are about equal, with high variance.

[navar100]

There is nothing wrong with playing a "healbot". It is a viable tactic. There is more to it than just healing and buffing others. It is fine to cast the occasional attack spell or buff yourself and go hog wild into the fray with your morningstar.

Casting a Cure Wounds spell during combat is not always a smart thing to do but neither is it always a dumb thing. Whether what you would heal is more than the damage the opponent does is irrelevant. What is relevant is the amount you heal plus the current hit points of the party member you are healing is more than the damage the opponent does. Healing another party member is to keep that party member active in combat for at least one more round. That party member can then do something. It is not your obligation to always be the one to get the killing blow or some other I Win The Combat action. Clerics are capable of that; they just aren't required to.

Bad guys make their saving throw sometimes. Your attack spells are never, ever guaranteed to work every time all the time. Buffing yourself to go into the fight works well enough. Buffing another party member sometimes is the better choice. Cast Greater Magic Weapon on the ranger's arrows. He will love you forever. Cast Bull Strength on the fighter and watch him smile with glee as he piles on the Power Attack. Cast Shield of Faith on the barbarian so he can rage all he wants and effectively not lose AC. The paladin will not shy away from Eagle's Splendor, especially when fighting enemy spellcasters or in Pathfinder with improved Smite Evil. That's part of "healing" as well, to be a healbot.

As for the actual healing itself, it's not about getting a party member to full hit points. That's an almost unachievable happenstance until you can cast Heal. It's all about keeping him conscious and enabling him to do stuff. Let the wizard go all Voldemort against the bad guys. You keep his hit points well above 0, you're equally contributing. Worse comes to worse, keep him conscious so he can Teleport the party to safety.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The point of the optimization guides is that only healing is a waste of the class. I think the sour attitude behind the guides comes from an old school mindset where the cleric was the heal-bot. Even if the player wanted to cast another spell, Fighty McFighter at half health would cajole the Cleric into healing him. The guide gives the Cleric's player solid evidence that the Cleric effectively negates more damage to the Fighter by casting better spells, meaning he isn't locked into a traditionally "boring" role. Now, if you like healing, more power to you. Just note that healing is just one of many things a cleric can do, and general cleric guides focus on the most powerful specialties. I also would like more niche guides, but considering 3.5 is out of print I'll appreciate what I have.

All that said, some optimized clerics indeed are significant healers; they just don't use cure spells to do it. Soul of Light (Dragon Magic), combined with DMM Persisted Mass Lesser Vigor gives Fast Healing 7 to everyone, all day. Vigorous Circle bumps that to Fast Healing 15. Two spells and one overpowered feat combination and presto, you're the party healer and you can do whatever you want in combat.

[Azoth]

.Sorry to say on these boards there is a general consensus that no matter your build, you are doing it wrong. Everything from race, to class, to skills, to feats, and even spells. Why should a rogue put ranks in open lock when he can UMD a wand of knock. Why bother with search/disable device when a reserve feat can give infinite summons to trigger traps. Why did the wizard take that reserve feat the rogue should handle it. You want to play mele well you better be either a)tripper...and if you do prepare to be screwed. B) grappler...prepair to fail past level 7 because EVERYTHING has FoM. C) Ubercharger...be screwed by terrain and if you take the strongest PRC for the concept your party will quit because you are a waiting TPK to happen. There are many more examples that need not mentioning.

As for healing: if you want to dedicate to it, go for it. Though, i will agree with the others, bring some other fun to the table. Once you have augment healing, maximize spell, magic of the land, mastery of day and night, and maybe that divine feat that gives FH3 for cha mod+1 rounds in a 60ft burst you don't have many healing feats left and as a human with 2 flaws you have them all by lvl6. You can bring some buffs and BFC to the party.

Also that setup is nice. +4hp/spell level (+2hp/spell level if it isn't a healing spell), all heals are maximized for free.

If you add combat medic and healing hand of Mishakal it only gets better. +cha mod to heals, auto quicken and empower for free, temp hp, 1 round sanctuary, and some other minor bonuses to your heals. So you can do it well and seriously spread the feel of "My friends will never die" if you want to.

[ThunderCat]

Long reply, but the misunderstanding here seems fundamental enough to need it, so:

It is completely OK to want to play something which is (for the most part at least) mechanically ineffective, as long as you're not playing your character so ineffectively that s/he becomes a serious drain and liability to your party. Just as it is completely OK to play something which is extremely mechanically effective, as long as you are not making your character so strong that s/he outshines everyone else all the time*. Most optimisers will tell you that.

But optimisation guides do not exist to validate your personal choices and preferences. They exist mainly to give readers an idea about the (mostly mechanical) strengths and weaknesses of a class, and the effectiveness of the various tactics said class can employ. No one will hunt you down and burn your character sheet if you don't use the advice.

Healing in combat is (bar some very specific circumstances) not a very effective tactic, because the damage the enemy deals in a round is usually greater than the amount of hp you are able to heal in a round, meaning that you will end up saving more resources by focussing on taking the enemy out of the fight quickly, or buff your comrades to enable them to do it. Again, that does not mean you cannot focus on healing, just that it is not (as a rule) very effective, and therefore, optimisation guides will advice against it. And because the cleric is so often presented as a primary healer, optimisation guides tend to advice against it even more strongly, to get the point across that it is not the best way for a cleric to contribute. If it was more common for people to believe a cleric's biggest strength was its skill points, most guides would probably highlight that YOU ARE NOT A SKILL MONKEY instead.

Most handbooks and online advice is not about roleplaying and personal preferences, not because those are not important, but because they are a lot more personal and not something most people need advice for, especially not from strangers on the internet. Highlighting what you think are the most mechanically effective feats for a character to take is usually pretty uncontroversial, even for people who disagree, but presenting one way of playing a character as an inherently superior roleplaying choice is just offensive. Which is why most people prefer to discuss mechanics over roleplaying on many forums, and optimisation guides are a lot more common than roleplaying guides.

