I'll be honest, I have to disagree here.
I know an agnostic Knight of the Cross who would disagree.You cannot disagree. It's a fact.
"I'm German"
"I disagree""I'm so tired right now"
"I disagree""I'm agnostic"
"I disagree".Just doesn't work that way.
Kaeyoss is right--he's a Soviet swordsman in the Dresden Files by Jim Butcher. Dude wield's a sword made out of one of the 3 nails that nailed Jesus to the cross, and he's still agnostic. Kind of hard to wrap your head around.
But back on track....the Dragon Shaman (PH 2) makes a decent non-divine healer. At 1st level, he can choose to have one of his auras bestow Fast Healing 1 on his allies (as long as they are below half their maximum hit points). And at 6th level, they get a double strength lay-on-hands-like ability (Touch of Vitality) that eventually also lets you spend points of healing to remove conditions liked stunned, paralyzed, blinded, sickened, nauseated, etc.
They make decent secondary tanks, have a nifty breath weapon, and gain some other, minor, draconic-based powers. Their auras are also pretty cool, granting DR, Energy Resistance, Energy Shields, Bonus to Damage, etc.
|
If a DM wants to accomodate a player who desires to have a non-divine alternative for a party healer, he can try one or several of the following;
1) Bump up the Heal skill so that a non-magical use of the Heal skill can restore some hit point damage (perhaps converting lethal damage to nonlethal instead of outright curing wounds?). It doesn't have to be a lot, and it could expend 'uses' from a Healing Kit to do so, but it would allow the non-magical healer to actually function. (It would have to be *significantly* better than the current Pathfinder Beta Treat Deadly Wound option, to be usable as a party healer.)
Non-magical Heal skill benefits might also be limited to no more hit points / day than your Con mod + HD, or a point of damage removed from each wound taken (which sounds like a pain in the butt to track).
2) Use Profession (herbalist / apothecary) or craft (alchemy) to create healing salves that function in one of these manners would also be an option. Perhaps the poultice, applied within a minute of an injury, removes 1 hit point from the total damage taken, while this particular tea causes 1d4 pts of lethal damage to become nonlethal damage, but can only be ingested once per day for full effect. Combined with expanded use of the Heal skill, a low-level party could at least function without curing magic, and as skills increase, more effective versions might be craft-able, while the best healers, who combine magic with healing, can make wounds fade away, instead of just turning them to nonlethal injury. The Alchemical / Herbal concoctions could borrow from the several 2nd edition Dragon articles on Herbal remedies, the 3rd edition herbalism guidelines in the Druid/Ranger splatbook, a weaker version of the Arms & Equipment Guides healing salve, various third-party products (such as Alchemy & Herbalism), etc.
3) Specialist Wizards might be able to use healing magic appropriate to their school. A Transmuter might be able to cause wounds to seal up with transformative magic. The magic might be grueling (sickens, nauseates, fatigues or exhausts the recipient? perhaps a Fort save when wounds are healed to suffer the lesser effect (fatigued), with the greater effect (exhausted) if failed?). A DM who remembers fondly 2E curing spells being necromantic might allow a Specialist Necromancer to be capable of selecting Cure X Wounds spells (and Inflict X Wounds spells, and Cure Disease, Remove Poison, Regenerate, Restoration and Raise Dead!) in addition to the usual Necromancy spells, making 'white necromancers' a welcome, if suspect sight (since nobody knows whether the kindly old healer happens to *also* be able to animate corpses!). Or you could stick with the 3.5 kludge of making healing spells into Conjuration (which I kinda loathe) and have Specialist Conjurors be the ones who can select Curing spells (but you'll get /facepalms from those who think that Specialist Conjurors are the *last* Specialist who need something new...).
4) In a game with Action points, a 'refresh' option could be added, allowing people to blow an Action point to restore a number of hit points. In the vein of Eberron Feats like Raging Luck, a dedicated heal-monkey might have a Feat that allows him to get Action points spent on healing others back at the end of an encounter (sort of how like an Artificer can 'spend' Action Points to activate some wands with the right Feat, but 'not really spend them'). It would represent the expenditure of a Feat, but that's a small price to pay to have a renewable source of healing usable a couple of times per encounter.
