Paladin buys a cure light wounds wand, party plays as normal.
You expressed your concerns and they refused it. Let them play what they want, the consequences are their own. Oddly, cleric seems to be the most basic class that is most often missing. Or maybe I should say, healing is the role most often left unfilled.
...In fact, I will use some un-dead monsters in this ruins. However, without cleric, it will be very difficult for them to solve that encounter.
In this case, what should I to do?
... By the way, Is playing pf without some important class (ex, Cleric, Wizard, etc) common or not?...
At third level undead usually doesn't REQUIRE a cleric, though it could make things easier. The extra melee class usually means they can just bash through them. Also, the wizard can take a couple of spells that really help out: shield to help protect agains touch attacks, magic missile to hit incorporeals, magic weapon so the others can hit them, chill touch to make them run, and of course control undead to take them over for days on end (one of my favorites). The rogue is likely to have the most difficult time.
You don't need to do much of anything except give them the opportunity to retreat occaisionally. Unless there is some in game reason not to, the entire party should donate cash to purchase a wand of cure light wounds (the paladin shouldn't have to shoulder the cost of something that helps everyone else more than him). A single wand is usually enough to get them to advance a couple of low levels. The one thing you might want to do is change out a couple (not all) of treasures to be healing items instead of whatever is rolled randomly.
Playing without a cleric (or inquisitor or oracleor druid) is very common. In my current group there are only 2 of us willing to play the cleric roll and we get tired of it after a while. We are doing ok as long as we remember to retreat. We should be just fine when we reach a city large enough that there is a cure lt wand available for purchase.
There is always the overlooked Heal skill as well.
|
Give the party 1-10 CLW wands and a whole case of CLW or better potions (5~30) should be enough.
Then...
Hit the party with every stat/ability damaging monster you can get your hands on.
DO NOT Hold back your punches
Poison, curse, hex and damage their stats and ability scores till they are left all encumbered, dumb, mad and ugly as characters can go.
Drop them till they have 3 points in their main stat. 3 cos that's the lowest you can drop their intel and still have them understand what kind of trouble they are in.
When they are all asking if you can pass them some Lesser Restoration potions... say "NO"
AND THEN...
Suggest they pick up a "healer" class, aka Clerics/Druids/Oracles or any class that have access to restoration spells at their level.
Remind them its not all about HP......
Secane, that seems pretty mean, and likely to get a bunch of players angry at you because you are forcing them to have a character of a class no one wanted to play.
|
|
Secane, that seems pretty mean, and likely to get a bunch of players angry at you because you are forcing them to have a character of a class no one wanted to play.
Ah... its meant as a joke...
Seriously, its a joke! Its like "suggesting you make all armor found gender specific (of the opposite gender of the party) and insist that if the character want to wear them, they have to to cross dress. Also Make all the armors 1 size smaller and let them feel the pain!"
Get it? Its a JOKE. :P
Because the humorous tone totally translates well into text. ;)
|
It sounds like you are writing the adventure here, so simply change your adventure to suit the party make up. That should be what you're doing no matter what the party make up.
For example if your party contained no rogue or character with Disable Device, you as GM shouldn't be confronting them with too many traps and locked doors.
So if you feel that your PCs will not survive without extra healing, cut back on the foes. Don't have many undead at all etc.
Let the encounters play out normally. If the group finds themselves in need of additional healing, they'll figure something out (the rogue might go to town and finagle some potions, the pally might request some from the local church, etc.).
I've seen Paladins become better healers than some clerics I've seen. So healing isn't an issue here only the degree of healing you have available. At 3rd level the Paladin will be lacking but that changes at 4th level. Give the Paladin an wand of Cure Light Wounds and the party will be fine.
As for Undead the Paladin has smite for any nasty undead. At 4th they get channel energy and start getting spells.
The Paladin can easily fill the role of the Cleric in this group.
If the party buys a couple of wand of cure light wounds it should be fine.
No a cleric isn't a must.
What kind of undead do you plan to throw at them and think that the cleric's 2d6 channel can really help them?
|
|
Don't give the party anything extra. They will figure it out. The Paladin, once they get lay on hands and channel can fill the cleric role is so far as basic healing very easily. The more advanced stuff could be a problem, but then in behooves them to prepare for it or make some other in-game arrangements for it. A pure cleric is the least necessary classes in the game, as so many classes can replicate all but it's strongest abilities. The abilities replicated are more than sufficient to survive most campaignes anyway. Finally, you have a wizard with 2nd level spell access and your dealing with like unintelligent undead. Command undead really takes care of this for your party easily enough, and the paladin can remove the problem creature later. My only real recomendation would be to ask the paladin to see if he would take the greater mercy and ultimate mercy feat tree. With those, and the paladin's standard list, they should be able to hand just about anything they encounter for 95% of the time.