And you know what? The posters in question are not hurting anyone, including you, by doing so. And they (or actually, we) do not deserve the constant jabs from people like you about how “there is no wrong way to play the game”, as if we ever claimed so**. People who write guides, even tongue-in-cheek guides slamming mechanically inferior choices, are just delivering information. What you do with it is up to you, and I can almost guarantee you that if you walked up to one of these writers with the standard smug I'm-a-ROLEPLAYER-not-a-ROLLPLAYER look on your face and started lecturing them about how much FUN you had playing your healer cleric, they would just shrug and go “Good for you, but why do you feel the need to tell me this? :smallconfused:”.

Because honestly, most people DO NOT CARE if you are making a mechanically inferior choice because it makes you happy. No one is trying to stop you from doing it. But if you ask about advice for your build and your tactics (i.e. mainly mechanical advice), enter a thread about game mechanics and optimisation, or visit an optimisation handbook, you will mostly get advice on what people find to be the most mechanically powerful choices (within limits), not what is most FUN, because FUN is highly subjective.

So go ahead and have your fun, no one is stopping you. But do not call it BS that cleric guides to not include “And you should totally be healing, because killem2 finds it personally rewarding”. Most of these guides/posts are not about what is personally rewarding because most writers think highly enough of the readers to realise that they are probably better at figuring out what is personally rewarding for them than strangers on the internet are.

If you cannot figure out why people are calling healing an inferior tactic, feel free to ask why (in an inoffensive way that does not insinuate that people who give optimisation advice are all trying to claim that it is the only right way to play the game). If you have discovered an effective way of making healing a powerful tactic, by all means share it. And if you want a conversation specifically about what people personally find fun, go right ahead and start one. But asking people to account for the existence of a multitude of different personal preferences when making optimisation guides and giving optimisation advice defeats the whole purpose of this type of advice to begin with.




* the exception being if you consult the DM and the other players first and get their consent. In that case, you can play your character as weak/strong as you want.

** there actually is a wrong way to play, but it has less to do with mechanical choices, and more to do with being a jerk to people in your gaming group.

[GoatBoy]

Healing is funny in that it's a role that clerics can fill, just like caster, melee fighter, buffer, ranged fighter, etc... Most cleric roles require careful feat/race selection and prestige class progression, without which they function at a highly reduced level of effectiveness, let's say 50% or so. A cleric who does not focus on healing, on the other hand, will probably be about 85% as effective at it as one who does. Healing has a relatively low optimization cap, compared to the more exotic roles which a cleric can fill (or almost any healing-capable class, for that matter).

Back when I played WoW, I took pride in playing a healer. MMO healers have more options, and healing is something of a learned art, knowing which healing "nuke" or heal-over-time spell to use. 3.5 healing is just a matter of using the biggest heal you have. And it's probably just as thankless a job as it was in the MMO's I played.

If you want to play a whip-using monk, a trapfinding druid, or a fighter who only kills opponents with the weapons he personally disarms them of, the rules exist to make such a thing possible. It just won't be very effective, and you won't find much in the way of support out there unless you specifically bring it up, and even then, prepare to be informed on how ludicrous your idea is before being given actual tips.

I kinda want to play a whip-using monk now.

[toapat]

*snip*

Ah, yes, i forgot about that part:

The only tool a Healer has in 3.5 is the sledgehammer. They have no alternates, options, or other things that can actually improve their functional healing. You dont have heal over time abilities or abilities that prevent loss from overhealing. there is also the problem that healing in 3.5 is rather slow and time inneficient, as compared to other games where it can be done much better.

Then there is the fact that Paladins have an ACF that has free-action healing, and Crusaders have a discipline that tacks healing onto alot of their hits.

[Azoth]

Healers have several ways to drop both standard and swift action HoTs. They can also fire off single target, multi target, and AoE emanations to heal and HoT. There are even some spells that will give you a pool of temporary HP from their overflow. The only issue they run into is scaling up the healing. Which is why you use certain PRCs and feat combos to do it.

Hell even at level 6 using a first level slot I can make a healer pop off a CLW for 8+5+4+cha mod. So 17HP before my charisma modifier at lvl 6 out of a 1st level slot. I can easily make that 20+HP for 1 spell slot and a single standard action...lesser vigor can suck it. I can also pop off a 60ft radius burst emanation for FH3 for atleast 4 rounds as a SWIFT action. Again...lesser vigor...why?

By ECL15 it is more than possible to have a build healing over 100 damage out of as low as a 3rd level slot that also tacks on several minor buffs. Or throw out a buff for the party and tack on some healing to top them off/keep them moving if they are low on health.

[Eldariel]

This all makes great sense.

It is too bad really. It could have been a very wide area they could have explored.

It is possible to build a fairly efficient Cleric Healer. Between Radiant Servant of Pelor, Divine Metamagic, Imbued Healing and divine caster level boosts it's possible to gain sufficient healing ability to outpace damage you might take and to add some useful carry-over effects on it and to make the spells cost less actions (contingencies, quickens, extra actions).

If you expect HP damage to be a significant factor in the game and are willing to put work into it, you can be a healer. Just, the thing is, you need to put a lot of work into it for it to keep up with the damage you'll be taking (and you need stuff like Revivifies, Delay Deaths and such to keep people alive). And you need to be aware of the opportunity cost of being a healer as opposed to removing the things killing you.

[Coidzor]

Well, there's still a bit of a misunderstanding amongst some people that dictates that all people who can heal can or should do is heal, and this prompted a bit of a backlash to say the least.

[Zombulian]

Optimization guides want you to squeeze every drop of power out of a character. This is why that, even though Wizards are vastly more powerful than everyone at everything, being an Evoker will get you laughed at. You're not ridiculously powerful enough.

But yeah, if you want to be a healer, you could play a Healer. You know, the class? Which competently does exactly what it says on the tin?

Seconded. I love the healer class.

