Augment Healing

[Asteron]

The feat Augment Healing is pretty underwhelming, but what would it take to make it a worth while feat for someone wanting to heal more efficiently in combat?

I was thinking of making it a +1 HP healed per caster level that increases every 5 levels (+2 at level 5, +3 at level 10, etc...)

Is that strong enough? If not, what would make it so?

[OldTrees1]

Healing cannot be efficient in combat unless:
A) It heals damage faster than damage is inflicted
B) It does not detract from non-healing contributions
Method A creates new balance issues. Method B is possible with effort.

Example of Method B:
Cleric 2 / Crusader 3 / Prestige Paladin 1 / Ruby Knight Vindicator X

Martial Spirit stance can provide minor healing several times per turn for 0 actions.
Several Crusader strikes cause healing as a rider effect
The Battle Blessing feat quickens all your Cure spells so they do not interfere with your Move+Strike contributions
The Draconic Aura(Vigor) feat gives all your allies fast healing 1 (up to half health IIRC)

[Asteron]

So... No, its not good enough. Gotcha.

[ddude987]

It really depends on the optimization of your play group. I'm currently playing in a low OP e8 game, and combat healing is more then enough to keep the frontlines alive, without hurting our action economy to badly.

[Skevvix]

If you play with Action Points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm) it can become a little less terribad. One of the uses for AP is to double (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm#improvingFeats) the effect of a feat you have.

But like Oldtrees said, in combat healing is sub-par, and really should only be done in emergencies. That said, when you do need to throw a heal, you want as much bang for your buck, and action points can be a great way to do that. If you don't have a feat (http://dndtools.eu/feats/players-guide-to-eberron--13/mastery-of-day-and-night--1897/) that rocks your healing already, you can emulate it with an AP as long as you have the pre-reqs.

[Telonius]

Maybe if it allowed you to stack a healing effect onto a buff spell, at the cost of a Turn attempt...? Like, 1d4 per level of the spell cast. (I'd be really surprised if this doesn't already exist as a feat somewhere, but I can't think of it off the top of my head).

[Melcar]

Going by RAW on this, Augment Healing gives 2/spelllevel extra healing. So Cast mass Vigor. A level 3 spell that gives 1 fast healing. Now cast Healthful Rest which doubles natural(and fast) healing for 2 per round, and now apply 6 for Augment Healing for a total of 8 per round. Yes it requires a level 1 and a level 3 spell, but I find this to work well in low levels.

And remenber since it a rule that all spellcasters can create his or her own spells. The vigor line of spell could be advanced into a level 9 mass superior vigor that would give 5-7 fast healing. Healthfull Rest would also be advanced to 3-5 times for somewhere between 15 - 35 every round. And then apply Augment Healing for another 18.

It still sucks compared to damage, but it might not suck as bad as first anticipated.

Hope this helps!

[Diarmuid]

For spells like vigor, the benefit for something like augment healing is only applied once on the first round if benefit.

[Silentone98]

Going by RAW on this, Augment Healing gives 2/spelllevel extra healing. So Cast mass Vigor. A level 3 spell that gives 1 fast healing. Now cast Healthful Rest which doubles natural(and fast) healing for 2 per round, and now apply 6 for Augment Healing for a total of 8 per round. Yes it requires a level 1 and a level 3 spell, but I find this to work well in low levels.

And remenber since it a rule that all spellcasters can create his or her own spells. The vigor line of spell could be advanced into a level 9 mass superior vigor that would give 5-7 fast healing. Healthfull Rest would also be advanced to 3-5 times for somewhere between 15 - 35 every round. And then apply Augment Healing for another 18.

It still sucks compared to damage, but it might not suck as bad as first anticipated.

Hope this helps!

applying augment healing to any fast healing effect, directly or indirectly is not something I'd normally allow O.o... I haven't ever thought about it tho,... is this fair play without bending any rules?


as to the OP... combat healing is situational, it should never be efficient as a planned thing(i.e. we are gonna win this fight because I will heal you once each turn and outdo their damage!) and this may be why it comes off as underwhelming to some/many. These people fail to look at how much healing this adds up to in the long run, and this is guaranteed health that you don't randomly roll for.

+2 HP per spell level? that's two caster levels per spell level worth(think about that for a second, how many bonus caster levels worth are we getting on Cure Serious? 6... and it keeps going up), amazingly generous compared to most other feats, and it gets shot down because of the healing mechanics, not its own merits.
augment healing as it is, unedited, helps you regardless of the amount.. if your a healer, or heal a lot- then its still worth it, in or out of combat.
--This doesn't even include the fact that since it functions outside the cure serious(or whichever spell) level cap- it provides a means to break the cap at which your caster levels no longer increase healing.

that said,... healing in combat is inefficient, and if your not healing often enough for it to be worth it, throw this feat out the window.

[Lord Vukodlak]

My cleric manages to make good use of the feat, though in fairness he got it for free as a quest reward so its not like it cost anything.

[Melcar]

For spells like vigor, the benefit for something like augment healing is only applied once on the first round if benefit.

Where is this mentioned?

Augment Healing works for ANY conjuration (healing) spell. Its not my fault that gaining fast healing should have ben a transmutations effect.

But just to elaborate. ANY conjuration (healing)!!!

[HunterOfJello]

Is that strong enough? If not, what would make it so?


Automatic maximize and empower would be a nice start.

[Silentone98]

Where is this mentioned?

I think it's implied.
And mechanically it makes sense. I'd house rule that if anything said differently

[HunterOfJello]

I think it's implied.
And mechanically it makes sense. I'd house rule that if anything said differently

It would be more appropriate to say that Augment Healing adds no additional healing to the Vigor spell line because those spells don't heal a creature. They give a creature the Fast Healing special quality for a certain number of rounds.

The Vigor spells should really be Transmutation and not conjuration(healing) at all.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Where is this mentioned?

Augment Healing works for ANY conjuration (healing) spell. Its not my fault that gaining fast healing should have ben a transmutations effect.

But just to elaborate. ANY conjuration (healing)!!!
The feat description states.

Add +2 points per spell level to the amount of damage healed by any Conjuration [Healing] spell that you cast. If it applied to vigor(more then once) then it be more then (+2 points per spell level).
The way its worded means its applied to spells you cast not instances you heal the target. If it was worded completely differently there could be an argument for it applying every round but as its written it only works once. It does however technically work on restoration, raise dead or any other conjuration(healing) spell but only once.


The Vigor spells should really be Transmutation and not conjuration(healing) at all.Why every other restorative magic is conjuration(healing). Regenerate is already conjuration healing. The spell description says it grants fast healing by boosting your life energy not by altering your cell structure so by all accounts its in the correct school.

[Silentone98]

Honestly I don't believe any of this was in the original spirit and intent of the feat.

If others choose to play it as such, so be it. But not at my table. It's easy to see this one is people just taking advantage of poor wording on the descriptions.

[Asteron]

No, I fully understand that healing in combat is inefficient. I've seen the arguments and I agree with them. This was an attempt to alleviate that. I'm just terribad with homebrew...

The best fix would probably be to make all standard action conjuration [healing] spells into swift actions. It doesn't eat up your other actions that way. It was one of the things 4e got right.

[Dimers]

It does however technically work on restoration, raise dead or any other conjuration(healing) spell but only once.

Disagree -- those don't heal damage at all, rather than healing 0 damage, so they shouldn't benefit. That is, obviously, a judgement call, differentiating "0 damage" from "nothing whatsoever" -- but I think there's precedent for it in the comparison between "no Str score" and "Str 0".

Technically, the feat doesn't say hit point damage, so Lesser Restoration would benefit quite a bit, healing d4+4 ability damage. I haven't even bothered asking my DM about that, though. He wouldn't be amused. :smalltongue:

And I agree with the assessment that the vigor line gives you fast healing, and the fast healing heals you -- the spell itself doesn't have anything to increase, just as raise dead doesn't.