5) A variant hit point scheme, such as the Wound Points / Vitality Points mechanic, could also be a great mechanic for a party with no Cleric.
You cannot disagree. It's a fact."I'm German"
"I disagree""I'm so tired right now"
"I disagree""I'm agnostic"
"I disagree".Just doesn't work that way.
"I'm Agonistic, and consider myself common and/or sane"
I disagree. And I can, don't say I can't.
You can disagree with an indisputable fact, but that just makes you odd. If a person is agnostic and considers themselves sane, that's a fact. You can disagree with it all you like, but that doesn't change that they're still agnostic and still consider themselves sane.
But if the alternative healers aren't as effective as the cleric, what's the point? The cleric will still be the "must-have" option for healing, and I was under the impression the OP is looking for somthing to fill it's place, an alternative.
Again, you're falling into your own trap. Clerics are not REQUIRED for any adventure to fill the healing role. Again, I've played plenty of full-length campaigns without clerics and we've done fine. Clerics are better at it, but it doesn't matter if clerics get 120% on every test if <insert other capable primary healer here> gets 100% on every test -- your party still gets an A+.
The thing is, Clerics are the healer class just like Bard is the social jack-of-all-trades class, Barbarian is the brute strength class, Druid is the nature class, Fighter is the weapon/armor specialist class, Monk is the self-reliant warrior, Paladin is the holy warrior, Ranger is the skilled nature fighter class, Rogue is the sneaky skilled class, Wizard is the versital arcane caster, Sorcerer is the specialized arcane caster. These are the 11 core classes and their main niches that they fill. Other classes can heal, just not nearly as well because it's not their thing.
The channel energy as healing now will probably make it difficult for anyone else to be the only healer if the DM doesn't adjust the game to accomodate, though. Hey, I guess that's why they have healing potions. :)
You can disagree with an indisputable fact, but that just makes you odd. If a person is agnostic and considers themselves sane, that's a fact. You can disagree with it all you like, but that doesn't change that they're still agnostic and still consider themselves sane.
I'm not disagreeing with fact, I'm trying to say that an Agonostic character should (and for good reason) be exceptionally rare in such a setting. I'm not disagreeing that X person is, in fact, an Agnostic. Geez, I can understand someone disagreeing with my point, but really now it's just a case of "He didn't word that as well as he could have, lets argue".
Again, you're falling into your own trap. Clerics are not REQUIRED for any adventure to fill the healing role. Again, I've played plenty of full-length campaigns without clerics and we've done fine. Clerics are better at it, but it doesn't matter if clerics get 120% on every test if <insert other capable primary healer here> gets 100% on every test -- your party still gets an A+.
No, I'm not. The OP is asking for a healing alternative with the same healing power as the cleric, finding ways to boost the healing powers of others or providing alternative rules that put less focus on healing is only answering. If you think healing is required for your game, that's nice, but that's not what's being asked here.
I personally agree, I hate the "we need a healer" mentality, and it's also the main reason why I never plan to play a cleric (unless I can use the PHB 2 Varient and without the healing benifits of channel energy). But again, I'm not being asked "How do you handle healing" it's "How can I have a healer with a decent amount of power", in the origonal post. In fact, the OP even acknoledges that healer powers exist outwith the cleric (using the bard as an example) right there in the first post.
|
|
Agnostics can certainly exist in a world with direct manifest proof of the gods' existence. Look at how many nutjobs doubt the US moon landings.
Edit: And there are certainly options for non-divine healers. If you adapt the rules from Eberron for using various Craft skills to repair a warforged character for using Heal with living creatures, it takes 8 hours and heals hp equal to the check result -15.
Agnostics can certainly exist in a world with direct manifest proof of the gods' existence. Look at how many nutjobs doubt the US moon landings.
Right...let me put this as simply as possible, again...
I'm not doubting they exist, I'm not even doubting aethists exist. I simply think they should be rare, and in the case of aetheists, insane.
I'm sorry but, I cannot try to get my point clearer than that. I think, for the sake of my sanity, I'm done with this thread.
People, agnostics believe something bigger than they can understand exists and has control over everything.