[Eldariel]

But yeah, if you want to be a healer, you could play a Healer. You know, the class? Which competently does exactly what it says on the tin?

Well. It's actually worse at healing than the Cleric, so it only heals competently for certain definitions of "competently". It all depends.

I've run games where a player playing the Healer class over a strong class would likely cause a TPK fairly early. I've also run games where a reasonably built Healer could be a top contributor.

[Lans]

The healer is an inferior at healing than the cleric is, I would avoid it

[Endarire]

Healing is not always ineffective. I played a Crusader in a level 8 game. (He was a mishmash of fighty classes, but could use Crusader maneuvers of level 3 or higher.) Martial Spirit + Crusader's Strike + Revitalizing Strike saved the party. More than that, the party was at or near full health at the end of a long fight. And they walked in not fully prepared. How'd he do it? He kept hitting things.

Crusaders rock because you're doing what you normally do as a warrior- hit things and not die- but you heal your party while doing it. It's great!

Earlier that campaign, I played a Blue Cleric. (He died.) Determining who didn't get healed was too stressful for me, and being responsible for the party in such a direct way was way too much of a burden for me. My healing was nowhere near enough to keep up with enemy damage.

[Andreaz]

Keeping it as short as I can...
It's not that there isn't support to healing. It's that compared to anything else you could do, healing is weak to the point you'll do a better job keeping people alive by killing threats before they hurt them.

Healing is not always ineffective. I played a Crusader in a level 8 game. (He was a mishmash of fighty classes, but could use Crusader maneuvers of level 3 or higher.) Martial Spirit + Crusader's Strike + Revitalizing Strike saved the party. More than that, the party was at or near full health at the end of a long fight. And they walked in not fully prepared. How'd he do it? He kept hitting things.Relevant part bolded. Your crusader was not a healer. He was a tank who happened to trickle in healing. Kicking ass is the important bit...if you had to do only healing with your standard action, it'd be just as bad.

[only1doug]

And yet again the Ruby Knight Vindicator solution rears its head. Cleric casting + crusader melee, double healing fun.

[Answerer]

Is it bad to want to heal? No. Is it bad to want a game where magic items don't exist? No. Is it bad to want to incorporate economics into an urban campaign? No.

But 3.5e does all these things very, very poorly - so while you may want to, without heavily houseruling or a very specific style of DM'ing, it may be bad to actually incorporate them into the game.
This, this, a thousand times, this.

[Lord_Gareth]

There's something that hasn't been addressed in this thread yet.

Y'see, in earlier editions of D&D, "Band-Aid" was considered an essential party role. This role was really, really unpopular for the most part, though you'd get the very rare player that enjoyed it. This lead to problems where someone in the group was 'stuck' being The Healer, and memorizing Healing Spells What Heal People with Healing.

3.5 assumed that this was true, but the reality changed, making healing less viable and less necessary. The phrase, "You are not a healer," is to remind folks that unless they enjoy healing and want to heal as part of their concept, they shouldn't feel obligated to heal whatsoever.

[Lans]

Viability of healing is decent in a low to mid op game.
Low op you should be healing about d8+3 at first level using just the srd with healing domain and the spell trait. vs a CR 1 monster that does d6+4 or so its about on par.

Mid op your going to need to get a bit higher, and maybe get the feat that lets your healing give 3/alignment dr, or temp hp equal to character level. With augment healing your healing d8+5 and 3/dr vs an orc fighters damage of 2d6+6 your a little behind but not by much.

Grab a rod of lesser empower at 6th level to help with boss fights, and you should be alright.

Against high and very high op games the orc becomes a barbarian and whirlypounce barbarian, respectively dealing 2d6+9 or more. You can't keep up with healing that sort of damage and being a marshal that boosts initiative will prevent more damage and life lost than a healer cleric will.

[Togo]

The viability of healing depends on who you're playing with, and how your party tactics fit together.

If your group is not very confident with their tactics, then in-combat healing is, literally, a lifesaver. Whenever something goes wrong, you can step in and stop someone getting killed. Just don't rely on the higher level cure X spells, like cure serious wounds, because at that level, you've fallen behind the curve in terms of damage healed by you vs. damage dealt by opponent. Use spells like insiginia of healing and close wounds at that level instead, and you'll save more lives.

If, by contrast, your group is very very good, then you're looking at fitting in with the tactics of the group. For example, one common tactic on the tournament circuit is to have very high AC front-liners, and then back them up with healing as necessary. The idea here is to get a higher level of efficiency then merely relying on combat-winning spells, which typically rely on some kind of failed save. Any monster passes on a natural 20 - a 5% chance - and it's easy with a skilled group focusing on melee to get efficiency well above that. In this kind of format you're focusing on mitigating good luck by the monsters, or covering a failed tactic and change of plan.

Where healing doesn't work so well is in 'high-op' games, where the rules are interpreted quite loosely and generously, almost nothing is banned for balance reasons, and power is down to getting the most out of your build. In these circumstances, there are many powerful exploits you can get with your spell slots, and using them for healing slides way down the list. Many internet guides are basically exploit handbooks written for this style of game, and thus rate healing very poorly as a tactic.

As for the points you touched on as why people get so vocal about this, we are in a hobby that attracts, amongst others, people with poor social skills, who seek to use their technical knowledge as a bludgeon to gain social acceptance. It's rare, but it happens. So spare a thought for the person who feels that his experience and analysis holds for all games everywhere, and proceeds to lecture you that you're playing the game 'wrong'. Sure he comes across as an idiot, but he may be a well-meaning idiot, genuinely trying to help, and simply blissfully unaware that there is no such thing as a standard or default way to play the game.

[Venger]

As for the points you touched on as why people get so vocal about this, we are in a hobby that attracts, amongst others, people with poor social skills, who seek to use their technical knowledge as a bludgeon to gain social acceptance.

Behold: the explanation for every argument about D&D ever.