I've seen Paladins become better healers than some clerics I've seen. So healing isn't an issue here only the degree of healing you have available. At 3rd level the Paladin will be lacking but that changes at 4th level. Give the Paladin an wand of Cure Light Wounds and the party will be fine.
As for Undead the Paladin has smite for any nasty undead. At 4th they get channel energy and start getting spells.
The Paladin can easily fill the role of the Cleric in this group.
Paladins, Rangers, etc. can use the CLW wand from level one. As long as it is on the list of spells available to them they can use it before they even get access to the spells.
... Paladins, Rangers, etc. can use the CLW wand from level one. As long as it is on the list of spells available to them they can use it before they even get access to the spells.
I don't, but several people have said you don't have a spell list until you have access to spells. So you would have to UMD it until 4th. {shrug}
My players haven't used a cleric in almost a full year now, and it's not really that big a deal. In your case, the paladin makes all the situations you're worried about fairly easy, and he can heal. Really though, even that's not particularly important. I've seen a party with no healer at all successfully last up to 6th level myself, so I think you're underestimating what the rest of your players are capable of.
|
|
Spell trigger items.
To Quote this page...
Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.
Spell trigger items.To Quote this page...
Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.
Agreed. I just meant that it is a fairly common house rule.
Secane, that seems pretty mean, and likely to get a bunch of players angry at you because you are forcing them to have a character of a class no one wanted to play.Ah... its meant as a joke...
Seriously, its a joke! Its like "suggesting you make all armor found gender specific (of the opposite gender of the party) and insist that if the character want to wear them, they have to to cross dress. Also Make all the armors 1 size smaller and let them feel the pain!"
Get it? Its a JOKE. :P
Be careful about joke post replies to people who probably don't speak english as a native language.
(OP is in japan)
A pure cleric is the least necessary classes in the game...
While I agree a cleric is not absolutely necessary. I disagree that it is the least necessary.
One of the great things I have found about pathfinder is that pretty much any combo of classes work even if you are missing a few "roles". For example in my current group the party consists of:
Ranger - Switch hitter
Druid - Wild shape focused
Monk - Focuses on unarmed strikes/snapping turtle style
Gunslinger 1/Rogue x - Sniper.
No arcane casting hurts them pretty bad, most of the party has 3/4 bab so high AC can be a problem and DR trashes most of them. Does this effect how I plan encounters? The short answer is no. How well your party will do is based on how well they play, not on class combinations.
Though this is not to say that specific class combinations do not make it easier to succeed with less strategy/tactics/ingenuity.
|
|
A pure cleric is the least necessary classes in the game...While I agree a cleric is not absolutely necessary. I disagree that it is the least necessary.
Cleric has its necessity greatly exaggerated.
With access to enough potions any party can manage.
"Access" meaning they're just lying around in crates in-between every zombie encounter, like in a lame video-game?
:-P
+1
Clerics/Druids/Oracles are important not just because they can heal, but they can help rid the party of many other problems. Poisons, diseases, stats/ability damage, curses can bring a party down, just as easily as lost of hp and they are much harder to remove/cure.
Look down at Clerics at your own risk. You can't find every cure in a bottle or wand.
I can personally say that you do not need to fill the regular roles to have a good party.
I played a game with no Healer, No Full Caster, and after a player left, No Melee Fighter. Worked out fine. At the moment, the new player rolled a wizard so we got the heavy Arcane stuff covered. For healing, we found some wands and between the ranger and UMD we get by.
Seems like a fine party to me - you don't HAVE to have a cleric.
Paldins are okay healers.
make sure that the party has access to a wand of cure light wounds.
if they're smart they should be fine.
have fun,
GRU
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No need for a cleric since there is a paladin: he compensate the healing by killing monsters faster.
I've found it very difficult to survive without a cleric the first couple of levels and at high level(15th plus). In the mid levels any healer or class that can use items will do ok unless a lucky series of crits crushes your hit points.