Now the galorian gods exist yes, but they are not all powerful, they are not all knowing and they do not have control over everything. Therefore it can be successfully argued that they are not worthy of worship. Does that mean the person arguing such a point doesn't believe there isn't something even bigger than them that is worthy of worship? Not at all. Does it mean he is delusional for having such a belief? No more so than any god worshiping religion in the real world. He has a belief in something he can't see that's even bigger than the "lesser gods" that he knows exists, and to assume something bigger than those exists actually makes sense. It follows continuity.
Mortals < Dragons < demi gods < lesser gods < greater gods < Supreme Being
The agnostic in this case is simply upping the scale.
An athiest also has room to exist in that he denies that the "gods" are actually worthy of worship or are actual "gods" in the first place. Yes he may know that these beings exist and are more powerful than him, but that doesn't actually make them gods.
We haven't even really divided this group from the "Rebellious believers" and the equally seperate group "Denier's of self" (which are in the boneyard). The "rebellious Believers" may indeed accept that these beings are gods, but also believe that they don't have the right to be. An individual in this group would instead go with self reliance and try and find a way around the gods if he could, actively resisting all of them.
That doesn't make such a person dump, ignorant or insane. These would be exactly the type of people that might take the Test of the Star to see if they could wrest the power from the gods and end the old sham.
My major gripe with 3.5/Pathfinder (as opposed to 4E) is that if you want to have a competent healer in the party, someone is forced to play a divine character. What I would really like to see in any possible future PFRPG splatbooks is a base class which is non-divine but equal to the cleric in its healing capability. The Bard can provide a passable arcane healer, but they rely so heavily upon magic items to fill the role that it begins to become a major gold sink throughout the course of the game.
Unfortunately until a future PFRPG class is invented you are going to be stuck with the bard or go with other source material. I have played a healing bard in both Forgotten Realms and Ebberon and have had a lot of success with them. What it means is you pick the cure XXX wounds for each level plus delay poison and neutralize poison. So you would be committing 8 spells of your limited slots. One thing which helps is the cost of putting skill points into a non-class skill helps in PFRPG. If I do it again I will play a half elf and put my skill focus into healing and keep it maxed out. Stock up on healing kits and antitoxins. Do not under estimate the ability to promote natural healing.
As an aside I played a bard healer in Ebberon due to religious dogma that a divine healer does not heal those of another faith. So in a mixed party I could get paid doing what the clerics and paladins refused to do. Moreso than any other class a bard can make a decent living outside of dungeoneering.
|
|
An agnostic or atheist in a Pathfinder-type fantasy setting isn't likely to argue that gods don't exist or that divine magic isn't potent - they would just refuse to equate a god's existence with the god's right to worship.Which is why I also feel such people would be extremly rare/mad.
There is an entire nation in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting that is at minimum agnostic. In fact they are openly hostile to religion in any form. While people hold them in spite and consider them misguided, to my knowledge they are not considered insane.
I personaly see two very simple solution to this isssue. One is to simply take the ceric, file off the seriel numbers, then give it a new name and claim it's an arcane caster. This way you get all the benefits you are looking for and don't have to be a divine caster. Th other way is to come up with sm form of in-story reason why only dive casters can cast healing spells.
Take the Scarred Land setting as an example. In the Scarred Lands divine magic is granted by the gods, while arcane magic is gained by tapping into the essence of the Titans. Now the Tians are big, powerful, and god-like. They are the embodiment of the natural world and primal forces, and could not give a rat's tail about their worshippers. They are also the creators of the known world.
The gods on the other hand are linked in essence with their followers. The death of followers actually diminishes them and their power. Thus the gods have a vested interest in seeing people continue to survive and thrive, particularly their champions. The Titans could car less what happens to their followers. Even if every being on Scarn died, they would just create new races, as they have done countless times before.
By usng a story like this (which has been greatly simplified) you have given a reason why there are no arcane healers. The source of arcane magic is simply not concerned enough with mortals to provide healing abilities. Arcane power is more focused on destroying one's enemies and controlling the world around them then it is on healing.
Note: Ironically, druids are titan worshippers who have managd to gain access to divine powers. Some speculate that sorcerers may actually be a type of druid devoted to the titan who embodies arcane magic. Also, as a great story idea, if a god dies then his/her clerics no longer can cast divine spells above second level.
