Healers as tier five: the greatest travesty ever committed by mankind?

[eggynack]

So, the healer. They're that horrible little class that, despite having prepared casting for nine levels, still manages to fall behind the adept on the tier list, an NPC class that only has up to 5th level spells. It's for good reason too. Sure, there's the occasional spell that's actually interesting on their list, like freedom of movement, true seeing, and topping off with gate, but for the most part, it's just healing, healing, and more healing. As any player versed in high optimization will tell you, healing isn't all that good, and as some will tell you, healers aren't actually that good at it, falling behind the cleric in their chosen role, due to a lack of spontaneous healing and the vigor line, among other factors. It's a tragic thing, and it makes the healer into the only full caster off of a prepared list in tier five, or even four, three, or hell, two. It's just not a thing that happens.

However, then you add on sanctified spells, and everything changes. These are a pile of spells, spread across the book of exalted deeds, and in a lesser known fashion, across champions of valor, and that spell list that was once horrible becomes a lot more interesting. You get buffs, like luminous armor, divination, like inquisition, minionmancy, with such classics as animate with the spirit, valiant steed, and cry of ysgard, and even blasting, like hammer of righteousness. Another major tier factor that isn't even considered in the why each class is in its tier thread (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4869.0) is the mount. Granted, you start off with the rather weak unicorn, but by level 12 you can pick up a lammasu, granting 7th level cleric casting, and at level 16 you can swap that for a couatl, granting 9th level sorcerer casting. That's not exactly fantastic stuff, but it's pretty good. The half casting classes never really get anything like that without other sources, so it's pretty relevant.

The real weakness of this argument, or at least the first claim, is that it's based on material outside of the class' book/core, while my understanding is that the tier system primarily works off of those sources. Still, I think that it's a fair addition to the class, as it's such a small number of sources that add so ridiculously much. Overall, what I'm proposing is a shift to either tier four or tier three. The former seems like an obvious move to me. while the latter is a lot more debatable. With that said, let's begin the thread.

[Snowbluff]

I played one in a game that was all low tier with limited # of books. I was able to maintain the HP of a paladin getting pummeled by some ogres. Very handy in a weak party.

Not to mention you always have the option of casting Sanctified or Corrupt spells.

[Pluto!]

The Tier thread isn't faultless!?!

DDDD:

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think that making it an spontaneous caster and perhaps adding an Expanded/Eclectic Learning would make the Healer a lot stronger, perhaps even sending it to tier 3 or at least high tier 4.

[eggynack]

Not to mention you always have the option of casting Sanctified or Corrupt spells.
Such is the core of the argument in the OP, though you can't use corrupt spells, owing to the healer's "any good" restriction.

I think that making it an spontaneous caster and perhaps adding an Expanded/Eclectic Learning would make the Healer a lot stronger, perhaps even sending it to tier 3 or at least high tier 4.
Actually, my claim is that they're there now, with naught but the use of a couple of splat books. In fact, making the healer spontaneous could result in a power reduction by this argument, as it would lose access to sanctified spells.

[Snowbluff]

Such is the core of the argument in the OP, though you can't use corrupt spells, owing to the healer's "any good" restriction.
They don't have an alignment restriction. :smallwink:

[Giddonihah]

Problem: Assuming people know or want to know anything about the BoeD. Because of that simple problem the average Healer is Tier5. If Sanctified spell awareness was spread, then maybe you would have something.

[Karnith]

Such is the core of the argument in the OP, though you can't use corrupt spells, owing to the healer's "any good" restriction.
Eh, they can already cast an evil spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm) (even though the spell being Evil is idiotic); casting some Corrupt spells may cause a Healer to fall, as it shifts alignment, but one could still do it.

On the topic of expanded spell access, thanks to the Healer's infuriatingly vague "ethos"/CoC, it's entirely possible that casting offensive spells may cause the Healer to lose his or her class abilities, which is a bit of a downer. It's a DM call (because, hey, why should WotC define a class's Code of Conduct when they lose everything for not adhering to it?), but the fluff specifically says that Healers eschew the use of violent spells.

[nedz]

The tier system does not exclude any books, otherwise only 13 base classes would have been ranked. One problem is that Sanctified spells can be added to several classes — do we re-evaluate their tiers also ?

[Piggy Knowles]

Actually, my claim is that they're there now, with naught but the use of a couple of splat books. In fact, making the healer spontaneous could result in a power reduction by this argument, as it would lose access to sanctified spells.

Eh, I tend to agree that the healer is underestimated, mostly because the "healing sucks!" mentality is right up there with "blasting sucks!" as something CO folks tend to shout a lot without thinking too much about it. (I think those two playing styles get decried so much precisely because one of the first things anybody learns when they start learning how to optimize is how overrated those two playstyles are.) People tend to see a spell list full of cures and restorations, and just bash the class as a whole.

With sanctified spells, I think you could make a pretty good case for tier 4. I don't really see an argument for tier 3, though. Maybe if you could call a different companion every time you used your healer's companion ability.....

[gorilla-turtle]

With some optimization, low tier classes are capable of moving up in the tier list. This can be anywhere from getting a Pounce Barbarian or Dungeon Crashing Zhentarim Soldier, to a Sanctified Spell using Healer. I believe they can qualify for Contemplative, which would allow them a Domain, which would help them branch out into even more options, though I am not sure one could do too much higher than helping the Healer get into Tier 3.

As Giddonihah mentioned, many people have a handful of problems with the Book of Exalted Deeds, and not for entirely unfounded reasons. I can only assume that the analysis of a class mostly includes the book it came with and core. Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are solidly Tier 1. Warlocks are considered low tier, but with a few books and dragon magazine material can be terrifying in melee. The fighter is an npc class upgraded, but additional sources can make it into an entirely different class.

[eggynack]

They don't have an alignment restriction. :smallwink:
True, I suppose. Corrupt spells are weird.

Problem: Assuming people know or want tTro know anything about the BoeD. Because of that simple problem the average Healer is Tier5. If Sanctified spell awareness was spread, then maybe you would have something.
Doesn't seem like the biggest problem. The book is reasonably popular, and even if someone didn't know about the source before, they presumably would now. The real obscure source here is champions of valor, which has some pretty important stuff in it.

Edit:
With some optimization, low tier classes are capable of moving up in the tier list. This can be anywhere from getting a Pounce Barbarian or Dungeon Crashing Zhentarim Soldier, to a Sanctified Spell using Healer. I believe they can qualify for Contemplative, which would allow them a Domain, which would help them branch out into even more options, though I am not sure one could do too much higher than helping the Healer get into Tier 3.
The big difference between those situations and this one is that those are all build options, while this is just something that healers can do out of the box. There's no one healer built to tier four, one built to tier three, and one built to tier five in this argument. There are only, say, tier three healers, except some just don't use all available resources.

[Pluto!]

As far as changing the old tier thread over Healers and Sanctified spells, this argument happened way back, sometime before the Healer handbook (which makes about the same argument as the OP), comparing the relative obscurity of the spells to certain obscure paragraphs that are the Factotum's bread and butter.

I think the argument Jaron had against reconsidering was that this means trying as hard as possible not to use the Healer's class features.

Changing the old tier thread itself doesn't make any sense as a goal, as it's been reposted and reposted, and the original hasn't been touched in ages. Not to mention that this argument has been done and shot down before. I don't think anybody who knows what they're talking about would really argue if you talked about a sanctified Healer as a character more competent than is represented by T5.

[Giddonihah]

Another class with Optimization argument is the Paladin. With just one additonal book it can have a decent argument at tier 3. The average is still rated down where it is though.

[eggynack]

As far as changing the old tier thread over Healers and Sanctified spells, this argument happened way back, sometime before the Healer handbook (which makes about the same argument as the OP), comparing the relative obscurity of the spells to certain obscure paragraphs that are the Factotum's bread and butter.

