Opinion of Healer Class

[Dandu]

Yes. And you can heal repeatedly until he's at half his maxiumum HP.

And you don't have to have a Cure spell prepared as you cast them spontaneously so you'll always have something of 2nd level or higher "available to cast" as long as you have a 2nd level or higher spell prepared.

 

[Petey7]

That feat sounds awesome. I definitely plan on using it, but of course it is all up to the DM.

 

[blargney the second]

Another option for out-of-combat healing: play a wand-smith. For strongest results, make it an artificer.
-blarg

 

[airwalkrr]

That's the problem. The Healer isn't as good at healing as a Cleric dedicated to the purpose, and that's the only thing the Healer can do.

I think you need to qualify this statement somehow because to me it makes no sense. A healer gets her Cha modifier to healing spells and gets a number of healing spells and effect-removing spells at a lower level than the cleric. Notably the mass cure spells. On top of that the healer gets a companion who can ALSO heal (some better than others, but they all have some healing spells or spell-like abilities). This means the healer gets twice as many actions to heal as a cleric does. So again, how is the healer not as good as a cleric at healing?

 

[Dandu]

Because the cleric can treat the cause of the problem while the healer manages the symptoms?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

If you can get your DM to allow the healer access to the healing spells that are in other sourcebooks (i.e. the vigor spells, close wounds, revivify, etc.) then it could be a viable specialist.

 

[airwalkrr]

Because the cleric can treat the cause of the problem while the healer manages the symptoms?

I agree with you here, but that isn't what Viktyr said, is it? He said clerics dedicate to the purpose [healing] are better at healing than healers. I believe that to be patently untrue, at least insofar as the core rules allow. Perhaps he is thinking of some exploit in particular that depends upon having turn undead and a certain divine feat. I'd just like him to clarify.

 

[krupintupple]

the healer is a pretty bad class, even with tweaking, you'd get far more mileage even out of a poorly-built cleric. however, the more pressing issue is "What should be done about your crappy DM?"

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I think you need to qualify this statement somehow because to me it makes no sense. A healer gets her Cha modifier to healing spells and gets a number of healing spells and effect-removing spells at a lower level than the cleric.

But the Healer is forced to guess which effect-removing spells he's going to need that day, and unlike the Cleric cannot sacrifice those spells to cast cure spells instead. The Cleric is always capable of healing wounds at least, and the Favored Soul is always capable of healing the effects he knows how to deal with-- while the Healer can easily get screwed by poor spell selection.

On top of that the healer gets a companion who can ALSO heal (some better than others, but they all have some healing spells or spell-like abilities). This means the healer gets twice as many actions to heal as a cleric does. So again, how is the healer not as good as a cleric at healing?

In other words, they sacrifice the ability to deal flexibly with any healing problem as it arises in exchange for scant amounts of limited extra healing. I suppose as long as only one character gets poisoned or diseased at a time, and the Healer knows in advance what he's going to need to cure, he might have a little bit of an edge.

But in a typical adventuring environment, the Cleric's ability to spontaneously cast cure spells or the Favored Soul's ability to cast the right spell at the right time are always going to be more useful. The Healer is an also-ran; the only full divine classes that cannot surpass its abilities are the Druid and the Fire Shugenja.

 

[airwalkrr]

[MENTION=9249]Viktyr Korimir[/MENTION], would it be safe to assume you are unaware of the fact that divine casters do not have to prepare all of their spells at the same time? A healer isn't forced to guess which spells she needs ahead of time. She can save as many of her spell slots as she wants and prepare them later, as needed. A cleric has to guess in the exact same way regarding removal of status effects. It has been my experience that for such things, casters often leave a spell slot or two open to deal with such things. Your whole argument then boils down to the fact that you think spontaneous healing makes clerics better. But spontaneous healing is just a convenience. It is by no means necessary or even that incredible. Maybe you didn't play AD&D, but clerics got by just fine without it back then. All you need to do is keep a few cure spells prepared to deal with emergency healing in combats. And for emergency healing in combats, healers do it better. Outside of combat, it doesn't matter. Most clerics I've seen just use wands of cure light wounds (or lesser vigor if its allowed) for outside-of-combat healing. Healers can do that just as well as clerics can and their cure spells pack more punch and some are even available at an earlier level than the cleric. Your argument doesn't hold water.

Do I even need to mention scrolls?