There are three spells my current 3.5 character uses that benefit (EDIT: more than usual) from Augment Healing. Panacea gets +8 hp from it while fixing a debuff, Close Wounds improves by +4 hp and is an immediate action, and Mass Cure Light goes up by +10 for all recipients (nice after an AoE). RAW, the damage dealt to undead by Cure spells wouldn't be increased, but many DMs would allow that anyway.

[Silentone98]

No, I fully understand that healing in combat is inefficient. I've seen the arguments and I agree with them. This was an attempt to alleviate that. I'm just terribad with homebrew...

The best fix would probably be to make all standard action conjuration [healing] spells into swift actions. It doesn't eat up your other actions that way. It was one of the things 4e got right.

Not possible without re-writing the entire system for healing... and that comes with its own bundle of trouble.... it's just my opinion, but I don't believe any editing of Augment Healing is the solution, as I believe that feat is already grossly empowered(relatively speaking) and the system itself is whats at fault.

sorry Mate... I don't even have a suggestion for a fix because the game is by designed meant to avoid combat healing.

@Dimmers

Disagree -- those don't heal damage at all, rather than healing 0 damage, so they shouldn't benefit. That is, obviously, a judgement call, differentiating "0 damage" from "nothing whatsoever" -- but I think there's precedent for it in the comparison between "no Str score" and "Str 0".

I agree they shouldn't benefit... but that's a grey area due to the wording of augment healing. The only thing that could possibly bar them is that augment healing states it "Add +2 points per spell level to the amount of damage healed by any Conjuration [Healing] spell that you cast."

and since no damaged is normally healed... you get my meaning

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's by no means optimal, but Augment Healing feat and having the Soul of Light spell (Cleric 3, C.Champion) up is nice for Close Wounds.

I think if Augment Healing just added your CL to the amount healed (on top of the normal spell parameters), instead of 2 per spell level, it'd be decent. Not a good feat, but not horrible.

Another idea: Any healing spells you actually prepare (as opposed to spontaneously convert over) take up half a slot, so you get two uses of the healing spell (or mix and match different healing spells of the same spell level) for each slot. Hell, maybe even let Augment Healing have both of the pair be cast with a single action (whichever of the pair has the longer casting time, use that for both).

[Silentone98]

I think if Augment Healing just added your CL to the amount healed (on top of the normal spell parameters), instead of 2 per spell level, it'd be decent. Not a good feat, but not horrible.



that would anywhere from double to triple any healing done on anything other than the Heal spell....

this is not a good idea at all and way too generous for the low requirements of the feat.


I like your other Idea beter.... two uses out of every heal slot prepared... at least then you have to use two actions to get that double effect.

[Zaydos]

Ok, actually looking at the OP's suggestion it makes Cure Light Wounds almost the same as Cure Moderate (at Lv 5 it's 19.5 average to 24 average instead of 9.5 average to 14 average a big difference; while the difference is still 4.5 in one +4.5 is +~50% in the other it is +~25%), and eventually adds +100 hp healed to Mass Cure Light Wounds (making it able to roughly keep up with a pit fiend or dragon's full non-PA attack). It's actually too much at high levels (Cure Serious heals almost as much as a normal Heal spell with this). You might could get away with 1/2 CL * Spell level (so Cure Serious Wounds heals +6 when you get it and +30 at Lv 20, while Mass Cure Light gets +20 when you get it and +50 at Lv 20, Mass Cure Critical Wounds would be +56 when you get it and +80 at 20th, or a whopping 136 damage which is about on par with a creature's full attack routine) this would bring them closer into parity with damage without being "My 3rd level spell slot can negate a creature's turn retroactively" or worse close wounds "My 2nd level spell slot can negate a creature's turn as an immediate action" or for some enemies Cure Minor Wound's "My orison undoes your turn" (101 hp is a significant amount). It does have the problem of actually being worse than Augment Healing already is till 4th level (shared with the OP's suggestion and StreamOfSky's first suggestion) and needing a "minimum of 1" in there somewhere.

What I'd actually suggest, though, is leave the feat's base effect alone but have it make (prepared?) Cure spells be automatically quickened. This way they don't eat action economy as much, and therefore even if they don't equal an enemy's full attack still can be worth using. You still get some benefit if you use the good combat heals (Close Wounds or Heal) or the good out of combat heals (Vigor line), but it makes Cure spells decent/good combat heals (Cure Moderate Wounds is double close wounds as a swift instead of immediate and you might not even have to prep it first).

[Thrawn183]

All of the Healer's weaknesses aside, they get Mass Cure Light Wounds as a fourth level spell. Being able to add you Charisma bonus and 8 HP to the spell means that healing your entire party for 20-21 HP average is very easy. That wipes out your entire party failing their saves against a caster level 7 fireball each round.

I'm not saying it's somehow amazing, but people seriously underestimate in combat healing.

[TuggyNE]

that would anywhere from double to triple any healing done on anything other than the Heal spell....

Sounds like a good plan. Heal is generally the standard for "almost acceptable in-combat healing", after all.


All of the Healer's weaknesses aside, they get Mass Cure Light Wounds as a fourth level spell. Being able to add you Charisma bonus and 8 HP to the spell means that healing your entire party for 20-21 HP average is very easy. That wipes out your entire party failing their saves against a caster level 7 fireball each round.

I'm not saying it's somehow amazing, but people seriously underestimate in combat healing.

Problem is that doesn't do well against enemies that focus fire… which is pretty much anything from wolves on up. If you have some way to pool HP or share damage it's a lot better, but that requires some significant investment.

[StreamOfTheSky]

that would anywhere from double to triple any healing done on anything other than the Heal spell...

Really? At what level, exactly?

Cure Light Wounds, for an example (average values).

At CL 1, it would heal 6.5 instead of 5.5

At CL 5, it would heal 14.5 instead of 9.5. Still not double.

At CL 10, it would heal 19.5 instead of 9.5. Now it's double.

At CL 20, it would heal 29.5 instead of 9.5. A bit more than 3x.


But it took an awfully long time to actually make a huge increase. Do you really care if CLW at level 10 is healing about 20 hp? Or 30 hp at level 20? Higher level cure spells would likewise take even longer to get noticeable gains that you claim. It took about 9 levels from when it was first available to double, and....17 to triple, about?

[Silentone98]

What I'd actually suggest, though, is leave the feat's base effect alone but have it make (prepared?) Cure spells be automatically quickened. This way they don't eat action economy as much, and therefore even if they don't equal an enemy's full attack still can be worth using. You still get some benefit if you use the good combat heals (Close Wounds or Heal) or the good out of combat heals (Vigor line), but it makes Cure spells decent/good combat heals (Cure Moderate Wounds is double close wounds as a swift instead of immediate and you might not even have to prep it first).

breaking the action economy isn't a good solution.

your basically saying, outside of insta deaths, I have this much HP 2145657463(or there abouts, lmao.. yes the number is random button mashing! I don't know how many heals you stuffed up that butt!)

Tho it'll lock you out of using a quickened for something else, but... idk, this doesn't appear like a good idea. :/

@Stream
You answered your own question, and turned a level 1 spell into a spell level 3 or so with a single easy access feat(not bothering with the calculations atm)
so... why did you post again?

[StreamOfTheSky]

@Stream
You answered your own question, and turned a level 1 spell into a spell level 3 or so with a single easy access feat(not bothering with the calculations atm)
so... why did you post again?

I didn't turn it into a level 3 spell.

Because no one actually casts Cure Serious Wounds in combat. CLW is decent but often a waste of combat actions. By the time you're at mid-levels, the cure line is just worthless, you're NOT blowing a 3rd level spell just to heal someone for ~19 hp. Perhaps at night time when you're about to lose all your spells anyway and have the nifty converting option. But all the change means is the CLW wands deplete slower. Not a big deal.

[Silentone98]

I didn't turn it into a level 3 spell.

Because no one actually casts Cure Serious Wounds in combat. CLW is decent but often a waste of combat actions. By the time you're at mid-levels, the cure line is just worthless, you're NOT blowing a 3rd level spell just to heal someone for ~19 hp. Perhaps at night time when you're about to lose all your spells anyway and have the nifty converting option. But all the change means is the CLW wands deplete slower. Not a big deal.