I think the argument Jaron had against reconsidering was that this means trying as hard as possible not to use the Healer's class features.

Changing the old tier thread itself doesn't make any sense as a goal, as it's been reposted and reposted, and the original hasn't been touched in ages. Not to mention that this argument has been done and shot down before. I don't think anybody who knows what they're talking about would really argue if you talked about a sanctified Healer as a character more competent than is represented by T5.
It doesn't honestly matter that much what the tier thread does. It just seems like it might be worth changing the way we talk about the class. Also, incidentally, I'm pretty sure that the healer handbook misses out on champions of valor spells, which are few but awesome. Also maybe apparently corrupt spells, which aren't as interesting from a, "These are awesome spells," standpoint, but which are more interesting from an, "I wouldn't have expected that," standpoint.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It might be worth listing the Healer twice, like the Fighter is: T4 if using Sanctified spells (even without the offensive ones, there are enough buffs to help) and T5 if not.

[Snowbluff]

I'd argue for T3.

[StreamOfTheSky]

They don't have an alignment restriction. :smallwink:

It makes sense, really. Healing isn't always good.

Torturers value healing magic. If the subject dies, it can't be tortured anymore.

[Snowbluff]

It makes sense, really. Healing isn't always good.

Torturers value healing magic. If the subject dies, it can't be tortured anymore.

No, the corrupt spells. Sanctified Magic requires a good caster.

[Urpriest]

I like to think about the Tier system as a classification of the resources a choice of class gives you. Healers can use sanctified spells, yes, but that's not because they're Healers, that's because they're good-aligned prepared casters. If you simply wanted to play a powerful character with access to sanctified spells, Healer wouldn't be your first choice by a long shot. By contrast, you can only take Font of Inspiration if you're a Factotum, and Factotum is one of the few classes in 3.5 that can take Iaijutsu Focus.

Basically, the Tier system is an optimization resource. Optimization involves starting from a concept, then finding classes that support that concept. The question asked by the Tier system is the following: supposing my concept is "successfully completes D&D adventures" and nothing else, what does this class contribute? In the case of Healer, the answer is "some boosts and a spell list geared towards a role that is rarely truly useful, and an ok companion". Sanctified spells aren't unique enough to the Healer to be part of the calculation.

[Vhaidara]

Of course Corrupt spells don't require evil. What's the point in Corrupting someone who's already evil?

Also, eggy, I almost thought that visigani/pickford was back when I read the title. Not sure if it was intentional, but it kind of sounded like a thread they would start (replace "healer" with "monk")

[eggynack]

I like to think about the Tier system as a classification of the resources a choice of class gives you. Healers can use sanctified spells, yes, but that's not because they're Healers, that's because they're good-aligned prepared casters. If you simply wanted to play a powerful character with access to sanctified spells, Healer wouldn't be your first choice by a long shot. By contrast, you can only take Font of Inspiration if you're a Factotum, and Factotum is one of the few classes in 3.5 that can take Iaijutsu Focus.

This doesn't feel like it follows logically. Are we supposed to just go through the spell lists of each prepared caster, and cross out any place where there's a crossover in abilities? Sure, if every class had sanctified spells, then it would all equal out, but it's actually a pretty small number of classes all in all. Yes, clerics can do this better, and you should probably play one of those instead, but the tier system is a measure of how much a given class can contribute in various situations, and this helps with that. That means that it should be considered, even if it's not unique. Very little that classes do is unique, after all, even if a good amount is. I mean, pushing it to your given example, you should indeed consider iajatsu focus as a tier classification ability, but by your logic you would also not count any other factotum skills among their assets.

Edit:

Also, eggy, I almost thought that visigani/pickford was back when I read the title. Not sure if it was intentional, but it kind of sounded like a thread they would start (replace "healer" with "monk")
Very much intentional. In particular, it was a bit of a reference to Rating enchantment as weakest school = greatest fallacy? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?304676-Rating-enchantment-as-weakest-school-greatest-fallacy) I wanted to fit a bit of that classic tier thread goodness in there.

[Urpriest]

This doesn't feel like it follows logically. Are we supposed to just go through the spell lists of each prepared caster, and cross out any place where there's a crossover in abilities? Sure, if every class had sanctified spells, then it would all equal out, but it's actually a pretty small number of classes all in all. Yes, clerics can do this better, and you should probably play one of those instead, but the tier system is a measure of how much a given class can contribute in various situations, and this helps with that. That means that it should be considered, even if it's not unique. Very little that classes do is unique, after all, even if a good amount is. I mean, pushing it to your given example, you should indeed consider iajatsu focus as a tier classification ability, but by your logic you would also not count any other factotum skills among their assets.

Edit:
Very much intentional. In particular, it was a bit of a reference to Rating enchantment as weakest school = greatest fallacy? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?304676-Rating-enchantment-as-weakest-school-greatest-fallacy)

Hmm...honestly, there's definitely some vagueness here. I don't think it's a matter of merely saying "another class does this better, therefore ignore this one"...but at the same time there are clearly things (WBLmancy for instance) that every class can do, so they shouldn't be taken into account in tier discussions.

In the end, I think it boils down to whether you can consider generic prepared 9ths to be an optimization resource, independent of what the class's actual 9ths are. The existence of Sanctified Spells is perhaps an argument that generic prepared 9ths are a meaningful resource, and while Healer would probably be Tier 5 in a world where every class is a full caster, this isn't such a world.

Another question to be asked, though, is whether Healer fits into the current Tier 3 paradigm. In a world where Tier 3 is "classes that play nice with others", does a Healer make sense in a Warblade/Beguiler/Factotum party, for example?

[eggynack]

Hmm...honestly, there's definitely some vagueness here. I don't think it's a matter of merely saying "another class does this better, therefore ignore this one"...but at the same time there are clearly things (WBLmancy for instance) that every class can do, so they shouldn't be taken into account in tier discussions.

In the end, I think it boils down to whether you can consider generic prepared 9ths to be an optimization resource, independent of what the class's actual 9ths are. The existence of Sanctified Spells is perhaps an argument that generic prepared 9ths are a meaningful resource, and while Healer would probably be Tier 5 in a world where every class is a full caster, this isn't such a world.
That about sums it up, I think. The fact of the matter is, there exists no class that has the same level of sanctified spell usage as the healer has, that is at the current tier ranking. What needs to be assessed is whether this ability propels the healer beyond barbarians, high-op fighters, and maybe warblades. When we hit the very unlikely eventuality that healers are being considered for tier one, then it starts making sense to say that this stuff cancels itself out.


Another question to be asked, though, is whether Healer fits into the current Tier 3 paradigm. In a world where Tier 3 is "classes that play nice with others", does a Healer make sense in a Warblade/Beguiler/Factotum party, for example?
I'm not really sure, because I don't know what that paradigm really means here. I mean, how does the warblade play nice with others, and how does the healer do so worse? It really seems more like a symptom of the meaning of the tier than some sort of special tier three quality.

[Story]

It might be worth listing the Healer twice, like the Fighter is: T4 if using Sanctified spells (even without the offensive ones, there are enough buffs to help) and T5 if not.

Binder with online vestiges might be a good comparison.

[Urpriest]

I'm not really sure, because I don't know what that paradigm really means here. I mean, how does the warblade play nice with others, and how does the healer do so worse? It really seems more like a symptom of the meaning of the tier than some sort of special tier three quality.

I don't disagree that it's a symptom. But it's an important symptom, because it's one of the primary uses of the tier system in practice, namely picking out and supporting a "tier 3 style of play".

As for what "plays nice with others" really means, that's murky. The lack of tier 1-2 style power is part of it, but as for what makes tier 3 more "playable" than tier 5-6...part of it is being able to stand on their own when the chips are down, to handle a variety of situations and rarely feel like there's nothing useful to do. Part of it is intuitiveness of optimization (high floor essentially), but that's not universal (Factotum in particular springs to mind). I think Healer might qualify...but it feels a bit limited if it's qualifying essentially purely on sanctified spells. Which I suppose is the main source of resistance to the idea of including them: the intuition, justified or not, that including them would be unfair.