Well, if you have a healing oracle you don’t need a cleric. But a Pally will not subst all by himself. If the party had a bard or a Inquisitor and a Pally, then sure, two 2nd rate healers/boosters and you’re fine.
Explain this to them. If they shrug and want to go on, then just run the scenario as normal. Do not add any healing potions or wands, but do allow them to buy them just as normal- whatever is normal in your campaign.
In other words, do not change anything. Maybe they will struggle, maybe they will succeed, maybe they will fail. In nay case they will have learned something and had fun.
|
|
Well, if you have a healing oracle you don’t need a cleric.
I.e., "If you have a [healer class not named 'cleric'] then you don't need a [healer class named 'cleric'.]"
Well, OK; but it's not really saying anything.
Last week I played a year 1 PFS module at Tier 3-4 in which it's possible that much of the party could die after the adventure is over because they're stuck out in the middle of nowhere (far from a sufficient-sized town for NPC-spellcasting) and afflicted with a wasting disease which chews through CON. If you don't have literally dozens of Lesser Restoration on hand to tide you through until you can make two fort-saves in a row (at a high DC which is tough to make without "long term care" by someone with ranks in Heal), you're nickled and dimed until you're dead.
-- The PCs are OK if they have a HEALER with Lesser Restro on their spell list, but screwed if they thought buying a few scrolls and potions of anti-plague ahead of time would do the job.
|
|
I think I need to clarify my statement about clerics.
First, my statement was about Cleric's and only clerics. I included Druids and Oracles in my collection of "other classes" that could substitute for a cleric. I'm not saying that clerics are useless. They can be very powerfull and very impressive in any campaign you play them in, and they can be highly versitile as well. But, with all of the alternative Divine type casters out there, they are the most easily replaced. Oracles, Witches and Druids are all full casters that can manage just about anything a cleric could.
Bards and Inquistors won't ever have the highest level of casting, but they can usually fill the average party's needs with scroll, wands and spells.
Paladins, if played to be the support tank type, can be incredible healers and can take on many roles of a cleric with the help of feats and archtypes.
My basis for my statement of clerics being the least necessary is simply this: there are many options that can fufill the primary functions of the cleric with out being at cleric. Cleric's are powerfull all on there own, but this is no longer 1st or 2nd Ed where you need the EXACT core four to survive. Likewise, you don't need a fighter, exactly, to lead the melee fight. Barbarians, Cavaliers, Paladins, Rangers & Gunslingers can all fill this role. Alchemists, ninjas, bards, rangers, and inquisitors can all be built to fill the rogue's role. Sorcerors, Witches, Alchemists, Magus & Summoners can all fill the role of the wizard. None of these options detracts from the value of the originals (save maybe the ninja and the rogue, but that is another arguement for another topic and I don't want to get into it here) but it does make them less ESSENTIAL to the party's survival.
Anyhow, that's my 2 cents on the matter. Hope this clears up a few things.
Yeah I see healers and buffers really neglected in my group too.
All you really need is someone with good UMD and a wand of cure X wounds
Our party has no cleric in COT right now and it's absolutely fine. We happen to have a bard, inquisitor, summoner and Rogue to fill our UMD/wand needs. It has worked out will so far.
|
|
My basis for my statement of clerics being the least necessary is simply this....
Clerics are least necessary, except in those situations where they are most necessary.
They're like the stuff your office: what's the least useful thing there: chair, computer, coffee-machine, printer, fire-extinguisher ... ?
-- Your answer depends upon whether or not you're on fire.
If the tank who "carries the party on his back" takes two x3 crits the first round of combat, he needs a real healer FAST, not a potion.
(Being the fire-extinguisher isn't much fun, however; which is why I almost always dip out a level into some other class for flexibility.)
If the tank who "carries the party on his back" takes two x3 crits the first round of combat, he needs a real healer FAST, not a potion.
And if the tank takes three X3 crits in the first round, a dedicated healer (who needs 10 minutes to cast Raise Dead) is orders of magnitude less useful than a character that can pick up the tank's slack and win the fight.
If your argument of needing a healer hinges on having a party with only one useful character (i.e. the tank who "carries the party on his back") you need a new argument.
If a party, instead, has four useful characters than can hold their own in combat, even if one drops, three useful characters will end the combat as quick, or nearly as quick, and three useful characters and a healer.
And the 99% of fights that the tank doesn't drop in the first round will end 30% quicker, needing a healer even less.
