From playing various RPGs, I've noticed that there are two main healer archetypes that show up.

* First, there's the Cleric, common in WRPGs (and Japanese DRPGs, interestingly enough). Clerics are typically decent fighters (not as well as the fighter-type classes), typically favoring (or being restricted to) blunt weapons, can wear medium (sometimes heavy) armor, and sometimes get some mid-level attack spells (not as good as a Wizard/Mage, but still potentially useful around that level). The ability to turn/dispel undead is sometimes present, as well. There's also typically some religious aspect to this class.

* Then, there's the White Mage, common in JRPGs (though not the Dragon Quest series, which opts for clerics instead). White mages, in general, are not good at fighting; they typically can only use caster weapons (like staves) and caster armor (robes which don't provide good physical defense, but might boost magic power and/or magic defense). Even if there's a decent weapon for a white mage, the white mage won't have the stats to use it well (Final Fantasy 5's Morning Star is an example; it would be a nice weapon if the white mage had the stats for it, but unfortunately the WM does not, though FF5 does offer a way to fix that issue). On the other hand, healing magic tends to be stronger in games with white mages. White mages sometimes have ways of dealing with undead (like having healing spells damage them), and they may get a high level attack spell that's only slightly weaker than the black mage's ultimate nuke, but that might be the only attack spell they get, leaving them without any general purpose attack spells. The class sometimes has some religious association (in Final Fantasy 4, Rosa gets the Pray command in most versions), but not as often as Cleric does.

So, what are your thoughts? Do you prefer one healer archetype over the other? Or, perhaps you'd prefer some mix, or something else entirely.

Edit: It's also possible for both archetypes to coexist in the same game; Breath of Fire 2 does this.

Unsurprisingly fitting for two sides of the same coin, it's not hard to see overlap. Staves are great offensive weapons, IRL, and i think the choice of "blunt weapons" for clerics is the same. I think it's more aesthetics, as you might see with Shaolin Monks whom employ weaponry, as well. The choice seems to be more about how effective magic is as opposed to a choice between the two types, seeing as a steel mace over a wooden stick is more like an physical upgrade path as opposed to what wood the rod is made of having more magical properties. Oddly enough, there seem to be some games with clerics (or "priests") whom cast offensive spells (other than Holy and healing on undead) that otherwise completely fit your white-mage description and follows my theory more closely. These tend to be more western, though. The more western-feeling ones tend to have a lower emphasis on magic, while the ones closer to the east seem to be more magic heavy.

It depends on how pedantic the system wants to be about things. From a loose understanding of most systems, clerics are typically discouraged from weapon use, while white mages might take up flails and hammers.

My impression is that it's the other way around. A cleric's normal attack is usually at least decent, while a white mage's physical attack is typically not using over just defending (except if it's something like a white mage Archer like FF4's Rosa.

I play the Pathfinder roleplaying game (if Dungeons and Dragons is Coke, Pathfinder is Pepsi) every Saturday, and it allows you to more or less customize the Cleric to go in whatever direction you want to. If you invest in Strength and select Domains that give you special combat powers, you can be a front-line holy warrior that bolsters yourself and your allies with your divine magic. If you invest in Wisdom and select Domains that grant access to useful exclusive spells you can be a powerful support caster that works in the back field. If you invest in Charisma and select the appropriate feats you can Channel positive energy to destroy undead or heal your allies. Or you can balance yourself between the approaches and find a middle-ground. The class gives the flexibility to pursue the concept in any number of different ways.

A lot of JRPG from the past i remember they had very strict roles. So a healer is good at healing, a fighter is good at fighting, etc. Yeah that doesn't help much since 95% of the game is fighting, so they should be good at fighting. JRPGs probably are more akin to having a much more strict set for classes, like 1st edition D&D, though JRPG's are a bit better balanced than that.

Western PNP/TTRPG games tend to concentrate that more like 50% unless you're in a dungeon crawler. When building classes you effectively have several points you can distribute. Good HP? That's a point, good BAB? That's a point. Good Reflex? That's a point. Can cast spells? That's a point. It's how you distribute them in general and then following the growth with appropriate yet somewhat unique abilities. JRPG (At least earlier FF games) seems more like 1-2 points vs several.

Also in western games, few want to play support. Support is probably very strong classes at least in strength. But if you aren't in the forefront doing the damage and taking out 3 goblins in a single swing, you're left out. Clerics on the other hand get to decently be in the forefront while also being able to do out of combat (or emergency in combat) healing. Some clerics can be way overpowered all things considered.