Utility feats happen, they really do. :-p

look, I answered the question fairly, and I fail to see how altering a feat to such a point will solve anything. it already does so much within the current system

the current system for healing is flawed, but purposely so. To change this means to play D&D with kitty gloves on. This is DM's discretion of course.
And your entire post here reflects just that,... if the cure line is so useless, ubercharging a low access feat isn't the solution...

maybe if these changes are made AND the requirements increased? idk, but so far the current arguments I seen for making the changes are not justified within the system.


for the record, Cure Light at level 10 = 1d8 +15, 19 or so average when a normal cure serious is 3d8 +10, 22 or so average., there ya go, its been turned into the new cure serious or damn close enough. spell level 1 performing as a spell level 3... Any more questions? I really and not spending the time with the precise calculations on any of this,...

[Zaydos]

breaking the action economy isn't a good solution.

your basically saying, outside of insta deaths, I have this much HP 2145657463(or there abouts, lmao.. yes the number is random button mashing! I don't know how many heals you stuffed up that butt!)

Tho it'll lock you out of using a quickened for something else, but... idk, this doesn't appear like a good idea. :/

Still limited to 46 hp (average) a round on a creature within touch range at Lv 20 with a 4th level spell, or 54 hp to a group with an 8th level spell.

It is not enough to match damage output at high levels and at low levels you're using significant resources to match a single attack (orc deals 9.5 average at CR 1/2, at Lv 1 you're spending one of your 2 1st level slots to heal 8.5, dire wolf deals 14.5 and chance of trip with a bite at CR 3, at Lv 3 you're healing 16 hp with a 2nd level spell, large earth elemental deals 17 per hit at 2 attacks a round at CR 5 for 34 damage, you're healing 24.5 with a 3rd level spell, disparity grows, CR 7 earth elemental 21 damage per hit, you heal 33 hp, at Lv 20 pit fiend deals ~90 damage and has better things to do than melee you and a black dragon deals >100). Though yes with the quickening the +2 hp per spell level actually becomes too much (remove that and you can't ever fully keep up with damage from the heavy hitters of a CR), but at low levels it means you're using a lot of your spell resources to heal and barely passing parity with a crusader (Crusader Lv 1 heals 6.5 damage as part of a standard action 1/encounter and 2 hp as part of it every attack, you're healing 8.5 and can do it 2 maybe 3 times a day).

As a note without the +2/spell level you have 6.5 vs 9.5 damage at Lv 1, 12 vs 14.5 and trip at Lv 3, 18.5 vs 17 or 34 at Lv 5, and 25 vs 21 or 42 at Lv 7, all of these taking a 2/day resource at that level. At level 20 you're looking at 38 hp which is nice, but not going to stop real damage.

[Silentone98]

...

by making it a auto-quickened thing, it doesn't matter if it outpaces melee or not- melee misses, your heal doesn't. And even if they hit every single time, you outlast them, end of story.

the listed solution is bad idea. I am sure there are a thousand ways that would/will be abused.
Sure you chew thru your slots like crazy, but then it only becomes a matter of impact per turn vs impact per day.

just like you don't want to grossly make a character have HUGE impact over the course of the day, you don't want them having huge impact over the course of a single battle either(even if that does burn them out and screw them over in the long run)

[Thrawn183]

Problem is that doesn't do well against enemies that focus fire… which is pretty much anything from wolves on up. If you have some way to pool HP or share damage it's a lot better, but that requires some significant investment.

Shield Other is a second level spell with an hours/level duration that only requires a 100 gp focus. That and a single feat doesn't seem like too large an investment to me.

If I was going for an actually significant investment, I would go cleric and throw in an Amulet of Retributive Healing, pick up the Divine Ward feat to be able to cast Cure Moderate Wounds at a distance and then use a lesser metamagic rod to chain it to the whole party.

Two feats and 16,000 gold to be able to drop a Cure Serious Wounds on the whole party or cast any healing spell on an ally and myself at the same time. We haven't even gotten into things like the PrC Combat Medic.

It's funny how everyone is allowed to optimize their characters, but not for healing.

[Dimers]

by making it a auto-quickened thing, it doesn't matter if it outpaces melee or not- melee misses, your heal doesn't. And even if they hit every single time, you outlast them, end of story.

Did you remember that there's a limit of one quickened spell per round? Not even per monster turn, but per round. Even without multiple creatures focusing fire, it'd be really hard for healing to keep up with the damage a single ally takes in a typical round, if you can even get into position to use the spell.

[Silentone98]

Did you remember that there's a limit of one quickened spell per round? Not even per monster turn, but per round. Even without multiple creatures focusing fire, it'd be really hard for healing to keep up with the damage a single ally takes in a typical round, if you can even get into position to use the spell.

No, I remember just fine.... and you can still cast fairly easily without provoking.... any caster that forgets to invest in concentration, well... not even gonna go there.

And focus attack/swarm tactics shouldn't be part of this discussion... it proves nothing. That's argue'ing for godhood right there. No character should be allowed to withstand such an onslaught.

as too positioning...this also has no place in the argument as its an original limitation that's still there... also with the original workarounds still in place.

as to the amount being healed in comparison to a typical round of receiving damage. This again, for like the 5th time, is how the system works, not a fault with the feat itself. Changing the feat will not fix this outside of ubercharging it to ridiculousness which changing all cure spells to auto swift/quick is pretty dang ridiculous already.

[TuggyNE]

Shield Other is a second level spell with an hours/level duration that only requires a 100 gp focus. That and a single feat doesn't seem like too large an investment to me.

OK, that spreads it from a meatshield to the healer. How about the other two or three party members, who neither share damage nor act as a buffer?


And focus attack/swarm tactics shouldn't be part of this discussion... it proves nothing. That's argue'ing for godhood right there. No character should be allowed to withstand such an onslaught.

Really? Really? One of the most basic tactics any opponent can use, one easily seen in use by wild animals, cannot be withstood except by gods?


as to the amount being healed in comparison to a typical round of receiving damage. This again, for like the 5th time, is how the system works, not a fault with the feat itself. Changing the feat will not fix this outside of ubercharging it to ridiculousness which changing all cure spells to auto swift/quick is pretty dang ridiculous already.

NPC archers with rapid shot, flaming arrows (or bows), and weapon specialization. 1d8+1d6+3, 3 times per round at level 6; let's use 4 of them against a level 10 party. A single character will get hit for maybe 20/round if the damage is spread evenly, or 80/round if not. Adding 10 healing is not going to make much difference here, and that's pretty low-op enemies (they're not even using composite strength bonuses).

[Silentone98]

...

lol, really? As to the swarm tactic, the most common and the among the most difficult to defend against, outside flee'ing or wall/retribution type effects. And both with their own risks. It's not a justification or a valid point to use for justifying increasing healing, because then you'd have to not only increase healing for one persons damage outpout, but potentially hundreds, or apparently YOUR pick of a number. Go ahead... pick a number... match healing to keep up with it.... its not reasonable.
This is why its not a valid argument.
So is there a point to your statement or are you nitpicking over the word godhood, purposely looking pass the point I made?

what are you and the others argue'ing for anyhow? all the arguments im see'ing scream "I want a system that lets me easily and effortless heal in battle, to the point of 'you can't touch me' nah nah nah"

I am seriously confused as to if this is truly a "Make healing viable in combat" or "Make healing ridiculously stronger to the point it doesn't work properly with the games current mechanics"

Someone mentioned action points... doesn't sound like a bad idea actually, all things considered.

A solution within the system would likely be...
Leave augment healing as it is, DO NOT TOUCH IT. Now add in a new feat "Greater Augment Healing": Pre-reqs: Access to 4th level divine spells, Augment Healing feat, and WIS 16? "This Feat expands on Augment Healing's capabilities, increasing to amount healed by Conjuration(healing) spells by +2(or even +3 or +4 could be argued for?) HP per spell level. This effect stacks with Augment Healing.
Now obviously some people would have an issue with this.... but this would be my fair attempt at solving/elevating the problem.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Disagree -- those don't heal damage at all, rather than healing 0 damage, so they shouldn't benefit.