...
1) Bump up the Heal skill so that a non-magical use of the Heal skill can restore some hit point damage (perhaps converting lethal damage to nonlethal instead of outright curing wounds?). It doesn't have to be a lot, and it could expend 'uses' from a Healing Kit to do so, but it would allow the non-magical healer to actually function. (It would have to be *significantly* better than the current Pathfinder Beta Treat Deadly Wound option, to be usable as a party healer.)...
Maybe add 1 point per level for each excess of 5 over the DC (instead of adding the wis bonus)?
And the Mastercraftman Feat and on-the-road item creation system could cover option 2.
For option 3, I would built on option 1 and get some transmutations spell that could facilitate Heal (maybe more than one use of Treat Deadly Wounds) or improvement of the results of other treatements (like Long-term care, Treat Disease and Treat Poison).
Ur-Priest
This class functions the same as the Cleric with the following exceptions.
Requirement: any non-good
Siphoning the divine: Every morning instead of memorizing spells or praying for spells, you go into a trance and mentally steal the power that gods normally channel to their clerics. Roll a DC 25 spellcraft check. If you succeed, you choose which god you steal divine energy from (or at least good/evil). If you fail, roll a d100. 1-50 means you steal divine power from an evil diety. 51-100 means you steal divine power from an good diety. This determines whether you channel positive or negative energy and if you spontaniously convert to cure or inflict spells.
Domains: Choose any two domains at level 1 or roll every day from a chart that I'm not going to bother writing up (if this can possibly jive with the domain rules in PF Final).
Enemy of the Divine: Clerics and Paladins of good dieties directly oppose your ability and actively seek those who possess the ability to steal divine energy from the gods. Clerics of Evil dieties also do not approve but it is often subject to how one uses it. If they often siphon from good gods then they tend to not care as much. Druids usually do not care as they just see it as all part of the balance.
Does that work for you?
|
I think that everyone is sort of mixing up what agnostic and aetheist mean. Agnostic means a person doesn't believe or disbelieve that the supernatural, not only deities, exist. They may believe that it does, but has no importance in the real everyday world, or not believe but leave the possibility open, or not care one way or the other, or believe that all religions are partially right, but most other religions are also valid.
An aetheist does not believe that the supernatural exists in any way. No fey, no deities, no miracles, no ghosts, no urban legends, etc. . . Magic can be a scientific process, a hoax, or a myth, but it doesn't actually exist as magic.
An agnostic is fairly common in any D&D setting were an individual doesn't worship a single deity/pantheon. Aetheist however, is probably extremely rare, probably automatically Chaotic Evil or Neutral (for teaching obviously false and damaging beliefs and corupting the youth), and is in the truest sense of the word insane. They do not recognize what is right in front of their face as true.
An agnostic is fairly common in any D&D setting were an individual doesn't worship a single deity/pantheon. Aetheist however, is probably extremely rare, probably automatically Chaotic Evil or Neutral (for teaching obviously false and damaging beliefs and corupting the youth), and is in the truest sense of the word insane. They do not recognize what is right in front of their face as true.
Not necessarily. An Atheist in a fantasy setting might being that magic is science. (In a world where magic is real, the 'supernatural' can still be normal.) As far as divine magic is concerned, it is clearly false to believe that Angels and Demons do not exist, but one might argue that Gods are not divine or deserving of worship. What if Gods are merely ultra-powerful outsiders instead of the creators of the universe? So what if they can grant spells? So can demon lords, or any Wizard with imbue with spell ability.
Rejection of the supernatural is insane in a fantasy setting, but that's not the same as rejection of divinity.
|
|
Lets not forget the Favored Soul. While they are still somewhat restricted to deity, there is absolutely nothing that says they have to be a fan of or even like that deity.Which provides some HUGE role-playing possibilities.