[eggynack]

As for what "plays nice with others" really means, that's murky. The lack of tier 1-2 style power is part of it, but as for what makes tier 3 more "playable" than tier 5-6...part of it is being able to stand on their own when the chips are down, to handle a variety of situations and rarely feel like there's nothing useful to do. Part of it is intuitiveness of optimization (high floor essentially), but that's not universal (Factotum in particular springs to mind). I think Healer might qualify...but it feels a bit limited if it's qualifying essentially purely on sanctified spells. Which I suppose is the main source of resistance to the idea of including them: the intuition, justified or not, that including them would be unfair.
It seems like it might hold up pretty well as qualifying for that. Sanctified spells are quite good, and grant access to a lot of versatility, but I don't think they really break the game very often. I think that animate with the spirit might be the closest they come. It's a diverse list of spells, but it's also a rather short list of spells, and there's always a pile of healing spells backing it up. It helps that this isn't exactly a difficult to figure out type of optimization. You just say, "See these spells here? Cast some of them sometimes." Also, I really like vision of punishment. That spell is just awesome in the right circumstances. It helps that it has a mini-combo with benign projection.

[Larkas]

Hmmm... Let's try looking at this from a tier perspective:

- Does the Sanctified/Corrupt Healer qualify as being really good at doing something but pretty much useless otherwise? (T4 "Barbarian")

- Is it able to contribute to most scenarios, though not perfectly? (T4 "Rogue")

- Is it really good at doing something, and useful when doing that is useless? (T3 "Totemist")

- Is it able to contribute to most scenarios meaningfully? (T3 "Bard")

I'd say it hits at least T4, but I don't know enough about Sanctified/Corrupt spells to have an informed opinion.

[nedz]

There are 36 Sanctified spells, listed below
This seems a bit small when compared to the classic Tier 3 classes — who get all of their spells spontaneously — even with healing added in.
Level 1
Divine Inspiration Divination Book of Exalted Deeds
Twilight Luck Abjuration Book of Exalted Deeds
Vision of Punishment Divination Champions of Valor
Level 2
Ayailla's Radiant Burst Evocation Book of Exalted Deeds
Luminous Armor Abjuration Book of Exalted Deeds
Level 3
Brilliant Emanation Evocation Book of Exalted Deeds
Celestial Aspect Transmutation Book of Exalted Deeds
Create Lantern Archon Conjuration Champions of Valor
Hammer of Righteousness Evocation Book of Exalted Deeds
Path of the Exalted Divination Book of Exalted Deeds
Phieran's Resolve Abjuration Book of Exalted Deeds
Telepathy Tap Divination Book of Exalted Deeds
Level 4
Animate With the Spirit Conjuration Champions of Valor
Celestial Fortress Conjuration Champions of Valor
Diamond Spray Evocation Book of Exalted Deeds
Holy Fire Shield Evocation Champions of Valor
Luminous Armor, Greater Abjuration Book of Exalted Deeds
Sunmantle Abjuration Book of Exalted Deeds
Level 5
Curtain of Light Evocation Book of Exalted Deeds
Inquisition Enchantment Book of Exalted Deeds
Sicken Evil Necromancy Book of Exalted Deeds
Level 6
Benign Projection Illusion Champions of Valor
Exalted Raiment Abjuration Book of Exalted Deeds
Storm of Shards Evocation Book of Exalted Deeds
Valiant Steed Conjuration Book of Exalted Deeds
Level 7
Channel Celestial Transmutation Book of Exalted Deeds
Constricting Chains Evocation Book of Exalted Deeds
Cry of Ysgard Conjuration Book of Exalted Deeds
Phoenix Fire Necromancy Book of Exalted Deeds
Rain of Embers Evocation Book of Exalted Deeds
Level 8
Dragon Cloud Conjuration Book of Exalted Deeds
Restore Soul's Treasure Transmutation Book of Exalted Deeds
Level 9
Armageddon Conjuration Book of Exalted Deeds
Channel Greater Celestial Transmutation Book of Exalted Deeds
Exalted Fury Evocation Book of Exalted Deeds
Sanctify the Wicked Necromancy Book of Exalted Deeds

[eggynack]

There are 36 Sanctified spells, listed below
This seems a bit small when compared to the classic Tier 3 classes — who get all of their spells spontaneously — even with healing added in.

It's a small list, but it's also a rather varied one. I'd figure that full casting off of the sanctified list alone would put a class in tier four, maybe even high up in it. Factoring in the healer list, including the somewhat more interesting when the rest is also good gate, as well as the mount, and maybe the corrupt list, it might be enough to break in. Ultimately though, I'd really call it a toss up between the two tiers. The line between four and three is one of the more contentious out there.

[Phelix-Mu]

Do any other T5 classes automatically gain access to spellcasting allies, essentially a limited Leadership for free? That there seems pretty T4, even if it isn't available for some time. Even the expanded list of buffs that SpC suggests significantly broadens the class beyond its original presentation in Miniatures Handbook.

Speaking of which, I am really surprised, given WotC's penchant for cannibalizing material, that Marshall and Healer weren't revamped for 3.5 in a new splatbook. Am I misremembering that MH was 3.0? And, while we are at it, was there really never any web support for Healer? A real travesty, especially given how lackluster the class concept proved to be in the late days of 3.5. A set of ACFs or something would really have helped (assuming they actually made good ACFs, which they often don't).

I like to make Healer more versatile with houserules and homebrew, but that really is neither here nor there. That in-combat healing isn't good is a failure of mechanics, in my mind, not fluff. Medical support is an iconic archetype, and it's sad that the class named for it needs significant rehab to be any good at it.

Final note: Sanctified spells are pretty awesome. A sanctified cleric in one of my games was a positive terror when it came to fighting undead or fiends (as one would expect). I'd probably let Healers ignore the no violence thing when it came to undead, at least, so they could hammer of righteousness some shadows or whatnot.

[AMFV]

What's even more awesome is that a Hellbred Healer could use the Evil Exception and cast both Sanctified and Corrupt Spells. Which is in and of itself pretty snazzy. And they shouldn't have any alignment problems as long as they remain at least notionally inside their code of conduct.

[Phelix-Mu]

What's even more awesome is that a Hellbred Healer could use the Evil Exception and cast both Sanctified and Corrupt Spells. Which is in and of itself pretty snazzy. And they shouldn't have any alignment problems as long as they remain at least notionally inside their code of conduct.

Hehe, just pictured a hellbred healer whose favorite spell was touch of Jubilex. Hehe. Used that on a player once. One of the most awesome near-death scenes ever.

[Zombimode]

Am I misremembering that MH was 3.0?

Yes. MH is in fact the first 3.5 release after the three core books.

[Dunsparce]

I play a healer in an Age of worms campaign. The rules for adding spells to Healer from Spell Compendium gives it many things like the vigor spells and mass death ward. My DM also added some homebrew boons:

-I have UMD as a class skill. I'm stocked up on many scrolls and wands and my UMD check is high enough at level 6 to activate wands and scrolls of 4th caster level or lower flawlessly.

-I'm allowed to take Initiate feats otherwise exclusive to Clerics. Being a worshipper of Pelor, I can get Radiant Fire(Which I plan to at level 9)

-The DM threw in a custom item for me that, while minor from an optimization standpoint, is still great for me. I get a +1 deflection bonus to AC, +1 HP to all healing spells, and 3 times a day I can add 1d8 healing to a conjuration: healing spell.

[Karnith]

Yes. MH is in fact the first 3.5 release after the three core books.
Actually, it was the second: Dragonlance Campaign Setting came out in August 2003 (a month after the release of core), Miniatures Handbook in October of that year, along with Underdark and Book of Exalted Deeds.