I only wish that i could thumbs up or like this post somehow. this is all I can do.

as far as meaningful contribution to the thread goes, clerics can do other things besides heal, it's not really an either/or choice as people have said. the healing handbook linked earlier shows that for a minimal gp investment, people can have enough healing belts and wands of lesser vigor to patch them up out of combat, and if you're set on healing, maximize spell and mastery of day and night is a not horrible choice, at least finally making the cure x wounds outstrip the vigor line (persisting aside, because I don't think a player that wants to focus on healing is the DMM:persist type)

it's really just a mindset thing. as the healing handbook says, if you kill a minotaur with a flame strike or something, and next round it would've dealt 40 points of damage to the party's sneak, you have healed the sneak of 40 damage. ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure and all that. it's not that replenising hp damage is bad, just that as shown earlier with maths, it won't let you break even, so it's better to prevent damage and winnow down threats rather than allow them to continue jamming up your teammates.

[rockdeworld]

To add my two-cents, compare healing in D&D to healing in FF7 (which was the first FF I played, and what I consider to be a good game).

In FF7, you coupled Cure materia to All, and restored 1/2 to 3/4 the party's HP at low levels. And it pretty much stayed that way throughout the game (thanks to materia leveling up to Cure-2 and Cure-3 at opportune times), until you used W-Item to get 99 Megalixers, and then those were your main healing source in the endgame. Or Full-Life materia. Either way, Cure-3 on a decent magic character like Aeries/th could overtake the normal damage dealt by enemies and bosses. And in the really important battles, like boss fights, you could spare an ether or two on the person who brings your party back from the dead.

In D&D, you can max out CxW pretty easily (and I have done so). You still don't heal much, by which I mean, 9.5 HP is decent at level 1, but not level 3. 19 is okay at level 3, but not level 5. And you only have 2-3 of those high-level cure spells available per day. And you don't have Ether, either.

It's kinda de-spiriting.

[Rejakor]

Togo and Venger are both wrong.

1. Most handbooks are not 'collections of exploits'. In fact, compared to actual CO and TO, most are very tame and simply list feats, PrCs, spells that are useful for that character class, and the ability scores one should prioritize. Even the specific builds aren't usually particularly optimized.

2. The reason that 'You are not a healer' is repeated in many places is, as has been stated many times in this thread already, because as a legacy from earlier editions there is an assumption that the cleric is a healbot. And if a cleric is not healing (both in and out of combat) that cleric is a 'bad cleric'. This is because grognards never, ever, learn anything if they can help it, and forcing people to play the healer and heal everyone all the time and never do anything else was a favourite pastime of said grognards.

3. The OTHER reason that 'in-combat healing' is seen as such a bad idea is that unless you are playing a MiniHB Healer, every class with access to healing spells has much better ways of making people live than healing hp damage. Either by AC, BFC, Damage, or SoD effects. If they are spending their actions not doing those, the party will be more likely to die. The Cure line of spells do not scale to damage even at low levels. Examples have been given of wounds they could heal, but most CR appropriate encounters are going to outdamage healing spells by huge amounts - taking action to wipe out enemies is, in nearly all circumstances, going to be a much better idea.

So, again, the purpose of this was to counteract people going 'the point of a cleric is to heal'. It wasn't to say that spending a round shoving a cure moderate into the wizard so he can sit up and fireball the room is a waste of time. Or that healing someone on -9 is a terrible idea. I'm pretty sure no-one is actually saying either of those things.


If you want to spend time doing nothing but healing, that's great. Then the advice was not for you, as you're actually choosing to do it, not assuming that that is what you're supposed to be doing.

[Venger]

Togo and Venger are both wrong

(stuff)

but... I agreed with all the points you made. what?

[Hecuba]

The healer is an inferior at healing than the cleric is, I would avoid it

Specifically, the main issue is that you can't get the Prophecy's Shepherd feat (one of the best dedicated healing feats) without the ability to spontaneously cure or inflict. While that feature is available through PRCS, it is not available to PRCs without loosing caster levels.

[toapat]

*snip*

1: The better handbooks are closer to general tools then anything. They may cover TO and high op, but they can also go the other way.

2+3: the "you are not a healbot" comes from the fact that Cure/Repair X Wounds spells dont scale at all. The other significant problem is that there is no economy in expending your delicious 5th level heal spells on fixing that punctured Aorta, as opposed to stopping that aorta from being punctured.The only people who can get the good healing without terminal investment are paladin and crusader, because paladins can heal twice in a round and still have time to punch the nearest dude in the face, while crusaders can punch people through the face.

[Karoht]

Personally, I have the strategy that damage is a tax. If you make a poor decision? Damage. Did not prepare for an eventuality? Damage. If your tactics were not applicable? Damage.

A healer is someone who goes out donating to people who have to pay that tax, which encourages poor decision making. By playing a healer, you may be enabling poor play, which will make things harder the longer the game goes on.
Right, but to follow that analogy, there are occasions where some people are going to pay that tax regardless of the preparation or tactics. There isn't a heck of a lot that stops that guy from getting that lucky crit that somehow makes it through just about every form of defense you can reasonably obtain. Luck will always be a factor, murphy's law and all that.
Yes, the Healer is paying that tax, but paying that tax keeps party members alive so they can make the other guy pay the death tax VS the damage tax.

Example:
Barbarian at half health. Healer decides to not top him up, casts something else.
Boom, barbarian drops due to a crit. Fact of the game, luck is still a factor, as is murphy's law. Now he's out of the fight, his damage output turns into zero, his tactics are no longer available, and the enemy can now capitalize on this. The encounter now goes 3 rounds longer due to this loss. A single dose of healing might have kept that barbarian up. Now, due to a choice to NOT pay the damage tax for the barbarian, the rest of the party is hit with more damage tax as well as strain on other resources, such as more magic being spent or more potions being used, in order to win the encounter. Healing isn't just paying the damage tax, it's avoiding it as much as possible.

