5e immigrant trying to manage their support Cleric.

[1Pirate]

So I’m in my first Pathfinder game and I’m trying to get the hang of managing spells and combat actions(for reference, the GM is mainly sticking to Core book because there are two other players that also haven’t played Pathfinder).

I don’t have the strength or dexterity stats to make effective weapon attacks so I’m finding I blow through spells faster because I haven’t figured out what to do in an “off” turn(basically a turn where I’ve already put up a buff but there’s no need for healing) and end up casting more spells.

Not terrible in a big fight(I have objectively averted one TPK so I’m doing something right) but with sessions that include a number of smaller fights, it seems like I run down my daily resources too fast.

I could also use some advice on spell selection. It’s tricky figuring out how many times I should take a particular spell. I’ve found spells requiring a save to always get resisted at the wrong time, so I pack a lot of Bless and Bull’s Strength but I’m wondering if there are better choices or combinations.

The party consists of rogue, barbarian, fighter, wizard, ranger, and myself.



Level 4 Half-elf Cleric of Sarenrae, Fire and Glory domains.

Stats were rolled, Str 11, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 18, Cha 14 after racials and ability score increases.

Using a scimitar, breastplate, and shield. Crossbow if needed.

Feats: Selective Channeling, Improved Initiative.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, a solid strategy for a caster is to cast a spell each turn.

At higher levels (and not that much higher than 4, really) this is naturally possible with the class's spell slots. At lower levels, you'd have to use wands and scrolls, or domain powers (like your fire bolt), or weapon attacks even if they're not very good (and you help by giving a flanking bonus). An arcane caster could use cantrips, but cleric cantrips/orisons are not very effective.

Spells with a save are generally useful, especially multi-target. Yes, they can fail; but with a good wisdom (and some knowledge checks so you know what to target) they usually won't.

[Psyren]

PF doesn't have scaling cantrips the way 5e does. Instead, most caster classes are given some other power source besides their spell slots that give them something else to do every round - for example Wizards get school powers, Witches get hexes, Alchemists get bombs etc. The expectation is that you make use of such powers to save your precious spell slots, especially early on in your career. In the case of your character (a Cleric), they get two - their domain powers, and channel energy.

At low-mid levels, the Cleric's domain powers should give you plenty to do without casting a spell every round. Your Fire domain gives you a firebolt, which is a ranged touch attack that does 1d6 + 1/2 level damage, 3+Wis times per day. This isn't far off from a crossbow and much more likely to hit most enemies, especially given that your dex isn't very high, plus unlike the crossbow you can use it while wielding a shield for added defense. The Glory domain is less useful in a fight early on; if you'd like to stick with it for character reasons, I'd recommend taking the Honor subdomain for a useful defensive ability in a pinch, but personally I'd consider dropping it for Good or Sun. Glory has weak powers and a lot of overlap with the normal cleric list.

As for Channel Energy, while normally this is only useful to harm undead or to heal your allies, if you don't expect to need a lot of either you can instead use Variant Channeling (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric/variant-channeling/) to channel fire instead of positive/negative energy. You'll only do half your damage (full damage against [cold] creatures) but this gives you a reliable way to put out decent amounts of AoE damage multiple times per day if you have nothing better to do (or if you're fighting swarms!), and creatures that fail their saves catch fire which can do decent damage at low levels. If you don't want to lose the ability to channel energy normally, be sure to grab the Channeling Variance (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/channeling-variance/) feat so you get the best of both worlds.

Between both of those you should be able to easily get past the levels where you're starved for spell slots, even if you can't rely on your crossbow or melee skills all that well.

[Malroth]

Flank, Aid another, spread caltrops to control the battlefield, use cantrips to lower enemy stats. Low lv is rough for a cleric. by the time you hit lv 7 you'll be over the hurdle and should be able to reliably use a spell or channel every round of every combat.

[pi4t]

I haven’t figured out what to do in an “off” turn(basically a turn where I’ve already put up a buff but there’s no need for healing)

A useful tip: in Pathfinder, in-combat healing is terrible. Well, channel energy is OK if you can avoid healing the enemies, and there are a few tricks you can use with specific builds to make it viable, but spell-based healing is unfortunately not worth doing in combat until you get access to the heal spell. You'd be better off spending your spell slot and action on buffing someone, or casting a summon monster spell, or even making a weak attack against a monster and saving your spell slot, unless your ally is literally bleeding out and about to die.

Common wisdom is to get hold of a wand of cure light wounds (or infernal healing for a slight efficiency boost if you don't mind the evil descriptor) and use that to heal the group outside combat, saving your spell slots for more interesting things.

[Kurald Galain]

A useful tip: in Pathfinder, in-combat healing is terrible.
That's a terrible tip :smalltongue: in Pathfinder, in-combat healing is useful.

As long as you have the Selective Channel feat, that is. That's why any support cleric should take this feat. Note how the OP already has it!