[nedz]

There's a list here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16617440&postcount=761) — which I had thought was complete, but it doesn't include setting specific stuff.

[Karnith]

There's a list here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16617440&postcount=761) — which I had thought was complete, but it doesn't include setting specific stuff.
It includes setting-specific things (Underdark is the third book on the list after the core books), it's just missing DLCS for whatever reason.

Also some of the dates look off compared to the books' publication dates - my copy of Miniatures Handbook says that the book's first printing was in October 2003 while that list puts it in September. WotC's previews of it started in September, though, so maybe it was released late September and the book just put it as an October release?

[nedz]

It includes setting-specific things (Underdark is the third book on the list after the core books), it's just missing DLCS for whatever reason.

Also some of the dates look off compared to the books' publication dates - my copy of Miniatures Handbook says that the book's first printing was in October 2003 while that list puts it in September. WotC's previews of it started in September, though, so maybe it was released late September and the book just put it as an October release?

Hmm, maybe we need a thread to catch all of these. A publications list handbook perhaps ?

[deuxhero]

Healer rocks in a tier-based gestalting campaign.

Paladin//Healer is 1:one class 2:"Paladin" 3:has 9th level slots. You should be able to take Sword of the Arcane Order and shoot yourself up to tier 1.

[J-H]

Ok, the Sanctified spells are pretty good. Where does it say the Healer class has access to them?

[Divide by Zero]

Ok, the Sanctified spells are pretty good. Where does it say the Healer class has access to them?

All Good-aligned prepared casters automatically have access to them.

[Boci]

Healer rocks in a tier-based gestalting campaign.

Paladin//Healer is 1:one class 2:"Paladin" 3:has 9th level slots. You should be able to take Sword of the Arcane Order and shoot yourself up to tier 1.

Why would that be better than a paladin/favoured soul or paladin/cleric?

[eggynack]

Why would that be better than a paladin/favoured soul or paladin/cleric?
He's using a tier based gestalting system, wherein you only have the ability to gestalt together low tier classes in various fashions. At the same time though, a straight cleric is probably just better. Also, if the argument put forth in this thread holds up, and we're working off of the gestalt system used in the actual tier system, then this gestalt wouldn't be legal owing to the tier three or four nature of one of its components.

[Snowbluff]

What's even more awesome is that a Hellbred Healer could use the Evil Exception and cast both Sanctified and Corrupt Spells. Which is in and of itself pretty snazzy. And they shouldn't have any alignment problems as long as they remain at least notionally inside their code of conduct.

Quick question: How would that matter if they could use corrupt spells anyway? :smallconfused:

[Dimers]

I don't know what spells are on the Healer list, but assuming they include the restoration line, that reduces the effective cost of casting sanctified spells.

[eggynack]

I don't know what spells are on the Healer list, but assuming they include the restoration line, that reduces the effective cost of casting sanctified spells.
They do and it does. Not a ridiculous advantage, especially because clerics are sitting right there as awesome sanctified spell users, but a reasonable one.

[AMFV]

Quick question: How would that matter if they could use corrupt spells anyway? :smallconfused:

Because Hellbred can explicitly use said abilities without it adversely affecting their alignment. Normally, a healer would start having CoC issues and fall if they relied on Corrupted spells, but a Hellbred healer could us

[Snowbluff]

Because Hellbred can explicitly use said abilities without it adversely affecting their alignment. Normally, a healer would start having CoC issues and fall if they relied on Corrupted spells, but a Hellbred healer could us

Their CoC is an issue when they don't heal things. If you have such a huge issue, cast a sanctified spell afterwards.

[Psyren]

I'd argue for T3.

This was my tentative conclusion in the other thread too. On top of the Sanctified Spells strengthening their list, they get an additional boon due to the animal companion.

The one minor issue I have with Sanctified Spells is that they are a bit DM-dependent, even beyond the regular hurdle of simply allowing the book they are in. It is after all the DM who decides whether a character has "utterly devoted themselves to good" - this access is is not solely within the player's control.

[AMFV]

Their CoC is an issue when they don't heal things. If you have such a huge issue, cast a sanctified spell afterwards.

Yes, but playing with those sort of shenanigans (one sanctified to one vile) is likelier to arrest DM suspicion and get closed down than simply using a racial ability.

[eggynack]

The one minor issue I have with Sanctified Spells is that they are a bit DM-dependent, even beyond the regular hurdle of simply allowing the book they are in. It is after all the DM who decides whether a character has "utterly devoted themselves to good" - this access is is not solely within the player's control.
I suppose that's a factor, but they seem to have a pretty low hurdle. Neutral characters are very much implicitly allowed access to these, and there doesn't seem to be as high of a standard as is attached to something like exalted feats.

[Snowbluff]

Yes, but playing with those sort of shenanigans (one sanctified to one vile) is likelier to arrest DM suspicion and get closed down than simply using a racial ability.

If you say so. I'm just using the rules about good and evil spells as good and evil acts. You're the one who dumpster dived up a race. I don't really care, since I get to keep my powers either way. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

I suppose that's a factor, but they seem to have a pretty low hurdle. Neutral characters are very much implicitly allowed access to these, and there doesn't seem to be as high of a standard as is attached to something like exalted feats.

Huh? I'm not seeing anything that implies neutral characters get them.

[eggynack]

Huh? I'm not seeing anything that implies neutral characters get them.
The rules for sanctified spells state that, "Evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells." This implies that there is no alignment restriction beyond that one, meaning fair access for neutrals. The book of vile darkness lacks even that restriction, which removes the handy implication factor I'm talking about here, but might grant healers access to corrupt spells, albeit likely sparingly, so as to avoid an alignment change.

[Karnith]

but might grant healers access to corrupt spells, albeit likely sparingly, so as to avoid an alignment change.
They'd also have to avoid violating their "ethos" (and thereby losing all of their class features), and while said ethos isn't ever completely detailed, I'd have to imagine that most DMs would rule that casting corrupt spells, and particularly the offensive ones, would violate it.

[Psyren]

The rules for sanctified spells state that, "Evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells." This implies that there is no alignment restriction beyond that one, meaning fair access for neutrals. The book of vile darkness lacks even that restriction, which removes the handy implication factor I'm talking about here, but might grant healers access to corrupt spells, albeit likely sparingly, so as to avoid an alignment change.

Counterpoint: by definition, neutral characters cannot be "utterly devoted to good," since if they were they would not be neutral.

In addition, "evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells" is not an exclusive statement. It would have to state "only evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells" for it to mean what you claim.

[eggynack]

Counterpoint: by definition, neutral characters cannot be "utterly devoted to good," since if they were they would not be neutral.
Possibly, although it seems like the complete devotion to good is already accounted for by the sacrifice cost. Even a neutral character can thus show utter devotion to good, at least in the moment.


In addition, "evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells" is not an exclusive statement. It would have to state "only evil characters cannot cast sanctified spells" for it to mean what you claim.
I'm aware. That's why I said that it was implicit rather than explicit. As is though, I know it's a bit of a negative cliche to say, but nothing in the game says that you can't, and the place where they would ordinarily restrict this doesn't do so.

[Dimers]

Counterpoint: by definition, neutral characters cannot be "utterly devoted to good," since if they were they would not be neutral.

Not at all the case. I can be dedicated to good ends and occasionally use evil means to achieve them. I'm not exalted, I'm not even good, I'm just neutral -- but I'm fanatically, unbendingly devoted to good. Batman is utterly devoted to crimefighting, but it doesn't mean he always follows the laws!

I guess what I'm saying is there's more than one conceptualization of "good" to which a character can be devoted, and the book isn't telling us which -- the wording precludes the usual assumption about good-as-alignment, in fact.

[Psyren]

Not at all the case. I can be dedicated to good ends and occasionally use evil means to achieve them.