I look at healing like a buffer zone. The more healing available, the more wiggle room you have in your tactics. Yes, it does encourage a party to make more mistakes and pay more of that damage tax. On the other hand, it means the party can also survive long enough to learn better tactics (your milage will vary, possibly to extremes here) that make them pay less damage tax. Healing in this context should be taken to include removing debuffs and non-HP damage, rather than just HP based damages.

Eventually, things begin to hit hard enough that HP healing becomes much less relevant. Usually if there is HP healing to be done, it means someone survived a hit that probably should have killed them, or were fighting a lower CR encounter. This is where it tends to boil down into defensive measures and preparations made, and less and less about reacting. But by this point, any Cleric can have access to spells which contribute more than healing, and usually has resources which can take care of those pesky debuffs without making a dent in the Cleric's casting for the day. Resistances and Immunities become far more relevant and reliable by this point as well. Healing does transition into a defensive game, typically using the spell Heal rather than cure spells or channels/turn attempts. Channels and Turn attempts are usually fueling DMM by this point, and to awesome effect.

To sum that up, at lower levels it isn't the worst thing in the world. At higher and higher levels it does become progressively less effective. Unless, your DM continues to throw enemies and spells which mostly deal HP damage rather than the variety of other effects the DM could be using to defeat you.
At worst, by that point you have channels dealing decent healing (and it is worth it to quicken channels to perform them as a move action instead of a standard) so you can in fact heal and do other things every round if need be.
Remember, preventing damage and removing debuffs is still healing.

[Lans]

Specifically, the main issue is that you can't get the Prophecy's Shepherd feat (one of the best dedicated healing feats) without the ability to spontaneously cure or inflict. While that feature is available through PRCS, it is not available to PRCs without loosing caster levels.

What's the source on this feat? I was thinking Imbued Healing from Com. Champion.

[Diarmuid]

Magic of Eberron and requires another feat called Dragon Prophesier.

[Gnaeus]

The only good healing classes in the game are Serenity+Divine Spirit Paladin and Crusader. This is because they both get healing of similar effectiveness to the heal spell, and have ways to heal in combat without spending valuable actions when compared to a cleric.

Dread Necromancer wishes to differ. He has healing of similar effectiveness to Heal spell, and is quite capable of healing in combat while harming enemies.

[Jerthanis]

Personally, I think the biggest issue with Healing comes down to the need to be adjacent to your target, but mobility being at a premium in D&D. If you run up to heal the Fighter, he might have a couple people adjacent to him, and to keep healing him, you're going to expose yourself to risk. If the party gets separated, you probably won't be able to get to them to heal, or you'll have to spend more actions doing it than you're getting out of it.

So I figure that step 1 is to make Cure X Wounds spells into range: Short. Let Lay on Hands be that thing and let Cure X Wounds be a thing you can do without being so friggin' hard. Step 2 I think is to provide some degree of bulwark against the target of healing being put right back down to less HP than before the Cure spell by your next action. Perhaps by providing, say, half the healed HP as temporary HP that go away at the beginning of your next turn... allowing in-combat healing to be a good way of keeping people on their feet without establishing an invincible bulwark as long as the heals keep coming, and without ballooning numbers and making Cure spells heal so much that healing becomes effective immunity to HP damage.

[Lans]

Magic of Eberron and requires another feat called Dragon Prophesier.

Cool feat, though your also going to want prophecy's shaper.

So Strongheart hafling augment healing, imbue healing, take flaws for Dragon Prophesier, and Prophecy’s Shepherd, grab prophecy's shaper.
Third level enter prophesier mod fire off CWL for d8+d4+10

[Amphetryon]

The issue as I see it, in a nutshell, is that in most cases, healing in combat is one character using up all of her actions in a round in order to partially negate the actions of someone else in the round. In partially negating the actions, the person doing the healing is neither entirely nullifying the actions of the adversary, nor making said adversary any closer to defeat (barring exceedingly unusual circumstances like just needing to hold off someone for X number of rounds).

It's basically having one party member agree to not take actions in exchange for making one enemy's actions somewhat less effective, which is usually a poor tactical choice.

[toapat]

*snip*

Amphetryon has earned +1 eloquence

whoever said im wrong about paladin and crusader being better: No, Paladin is the best in the game, because Divine spirit, despite needing your move action to repossition, is free action healing, Crusaders also only have to make a melee attack to heal.

[navar100]

Personally, I think the biggest issue with Healing comes down to the need to be adjacent to your target, but mobility being at a premium in D&D. If you run up to heal the Fighter, he might have a couple people adjacent to him, and to keep healing him, you're going to expose yourself to risk. If the party gets separated, you probably won't be able to get to them to heal, or you'll have to spend more actions doing it than you're getting out of it.

So I figure that step 1 is to make Cure X Wounds spells into range: Short. Let Lay on Hands be that thing and let Cure X Wounds be a thing you can do without being so friggin' hard. Step 2 I think is to provide some degree of bulwark against the target of healing being put right back down to less HP than before the Cure spell by your next action. Perhaps by providing, say, half the healed HP as temporary HP that go away at the beginning of your next turn... allowing in-combat healing to be a good way of keeping people on their feet without establishing an invincible bulwark as long as the heals keep coming, and without ballooning numbers and making Cure spells heal so much that healing becomes effective immunity to HP damage.

1) Reach Spell

2) Skill Focus Concentration or Combat Casting or Both if you want to cast other spells without provoking in threatened areas a lot as well. Having both, 14 Con, max Concentration, starting at level 4 you can always make the defensive casting roll for your highest level spell on a Natural 1.

3) Pathfinder

3a) Reach spell is improved a bit but works the same for the purpose.

3b) Channel Energy heals multiple people at the same time. Efficient. Take Selective Channeling Feat to avoid healing bad guys.

3c) Oracle Life Mystery is a good healer. Channel Energy, can heal a bit as a move action, doesn't provoke AoO for casting healing spells, gain temporary hit points if healed above max.

[Winter_Wolf]

It's not that it's bad to want to be a healer, but...