Shouldn't and don't are two different things, going by RAW it would work it doesn't matter that the spells don't technically heal damage because they're still conjuration(healing). And you can't say with a straight face that allowing it to work on those spells the round they're cast is overpowered.

[Asteron]

Not possible without re-writing the entire system for healing... and that comes with its own bundle of trouble.... it's just my opinion, but I don't believe any editing of Augment Healing is the solution, as I believe that feat is already grossly empowered(relatively speaking) and the system itself is whats at fault.

sorry Mate... I don't even have a suggestion for a fix because the game is by designed meant to avoid combat healing.

Why on earth would you have to re-write the entire system for healing? Right now the system is you cast a spell and HP is healed... Making the spells quicker to cast doesn't change that in the least.

I also doubt that the designers didn't mean for combat healing. They absolutely failed at making it worth while, but it was definitely part of the system. Kinda like they did with blasting...

Augment Healing is in no way overpowered as written. It is moderately good at low-mid levels but drastically falls away after that.

Lets take a look at Mass Cure Critical wounds. It's an 8th level spell, minimum CL 15. At that level it gets 4d8 (18 average)+15HP healed. Add in the 16 HP from Augment Healing and you get 49 HP healed on average with a maximum of 63. That is ok for low-op games, but for mid-op and above, that is pathetic even if you do get to heal multiple PC's. It's barely more that a single hit from most melee monsters at that level (again, mid-op and above.)

I do, however, agree that it shouldn't touch Vigor and non HP curing spells. I believe that it is outside the intent of the feat. If I were to re-write the feat, that would be written into it.

What do I want with this? I want a general cleric to be able to heal the critically injured meatshield in such a way that it doesn't die the next round from the full attack it is about to take and I don't want to have to use heal to do it. That isn't too much to ask and we all know it.

[OldTrees1]

Where is this mentioned?

Augment Healing works for ANY conjuration (healing) spell. Its not my fault that gaining fast healing should have ben a transmutations effect.

But just to elaborate. ANY conjuration (healing)!!!

Augment Healing adds Healing to any Conjuration(Healing) spell. Healing =/= Fast Healing. Augment Healing applied to Vigor would heal the target 6hp and then give them fast healing 3.

[Zaydos]

What do I want with this? I want a general cleric to be able to heal the critically injured meatshield in such a way that it doesn't die the next round from the full attack it is about to take and I don't want to have to use heal to do it. That isn't too much to ask and we all know it.

For that something like add CL * Spell level to amount healed.

At level 11 (when Heal comes online) you heal: 20.5 with Cure Light, 41 with Cure Moderate (enough to fully heal a full attack from a hamatula, and almost from an elder earth elemental, or stone golem), 57.5 with Cure Serious, and 73 with Cure Critical (enough to undo 2 and a half strikes from a Cloud Giant, the third strike having only +12 to hit). So that's probably a little too much (average damage being about 40 apparently at that level) perhaps...

(1 + 1/2 CL) * Spell level is probably more reasonable. That cuts the numbers to 15.5, 31, 42.5, and 53. So a 3rd level spell will still possibly counter a full attack, and a 4th will heal enough that if a cloud giant needed more than 1 attack then they'd now survive the full attack.

Or even just +4 hp per spell level instead of +2. Gives you 45 from Cure Critical which heals the better part of a CR 11 creature's full attack especially once misses are accounted for.

Though my fix for that is to lower the level of Cure Critical to 3rd and introduce a Cure Massive Wounds which heals 6d8 + CL. Average 38 at 11th and no resource expenditure other than a spell slot means that it can recover a full attack from most creatures at that level where it is no longer a high level spell for you. I also include a Greater Close Wounds (4d4+CL up to +10; average 20 as an immediate action), and some other stuff. It got a bit much in a game where all 5 players had either Cure Massive or Greater Close Wounds, but was far from impossible to handle.

[Perseus]

The feat Augment Healing is pretty underwhelming, but what would it take to make it a worth while feat for someone wanting to heal more efficiently in combat?

I was thinking of making it a +1 HP healed per caster level that increases every 5 levels (+2 at level 5, +3 at level 10, etc...)

Is that strong enough? If not, what would make it so?

My DM made Augment Healing a +0 metamagic feat.

Effect: May cast any spell that heals damage, negative status effects, or negative levels at medium range.

Also whenever you cast a spell that heals HP (cure light wounds etc...) That spell may be cast as a swift action.

[Asteron]

For that something like add CL * Spell level to amount healed.

At level 11 (when Heal comes online) you heal: 20.5 with Cure Light, 41 with Cure Moderate (enough to fully heal a full attack from a hamatula, and almost from an elder earth elemental, or stone golem), 57.5 with Cure Serious, and 73 with Cure Critical (enough to undo 2 and a half strikes from a Cloud Giant, the third strike having only +12 to hit). So that's probably a little too much (average damage being about 40 apparently at that level) perhaps...

(1 + 1/2 CL) * Spell level is probably more reasonable. That cuts the numbers to 15.5, 31, 42.5, and 53. So a 3rd level spell will still possibly counter a full attack, and a 4th will heal enough that if a cloud giant needed more than 1 attack then they'd now survive the full attack.

Or even just +4 hp per spell level instead of +2. Gives you 45 from Cure Critical which heals the better part of a CR 11 creature's full attack especially once misses are accounted for.

Though my fix for that is to lower the level of Cure Critical to 3rd and introduce a Cure Massive Wounds which heals 6d8 + CL. Average 38 at 11th and no resource expenditure other than a spell slot means that it can recover a full attack from most creatures at that level where it is no longer a high level spell for you. I also include a Greater Close Wounds (4d4+CL up to +10; average 20 as an immediate action), and some other stuff. It got a bit much in a game where all 5 players had either Cure Massive or Greater Close Wounds, but was far from impossible to handle.

Interesting ideas. I'll take them under advisement, especially the Cure Massive Wounds bit. Is the CL cap on that 25?

The version that I outlined averages out at 31.5/41/46.5/51 at level 11. That jumps to 54.5/64/73.5/78.

Both of our versions pretty much trivialize the dice involved. I might go with your second version or mine. I'm not sure which right now.

[Max Caysey]

Shouldn't and don't are two different things, going by RAW it would work it doesn't matter that the spells don't technically heal damage because they're still conjuration(healing). And you can't say with a straight face that allowing it to work on those spells the round they're cast is overpowered.

Indeed. ANY Conjurations spell. I would personally say that this is a transmutations effect. Conjurations (healing) is positive energy, positive energy cant give fast healing. It can however heal you at a rate of 1 HP per round (that in all effects work like fast healing). And I believe that is what should have been what is going on with the spell.

If somehow DM's woudl not allow Augment Healing to function every round (as I think it should), I suggest making this into the transmutations school, for no further misunderstanding.

Personally I allow it. For two reasons. 1) I actually believe this is how it works. 2) If for some reason this is wrong, in does in no way break the game.

Again we are faced with the mistakes of game designers.

[Melcar]

Augment Healing adds Healing to any Conjuration(Healing) spell. Healing =/= Fast Healing. Augment Healing applied to Vigor would heal the target 6hp and then give them fast healing 3.

This is the way I too believe the feat interact with the Vigor spell line.

[Zaydos]

Both of our versions pretty much trivialize the dice involved. I might go with your second version or mine. I'm not sure which right now.

Unless you add dice or use something that multiplies it you will trivialize the dice. Well ok the "just double its normal effect" one might not (+4/die = auto-maximize which would be one of the effects that makes a radiant servant of pelor's healing usable in combat).

Another possible option that just occurred to me is just having it be an auto-empower.

Cure Light then heals 7.75* average at 1st, 14.25 at 5th+ (and really will vary a lot from 9 to 19). Cure Moderate heals 18 average at 3rd (instead of 12), 28.5 at 10th+. Cure Serious heals 27.75 at 5th, 36.75 at 11th, and 42.75 at 15th+. Cure Critical heals 37.5 at 7th, 43.5 at 11th, and 57 at 20th. This results in a little less healing at 11th and a lot less at 20th but does keep the dice relevant if that's what you want.