I was very miffed when in PHB2 they did this with the Hexblade and completely ignored the Favored Soul backgrounds. It is very possible. In Greyhawk, maybe it is a Favored Soul of Pelor that follows Nurel or vice versa. To that character, Pelor is some goody goody bastard that cursed you with holy powers to smite and get in the way of your true purpose. At least that curse came with a little bit of power that you can use to spit in his face when you have "corupted" your self enough. Or Nurel is trying to twist you away from your true goodguy nature with powers that come from evil. You however are going to show the world that even something born of pure evil can be redeemed and used for righteousness.
|
|
I still think the best solution would be to aim at making the cleric a more well rounded and interesting class rather than trying to focus on making something to duplicate what you like/need without all the bad you don't want. Doing that, 1 just hurts the cleric even more, and 2 makes a party with a cleric and this other class either redundant or nearly impossible to challenge, therefore boring.
Nobody likes the Ur-Priest idea, really? What better solution is there? You want the same healing abilities as a Cleric (chanelling and cure spells) except you don't want to be tied to worshipping a god. I give you the Ur-Priest which is basically the Complete Divine PrC recycled into a anti-cleric base class (works better that way anyways) which contains all the same abilities except that he steals it.
What is it that you don't like about the idea? I don't think that you're going to get any closer to a base class that isn't shackled to a god but is as good a healer as a Cleric (without playing a cleric who follows an ideal instead of god).
It makes for some interesting role playing as well. :)
On another note, if it's simply the role playing a religious zealot that turns you off, there's a solution to that as well. Some gods are dedicated to ideals that encourage followers to not be religious zealots. Basically, any god who believes that one should always have an open mind and question everything in order to learn and gain knowledge may actually be opposed to followers who are blindly devoted to even themselves as it goes against the ideal that they promote. Gods of knowlege and secrets fit this well and I'm sure that there are other ones that would work too. These "clerics" might not even follow a god or know who grants them their magical abilities or why. All they might know is that for some reason, they have these abilities and don't even realize that their thirst for knowledge, secrets or whatever is what gained them the favor of some divine being.
OP here. I guess what really has me miffed about Cleric is that every other "big four" class can have its role filled by someone else. Fighter can be replaced by Barbarian or Paladin. Rogue can be replaced by Scout or Ninja. Wizard can be replaced by Sorcerer or Warmage. And that's only naming two in each instance. I could name off a half dozen viable replacements for Wizard if I really wanted to. But the Cleric is indispensable. You can pull out something like the Favored Soul or Dragon Shaman, but they're always going to be "Made in Hong Kong" versions of the real deal. I just want to have some options in order to fill my preferred party role. Granted, from an RP standpoint, the Cleric is pretty damned versatile. No two Clerics will be entirely alike. It's all dependent upon which deity your worship. But once again, that's part of the problem.
Here's what it boils down to. I'm a staunch atheist. I feel that belief in God is about as silly as belief in the Tooth Fairy or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Now, I understand that an atheist viewpoint in Golarion would be equally as silly as a theist viewpoint is on Earth. Gods walk the world and interact with mortals on a daily basis. Their existence is readily apparent and objectively indisputable. However, being atheist <i>in the real world</i>, I've spent a great deal of time reading the works of individuals like Jefferson, Paine, and Dawkins. I find their philosophy of reasoned living, self-reliance, and shirking of the status quo to be truly inspiring. I want to create a character who embodies this philosophy. To me, organized religion is the archetypal representative of the status quo, so to create a character who worships a God and places his fate in that God's hands...well, it just makes it difficult for me to connect with that character emotionally or intellectually. However, I also love the mechanics of healing in this game. I want to be able to fill that party role and still connect with the character I'm playing.
I don't want to play a Favored Soul who doesn't actively worship his deity. I don't want to play a Cleric who worships an ideal rather than a God. Both of these concepts are still intimately reliant upon divine energy, and divine energy would represent an altogether loathsome aspect of existence for this character. The Ur-Priest idea is the closest I've seen to what I'm looking for, but I don't like the idea of having to be non-good. I see this character as kind-hearted and virtuous. No, I need a new option to make this work.
You cannot disagree. It's a fact."I'm German"
"I disagree""I'm so tired right now"
"I disagree""I'm agnostic"
"I disagree".Just doesn't work that way.
"I'm Agonistic, and consider myself common and/or sane"
I disagree. And I can, don't say I can't.
Let me spell it out to you:
I said I know an agnostic Knight of the Cross that would disagree with you.
You said you disagreed.
You basically said you disagreed that I know that guy.
You can't do that.
It's not an opinion.
You can only disagree with opinions.