You can be dedicated, sure, but the key standard here is "utterly" - which you would fail to meet. The fact that you left it out of your own rationale speaks volumes.


Possibly, although it seems like the complete devotion to good is already accounted for by the sacrifice cost. Even a neutral character can thus show utter devotion to good, at least in the moment.

To do something for a "moment," by definition, means that you do it for a brief period of time and then stop.

[Giddonihah]

I'm not exalted, I'm not even good, I'm just neutral -- but I'm fanatically, unbendingly devoted to good.
Problem here, you are using the Book of Exalted Deeds, which requires you to be over the top good under strict definition, there is very little reason for a GM to let you do this.
And certainly not enough evidence to have this be anything more than an Optimization Trick (and a GM dependent one at that), which would have little impact on a classes tier ranking anyways.

[eggynack]

Problem here, you are using the Book of Exalted Deeds, which requires you to be over the top good under strict definition, there is very little reason for a GM to let you do this.
Very little reason other than the fact that they're perfectly fair to use. The terms for the use of sanctified spells are defined in the confines of that section of the book. I'm completely apathetic about what the book is called or about. Besides, healers are necessarily, y'know, good. Pretty small leap to make. There also doesn't seem to be any DM adjudication as part of the rules for sanctified spell use. By contrast, exalted feats do have DM permission as part of their rules. Thus, lots of reason for a DM to let you use this. Realistically, the only reason for one not to is because of a lack of book access, which is a fair reason, and one I've taken note of.

And certainly not enough evidence to have this be anything more than an Optimization Trick (and a GM dependent one at that), which would have little impact on a classes tier ranking anyways.
It's not really an optimization trick at all. These are just a part of the healer's spell list. If you're playing a healer, and you're not using sanctified spells, then you're just not using all of the resources available to you. This is an "optimization trick" in the same way that using spells from the spell compendium is an optimization trick. As for the impact of this on tier ranking, this does in fact have a pretty big one. The spells being offered here are significantly more versatile, and in many cases better than, what is natively on the healer list. The healer is currently tier five. I think this makes it logical to place them higher. If you don't, then you should provide an actual reason.

[Psyren]

There also doesn't seem to be any DM adjudication as part of the rules for sanctified spell use.

The DM, and only the DM, gets to decide if you are "utterly devoted to good" or not.

[eggynack]

The DM, and only the DM, gets to decide if you are "utterly devoted to good" or not.
The argument I've already made against that claim seems pretty reasonable. The idea of being utterly devoted to good is clearly connected in the text to the fact that they require a great sacrifice. This interpretation is further supported by the aforementioned implicit allowance for neutral characters using sanctified spells. Also relevant here is the fact that there is no explicit call for DM adjudication, as there is in other cases. I think there's a good amount of support for the idea that the decision of whether you are utterly devoted to good is completely out of the DM's hands, leaving aside the possibility of rule zero.

[toapat]

My largest issue with the tier system is exactly how much the system seems to adhere to double standards. The Factotum gets access to Font of Inspiration but Healer doesnt get Sanctified spells. Paladin is restricted to PHB despite all books barring Magic of Incarnum and Tome of Magic benefits them significantly. The artificer mandates the need of certain double standards, but then when others have need of that double standard (Warlock) they are disallowed from those considerations.

There should be an entry on the list about healer, and about paladin, and all the classes who had significant evolution outside of their core book beyond the favorite classes of JaronK

[Dimers]

You can be dedicated, sure, but the key standard here is "utterly" - which you would fail to meet. The fact that you left it out of your own rationale speaks volumes.

I "left it out" because I own a thesaurus, and judicious use of synonyms makes for more interesting writing.

Also, the same paragraph which contains your "utterly" phrase has no rules and quite a bit of misleading fluff -- suggesting that sanctified spells are more potent than regular ones, that they require great sacrifice, and even that people who don't cast spells can learn sanctified spells anyway. That whole paragraph is a sales pitch. "Good", "sanctified magic" and "sacrifice" are the only terms with any rules meaning, none of them placed in a context that suggests a rule. The "utterly" seems very much fluff-as-written, not RAW.

(Though I concur it'd be reasonable for a DM to take that fluff and run with it -- I'm just saying it doesn't appear to be a rule.)

[Psyren]

The argument I've already made against that claim seems pretty reasonable. The idea of being utterly devoted to good is clearly connected in the text to the fact that they require a great sacrifice. This interpretation is further supported by the aforementioned implicit allowance for neutral characters using sanctified spells. Also relevant here is the fact that there is no explicit call for DM adjudication, as there is in other cases. I think there's a good amount of support for the idea that the decision of whether you are utterly devoted to good is completely out of the DM's hands, leaving aside the possibility of rule zero.

Without a definition of "utter devotion to good" spelled out anywhere, the DM must determine what that phrase means.


The "utterly" seems very much fluff-as-written, not RAW.

Putting aside there is no distinction in any sourcebook between "fluff and RAW" - even if there were, the passage about being utterly devoted to good is in the same section as the bits about sanctified magic being available only to prepared casters, the sacrifice being paid by the user even in the case of a magic item, when the sacrifice happens, the rule about clerics being able to spontaneously cast them and all the other crunchy bits.

Put another way - is there a rule somewhere that defines a difference between rules and flavor text? Magic the Gathering has one, by defining the flavor text as the stuff in italics at the bottom of the card. D&D does not.



There should be an entry on the list about healer, and about paladin, and all the classes who had significant evolution outside of their core book beyond the favorite classes of JaronK

I think it's more accurate to say the list needs more granularity. Just as Ranger and Mystic Ranger are both on the list, or Binder and Online Vestiges Binder are there, I would expect Factotum and FoI Factotum to be on the list, alongside Healer and BoED Healer.

(Though in the Factotum's case, the gulf between T3 and T2 is so wide that they probably don't cross it even with FoI.)

[Giddonihah]

Font of Inspiration is in the same book as Factotum, if Dungeonscape is legal to use you can use them both. If its not legal then you arent even playing the class.

Go back to using Paladin as an example, it works far better.

[Psyren]

Font of Inspiration is in the same book as Factotum, if Dungeonscape is legal to use you can use them both. If its not legal then you arent even playing the class.

Incorrect, FoI is from an online article. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606) Hence the comparison to online vestiges for the Binder.

[eggynack]

Without a definition of "utter devotion to good" spelled out anywhere, the DM must determine what that phrase means.

It seems perfectly reasonable to assert that they spell out what utter devotion to good means in the same paragraph as it is stated. Besides, as you pointed out previously in the case of neutrals casting sanctified spells, it is nowhere explicitly stated that only those with utter devotion to good can cast sanctified spells. Sure, for those willing to devote themselves to good, there exists great power to be found. Doesn't say that that power does not exist for those unwilling.

[Divide by Zero]

Honestly, I think Factotum still fits Tier 3's "does a lot of things well" definition even without FoI (especially since it's a lot more versatile or capable of specializing if you're able to spend those feats on other things instead). The Binder example fits a lot better IMO.

[Giddonihah]

Incorrect, FoI is from an online article. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/frcc/20070606) Hence the comparison to online vestiges for the Binder.

So it is. But unlike Online Vestiges FoI is not enough to change the Factotums tier, which still makes either the Binder or Paladin better examples.

edit: Got ninja'd

[Psyren]

It seems perfectly reasonable to assert that they spell out what utter devotion to good means in the same paragraph as it is stated.

Even if that is the case, "great sacrifice" is not defined either. Sure, these spells have sacrifice components, but given that you can clear nearly all of them up with a quick restoration, it's reasonable not to consider just those components "great." Rather, the "great sacrifice" would be that plus the rigors of leading a truly good life.


Besides, as you pointed out previously in the case of neutrals casting sanctified spells, it is nowhere explicitly stated that only those with utter devotion to good can cast sanctified spells. Sure, for those willing to devote themselves to good, there exists great power to be found. Doesn't say that that power does not exist for those unwilling.