But honestly it's a power fantasy and as long as you're having fun it shouldn't matter that much.

I like both. Both have room to exist even in the same party. The partitioning is a good one if the spell/power distribution is done right. I personally would usually opt for the armored cleric with not-quite-as-good healing, though, many games hamstring them too much by endgame that white mage becomes the only option. Not all though. (I generally prefer a good regular trickle of low healing available from everyone rather than one dedicated mega-healer).

One of my favorite takes on the cleric/white mage/other healers is the Plague Doctor in Fell Seal. I hadn't encountered it done that way before, but it's a great mix to me. It's sort of like a "fell cleric". It does weaker multi-target heals, but it shines at condition removal at the same time... but its primary offensive powers are usually in dealing out conditions (to multiple targets) too. Gearwise, that heavy armor caster is always fun.

And on the tabletop: fully dedicated healers, especially "soft squishy healers" don't usually hit the adventuring group. Their total squishiness is too much of a liability, especially if you're relying on them to sustain the party. Plus, "full dedicated healer" is often a role that no one enjoys at the table. As ttRPGs have evolved, heals have gotten less and less dedicated so that people who play clerics (etc) get to enjoy and have fun doing other things like using the offensive cleric spells or the party buffs that aren't heals.

The dedicated healer class in D&D 3.5 was rarely played outside of NPCs because [compared to clerics] its spell list became basically ONLY heals, its attack value dropped to the lowest, it lost armor proficiency, and its spells per day didn't increase to make up for it. It heals REALLY well, but it's just not going to be terribly fun for the player at the table. It did get a tad more skills for non-combat versatility, but that doesn't make up for it. Its truly "cool!" power is that it gets a unicorn companion in mid-levels (similar to how a paladin gets its special mount).

dtgreene, I'm surprised you didn't mention your desire for "arcane" or "science-based" (or otherwise non-divine) healing in here.

Cleric is not a dedicated healer in my book. They are a melee fighter/buffer/healer hybrid. If given a choice between just a pocket healer (White Mage) or someone who can lend a hand in the actual combat, I will always pick Cleric. Only in the late game and even then, "strongest" depends on a lot of things. Yes, they have one more tier for most unit categories than the other factions (Phantom Warrior, Arch-Lich or Death, Dracolich) so they will have better baseline stats but it still takes insane amounts of gold and experience to get there, compared to the other factions. 4.5K gold just for one building is massive. Against the undead, you have to go on the offensive early and optimally not even let them reach those units. But until then, they don't have any massive advantage over the others.

And there are ways to still fight them. For example, the weapon immune units are very strong but quite vulnerable against overworld spells due to their low hit points. Take Death for example. One mid-tier damaging spell means that that Onyx Gargoyle is instantly going to one shot it before it even does anything. Or that Prophetess is going to keep clearing all your paralysis/poison every turn, making them useless. Also none of the Undead units have any base armor to speak of, making it quite difficult to reach noticeable levels of damage reduction.

Yes, they are the easiest to use, but far from unbeatable. You will steamroll AI of course, but playing against someone who can adapt will be much harder.

I agree with Heroes though. Necromancy is systemically broken and can never be balanced the way it was done in 3, making the undead by far the most OP faction. Couple that with their innate immunity to mind spells and it's no wonder they are leagues ahead of anything else (excluding the incredibly broken Conflux of course).

Actually, in Fell Seal, there's a different healing strategy that I happen to really like, though it involves two characters:
* One character has decent MND and the Templar skillset. This way, I can use Rapturous Chant, which may be the most powerful healing ability in the game (and may be my favorite ability); it heals every other unit you control, while also curing status ailments. The drawback is that it kills the caster (but at least this death doesn't result in an injury). (That one story character who has the Legendary Healer skill is a good candidate for this.)
* The other character has the Mender skillset, in particular Revive II. This spell allows for the resurrection of a dead character at full HP, undoing the cost of Rapturous Chant. Furthermore, I can choose where the revived character is placed, which can be used as a deathwarp, allowing the character to open some chests that would otherwise require a special movement type to reach. (Alternatively, if you have the DLC installed and are far enough into the game, the Warden monster variant also gets a nice revive that even grants this game's version of Reraise to the revived character.)