You could say "you're lying" or "I don't believe you".
But no agreement required. It was a statement of fact.
So, you might think that you cannot be agnostic in D&D and be sane at the same time, but I disagree with that.
There's a difference between being a deity and merely being a powerful creature. It's perfectly possible to say that you don't believe that/know whether those "deities" are really deities. They could just be powerful creatures. Divine magic could be a different form of arcane magic. All spells contacting the afterlife could be elaborate shams that fool you into believing you're talking into a dead guy. The priests could be fooled themselves, or in on the sham. The soul could be nonexistant.
But if the alternative healers aren't as effective as the cleric, what's the point?Again, you're falling into your own trap. Clerics are not REQUIRED for any adventure to fill the healing role.
Plus, a game where everyone is exactly as good at everything as everyone else would suck.
I mean, that's not a roleplaying game. That's Street Fighter. Different "characters", but it's only the looks.
I'm not disagreeing with fact,
Oh yes you were. That's the whole point of my incredulity of your statements.
I'm trying to say that an Agonostic character should (and for good reason) be exceptionally rare in such a setting.
Not necessrily.
There could be a huge movements calling the gods frauds. With the right leaders, that movement could gain great momentum.
I'm not doubting they exist, I'm not even doubting aethists exist. I simply think they should be rare, and in the case of aetheists, insane.
No, they shouldn't. Your opinion is only one option. Others exist.
How about a Sorcerer who uses arcane healing scrolls. The spell is on the bard list and as such can be made into an arcane scroll. Just a thought.
He can't use the scrolls without use magic device. Those spells aren't on his spell list.
Seriously, check out the archivist. I think there is a link to the WotC site upthread that has all their info. They're from Heroes of Horror. Basically, they prepare spells from a prayerbook, just like a wizard prepares spells from a spellbook, except the archivist learns and casts divine spells. They also have some nifty support role abilities that scale up with increased ranks in Knowledge checks.
While they cast "divine" spells, they don't have to be particularly religious. It's just book-learning for them.
The Ur-Priest idea is the closest I've seen to what I'm looking for, but I don't like the idea of having to be non-good. I see this character as kind-hearted and virtuous. No, I need a new option to make this work.
I just made up, more like adapted, the Ur-Priest idea to fit what you were loking for. You can lift the "any non-good" requirement if it makes sense to you. There's also nothing stopping a LN, N or CN from being a kind hearted and good person.
Plus, how could you resist playing a character that actively opposes the gods. For you especially, I'd think that would sound too good to pass up.
I'm not doubting they exist, I'm not even doubting aethists exist. I simply think they should be rare, and in the case of aetheists, insane.Not necessarily. But they would be "Athiest" in the truest sense.
- They would have no doubts that the Gods exit.
- But in settings like the Forgotten Realms, actual encounters with most of the gods showed them to have the social development and moral maturity of spoiled babies. And not just the Evil gods ... especially not the Evil gods.
- A person could consciously choose not to worship any of the gods.
|
|
What if you took a slightly more eastern veiw and made divine magic the natural energy of the universe. Sure deities radiate it, but it predates even [most] of them.
We had a game were one of the players was a staunch aetheist, and he played a secular humanist. For a lot of personal reasons he started getting a lot of people very anoyed at him (player not character). But when he would pray, he would say things like "mankind light the darkness with reason and enlightenment". and he would basically transplant any reference to deity or the heavens with man, mankind, human, things like that. He wasn't trying to be racist against like elves, but just used mankind as a whole for sentient beings.
If you understand that aetheism is itself a religious veiw, it makes sense. Divine magic simply takes the natural energies of the universe and channels them as oppossed to arcane which manipulates and tries to force different worldly energies the arcanists will.
If you understand that aetheism is itself a religious veiw, it makes sense.
I think this may be the root of a great deal of confusion in all of the conversations occurring in this thread. Atheism itself is most certainly NOT a religious view. It is a position of skepticism towards theology and super-naturalism. It is a distinct lack of religion, not a religion in and of itself.