Edit: On the other hand, having a character take ranks in the Heal skill is real useful, and doesn't need a specific class to work.
You have to take the experience level of the player into consideration as much as the PC.
I would add an NPC heal-bot cleric to the roster. Maybe even a non-combatant type who is a level behind the PCs. Definitely not a type who might steal the spotlight from the PCs.
This option lets the PCs focus on the active roles as damage dealers and let the NPC keep them from death's door. This option offers a little extra insurance against some bad rolls resulting in a TPK. Let the players play what they want.
|
|
And if the tank takes three X3 crits in the first round, a dedicated healer (who needs 10 minutes to cast Raise Dead) is orders of magnitude less useful than a character that can pick up the tank's slack and win the fight.
If the tank who "carries the party on his back" takes two x3 crits the first round of combat, he needs a real healer FAST, not a potion.
Well, gee; you write that as if a healer by definition sucked in combat.
[rang1-or-cava1]/clerX ...(make him Erastil w/Animal+[Community or Plant], and he'll kick major ass).
Nobody addressed this at all. (That particular mod is infamous for splorking one or more PCs in "unbalanced" parties.)Last week I played a year 1 PFS module at Tier 3-4 in which it's possible that much of the party could die after the adventure is over because they're stuck out in the middle of nowhere (far from a sufficient-sized town for NPC-spellcasting) and afflicted with a wasting disease which chews through CON. If you don't have literally dozens of Lesser Restoration on hand to tide you through until you can make two fort-saves in a row (at a high DC which is tough to make without "long term care" by someone with ranks in Heal), you're nickled and dimed until you're dead.
-- The PCs are OK if they have a HEALER with Lesser Restro on their spell list, but screwed if they thought buying a few scrolls and potions of anti-plague ahead of time would do the job.
Edit: On the other hand, having a character take ranks in the Heal skill is real useful, and doesn't need a specific class to work.
Most players of the "Potions the DM leaves laying around for me to pick up for free will tide me over!" mentality tend to build their tanks with INT7 -- i.e., they don't have the skill points.
|
|
And if the tank takes three X3 crits in the first round, a dedicated healer (who needs 10 minutes to cast Raise Dead) is orders of magnitude less useful than a character that can pick up the tank's slack and win the fight.
If the tank who "carries the party on his back" takes two x3 crits the first round of combat, he needs a real healer FAST, not a potion.Well, gee; you write that as if a healer by definition sucked in combat.
[rang1-or-cava1]/clerX ...(make him Erastil w/Animal+[Community or Plant], and he'll kick major ass).
Nobody addressed this at all. (That particular mod is infamous for splorking one or more PCs in "unbalanced" parties.)Last week I played a year 1 PFS module at Tier 3-4 in which it's possible that much of the party could die after the adventure is over because they're stuck out in the middle of nowhere (far from a sufficient-sized town for NPC-spellcasting) and afflicted with a wasting disease which chews through CON. If you don't have literally dozens of Lesser Restoration on hand to tide you through until you can make two fort-saves in a row (at a high DC which is tough to make without "long term care" by someone with ranks in Heal), you're nickled and dimed until you're dead.
-- The PCs are OK if they have a HEALER with Lesser Restro on their spell list, but screwed if they thought buying a few scrolls and potions of anti-plague ahead of time would do the job.
Edit: On the other hand, having a character take ranks in the Heal skill is real useful, and doesn't need a specific class to work.Most players of the "Potions the DM leaves laying around for me to pick up for free will tide me over!" mentality tend to build their tanks with INT7 -- i.e., they don't have the skill points.
Agreeing with Mike.
If you play a Cleric/Oracle/Healer in a party that don't need you to heal them in combat, then you ARE doing your job.
Its great when the party can survive without a ton of healing.
But, when the s+*$ does hit the fan, it will be great too if you can keep the party going.
If a party, instead, has four useful characters than can hold their own in combat, even if one drops, three useful characters will end the combat as quick, or nearly as quick, and three useful characters and a healer.
And the 99% of fights that the tank doesn't drop in the first round will end 30% quicker, needing a healer even less.Edit: On the other hand, having a character take ranks in the Heal skill is real useful, and doesn't need a specific class to work.
Pathfinder is a Role-Playing game. Its not right, for characters to be just fine with a party member dying. (Unless they are all evil... :P) An adventure is not just one big math question.
And Heal, while useful, is still quite limited. Damage to ability scores take a much longer time to recover with just Heal.