[King of Nowhere]

combat healing is useful if you can refill most of your ally's hit points. of course, casting cure minor wounds in combat is not effective.

since you are still low level, i suggest that if you don't have any important spell that you need to cast... you simply don't cast. make a regular attack, it won't do much, but really there's no point wasting spell slots when your teammates have it under control.
as others have said, you have few options until you hit level 7. then you also start getting more offensive options. clerics have plenty of good save-or-die, they are worth a shot. especially when you figure out which spells are more effective on which targets (big dumb brute: target his will save. don't bother with fortitude effects. agile speedster/caster: target his fortitude)

[Psyren]

That's a terrible tip :smalltongue: in Pathfinder, in-combat healing is useful.

As long as you have the Selective Channel feat, that is. That's why any support cleric should take this feat. Note how the OP already has it!

Not to mention Quick Channel - heal the party as a move action while still casting!

[1Pirate]

Thanks for all the advice. Wasn't sure if this was normal or not. I'm curious, what are some of the good monster summons early on?


The Glory domain is less useful in a fight early on; if you'd like to stick with it for character reasons, I'd recommend taking the Honor subdomain for a useful defensive ability in a pinch, but personally I'd consider dropping it for Good or Sun. Glory has weak powers and a lot of overlap with the normal cleric list.

This campaign has enough RP that Touch of Glory has really pulled it's weight. Also I don't think subdomains are in core(your post was very helpful however).



That's a terrible tip :smalltongue: in Pathfinder, in-combat healing is useful.

As long as you have the Selective Channel feat, that is. That's why any support cleric should take this feat. Note how the OP already has it!

Heh. That's(partially) how I averted one TPK. :)

[Psyren]

Thanks for all the advice. Wasn't sure if this was normal or not. I'm curious, what are some of the good monster summons early on?

Summon Monster handbook (https://rpgbot.net/pathfinder/characters/summon_monster.html)


This campaign has enough RP that Touch of Glory has really pulled it's weight. Also I don't think subdomains are in core(your post was very helpful however).

You said "mainly" Core so I suggested them on the off-chance that subdomains are part of the non-core things they're okay with. Perhaps you can be clear on what exactly is allowed?

[Kurald Galain]

Thanks for all the advice. Wasn't sure if this was normal or not. I'm curious, what are some of the good monster summons early on?
1.Eagle all the way.
2.Hyena or lightning elemental.
3.Leopard or aurochs.
4.Lion or hound archon.

And do take the augment / superior summoning feats.

[Elder_Basilisk]

A few further thoughts on useful things to do in combat when you're not casting spells.

The glory domain touch of glory actually has a useful in-combat application: demoralizing through intimidate. Give an enemy the shaken condition and apply a -2 to his attacks and saves. That's better than aid other and can be done in addition to granting a flank. Between glory domain touch of glory and your charisma, you should have a 50/50 shot at landing the intimidate even without ranks. Get yourself a masterwork tool or something else to boost the checks or spend some skill points and you'll actually be good at it. Glory domain is better for Mass demoralize abilities like dazzling display or blistering invective (non-core spell) but its something to consider for single target.

Another worthwhile thing to consider is a wand of cause fear. The DC 11 check is not impressive but they're shaken for a round on a successful save so it's not totally wasted even when the target saves. Target someone who is already demoralized and since fear effects stack, they'll run away for one round even if they save. It's HD limited so it's not a long term solution but long term you'll have more spells.

Alchemical items like tanglefoot bags and tangleburn bags are also something you can do. Those depend on ranged attacks so they likely won't be too much use once enemies are in melee but they're good options to have.

[Albions_Angel]

A useful tip: in Pathfinder, in-combat healing is terrible.

Screams in low op team focused play

Can we please, PLEASE let this meme die. Yes, it is mathematically more effective to forgo healing someone in combat to get those few extra damage points, thus ending the encounter quicker, or perform some sort of buff, or battle field control, thus ending the encounter more effectively. But it sucks, especially for new players or in low op games, to be that guy who goes down because Padre MinMax chose to poke the boss with a spear, when he had spells he could have used to heal.

Most low op parties would probably pick a TPK where the cleric spent the fight dancing across the battle field keeping the damage dealers up, only for everyone to finally collapse within one round of each other, than having one or two players reading their phones because they were glass cannons, and now its a 20 round fight while the low damage, high HP/AC characters "use the correct action economy". Its also kinda sucky roleplay in 99% of situations to say "nah, you bleed out there, Im gunna go stick this dude and hope you havnt died by the time I am done - and no worries because we can always rez you next level so you will only be dead for 3 or 4 missions!".

If you want to make min/max characters, go ahead. But dont suggest healing in combat is a sin, especially to new system players. If they want to min/max, they will figure that out for themselves. If they dont, then in combat healing is useful.