A flat doubling is also possible (CLW heals 19 at 5th+, CMW heals 38 at 10th+, CSW 57 at 15th+ and 48 at 11th, CCW heals 76 at 20th almost a pit fiend's full attack and 57 at 11th).

*I am simply multiplying the average by 1.5 instead of doing the more accurate form which would require me to account for rounding for each possible roll and then average things.

[Asteron]

Unless you add dice or use something that multiplies it you will trivialize the dice. Well ok the "just double its normal effect" one might not (+4/die = auto-maximize which would be one of the effects that makes a radiant servant of pelor's healing usable in combat).

Another possible option that just occurred to me is just having it be an auto-empower.

Cure Light then heals 7.75* average at 1st, 14.25 at 5th+ (and really will vary a lot from 9 to 19). Cure Moderate heals 18 average at 3rd (instead of 12), 28.5 at 10th+. Cure Serious heals 27.75 at 5th, 36.75 at 11th, and 42.75 at 15th+. Cure Critical heals 37.5 at 7th, 43.5 at 11th, and 57 at 20th. This results in a little less healing at 11th and a lot less at 20th but does keep the dice relevant if that's what you want.

A flat doubling is also possible (CLW heals 19 at 5th+, CMW heals 38 at 10th+, CSW 57 at 15th+ and 48 at 11th, CCW heals 76 at 20th almost a pit fiend's full attack and 57 at 11th).

*I am simply multiplying the average by 1.5 instead of doing the more accurate form which would require me to account for rounding for each possible roll and then average things.

I'm fine with the dice being trivialized. It happens to melee a lot at later levels, why not healing? It was just an observation. I didn't mean for it to come off as a complaint...

[RedMage125]

Really? At what level, exactly?

Cure Light Wounds, for an example (average values).

At CL 1, it would heal 6.5 instead of 5.5

At CL 5, it would heal 14.5 instead of 9.5. Still not double.

At CL 10, it would heal 19.5 instead of 9.5. Now it's double.

At CL 20, it would heal 29.5 instead of 9.5. A bit more than 3x.


But it took an awfully long time to actually make a huge increase. Do you really care if CLW at level 10 is healing about 20 hp? Or 30 hp at level 20? Higher level cure spells would likewise take even longer to get noticeable gains that you claim. It took about 9 levels from when it was first available to double, and....17 to triple, about?

Cure Light Wounds Maxes out it's caster level increase at 5, so your math is off. And it's off anyways, because a d8 averages at 4.5, and you didn't add 2 per spell level, and AH's effect does not increase with CL increases. It remains the same difference between min CL for any given spell and max.

So CLW @ CL1 is 5.5 and with AH is 7.5. Not double, but better for 1st level characters.
@ CL5 CLW is 9.5, still only 11.5 w/AH

CSW at CL5 is 18.5 and with AH is 24.5
@ CL 15 (max for CSW) it's 28.5, and 34.5 with AH

Mass CLW, on the other hand, is 13.5 at CL 9 (when a cleric first gets it), and 23.5 with AH. THAT is closer to doubling the effect, and it affects multiple targets. At max caster level (CL25), it's 29.5, and 39.5 with AH.

Mass Cure Critical Wounds heals 35 on average @ CL 17, and 51 with AH. Again, that's multiple targets, and half and again the benefit at the level at which a cleric aquires the spell.

To the OP: As a DM who has run a 3.5e game with a cleric in the party who had this feat, I feel qualified to give some input on this. The game ran until about level 12-13 ish and the cleric healed very well. Especially when he acquired the Mass versions of the Cure spells, the AH feat really took off in its effectiveness.

I also allowed the spell Close Wounds (Spell Compendium, which I am normally very sketchy about allowing spells from). It's a level 2 spell, heals 1d4+CL damage (max 5), and-here's the kicker-can be cast as an immediate action at Close range (25' +5'/2levels). The spell explicitly kicks in at the same time as the damage, which can keep a party member alive if they would have dropped below -10. AH gives it an extra 4 points of healing, which can be that extra lifesaver when keeping a party member in the positive numbers. At CL 3 it's 9.5 over the 5.5 without the feat, and at CL 5 and above, it's 11.5 instead of 7.5. Since Close Wounds is an immediate action castable at range, the extra healing from AH is pretty significant, since it's over half and again the spell effect.

[Zaydos]

I'm fine with the dice being trivialized. It happens to melee a lot at later levels, why not healing? It was just an observation. I didn't mean for it to come off as a complaint...

Mostly at this point it's math and brain storming on my part because 1) I like the game math; 2) it helps me to be able to balance it.

I'm getting a better idea what these increases mean and how much healing is needed to trivialize an attack at various levels (a Heal spell trivializes a pit fiend's full attack if each attack hits, and some crit, and the target fails both fort saves for example).

[ericgrau]

The feat Augment Healing is pretty underwhelming, but what would it take to make it a worth while feat for someone wanting to heal more efficiently in combat?

I was thinking of making it a +1 HP healed per caster level that increases every 5 levels (+2 at level 5, +3 at level 10, etc...)

Is that strong enough? If not, what would make it so?


Healing cannot be efficient in combat unless:
A) It heals damage faster than damage is inflicted
With unoptimized damage, it does exceed damage, without any feats to boost it. How much you need to boost healing to keep up with optimization depends on how much you and your group are optimizing. So you are the best person to answer your own question, and everyone else's answers will vary.

A second issue you run into is making your new augment healing match the other 1,000 feats. You may need to increase it only enough to match the splatbook feats your group tends to use, and give the rest for free to all healing spells without any feats. Otherwise, depending on how good you decide to make healing compared to damage, it may become feat tax: a choice that's so good that it becomes an automatic choice leaving less fun options for characters to choose to put into their build.

[OldTrees1]

With unoptimized damage, it does exceed damage, without any feats to boost it. How much you need to boost healing to keep up with optimization depends on how much you and your group are optimizing. So you are the best person to answer your own question, and everyone else's answers will vary.

[Curious] At what level?
5th: CLW per round is 9.5hp. So you can counter anyone dealing less than 9.5 damage per round. A greatsword with 16 str deals 10 damage and is a CR 1 opponent (less than a single character's responsibility during a CR 5 fight).


A second issue you run into is making your new augment healing match the other 1,000 feats. You may need to increase it only enough to match the splatbook feats your group tends to use, and give the rest for free to all healing spells without any feats. Otherwise, depending on how good you decide to make healing compared to damage, it may become feat tax: a choice that's so good that it becomes an automatic choice leaving less fun options for characters to choose to put into their build.

^Very important^. When making a fix, do not leave it with an inelegant design flaw like a feat tax. Buff the default rules as well.

[Asteron]

[Curious] ^Very important^. When making a fix, do not leave it with an inelegant design flaw like a feat tax. Buff the default rules as well.

Then what do you suggest for buffing the default rules?


To the OP: As a DM who has run a 3.5e game with a cleric in the party who had this feat, I feel qualified to give some input on this. The game ran until about level 12-13 ish and the cleric healed very well. Especially when he acquired the Mass versions of the Cure spells, the AH feat really took off in its effectiveness.

I also allowed the spell Close Wounds (Spell Compendium, which I am normally very sketchy about allowing spells from). It's a level 2 spell, heals 1d4+CL damage (max 5), and-here's the kicker-can be cast as an immediate action at Close range (25' +5'/2levels). The spell explicitly kicks in at the same time as the damage, which can keep a party member alive if they would have dropped below -10. AH gives it an extra 4 points of healing, which can be that extra lifesaver when keeping a party member in the positive numbers. At CL 3 it's 9.5 over the 5.5 without the feat, and at CL 5 and above, it's 11.5 instead of 7.5. Since Close Wounds is an immediate action castable at range, the extra healing from AH is pretty significant, since it's over half and again the spell effect.

You obviously play a lower-op game, which is fine. The feat may work as written for that type of game. I'm looking more at mid-op games, where it doesn't work.