This is probably why words like Atheism and Agnosticism cause so much confusion in the discussion of D&D. Atheism implies a complete lack of belief in deities due to lack of evidence to support the theory that they exist. Agnosticism implies an impartial position on the <i>existence</i> of deities because there is no evidence to indicate existence or non-existence. Both of these are completely useless terms in Golarion, except to describe absolutely insane individuals who can't grasp objective reality. Those who recognize the existence of Gods yet reject those Gods' right to worship and rule over mortals need a new label to distinguish their philosophy from Atheists and Agnostics. I would propose the Dwarven word "Urgrim", literally translating to "Godless One". Paizo could use this word in future supplements to clear up the confusion.
Beckett, was your secular humanist friend playing a Cleric or some other divine class like Shugenja?
I know you Paizo people don't care much for the WoTC boards, but on CharOps there was a very good post about the sheer amount of healing that is available to characters without being forced to be reliant on a cleric.
It was literally to the point where you didn't need a healer in the party. If there's no healer, the party is forced to adapt. You can TRY to use the 15-minute workday approach, but that's entirely based on the DM going along with it, since if you can flee, enemies can follow...or stop you from fleeing.
I don't have the direct link, but it should be easy to find. It was actually fairly ridiculous how much healing was available for almost no cost, or very little cost. MIC did a lot to break open the healing bucket, and that was even before Wands of Lessor Vigor coughing up 550 pts of healing over time for 750 gp or so.
===Aelryinth
|
|
That's the thing though. Even if it is somehow offensive, aetheism is still a religious veiw, by definition. I'm not trying to be a d*ck, or saying that aetheism is an organized religion, (which can be argued). All I'm saying is that it is a religious view. Just like anarchy is a political view. It is just different in a fantasy world were their if no possibilty that the supernatural can't exist. There are a few alternate possibilities, like deities are just extremely powerful beings, but at it's heart, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Which is really were the problem with aetheism come in. Agnostic can be neutral on the subjuct, well must be by the definition, and believe that it doesn't matter for their life. With aetheists, though they do exist. Worship is irrelivant to the concept, as is the deity's actual divinity. Elementals, angels, demons, and other planar creatures, as well as other planes, exist as fact, not possibility.
That doesn't mean though, that divine is in some way bad or wrong. Druids access their divine powers because of a belief in the cycles and deeper understanding of nature. Some might also worship a deity, but that is a personal choice. Clerics work the same way. At it's heart, deities are irrelivant to a cleric, (except in specific settings). They are individuals with a strong personal conviction about something that allows them to draw on mystic abilities for that belief.
In fact, in Dragonlance, there is an actual Mystic class, (as there is a time period with no deities). People simply unlocked these powers (of the heart) by understanding themselves, by being empathic and focusing their desire. Maybe that is what you want? They are spontanious divine caster. They didn't get turn undead, and only had one Domain. But otherwise, mechanicaly, like a cleric. For them though, it is their understanding of themselves and the world that unlocks their power, it is not granted in any sense.
I honsestly don't remember what he played. He got so annoyily contraversial and rude in RL that I want to say he was playing a Cleric/rogue variant or combination, but was just so outright offensive to some religious people (that he had invited over), I don't remember.
But I think the concept was fairly good.
|
Google to the rescue!
Why You Don't Need A Cleric to Heal.
And serious, if you want wizards to heal, give them the spells. This is not something so important to argue over it.
While I don't mind a few classes getting some minor "utility" healing ability, folklore and legends kind of informally created the split between "arcane" and "divine." Most instances of people instantaneously brought back to life, especially without some dire consequence, or of people being healed of afflictions, disease, etc., had to do with "holy men."
On the other hand, spells that took effort and tended to have a cost or the like tended to be what we kind of view as "arcane." Divine "casters" really are more like the pious or the favored, that in folk lore just kind of are granted their miracles by their gods.
I know there are folk lore references to "arcane" healing, in the broad strokes shown above, but I think that part of the point of clerics being really good at healing is that they can do what they do fairly quickly and easily, in the grand scheme of things.
I guess I could, in that light, see some healing spells for arcane casters, but they really should be less efficient than divine magic, i.e. something that lets "natural" healing happen faster, or that takes some of the health of the caster, or limiters like that.