(One other note: Since Rapturous Chant's range is the entire battlefield, I don't need to put that character in harm's way in order to be ready to use (and it also costs 0 MP, which is nice); only catch is that this skill doesn't award the user any XP.) Thing is, this is actually a role I'd enjoy playing; it's just that the healing magic in D&D, if we ignore (Mass) Heal, is just too weak for that to be a fun and useful role during combat. (Not to mention how tedious out-of-battle healing gets in earlier editions, a problem that a few earlier WRPGs share (Wizardry 1-7 (except 4) and Pool of Radiance come to mind)).)

If a good healing spell could change the course of the battle, the role could actually be a fun role to play.

One thing that's interesting about healing that you don't see with damage is that the timing of healing matters. A damage dealer can just use their big damage attacks right away, and such attacks are just as useful as they would be later in the battle. A healer, however, needs to save healing for when it actually matters; casting Mass Heal at the start of a battle before anyone else has had a turn is entirely pointless (assuming the party enters the battle at full HP, of course).

I often like having both in the same party. Take my preferred endgame party for Final Fantasy 3 (3D remake), for example:
* A Devout or Sage, as a powerful healer. (Devout is better at healing, but Sage has a chance of getting a powerful heal with a 4th level spell, which is otherwise a useless spell level for the Devout in this version.)
* A Red Mage, as a backup healer. Thing is, endgame Red Mages can use Excalibur in this version; pair that with the Break Blade and add Crystal armor and the Red Mage can do just fine in the front row.
* A Bard, who can heal 10% to 19% of the party's HP for free, and at the start of the round. Quite handy, allowing my casters to save their MP for out-of-battle healing (for low levels) and boss/emergency healing (for high levels). Also, the Bard can reduce the damage the party takes during boss fights (making them safer, especially important for the final battle), and can also do percentage based damage to even bosses.
* A physical attacker, but not a Knight (because the Knight also wants the Excalibur). I've done both Warrior and Dark Knight in this slot, but other classes, like Ninja, also work. Thing is, there are many games that *only* offer Cleric and not White Mage, so in such games, the Cleric is the closest you get to a dedicated healer.

(Incidentally, in Dragon Quest games, Clerics often don't get the most powerful non-sacrifice healing spell; that's reserved either for the hero (DQ3, 4, 8) or to monsters (DQ5, 6, perhaps original DQ7).)

FFT tried to approach this with Calculator's Distribute reaction ability. Sadly it didn't work out too well except in a couple uses (I believe in conjunction with bard).

With my very little experience with JRPGs, haven't played anything with a white mage. But when it comes to the D&D cleric, I'll second idbeholdME and say that's not just a healer, but sort of a battlepriest. And that's the sort of thing you (or at least I) want when it comes to a healer. If you rely on them to keep the others alive, they shouldn't be squishy, and should also be able to fight back enough to at least give other party members a moment to extract themselves from a bad situation.

As for the Disciples talk, after just playing the first (but seeing that it's mostly similar from what's mentioned here), I'll also say that yep, undead are clearly the strongest, while the healers make the humans 2nd best, and likely easiest to play for a new player. The other two races are MUCH harder to do well with.

It's been many years so I unfortunately can't remember it in such detail :) I remember thinking so at the time because of their easy paralyze ability with their ranged attack branch, which can eventually even be enhanced by the top tier melee units who also have a chance to paralyze. But yes, as you say, a human opponent would know to include units capable of clearing paralysis. Though I can't remember if this would still mean a lost turn for the affected unit. Either way, I'd expect it to still make it easier to gain xp from neutral mobs, and with multiple ghosts, perhaps take on stronger groups faster than you would be able to otherwise.

Interestingly, iirc, there was a problem in the design of the undead campaign: at some point you have to fight other undead units, and due to death/weapon immunity, if you didn't pick the mage hero, then you cannot damage the final boss army of the level. Or at least you have to rely on spells to slowly chip away at their health.

Hmm, it's a good sign that I cannot remember the details anymore. Perhaps the time has come then for another playthrough :D

If you clear the status effect before the unit gets to act, they're completely unaffected. Prophetess is extremely powerful because of that, with big group heals and the only unit in the game with a party-wide Cure (status effect removal).

And yes, you remember correctly. Undead vs Undead fights are some of the weirdest in the game. If you don't have a Lich Queen, then your only options are spells, orbs/talismans or, interestingly enough, poisoning the enemies with thieves (it works against Undead too). You could also hire some neutral units from mercenary camps if the map allows it. Or you can kill everything you can with your main army and then just recruit a Lich Queen to solo the rest. The weapon immune units have source Death, so the Queen is untouchable anyway.