Right, but that's not the passage preventing neutrals from casting them - the previous passage ("utterly devoted to good") is what does that. As I pointed out, being neutral means you are not utterly devoted to good by definition.


Honestly, I think Factotum still fits Tier 3's "does a lot of things well" definition even without FoI (especially since it's a lot more versatile or capable of specializing if you're able to spend those feats on other things instead). The Binder example fits a lot better IMO.


So it is. But unlike Online Vestiges FoI is not enough to change the Factotums tier, which still makes either the Binder or Paladin better examples.

edit: Got ninja'd

Did both of you miss the part where I said exactly that? :smalltongue:

[Divide by Zero]

Did both of you miss the part where I said exactly that? :smalltongue:

I actually wasn't responding to your post :smalltongue: I was responding to the one that said it was comparable to Sanctified spells.

[eggynack]

Even if that is the case, "great sacrifice" is not defined either. Sure, these spells have sacrifice components, but given that you can clear nearly all of them up with a quick restoration, it's reasonable not to consider just those components "great." Rather, the "great sacrifice" would be that plus the rigors of leading a truly good life.
I don't think that's fair for you to decide. I could similarly argue that some of the sanctified spells, like say twilight luck (perfectly reasonable spell, but not exactly a great one) provide benefits that fall far short of the promised "powerful results." In fact, it's pretty simple to argue that the results were intended to be commensurate with the sacrifice, even if it obviously doesn't match up perfectly.




Right, but that's not the passage preventing neutrals from casting them - the previous passage ("utterly devoted to good") is what does that. As I pointed out, being neutral means you are not utterly devoted to good by definition.
I think you misunderstand. I'm using your logic, rather than your actual words. In particular, the logic is that the terms used in connection to the utter devotion to good do not represent exclusivity. Yes, those who have utter devotion to good can use sanctified spells. Nowhere does it say that only those who have utter devotion to good can use sanctified spells, and neither does it say that those who lack utter devotion to good can not use sanctified spells. Sure, it's implied, but there is also an obvious implication that neutral characters can use sanctified spells. Relaxing the need for explicit wording here would presumably necessitate relaxing that need in the other situation.

[georgie_leech]

No, the corrupt spells. Sanctified Magic requires a good caster.

That's not all that surprising. It's hard to be a force for corrupting Good into Evil if said Good can't actually use them.

[toapat]

Honestly, I think Factotum still fits Tier 3's "does a lot of things well" definition even without FoI (especially since it's a lot more versatile or capable of specializing if you're able to spend those feats on other things instead). The Binder example fits a lot better IMO.

actually, it doesnt. The Tier list is considering Factotum with Font of Inspiration. I understand why (Factotum barely works without it). The class is extremely versatile at base but at base it begins with the bare minimum required inspiration points to function.

Without Font of inspiration, the Factotum is basically Tier 4, it cant be good at everything simultaneously but it tries. with it it does reach tier 2 probably at some point around lvl 9 because they are the Erudite of spellcasters. Sure they dont get 8th or 9th level spells but you dont need those to grind the game into fine dust.

Ive also never seen a justified reason asto why rogue doesnt qualify as T3, beyond Sneak attack being fiddly

[eggynack]

actually, it doesnt. The Tier list is considering Factotum with Font of Inspiration. I understand why (Factotum barely works without it). The class is extremely versatile at base but at base it begins with the bare minimum required inspiration points to function.

Without Font of inspiration, the Factotum is basically Tier 4, it cant be good at everything simultaneously but it tries. with it it does reach tier 2 probably at some point around lvl 9 because they are the Erudite of spellcasters. Sure they dont get 8th or 9th level spells but you dont need those to grind the game into fine dust.

Ive also never seen a justified reason asto why rogue doesnt qualify as T3, beyond Sneak attack being fiddly
The factotum very much works without font of inspiration. They have skill powers that exceed those of any other class, spell casting off of the best list out there, albeit in limited quantities, and extra actions, even without FoI. It's just a class that can do a massive variety of stuff, at a level of efficiency that justifies their tier ranking. Apart from sneak attack, there is just about nothing that rogues have over them (including skill points, as factotums will generally have more than enough intelligence to compensate), and factotums have a ton over rogues.

[toapat]

The factotum very much works without font of inspiration. They have skill powers that exceed those of any other class, spell casting off of the best list out there, albeit in limited quantities, and extra actions, even without FoI. It's just a class that can do a massive variety of stuff, at a level of efficiency that justifies their tier ranking. Apart from sneak attack, there is just about nothing that rogues have over them (including skill points, as factotums will generally have more than enough intelligence to compensate), and factotums have a ton over rogues.

Skills: same as rogue. more in theory but only because int class vs dex class. This equals out at high optimization because factotums are expected to burn all their feats on FoI vs rogue who will use a differing number depending on the chosen build, but will have space for item familiar or can afford the optimization hit.

class features: It doesnt matter if you have a class feature, if that class feature is extremely limited. The Factotum has either a pool of 10 or a pool of 38 inspiration points at 20th level. with 10, they can either cast 10 spells, or use their 1 of their 2 best class features twice per day.

[eggynack]

Skills: same as rogue. more in theory but only because int class vs dex class. This equals out at high optimization because factotums are expected to burn all their feats on FoI vs rogue who will use a differing number depending on the chosen build, but will have space for item familiar or can afford the optimization hit.
I assumed we were talking about non-FoI, because otherwise factotums obviously aren't tier 4.


class features: It doesnt matter if you have a class feature, if that class feature is extremely limited. The Factotum has either a pool of 10 or a pool of 38 inspiration points at 20th level. with 10, they can either cast 10 spells, or use their 1 of their 2 best class features twice per day.
Inspiration points are restored at the beginning of each encounter, rather than at the beginning of each day. It seems possible that this alone will alter your evaluation of the class.

[toapat]

Inspiration points are restored at the beginning of each encounter, rather than at the beginning of each day. It seems possible that this alone will alter your evaluation of the class.

so its T2 always then, its not T3.

[Cloud]

I was always under the impression that the healer was tier 5 not necessarily because it was that bad, but because it's bad at the concept it's meant to be supporting, that is it's actually a pretty bad healer. If you renamed the class and added all the sanctified spells, I guess it'd probably be tier 4 in peoples eyes, not that a name should effect tier but I imagine it coloured the perceptions of the people doing the original list.

Also on the side topic Factotums do indeed get their inspiration pool per encounter, but toapat they only have so many spells per day regardless, not linked to the size of their inspiration pool.

[Augmental]

so its T2 always then, its not T3.

I'd imagine they don't have the brute force necessary for tier 2.

[toapat]

Also on the side topic Factotums do indeed get their inspiration pool per encounter, but toapat they only have so many spells per day regardless, not linked to the size of their inspiration pool.

Erudite is considered T2 and they only get 3 unique powers/day more then the factotum has spells/day, and spells scale way more effectively then powers.


I'd imagine they don't have the brute force necessary for tier 2.

They have significant reality revision access thanks to using the wizard spell list. they just dont have total access to reality revision access due to being capped at 7th level spells.

[lord_khaine]

Erudite is considered T2 and they only get 3 unique powers/day more then the factotum has spells/day, and spells scale way more effectively then powers.


Thats the most stringent reading of the Erudite's powers, and im pretty sure its not the one used for the tier system.

[Shinken]

As far as changing the old tier thread over Healers and Sanctified spells, this argument happened way back, sometime before the Healer handbook (which makes about the same argument as the OP), comparing the relative obscurity of the spells to certain obscure paragraphs that are the Factotum's bread and butter.

I think the argument Jaron had against reconsidering was that this means trying as hard as possible not to use the Healer's class features.

Changing the old tier thread itself doesn't make any sense as a goal, as it's been reposted and reposted, and the original hasn't been touched in ages. Not to mention that this argument has been done and shot down before. I don't think anybody who knows what they're talking about would really argue if you talked about a sanctified Healer as a character more competent than is represented by T5.