[ericgrau]

[Curious] At what level?
5th: CLW per round is 9.5hp. So you can counter anyone dealing less than 9.5 damage per round. A greatsword with 16 str deals 10 damage and is a CR 1 opponent (less than a single character's responsibility during a CR 5 fight).
The greatsword doesn't always hit. So you provided the example already. CLW > CR 1 greatsword.

Though you should use CSW for 18.5 rather than CLW for 9.5. And the foe could be a little stronger too, maybe CR 3 for a challenge.

And you might even compare to an allies' damage instead. You could add in rage or weapon specialization even with low optimization, and use CSW instead of CLW. But it does work out. ~13-14 damage from the weapon, ~10-11 b/c of misses, 18.5 from CSW. At level 6, the secondary attack hits less often and only on full attacks so it's another ~3-4 damage per round.

So basically from level 1 onward, though heal is even better.

[OldTrees1]

Then what do you suggest for buffing the default rules?

I don't like a situation where the conflict devolves into the higher number per round wins and the other side had no effect. This situation occurs whenever healing per round and damage per round take the same number of actions but result in different numbers. So I do not have a method A(higher healing per round) suggestion. However if you were to use method A, then you would want to increase the healing the base spells do in addition to increasing the healing the feat gives. This way the increase from no-feat to one-feat is on par with other feats at your table.

How would I buff the default rules for a method B (less action taxing) suggestion? I would make all cure spells cast as swift actions. Then I would roll Augment Healing and Imbued Healing into 1 feat. I would also allow a feat that rendered all cure spells maximized and cast as immediate actions.


The greatsword doesn't always hit. So you provided the example already.

Fair enough, although combat might be over before it misses.

[Asteron]

I don't like a situation where the conflict devolves into the higher number per round wins and the other side had no effect. This situation occurs whenever healing per round and damage per round take the same number of actions but result in different numbers. So I do not have a method A(higher healing per round) suggestion. However if you were to use method A, then you would want to increase the healing the base spells do in addition to increasing the healing the feat gives. This way the increase from no-feat to one-feat is on par with other feats at your table.

How would I buff the default rules for a method B (less action taxing) suggestion? I would make all cure spells cast as swift actions. Then I would roll Augment Healing and Imbued Healing into 1 feat. I would also allow a feat that rendered all cure spells maximized and cast as immediate actions.

I do like the idea of all Conjuration [Healing] spells being cast as swift actions. I even floated the idea earlier in the thread (I believe as a response to one of you posts?) and will probably make that a houserule going forward.

I'll take the other ideas under advisement. The maximize/cast as an immediate action would definitely have to be times per day, either Wisdom or Charisma, whichever is higher... My houserules document keeps getting longer (in a good way, as they tend to give more to the players thant I take away)!

[OldTrees1]

I do like the idea of all Conjuration [Healing] spells being cast as swift actions. I even floated the idea earlier in the thread (I believe as a response to one of you posts?) and will probably make that a houserule going forward.

I'll take the other ideas under advisement. The maximize/cast as an immediate action would definitely have to be times per day, either Wisdom or Charisma, whichever is higher... My houserules document keeps getting longer (in a good way, as they tend to give more to the players thant I take away)!

There already is a feat that maximizes all cure/inflict spells without a daily limit. It is weak enough that nobody ever remembers it. Buffing this weak feat so that it also makes cure spells immediate actions is reasonable without a limit per day (assuming you are already making them swift actions as default).

[Asteron]

There already is a feat that maximizes all cure/inflict spells without a daily limit. It is weak enough that nobody ever remembers it. Buffing this weak feat so that it also makes cure spells immediate actions is reasonable without a limit per day (assuming you are already making them swift actions as default).

What feat is that?

[OldTrees1]

What feat is that?

Mastery of Day and Night [PGtE]
Prerequisites: Knowledge(the planes) 2, Spellcraft 6, Maximize Spell

[Asteron]

Mastery of Day and Night [PGtE]
Prerequisites: Knowledge(the planes) 2, Spellcraft 6, Maximize Spell

If I am reading this correctly, the feat says that you can do this without the level of the spell increasing or the time it takes to cast. Is that right?

[OldTrees1]

If I am reading this correctly, the feat says that you can do this without the level of the spell increasing or the time it takes to cast. Is that right?

Yes that is correct. It would be worthless otherwise.

[Asteron]

Yes that is correct. It would be worthless otherwise.

I was just making sure my reading comprehension was functioning. Yeah, that could be changed to allowing them to cast as an immediate action w/ the changing heals to swift actions..

If I did that though, I probably also hold back on buffing the amount healed. Like you said, it would be a race to see whether damage or healing could get bigger numbers. I'd probably make Augment Healing strait-up +CL, minimum +2.

Thanks for helping me out with this. I feel like I better understand why healing is inefficient.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Cure Light Wounds Maxes out it's caster level increase at 5, so your math is off. And it's off anyways, because a d8 averages at 4.5, and you didn't add 2 per spell level, and AH's effect does not increase with CL increases. It remains the same difference between min CL for any given spell and max.

So CLW @ CL1 is 5.5 and with AH is 7.5. Not double, but better for 1st level characters.
@ CL5 CLW is 9.5, still only 11.5 w/AH

CSW at CL5 is 18.5 and with AH is 24.5
@ CL 15 (max for CSW) it's 28.5, and 34.5 with AH

Mass CLW, on the other hand, is 13.5 at CL 9 (when a cleric first gets it), and 23.5 with AH. THAT is closer to doubling the effect, and it affects multiple targets. At max caster level (CL25), it's 29.5, and 39.5 with AH.

Mass Cure Critical Wounds heals 35 on average @ CL 17, and 51 with AH. Again, that's multiple targets, and half and again the benefit at the level at which a cleric aquires the spell.

My math isn't off, your reading comprehension is off.

I was discussing my first proposal, to add CL (uncapped, if that wasn't clear) on top of the normal CL bonus you'd be adding to cure spells, to all healing spells. As a quick and simple fix. I was NOT talking about how Augment Healing works as written, where it adds 2 per spell level. My post was directly in response to someone critiquing my alternate/improved version.

A d8 does indeed average 4.5, so at CL 1, CLW heals 5.5 (4.5 + 1) and at CL 5 and onwards, it heals 9.5 (4.5 +5). In other words....the exact numbers I used in my analysis.

I then compared these values to what the healing would be with my proposed change. Again, and I cannot stress this enough.... NOT with the as-written Augment Healing feat, but with my "quick fix" that would instead add CL to the number (again, in many cases). And thus, CLW at CL 1 would indeed be 6.5 (4.5 +1 +1), at level 5 it would be 14.5 (4.5 +5 +5), and at level 10 it would be 19.5 (4.5 +5 +10).
Also...to repeat myself, in each case, I am talking about CLW. I did not mention CSW until a later post in reference to someone else claiming I had just made CLW as good as a 3rd level spell. Kind of hard to debate that claim without discussing the 3rd level spell in question, you know? I have no idea why you started calculating CSW healing amounts in response to the quoted post.

So no. Despite being pretty sleepy when I posted that, my math was in fact without error.

[RedMage125]

You obviously play a lower-op game, which is fine. The feat may work as written for that type of game. I'm looking more at mid-op games, where it doesn't work.
Wow, condescend much?

For your information, I do play about mid-op. While my players were not huge optimizers (that is, they did not frequent any CharOp boards here or at WotC), I did help them when they leveled to keep from making sub-optimal choices. I wasn't running a hugely optimized group of enemies, however. I ran Paizo's Age of Worms Adventure Path when I had that cleric in the group. And I run my games pretty close to RAW, and ran that adventure path right out of the books.

The cleric in question was a human cleric of Hieronious. I remember he took the War and Glory domains, and that he definitely took Augment Healing early on.

I really don't think you need to strive to make clerics more powerful by making all heal spells swift actions or anything. Clerics are already one of the most powerful classes in 3.5e. It's not like 4e, where a cleric's healing meant he could still make attacks or do other stuff that round. When a cleric set out to heal that round, it was pretty much what he was doing.