Once upon a time, D&D clerics were healbots, and that was your role. Like, that was it. If you weren't doing that, it was like you were failing in your role in the party. Of course almost no one ever volunteered to be the cleric, and I know of a few parties that flat out would rather dump huge sums at temples to get healing than any player be willing to take on that role.

I suspect there's a lot of backlash against the cleric-as-healer role, because that's what the supporting cast does, not the stars of the game.

Once 3E came around and you could do spontaneous healing, it probably wasn't as big a deal, but in 2E and earlier, you didn't have healing spells unless you used spell slots on it. In my older edition days no one ever wanted to be the cleric because you were the band-aid machine.

I played exactly one cleric, under 3E. I dislike casters in general, so that's a contributing factor, but I did very little healing, and very little crafting of healing stuff because no one was willing to give up their precious gold (never mind MY xp!) to get that benefit. All the burden was on the cleric. All of it. So screw you, rest of the party, if you're not going to help out, I'm going to keep my healing spells to myself and you can find your healing potions in treasure, 'cause I ain't running a charity here.

That's why I won't play the healer role. I have no idea how common that problem is in other groups, but it was an issue every single time.

[TypoNinja]

Going to echo the sentiment that healing is just generally a poor option, in combat. Barring the odd Heal because a crit landed, you typically will get more milage from your spells by making the source of damage go away than trying to heal the incoming damage.

That's not to say you won't still be healing, it just tends to be something done after a fight. D&D combat, especially at higher levels, tends to turn into a game of rocket tag, kill em before they kill you, damage totals are high, insta-death effects become more common. Making the enemy go away fast is the most effective means of ensuring the safety of your party.

The assumption that you should be a healer probably comes from the only Holy Trinity ideas of party makeup. Tank, DPS, Healer. Combat doesn't flow like that in D&D though, there's nothing to keep the boss hitting the designated tank most of the time. So your goal usually becomes dropping your enemies before they drop you.

[Coidzor]

1) Reach Spell

Doesn't really address the system flaw.

[Lans]

The issue as I see it, in a nutshell, is that in most cases, healing in combat is one character using up all of her actions in a round in order to partially negate the actions of someone else in the round. In partially negating the actions, the person doing the healing is neither entirely nullifying the actions of the adversary, nor making said adversary any closer to defeat (barring exceedingly unusual circumstances like just needing to hold off someone for X number of rounds).

It's basically having one party member agree to not take actions in exchange for making one enemy's actions somewhat less effective, which is usually a poor tactical choice.

Again it depends on optimization level, the healer with the before mentioned feats heals an average of 17 points with a CLW, as well as giving a character 3 THP or 3/good dr. After the 1st round he can do this, and fire of a cure moderate wounds for 2d8+9 a round, which is enough to negate a full attack from 3 ogres, 4 medium earth elementals, or a huge earth elemental.

[dungeonnerd]

So, I have a question.

I generally agree that "CureX" doesn't do diddly, regardless of OP levels, after the first few levels.

But isn't the issue here more the problem with those lines not being as effective as they should - so much so that anything else is preferrable to cast?

Instead of making it Xd8+CL (caps at n) why not make it more akin to fireball - Xd8/CL ? So CLW would start at 1d8, and could cap at, say, 5d8. CMW would start at the same number that CLW does at that CL and cap higher, etc. Then metamagic feats (shape spell and split ray, for example) would actually matter more.

[Jerthanis]

Doesn't really address the system flaw.

Understatement of the century.

Cure spells suck for what they are designed to do, partly because it's hard to rely on getting in melee with your wounded friends in a single move action where the thing that knocked your friend down is probably looking at you like dessert, and partly because the CxW spells just don't have the numbers to really keep someone up. At least for the most common and powerful healer type, you don't have to prepare the spells ahead of time, and can swap something out for an emergency heal.

Reach spell mitigates the one problem by exacerbating every other problem with Healing and undoing the few advantages it has.

And also, Channel Divinity IS an efficient source of healing since it's not touch range and can heal multiple people at once. If you're playing in Pathfinder, it's the direction you should go in, and it's entirely possible to make a pretty effective Divinity Channel machine. However, even there because of the numbers expansion, where HP totals are even higher, and so damage scales even faster, if one guy is getting focused fired, you are going to have to depend on the Heal spell if you want to be an effective healer character. The fact that it's difficult, but possible when using Pathfinder's new ability, after feat investment implies to me that making the option viable is something that needs a pretty significant boost.

[Amphetryon]

Again it depends on optimization level, the healer with the before mentioned feats heals an average of 17 points with a CLW, as well as giving a character 3 THP or 3/good dr. After the 1st round he can do this, and fire of a cure moderate wounds for 2d8+9 a round, which is enough to negate a full attack from 3 ogres, 4 medium earth elementals, or a huge earth elemental.

To my eye, that looks like a Healer that's optimizing healing more than the DM is optimizing his monsters. If that's the case, then 1) naturally the one working harder with better system mastery will show some advantage, and 2) the optimizer is apparently making a conscious choice to optimize an otherwise poor choice; the same amount of investment in virtually any other direction for the Player would likely result in a better return.

[navar100]

Understatement of the century.

Cure spells suck for what they are designed to do, partly because it's hard to rely on getting in melee with your wounded friends in a single move action where the thing that knocked your friend down is probably looking at you like dessert, and partly because the CxW spells just don't have the numbers to really keep someone up. At least for the most common and powerful healer type, you don't have to prepare the spells ahead of time, and can swap something out for an emergency heal.


Maybe in your game but not in mine. Playing a cleric I can reach party members just fine. I don't cast Cure Wounds only and forever, but I do it enough to make sure party members don't die in combat. I keep them alive, they get the killing blow, we all win. It's a tactic. It works.

[Hecuba]

Cool feat, though your also going to want prophecy's shaper.