[ixrisor]

Screams in low op team focused play

Can we please, PLEASE let this meme die. Yes, it is mathematically more effective to forgo healing someone in combat to get those few extra damage points, thus ending the encounter quicker, or perform some sort of buff, or battle field control, thus ending the encounter more effectively. But it sucks, especially for new players or in low op games, to be that guy who goes down because Padre MinMax chose to poke the boss with a spear, when he had spells he could have used to heal.

Most low op parties would probably pick a TPK where the cleric spent the fight dancing across the battle field keeping the damage dealers up, only for everyone to finally collapse within one round of each other, than having one or two players reading their phones because they were glass cannons, and now its a 20 round fight while the low damage, high HP/AC characters "use the correct action economy". Its also kinda sucky roleplay in 99% of situations to say "nah, you bleed out there, Im gunna go stick this dude and hope you havnt died by the time I am done - and no worries because we can always rez you next level so you will only be dead for 3 or 4 missions!".

If you want to make min/max characters, go ahead. But dont suggest healing in combat is a sin, especially to new system players. If they want to min/max, they will figure that out for themselves. If they dont, then in combat healing is useful.

No one is suggesting letting people die, just saying that because you do the same damage at 1hp and full hp, healing in combat isn’t worth it unless it gets people up, removes conditions that would stop them attacking, or is large enough that it out heals damage being dealt

[Albions_Angel]

People DO suggest that though. And even when they dont, telling people that healing in combat is a bad idea gives the wrong impression to new or inexperienced players. It doesnt take into account the nuance of turn order, or enemies with split turn orders, or environmental damage, or a million other things.

Sure, you do the same damage at 1 hp or full hp. But if you already went, then enemy group 1 went and took you to 1 hp, and now its the clerics go, and after him is enemy group 2, if he doesnt heal you, you go down without doing that damage, and remain that way through 2 rounds. Or he could heal you now, and you survive enemy group 2 (possibly taking you back to 1 hp), and get to attack before group 1. The cleric contributed in keeping you alive, and you contributed in being alive to do damage, or do something else.

I know I am against the grain here, its just a pet peeve of mine. It needs to be stated that this is a min/max rule, and it makes very little mechanical difference in most games, but can hurt player participation if implemented incorrectly. Its also worth warning new players that a healbot cleric can be hard to find enjoyment in, and they shouldnt feel forced into it, so I am aware there are 2 sides to every coin.

Just, sometimes it feels like if everyone followed GitP advice, every party would be 4 wizards and a hireling with a vigor wand, all fighting for first initiative so they can oneshot the encounter. And that any other way of playing isnt fun, isnt right, and worst of all, isnt optimal.

[Kurald Galain]

healing in combat isn’t worth it unless it gets people up, removes conditions that would stop them attacking, or is large enough that it out heals damage being dealt

And guess what? Channel Energy does get people up and is large enough that it can out-heal damage being dealt. With the right build, it can also remove conditions.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Also, healing does not need to get a party member up or remove a condition that keeps him from attacking in order to have a positive action economy effect. It doesn't even always need to keep up with incoming damage.

In terms of party damage output, all in combat healing needs to do to be effective is keep a party member from going down for one additional round. If the fighter has 30hp and a troll is doing 15 hp per round, one cure light wounds buys the fighter an additional round of staying up even though it doesn't keep up with the damage. assuming 10hp of healing, two clw spells buys 2 rounds. That buys the fighter an additional round of attacks or two additional rounds. It also buys the Archer who was hiding behind the fighter one or two more rounds of attacks since as soon as there fighter goes down, the troll will be in his face and there won't be any AoO free ranged attacks anymore. (If the troll does 19-20 damage per round, the healing is further from keeping up but is even more significant. And in the more likely scenario, a cure moderate wounds for 15 hp healing and a cure light for 10 both extend the fighter's life by one round even though they don't keep up with the damage).

The standard GitP analysis in this case is deficient because it doesn't recognize the value of incremental healing that doesn't keep up with incoming damage in potentially delaying the drop point of characters. Likewise, it is deficient because it doesn't account for the way that monsters can interfere with other party members actions once the front line does go down.

The standard GitP analysis also undervalues healing because it is focused on the wrong area. A strict action economy analysis may sometimes be better to figure out how to win a particular fight (allowing for the additional criticisms above). However winning each particular battle is rarely the issue. The more important issue is winning every battle without suffering character deaths or other losses that are not easy to recover from. Rust monsters aren't scary because they tpk parties. They are scary because they inflict losses that are not easy to recover from and which effect future battles. Likewise, letting the fighter or barbarian or really any PC die may be the best way to win any one particular battle but it usually makes the next battles harder to win. Preventing casualties may not be the most efficient approach to any particular battle but it usually is the most efficient approach to winning at an adventuring career.

All that doesn't mean combat healing is always the best choice or that characters shouldn't be built with other options in mind. But it is a valuable addition to a party's capabilities even when it is not the most efficient way to win any particular battle.