To me, it looks like JaronK likes the Factotum better than other classes and that's it.
At least he admitted he didn't know most classes enough to tier them correctly, but even the ones he thought he knew enough are divisive (see Warlock and martial adepts).

[Divide by Zero]

Thats the most stringent reading of the Erudite's powers, and im pretty sure its not the one used for the tier system.

And they can use each of those powers more than once, unlike the Factotum.

[toapat]

And they can use each of those powers more than once, unlike the Factotum.

im pretty certain that Times/day is not relevant to the tier system at all. Its effectiveness for relative expenditure

[Vogonjeltz]

It makes sense, really. Healing isn't always good.

Torturers value healing magic. If the subject dies, it can't be tortured anymore.

Acts aren't good or evil because of who does them. (By association)

Healing is a good action, it is compassionate. That a torturer might find utility in healing doesn't make it evil.

[Grod_The_Giant]

We need a new "Why Each Class is in its Tier" thread, one that takes optimization levels into account. Stuff like:

Healer-- T5 (Up 2, Down 1)

Out of the book, the Healer is good at only one thing-- healing. Sadly, that thing isn't good-- combat healing is typically a waste of actions, and other classes can do out-of-combat and emergency healing just as well as, or better than, the poor Healer. His class features don't do much to redeem his limited spell list and mediocre role.

Up 2: If you manage to expand the Healer's list, he suddenly starts to look much more appealing. As a prepared caster, he can easily access Sanctified Spells (BoED) and/or Corrupt Spells (BoVD), both of which cover a wide variety of bases. As a divine caster, he can easily pick up Domain spells from dips in classes such as Contemplative or Sovereign Speaker. At higher levels, he can also pick up alternate companions with limited Cleric or Sorcerer casting, adding still more to his utility.

Down 1: It's not hard to be bad at healing, given how little health the cure line restores. Add in the potential for crippling stat distributions, poor planning while preparing spells, and a code of conduct, and it's possible to become nigh-useless.



im pretty certain that Times/day is not relevant to the tier system at all. Its effectiveness for relative expenditure
Uses/day is a factor in general effectiveness, though. Casting fly 1/day is significantly worse than being able to manifest psionic fly 10/day. The Factotum can use spells for minor utility, but that's about it. The Erudite can use his spells ad nauseum, giving him constant utility, blasting, debuffing, what have you. He's also "preparing" his unique spells whenever he wants, a much better mechanism than the Factotum's beginning-of-the-day.

(and if I recall correctly, Linked Power circumvents the Erudite's unique powers/day pretty nicely, but that's neither here nor there).

Factotum can be a pale imitation of a wizard, but it's pretty pale-- way fewer spells, unique spells, delayed spells, less ability to focus on spellcasting... they also, in my experience, tend to lack offensive power if you can't get Iajatsu Focus tomfoolery to work consistently. I mean, you can be a Knowledge Devotion archer or something, and at higher levels you can drop the occasional spell combo, but it's pretty mediocre.

[nedz]

Uses/day is a factor in general effectiveness, though. Casting fly 1/day is significantly worse than being able to manifest psionic fly 10/day. The Factotum can use spells for minor utility, but that's about it. The Erudite can use his spells ad nauseum, giving him constant utility, blasting, debuffing, what have you. He's also "preparing" his unique spells whenever he wants, a much better mechanism than the Factotum's beginning-of-the-day.

Except that Casting fly 1/day opens up using a Wand of Fly, which are fairly cheap.

[georgie_leech]

Except that Casting fly 1/day opens up using a Wand of Fly, which are fairly cheap.

Does having a SLA count as knowing the spell for purposes of spell completion items?

[nedz]

Does having a SLA count as knowing the spell for purposes of spell completion items?

No, it has to be a spell.

[georgie_leech]

No, it has to be a spell.

Then a Factotum can't use a Wand of Fly without UMD (though why they wouldn't invest...). Factotums can mimic spells as a SLA using an Inspiation Point; the fact that they pick which spells the can use this way at the start of the day doesn't change the SLA rules.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Except that Casting fly 1/day opens up using a Wand of Fly, which are fairly cheap.
So is investing in UMD, which even an Expert can do. Doesn't make you T2, or even T3.

[WhamBamSam]

Regarding the whole "utterly devoted to good" thing, there is sort of a precedent for non-good characters being dedicated to the concept of Good.


Mantles: The first two mantles an ardent selects are her primary mantles. All others gained are secondary mantles. Primary mantles represent the two philosophies the ardent feels most strongly about and champions above all others. An ardent must maintain at least as many powers in her primary mantles as she takes in her secondary mantles, reflecting that personal allegiance. An ardent cannot choose a power from a secondary mantle if doing so would give her more powers known from that secondary mantle than she knows from either of her primary mantles.
For example, an ardent has the Fate and Good mantles as primary mantles and the Law and Light and Darkness mantles as secondary mantles. When she gains a new level, she could only choose a power from one of her secondary mantles if she had fewer powers in those mantles than in either of her primary ones. The exception to this rule is that if the only choice an ardent can make at a given level would give her more powers in a secondary mantle than in a primary mantle. Under those conditions, that choice is allowed.

...

Assume Psionic Mantle: An ardent chooses a pair of psionic mantles at 1st level and assumes one additional mantle at 2nd, 5th, 10th, and 15th level. Each mantle provides a list of powers (usually six or more) that an ardent can learn as she increases in level. Each mantle also provides an ardent with a special granted power. See Chapter 4 for a complete list of psionic mantles.
Mantles represent a psionic distillation of a universal concept or philosophical idea that the ardents believe transcends the multiverse. These concepts exist beyond deities or any creation of a creature, whether mortal or immortal.
An ardent can select any mantle she wants over the course of her advancement, even choosing two that seem diametrically opposed to one another, such as Good and Evil. Such ardents might seem to embody a series of contradictions, constantly seeking ways to balance (or not) the conflicting philosophies they endorse. Other ardents who pursue this approach are merely scholars seeking to understand these powerful universal truths.
An ardent with both the Good and Evil (or Law and Chaos) mantles might share one or none of those alignment factors. For example, some good ardents seek to better understand the evil they combat by taking up the mantle of Evil, and the reverse is also true. Manifesting a power from an aligned mantle is considered an act of that alignment, however, so most ardents who take two opposed mantles are neutral.Emphasis mine. So it's possible for Ardents to champion the cause of Good above all others and still be non-Good. It stands to reason that the same might hold true for another character looking to cast sanctified spells. Of course, Healers are all Good-aligned anyway, so whatever.

As for Factotums, I think they're pretty spiffy even without FoI. Certainly they still seem to be in the top half of T3, nowhere remotely near the murky boundary with T4. Nothing against 11th level Warblades or Warlocks or whatever, but I don't see what they can do to say, a dragon, that really compares to Factotum stealth options (that assumes Darkstalker to beat blindsense, but come on), Alter Self for flight, and Cunning Breach+Shivering Touch.

[Akal Saris]

It doesn't honestly matter that much what the tier thread does. It just seems like it might be worth changing the way we talk about the class. Also, incidentally, I'm pretty sure that the healer handbook misses out on champions of valor spells, which are few but awesome. Also maybe apparently corrupt spells, which aren't as interesting from a, "These are awesome spells," standpoint, but which are more interesting from an, "I wouldn't have expected that," standpoint.

Thanks for the heads up! I'll check those out and update the handbook.

(Incidentally, I participated in the original tier thread and argued that healers were T4 if I recall)

[Snowbluff]

Lahm's Finger Darts are magic missiles that deal dex damage. Even shivering touch has a hard time competing with it. I don't know how the Corrupt list doesn't qualify as "that's awesome." The first level Corrupt spell makes an opponent permanently blind.

[eggynack]

Thanks for the heads up! I'll check those out and update the handbook.