So Strongheart hafling augment healing, imbue healing, take flaws for Dragon Prophesier, and Prophecy’s Shepherd, grab prophecy's shaper.
Third level enter prophesier mod fire off CWL for d8+d4+10

You'll want Mastery of Day and Night (PGE) before Prophecy's Shaper.

And it's not that healing cannot be made more efficient with optimization.
It's that, for any given level of optimization, it is usually relatively less efficient than other options.
It's not a low ceiling, but a high opportunity cost.

Edit: Looks like Amphetryon beat me to this point

[Lans]

To my eye, that looks like a Healer that's optimizing healing more than the DM is optimizing his monsters. If that's the case, then 1) naturally the one working harder with better system mastery will show some advantage, and 2) the optimizer is apparently making a conscious choice to optimize an otherwise poor choice; the same amount of investment in virtually any other direction for the Player would likely result in a better return.

True, but if the player's concept is healer, then going virtually any other direction is a direction away from what the player wants to play.

[Amphetryon]

True, but if the player's concept is healer, then going virtually any other direction is a direction away from what the player wants to play.

As others have said, not all concepts are created equal. Some choices are simply sub-optimal by their nature.

[Lans]

As others have said, not all concepts are created equal. Some choices are simply sub-optimal by their nature.

Which is why it requires about as much optimization as a fighter or ranger to be effective as opposed to the standard cleric or wizard

[Kazyan]

As others have said, not all concepts are created equal. Some choices are simply sub-optimal by their nature.

No amount of optimization handwringing is worth giving up on your concept.

[Amphetryon]

No amount of optimization handwringing is worth giving up on your concept.

Don't recall saying it was. Pointing out that some choices aren't the best ones isn't the same thing as telling someone not to make those choices.

[Answerer]

No amount of optimization handwringing is worth giving up on your concept.
It is if the concept is, by nature of its weakness, incompatible with your group.

If you're playing with Team Solar, and your concept is Frodo Baggins, there's a problem, and since you're the odd man out, the problem is you.

[Kazyan]

Don't recall saying it was. Pointing out that some choices aren't the best ones isn't the same thing as telling someone not to make those choices.

Understood; I mistook your post for a counterargument.


It is if the concept is, by nature of its weakness, incompatible with your group.

If you're playing with Team Solar, and your concept is Frodo Baggins, there's a problem, and since you're the odd man out, the problem is you.

*raise finger, opens mouth to speak*

*lowers finger, sighs, packs up toys and goes home*

[Answerer]

I'm sorry, there is no privileged position for being weak. Just like it's inappropriate to show up with Pun-pun in a swords & sorcery-style game, it's inappropriate to show up with a character whose race does not synergize with his class and whose feats and skills were all chosen to simulate a non-adventuring life before he got involved in this mess when the rest of the group has made a special ops team composed of the most efficient and powerful classes/races/feats they can come up with short of infinite loops.

And your concept is never an excuse for causing out-of-character strife. That's the same as people who justify being a jerk to their fellow players because "it's in-character," as if they have no responsibility for their character.

[Kazyan]

I'm sorry, there is no privileged position for being weak. Just like it's inappropriate to show up with Pun-pun in a swords & sorcery-style game, it's inappropriate to show up with a character whose race does not synergize with his class and whose feats and skills were all chosen to simulate a non-adventuring life before he got involved in this mess when the rest of the group has made a special ops team composed of the most efficient and powerful classes/races/feats they can come up with short of infinite loops.

And your concept is never an excuse for causing out-of-character strife. That's the same as people who justify being a jerk to their fellow players because "it's in-character," as if they have no responsibility for their character.

Yeah. I get that now, and was trying to concede the argument in an amusing way. This is a forum made of text, it turns out. Curse how difficult it is to convey tone over text.

[Jerthanis]

Maybe in your game but not in mine. Playing a cleric I can reach party members just fine. I don't cast Cure Wounds only and forever, but I do it enough to make sure party members don't die in combat. I keep them alive, they get the killing blow, we all win. It's a tactic. It works.

Well congratulations on getting it to work right, but the response to the desire to play a Healer could well be characterized by "It's fine if you want to do it depending on the optimization level, but it's generally a bad tactic." You can argue with the general response and try to convince the general public it's a tactic that works if you want, but it's not precisely what I was talking about.

I was trying to address the systemic problems with some suggested houserules. The suggestion to use the Reach Spell Metamagic to overcome one of these hurdles just makes each other systemic problem worse in practically every way.

[Tvtyrant]

The solution is simple; make the line of Cure X spells swift actions. Or make the inflict line vampiric, so when you cast Inflict X wounds you also heal an ally.

[Rubik]

The solution is simple; make the line of Cure X spells swift actions. Or make the inflict line vampiric, so when you cast Inflict X wounds you also heal an ally.I like this line of thought, only I'd make Cure spells immediates (which you can also cast as move actions) with some reach, and Inflicts should be touch spells but which can also cure others some distance away.

I'd also boost the damage cured a bit by the Cure spells.

And yes, that's a big bump, but that's just how bad the spells really are. Even with the boosts they're not particularly overpowered, let alone broken. It just means everyone would start trying to kill the healer of the opposing party first (or focus on non-damaging things, or attrition).

[toapat]

I like this line of thought, only I'd make Cure spells immediates (which you can also cast as move actions) with some reach, and Inflicts should be touch spells but which can also cure others some distance away.

I'd also boost the damage cured a bit by the Cure spells.

And yes, that's a big bump, but that's just how bad the spells really are. Even with the boosts they're not particularly overpowered, let alone broken. It just means everyone would start trying to kill the healer of the opposing party first (or focus on non-damaging things, or attrition).

well, didnt blizzard teach SC2 "shoot the medic first" to great effect?

[Tvtyrant]

I like this line of thought, only I'd make Cure spells immediates (which you can also cast as move actions) with some reach, and Inflicts should be touch spells but which can also cure others some distance away.

I'd also boost the damage cured a bit by the Cure spells.