Augment Healing still gives extra healing each spell. And that extra healing grows as you use higher level spells. With the math I pointed out last post, you can see that, when used with a cleric's highest-level healing spell for that level (and especially for the Mass Cure spells), it can be an additional 25-50% extra healing. And with the Mass Cure spells, that's multi-target, so it's pretty effective. Yes, when you use lower-level healing spells at a higher caster level, the extra benefit from AH is a drop in a bucket compared to what your Caster Level brings to the spell. But like I said Mass CLW at level 9 is 13.5 Healing per person without, and 23.5 per person with. CMW at that level is 18 without vs 24 with, much less impressive, but if your cleric had AH early on, his CMW at level 3 would have been 12 without AH and 16 with.

And Close Wounds is a great spell. Less healing on the dice, but cast at range with an immediate action is great.

Bottom line is this: It can be only one hit point making the difference between Alive and Dead in D&D. And Augment Healing grants extra healing to every spell. If you're playing strictly RAW, and want to make a great healer, it's a solid feat choice, especially if you're going to be playing the character for awhile, where you will see that benefit for EACH AND EVERY spell of the healing subschool that you cast. While it may not always look impressive when looked at one spell at a time, over time, it means more healing distributed throughout the adventuring day, and potentially less spell slots used in healing.

Yes, In-combat healing is not always the most efficient way to heal, but the game is set up that way. And at lower levels you have to do more of it. I would say if conservation of resources (including spell slots) is a goal, a good choice for a cleric is Scribe Scroll, which would allow you to stockpile your healing spells for both in-and-out-of-combat healing, while potentially using your valuable spell slots for better things, and still providing healing to the party. Craft Wand is even better once you can get it, because wands of low-level spell can be made cheaply. You could make 2 wands of CLW for less than the cost of making one of CMW.

[RedMage125]

My math isn't off, your reading comprehension is off.
I apologize. I was not clear on that.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I apologize. I was not clear on that.

It's ok. Well, in any case, adding CL twice is probably not a good alternative, even if it's fairly simple. I think I like the double-usage-per-slot idea better.

[Asteron]

Wow, condescend much?

For your information, I do play about mid-op. While my players were not huge optimizers (that is, they did not frequent any CharOp boards here or at WotC), I did help them when they leveled to keep from making sub-optimal choices. I wasn't running a hugely optimized group of enemies, however. I ran Paizo's Age of Worms Adventure Path when I had that cleric in the group. And I run my games pretty close to RAW, and ran that adventure path right out of the books.

The cleric in question was a human cleric of Hieronious. I remember he took the War and Glory domains, and that he definitely took Augment Healing early on.

I really don't think you need to strive to make clerics more powerful by making all heal spells swift actions or anything. Clerics are already one of the most powerful classes in 3.5e. It's not like 4e, where a cleric's healing meant he could still make attacks or do other stuff that round. When a cleric set out to heal that round, it was pretty much what he was doing.

Augment Healing still gives extra healing each spell. And that extra healing grows as you use higher level spells. With the math I pointed out last post, you can see that, when used with a cleric's highest-level healing spell for that level (and especially for the Mass Cure spells), it can be an additional 25-50% extra healing. And with the Mass Cure spells, that's multi-target, so it's pretty effective. Yes, when you use lower-level healing spells at a higher caster level, the extra benefit from AH is a drop in a bucket compared to what your Caster Level brings to the spell. But like I said Mass CLW at level 9 is 13.5 Healing per person without, and 23.5 per person with. CMW at that level is 18 without vs 24 with, much less impressive, but if your cleric had AH early on, his CMW at level 3 would have been 12 without AH and 16 with.

And Close Wounds is a great spell. Less healing on the dice, but cast at range with an immediate action is great.

Bottom line is this: It can be only one hit point making the difference between Alive and Dead in D&D. And Augment Healing grants extra healing to every spell. If you're playing strictly RAW, and want to make a great healer, it's a solid feat choice, especially if you're going to be playing the character for awhile, where you will see that benefit for EACH AND EVERY spell of the healing subschool that you cast. While it may not always look impressive when looked at one spell at a time, over time, it means more healing distributed throughout the adventuring day, and potentially less spell slots used in healing.

Yes, In-combat healing is not always the most efficient way to heal, but the game is set up that way. And at lower levels you have to do more of it. I would say if conservation of resources (including spell slots) is a goal, a good choice for a cleric is Scribe Scroll, which would allow you to stockpile your healing spells for both in-and-out-of-combat healing, while potentially using your valuable spell slots for better things, and still providing healing to the party. Craft Wand is even better once you can get it, because wands of low-level spell can be made cheaply. You could make 2 wands of CLW for less than the cost of making one of CMW.

Yeah, its condescending, but so are you with "the math you pointed out last post..." I don't need you to do that math for me. Its also condescending to tell me things I already know. I've played this game for quite a while and have learned these things firsthand. I don't need it mansplained by someone on the internet. Finally, anyone who thinks the Spell Compendium is sketchy doesn't play mid-op games... Just saying.

I clearly don't accept that healing has to be completely inefficient. That's the point of the thread. Guess what? It worked. I've found a way to make healing better in my campaign. Is the fact that the cleric and druid are the main classes that will cast healing spells going to change? No, its not. However, I made this thread with a Healer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133118) in mind.

Furthermore, I don't think that this makes the cleric that much more powerful. Every spell slot that they are using on healing is one less spell they are using to end an encounter. Which, thinking about it, means these options might not even be used that much. I just want the option to be there in case someone wants to play that type of character.

[Lans]

Healing cannot be efficient in combat unless:
A) It heals damage faster than damage is inflicted


I disagree with this, I think the key is for it to heal enough for the party to live long enough to kill the opponent




It is not enough to match damage output at high levels and at low levels you're using significant resources to match a single attack (orc deals 9.5 average at CR 1/2, at Lv 1 you're spending one of your 2 1st level slots to heal 8.5, You could use faith healing to heal 12 hp flat out.




large earth elemental deals 17 per hit at 2 attacks a round at CR 5 for 34 damage, you're healing 24.5 with a 3rd level spell, disparity grows, CR 7 earth elemental 21 damage per hit, you heal 33 hp,,The party can use with draw actions and tumble to make the elemental be limited to standared actions attacks.

Otherwise you need to put a lot of resources into it, like the martial characters do for there thing. :smallwink:

[OldTrees1]

I disagree with this, I think the key is for it to heal enough for the party to live long enough to kill the opponent

If you are healing less damage than is dealt by your share of the opponents, then you are contributing less towards victory than your share of the opponents is contributing towards your defeat. You are failing to contribute if you can't carry your weight.

[Lans]

I disagree, if your keeping your party from being killed before the encounter ends, then your pulling your weight, as a healer

[OldTrees1]

I disagree, if your keeping your party from being killed before the encounter ends, then your pulling your weight, as a healer

But it is not possible to be responsible for keeping the party from being killed if your added healing cannot outpace the added damage from your share of the opposition.

Take generic party of 3 PCs vs 3 enemies. Add 1 healer PC and 1 enemy. If the healer cannot outpace the damage per round of 1 enemy, then they are not pulling their weight (the enemy added by the DM to factor in the additional PC).

[Lord Vukodlak]

But it is not possible to be responsible for keeping the party from being killed if your added healing cannot outpace the added damage from your share of the opposition.

Not actually true a well timed cure or cure mass can keep a character(s) alive when he otherwise would have died or at least gone unconscious following the enemies next attack(s). Thirty damage vs twenty hp equals dead. Would cure moderate wounds keep pace? nope but that character would stay in the fight for another round and he might be better able to kill the opponent then the cleric.

Does that make the augmented healing feat worth it.... no.

[OldTrees1]

Not actually true a well timed cure or cure mass can keep a character(s) alive when he otherwise would have died or at least gone unconscious following the enemies next attack(s). Thirty damage vs twenty hp equals dead. Would cure moderate wounds keep pace? nope but that character would stay in the fight for another round and he might be better able to kill the opponent then the cleric.

Does that make the augmented healing feat worth it.... no.

So the 3 PCs are in a situation where one is at risk of dying. You are suggesting adding a healer that would heal the wounded PC 20hp in exchange for an additional enemy that would deal the wounded PC 30 damage? Because I was saying the additional healer would need to be able to carry the additional weight they bring.