Glad to be of assistance.

Lahm's Finger Darts are magic missiles that deal dex damage. Even shivering touch has a hard time competing with it. I don't know how the Corrupt list doesn't qualify as "that's awesome." The first level Corrupt spell makes an opponent permanently blind.
It's certainly a pretty good list. I just don't think it's nearly as relevant as the sanctified list. The spells tend to be less powerful, the sacrifice costs tend to be higher, and the overall range of effects is significantly lower. I mean, you mentioned seething eyebane, and that spell is sweet, but constitution damage is actually a pretty big deal, and standard blindness is one level over it, albeit not on the healer list. Most of the spells are just reasonably standard debuffs, if occasionally well costed debuffs. Basically, I look at the sanctified list, and I say, "That's awesome." I look at the corrupt list, and I say, "Yeah, that might be somewhat helpful also."

[AMFV]

Thanks for the heads up! I'll check those out and update the handbook.

(Incidentally, I participated in the original tier thread and argued that healers were T4 if I recall)

Definitely don't forget to mention the issues that the corrupt spells may bring up with the DM, since most DMs won't take well to the cast one then the other because it's a slider bar like in a computer game (or at least I very much wouldn't).

Edit: And Hellbred is one potential solution, but that still has good odds on being shut-down by many DMs.

[Snowbluff]

It's certainly a pretty good list. I just don't think it's nearly as relevant as the sanctified list. The spells tend to be less powerful, the sacrifice costs tend to be higher, and the overall range of effects is significantly lower. I mean, you mentioned seething eyebane, and that spell is sweet, but constitution damage is actually a pretty big deal, and standard blindness is one level over it, albeit not on the healer list. Most of the spells are just reasonably standard debuffs, if occasionally well costed debuffs. Basically, I look at the sanctified list, and I say, "That's awesome." I look at the corrupt list, and I say, "Yeah, that might be somewhat helpful also."Anyone who is anyone can work around it. If you are being target by any amount of Con damage, you can easily control how your stats are doing. Add in options to reduce or ignore the damage entire is great, too. I like Strongheart Vest, which is readily obtainable through a feat, and can easily be upgrade through being an Azurin and other feats. That will cut the average from 3.5 to 1.5 con damage, which is much more manageable.

The effects give considerable offensive power to the Healer, which is often lacking this.

[eggynack]

Anyone who is anyone can work around it. If you are being target by any amount of Con damage, you can easily control how your stats are doing. Add in options to reduce or ignore the damage entire is great, too. I like Strongheart Vest, which is readily obtainable through a feat, and can easily be upgrade through being an Azurin and other feats. That will cut the average from 3.5 to 1.5 con damage, which is much more manageable.
True, but working around it does take some resources, and that can often harshly limit the quantity you can use these spells. It's possible that they would be necessarily limited anyway though, owing to the whole alignment thing.


The effects give considerable offensive power to the Healer, which is often lacking this.
True also, I suppose. This is obviously going to boost the healer's power level to at least some extent, just because that's how things work. It just feels like a lot less, though getting more of that effect is certainly pretty nice.

[Pluto!]

To me, it looks like JaronK likes the Factotum better than other classes and that's it.
At least he admitted he didn't know most classes enough to tier them correctly, but even the ones he thought he knew enough are divisive (see Warlock and martial adepts).
I won't disagree with that. At all.

Just wanted to say the meat of this conversation has been raised at least twice without community acceptance, for whatever reason.

[Lans]

Skills: same as rogue. more in theory but only because int class vs dex class. This equals out at high optimization because factotums are expected to burn all their feats on FoI vs rogue who will use a differing number depending on the chosen build, but will have space for item familiar or can afford the optimization hit.



Factotums only get 6 sp a level, so they will be 46 points behind the rogue, but its class features should make up for a good chunk of that. Especially when it can add its level to a skill.

[eggynack]

Factotums only get 6 sp a level, so they will be 46 points behind the rogue, but its class features should make up for a good chunk of that. Especially when it can add its level to a skill.
They definitely won't be that many points behind. I'd expect a factotum to have about 18 intelligence, while I'd expect a rogue to have 14 at most, and likely less. That adds up to factotums usually coming out ahead in skill point battles, or at least not falling behind. I mean, I guess there's always massive point buy/rolls, or seriously int focused rogues, but it doesn't seem like a meaningful result.

[Lans]

The definitely won't be that many points behind. I'd expect a factotum to have about 18 intelligence, while I'd expect a rogue to have 14 at most, and likely less. That adds up to factotums usually coming out ahead in skill point battles, or at least not falling behind. I mean, I guess there's always massive point buy/rolls, or seriously int focused rogues, but it doesn't seem like a meaningful result.

While a rogue might have less intelligence than a factoum its not in any way guaranteed. How ever if both have an 18 intelligence, then the factotum is getting +4 to climb, jump, swim, balance, escape artist, hide, move silently, open lock, sleight of hand, rude, tumble and use rope, which more than makes up the difference at 20th level. If the Factotum had a score of 14 then he would effectively have as many skills as a 9th level rogue. Then you can add in its ability to add in its level to a skill check, and any spell effects.

I feel they same about the Divine Mind being listed at Tier 6.

[XmonkTad]

I've played a healer in one game, and a one-shot. They do heal really well. And when we say "Clerics do it better" that seems to fit right in with T4's "Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well" line. As for class features aside from spells, the only 2 that really stand out are the mount (useful when you get it), and Effortless Healing (no more AoO's from a good part of your spell list). Su True Res is fun, because I guess it's a standard action instead of 10 minute cast time? Also, it doesn't have SR, so you can bring back that Defiant 10/Ur-Priest 10 who keeps making fun of gods to their faces. And it saves you 25k.

The spell list itself has mass heal at 8 (great, you need it early) and gate at 9 (I almost feel like this puts a class up to T2, but not really in the healer's case).

Really, I think based off their spell list, I'd give them T4. They just do their job well.

[Divide by Zero]

and gate at 9 (I almost feel like this puts a class up to T2, but not really in the healer's case).

At level 17, which does them no good for the other 4/5 of their adventuring career. Don't forget that the Truenamer also gets Gate, and with no XP cost for that matter.

[eggynack]

I've played a healer in one game, and a one-shot. They do heal really well. And when we say "Clerics do it better" that seems to fit right in with T4's "Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well" line. As for class features aside from spells, the only 2 that really stand out are the mount (useful when you get it), and Effortless Healing (no more AoO's from a good part of your spell list). Su True Res is fun, because I guess it's a standard action instead of 10 minute cast time? Also, it doesn't have SR, so you can bring back that Defiant 10/Ur-Priest 10 who keeps making fun of gods to their faces. And it saves you 25k.

The spell list itself has mass heal at 8 (great, you need it early) and gate at 9 (I almost feel like this puts a class up to T2, but not really in the healer's case).

Really, I think based off their spell list, I'd give them T4. They just do their job well.
I don't think that the tier shift necessarily holds up without the sanctified/maybe corrupt spells thing. Healers do worse than failing to compete with tier 1's played well, because a cleric focused on healing isn't exactly a cleric played well. It doesn't help that their role is a rather weak one, and that they throw themselves into it wholeheartedly.

[Lans]

I don't think that the tier shift necessarily holds up without the sanctified/maybe corrupt spells thing. Healers do worse than failing to compete with tier 1's played well, because a cleric focused on healing isn't exactly a cleric played well. It doesn't help that their role is a rather weak one, and that they throw themselves into it wholeheartedly.


It's possible that they jump a tier when they hit a certain level, like with binders at 10th, and with them and truenamers hitting tier 2

[eggynack]

It's possible that they jump a tier when they hit a certain level, like with binders at 10th, and with them and truenamers hitting tier 2
I guess there's something to that, possibly an upward shift by one with some variety of mount acquisition. They do get a pretty broad spell list from those fellows, if at a slow rate.