And yes, that's a big bump, but that's just how bad the spells really are. Even with the boosts they're not particularly overpowered, let alone broken. It just means everyone would start trying to kill the healer of the opposing party first (or focus on non-damaging things, or attrition).
And now I know what I want to be when I grow up....

[Menteith]

With bonus feats, what you guys are suggesting is already mostly doable in-game. Mastery of Day and Night freely Maximizes Cure/Inflict spells, Dragon Prophesier + Prophecy's Shepherd lets you freely Quicken Cure/Inflict spells while in prophetic favor (and lets you grab Prophecy's Shaper for a free Empower as well).

It's not terribly hard to get big numbers while healing that can negate a significant amount of damage. The core issue - that HP damage isn't always a big threat, that it's hard to have answers to every debuff out there (unless you know exactly what you'll be fighting), that reactive actions are almost always worse than proactive actions in 3.5 - remain, even with big heals. It's a low-op strategy at heart, and while it's a personal favorite playstyle of mine, that doesn't mean it's very powerful.

[rockdeworld]

I like this line of thought, only I'd make Cure spells immediates (which you can also cast as move actions) with some reach, and Inflicts should be touch spells but which can also cure others some distance away.

I'd also boost the damage cured a bit by the Cure spells.

And yes, that's a big bump, but that's just how bad the spells really are. Even with the boosts they're not particularly overpowered, let alone broken. It just means everyone would start trying to kill the healer of the opposing party first (or focus on non-damaging things, or attrition).
Except, wouldn't that cause the cleric to run out of spell slots extremely quickly? I can't imagine keeping that tactic up for more than a few rounds per day.

[dungeonnerd]

Except, wouldn't that cause the cleric to run out of spell slots extremely quickly? I can't imagine keeping that tactic up for more than a few rounds per day.

No faster than the other way - you'll still hit the same number of combats you would normaly, I think.

[INoKnowNames]

Rather than tell everyone don't heal, don't do this, don't do that, I feel like we should help them try to do so as best as we can. Even if begrudingly so, and with notes on how ineffective such things might be, people still give recommendations on making a Monk or an Oversized Twoweapon Fighter...

Ta feat Invigorating Spellcaster in Dragon Magazine (or at least the Dragon Compendium) lets any spell that cures hit point damage also cure any or all of (dazed, exhausted, fatigued, sickened, or stunned), at the cost of being unable to be silenced due to a required verbal component.

Additionally, the feat Initiative of Ilmater grants excess healing to temporary hit points. Max equal to target hit dice x 3, that lasts as long as your caster level in hours.

Would either of these be useful, combined with techniques that increase how much you heal?

[Jerthanis]

I like this line of thought, only I'd make Cure spells immediates (which you can also cast as move actions) with some reach, and Inflicts should be touch spells but which can also cure others some distance away.

I'd also boost the damage cured a bit by the Cure spells.


What I worry about with numbers expansion and removing the Action Economy Cost from cures as well as giving these spells a range is that if someone has a good healer, you have effectively stopped HP damage as a means of disabling enemies unless you're managing to drop someone in one hit. HP damage doesn't impede opponents' speed, attack or damage, so until you drop someone, you're not really affecting the course of the battle. It seems like in this format, depending on how much you increase healing by, it'll become even more about disabling spells, since HP damage has become trivial to remove in a way that disabling spells still aren't.

[TypoNinja]

No amount of optimization handwringing is worth giving up on your concept.

Nobody says he should, if he wants to play a healbot power to him. I've done it, it was my first character.

However, There is generally the assumption of a Holy Trinity of class roles (4 in D&D with the skillmonkey) Tank DPS and Healer, it may be that somebody is assuming that the healer is going to be more required/effective than that archetype actually is in this particular game. Our OP should be aware of that.

[killem2]

Nobody says he should, if he wants to play a healbot power to him. I've done it, it was my first character.

However, There is generally the assumption of a Holy Trinity of class roles (4 in D&D with the skillmonkey) Tank DPS and Healer, it may be that somebody is assuming that the healer is going to be more required/effective than that archetype actually is in this particular game. Our OP should be aware of that.

Thanks :), I don't want a heal bot, nor do I think it is a great use of a cleric, I just wanted to know why it can be optimized to the best of the playground's knowledge :P

Sorta like what INoKnowNames said.

[navar100]

Rather than tell everyone don't heal, don't do this, don't do that, I feel like we should help them try to do so as best as we can. Even if begrudingly so, and with notes on how ineffective such things might be, people still give recommendations on making a Monk or an Oversized Twoweapon Fighter...

Ta feat Invigorating Spellcaster in Dragon Magazine (or at least the Dragon Compendium) lets any spell that cures hit point damage also cure any or all of (dazed, exhausted, fatigued, sickened, or stunned), at the cost of being unable to be silenced due to a required verbal component.

Additionally, the feat Initiative of Ilmater grants excess healing to temporary hit points. Max equal to target hit dice x 3, that lasts as long as your caster level in hours.

Would either of these be useful, combined with techniques that increase how much you heal?

Feats to facilitate the tactic are fine, but it also comes down do timing of when to cast a Cure Wounds spell as opposed to doing something else. If someone is in Death's Door, do it then to get them back in the fight. If someone is close to Death's Door, do it then to prevent it to keep them in the fight. Neither is universally true. If it's close to TPK kill the bad guys fast and heal up afterwards. You may be too occupied to heal even if you wanted to. Doing something else may really be the better option at that particular moment depending on what that something is.

It really comes down to player experience. You can get a vibe of how a combat will play out/is playing out. You learn whether you're more useful for a particular combat as a warrior, spellcaster, or healbot. Some people prefer playing clerics as one of those roles, period. More likely just the first two. That's fine. For those who choose to have some healbot tactics, it's possible. Clerics have that versatility.

[animewatcha]

One thing to keep in mind is what sources are useable. Body to Body buff from Book of erotic fantasy ( 3rd party, but some thing it is WOTC or something ) can be VERY helpful for healing. Just depends upon combination of feats and sterf that is used.