Long winded summary . . . I like divine casters to be much better and more efficient at healing and "fixing" magics and wizards to be much better at manipulating "things" and inflicting conditions. But that's just my preference.
|
|
To be perfectly honest, I sort of wish that it became a mundane alternative. That way, people would be less dependant on the Cleric, or Druid, or Bard as the healer, as they can bandage and saulve themselves up after a fight, but during combat there is still magical healing, which is actually more miraculous in nature.
Something that Dragonlance did, and I am sure others as well, is allow Arcane magic not to heal, but certain spells to alter time in minor ways so that the damage never actually happened. I don't think that is to bad, but it is also not something you can use often enough to be the party healstick.
To be perfectly honest, I sort of wish that it became a mundane alternative.
I've actually thought about running a campaign where healing magic just didn't exist. It'd be fun to see how everyone changed their tactics to survive in such a world.
maybe certain sorcerer bloodlines could have healing
|
|
How about a Sorcerer who uses arcane healing scrolls. The spell is on the bard list and as such can be made into an arcane scroll. Just a thought.He can't use the scrolls without use magic device. Those spells aren't on his spell list.
The spells are considered unusual for him/her, so he can make a check to learn them In 3.5 anyway, it may have changed in Alpha/Beta.
No, I need a new option to make this work.
Sorry, but I was trying to get your attention. Seriously though, this class works for what you are wanting. They can learn any spells on the cleric, druid, or socrerer/wizard list. And you can choose to be a divine or arcane caster. The link above will take you to it at the d20srd website.
|
|
have you taken a look at the idea of the mystic from Dragonlance? This seems to me that it might fit your philosophy nicely. Afterall hee you have a character who through their own inner strength have tapped into the magical essence of the world around them, no divine connection whatsoever. It very much is like a sorcerer with a divine spell list mechanics wise. Don't know if that helps at all, but I hope that has a bit of substance for ya.
cheers
OP here. I guess what really has me miffed about Cleric is that every other "big four" class can have its role filled by someone else. Fighter can be replaced by Barbarian or Paladin. Rogue can be replaced by Scout or Ninja. Wizard can be replaced by Sorcerer or Warmage. And that's only naming two in each instance. I could name off a half dozen viable replacements for Wizard if I really wanted to. But the Cleric is indispensable. You can pull out something like the Favored Soul or Dragon Shaman, but they're always going to be "Made in Hong Kong" versions of the real deal. I just want to have some options in order to fill my preferred party role. Granted, from an RP standpoint, the Cleric is pretty damned versatile. No two Clerics will be entirely alike. It's all dependent upon which deity your worship. But once again, that's part of the problem.
Again, this is wrong. Clerics are NOT, by any definition, indispensable. Again, even if the Cleric earns a 150% on every test, it does not matter as long as <insert other healer option here> earns 100%. At the end of the semester, they both have the exact same grade. And there are plenty of non-religious classes that can step in for the cleric and fill the healer role with 100% effectiveness. Many of them have been mentioned in this thread.
Even the Healer class cannot cast healing spells spontainiously.
With the Spontaneous Healing feat from Complete Divine they can replicate that ability.
A lot of the fault comes from DM's and Players who have never either conceived or have been exposed to the concept of the cleric as nothing more than a walking first aid kit for the group. Clerics are potentially one of the more powerful spellcasters in the game, but it takes a fair amount of thought and planning as far as spell and feat selection.
They are also interesting from a role-playing point of view and for the DM. Often the best "bad guys" are the religious fanatics who are opposed to the PCs Church
|
|
A lot of the fault comes from DM's and Players who have never either conceived or have been exposed to the concept of the cleric as nothing more than a walking first aid kit for the group. Clerics are potentially one of the more powerful spellcasters in the game, but it takes a fair amount of thought and planning as far as spell and feat selection.
I think, at least in my experience, the real fault comes from the other players that always expect the Cleric to drop what the Cleric is doing and fix their mistakes. If the Cleric player doesn't stand up for themself early on, they tend to get intimidated into a singular role the entire game. For some reason, 3.0 really seemed to enforce this for some reason, it is ok for the Rogue, Wizard, and Fighter to do their own thing, but not the Cleric. Even the Druid, who has a similar function doesn't get half the cr*p that the Cleric does for not healing immediatly. Instead of the other players using smart tactics, the rely on the Cleric being a player of an NPC.