[Lord Vukodlak]

So the 3 PCs are in a situation where one is at risk of dying. You are suggesting adding a healer that would heal the wounded PC 20hp in exchange for an additional enemy that would deal the wounded PC 30 damage?

No I'm not saying that. Why are enemies magically appearing because the cleric decides to cast a cure spell instead of fighting himself? You originally made the claim.

Healing cannot be efficient in combat unless:
A) It heals damage faster than damage is inflicted

What I and Lans were telling you was that belief in incorrect, sometimes the cleric or whomever has the healing stuff can't solve the problem on their turn maybe they don't have the right spells prepared or maybe the right spells were already used in a different encounter, but they can ensure that the ally who can solve the problem lives to do so.

Which is why saying "Healing cannot be efficient in combat unless: it heals damage faster then its inflicted" is only mostly true.

Sometimes staying alive for one more round just takes a few more hp and on multiple occasions I've seen that save a party from multiple deaths. Sure the cleric is Tier 1 but sometimes its not the guy you need to save the day.

[OldTrees1]

No I'm not saying that. Why are enemies magically appearing because the cleric decides to cast a cure spell instead of fighting himself? You originally made the claim.

I was examining the efficiency of healing by considering if adding a healing PC to a party would or would not be efficient (assuming the encounter is expanded as the number of PCs is expanded).

So enemies are not magically appear because the cleric decides to cast a cure.
Enemies are magically appearing just as the cleric is magically appearing.

So if a healer is added to the party and they heal slower than their share of the enemies (since more PCs = more opponents) deals damage, then they are a net drain on the party's health.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I was examining the efficiency of healing by considering if adding a healing PC to a party would or would not be efficient (assuming the encounter is expanded as the number of PCs is expanded).
We must use the term healer differently, for me

A healer is anyone whose largely responsible for restoring the parties lost hit points be that during battle or in between encounters. Be that done by cure spells, wands, staves or in PF channel energy.

This job might land on someone with UMD, but most often it falls on someone who can actually cast cure spells themselves. If the guy patching the group up between encounters is the wizard using UMD to use wands and staves... he's the party healer. The fact they'd almost never heal in combat is irrelevant to if they are a healer or not.

Despite the fact that healing in combat (except for the spell heal) is inefficent sometimes keeping a character alive one more round is the best option even when the damage healed is less then the damage they receive its enough to buy one round, either for the party to escape or pull off something else.

Actually just a few weeks ago in my group the Eldritch Knight used cast cure serous wounds from a wand which kept my Cleric live long enough to cast a karmic bead enhanced dictum which Paralyzed every foe in the area... and half the party as two PC's were chaotic.

[OldTrees1]

We must use the term healer differently, for me.

Normally I use healer to mean someone that heals (hp, ability damage, negative levels and death) out of combat. However I am using healer differently here.

Here, I was using healer to describe a character that only contributed to the encounter by healing. This definition arose from my statement about 'healing is efficient only if it does not interfere with your other contributions OR your healing output eclipse the damage output of your share of the opposition'. Since someone took issue with the second half of that statement, I assume they were talking about a character that did not contribute other than healing.


Also you are absolutely right that sometimes inefficient means (like in combat healing less than your share of damage) are made necessary by the circumstances.

[RedMage125]

I find it so amusing that some of the optimizers here insist that some elements of the game which has been around for 14 years and are still played today somehow "don't work" or "fail completely".
Thousands of gamers did just fine with the way healing worked when 3.x was the current edition. I personally know dozens who still play 3.5e (and NOT Pathfinder) as-is, and their groups do fine. The systems don't NEED some kind of mass overhaul, they worked fine then, they work fine now. If your party's still alive at the end of the encounter, your healer did fine. Just because you don't end a tough encounter with full hit points doesn't mean your healer somehow "failed" (which is what is implied you mean by "healing must equal damage output of enemies"). Lower levels sometimes are tougher on adventuring groups who want to try and plow through an entire dungeon in one trip like a video game. That's the way it is, it's a part of the process. Level 3 D&D parties don't have the same kind of nigh-inexhaustable resources that a level 17 party has, nor should they.
I understand wanting to optimize in the arena of "I want my character to be good at what he does". That makes sense. But going as far as "I must squeeze out every last bit of DPR/healing/whatever to 'win the game' or else my character is a failure in my eyes" is going way too far in my opinion. CharOp to that extreme shouldn't be necessary unless your DM is also Optimizing monsters to that same extent. And unless your specific group ENJOYS that kind of adversarial DMing that pits the players against the DM (as opposed to, you know, a group of friends who sit doewn at a table TOGETHER to play a game), a DM has no need to do so.

[OldTrees1]

I find it so amusing that some of the optimizers here insist that some elements of the game which has been around for 14 years and are still played today somehow "don't work" or "fail completely".

I agree with your entire post. (Although I suspect it was mistakenly aimed at me. I used "inefficient" not "failed" for a reason and the healing only needed to exceed the damage from that devoted healer's share of the enemies. You should still end with less than full hp.)

However, once in a while I get bored. In those times I contemplate how games that "work fine now" could be improved towards a more ideal game. This thought exercise is fun and improves game design skills.

[Pinkie Pyro]

make it so it works like augment summoning, when you heal someone, you can also apply another spell to them.

[OldTrees1]

make it so it works like augment summoning, when you heal someone, you can also apply another spell to them.

Imbued Healing [feat] is similar.

[RedMage125]

I agree with your entire post. (Although I suspect it was mistakenly aimed at me. I used "inefficient" not "failed" for a reason and the healing only needed to exceed the damage from that devoted healer's share of the enemies. You should still end with less than full hp.)

However, once in a while I get bored. In those times I contemplate how games that "work fine now" could be improved towards a more ideal game. This thought exercise is fun and improves game design skills.

It was actually not aimed at any individual poster here. If any poster here percieves that it is, I apologize. It is coached as a general statement, and intended so as well.

I did paraphrase your post because of how that assertation resonates with me, but that was to highlight my point, not to single you out as the target of my post.

[Lans]

But it is not possible to be responsible for keeping the party from being killed if your added healing cannot outpace the added damage from your share of the opposition.

Take generic party of 3 PCs vs 3 enemies. Add 1 healer PC and 1 enemy. If the healer cannot outpace the damage per round of 1 enemy, then they are not pulling their weight (the enemy added by the DM to factor in the additional PC).

OK, I miss understood, I took it as needing to negate an enemy, but your saying to negate some percentage of the damage based on the number of party members and enemies. This I can agree with, outside of healing spells that also buff and the like.

[OldTrees1]

It was actually not aimed at any individual poster here. If any poster here percieves that it is, I apologize. It is coached as a general statement, and intended so as well.

I did paraphrase your post because of how that assertation resonates with me, but that was to highlight my point, not to single you out as the target of my post.

Warning: Dense paragraph
I did not think you were trying to single me out. I noticed you paraphrasing my point. This made me think you were responding to my point in addition to making the general statement that you started with. I inferred you were implying the two were connected. I admit that my loose language sometimes causes me to miscommunicate my points. Since I did not think your paraphrasing accurately represented what I intended to communicate, I added clarification of my point.


OK, I miss understood, I took it as needing to negate an enemy, but your saying to negate some percentage of the damage based on the number of party members and enemies. This I can agree with, outside of healing spells that also buff and the like.

Sorry for my miscommunication. Glad we have that cleared up.

Personally though, I think that Method A (healing is efficient when "negating some percentage of the damage based on the number of party members and enemies") is poor design. Unless you get the sides exactly equal, you are rendering one side or the other inefficient.
Hence why I prefer the design of Method B (healing is efficient when it permits the healer to also contribute in other ways) say with healing buffs, quickened healing or triggered/non-action healing.

[Lans]

With that healing becomes more viable comparatively, at level seven an earth elemental deals 40, and your responsible for 10 of that. CLW would heal 9.5 on average, and with augment healing adding 2 or that domain healing feat adding 7thp or 3 dr its easily done.