|
That is my question. I'm starting my first Pathfinder group (as a player anyway) tomorrow night. The others in the group are playing a Human Monk, Human Druid, and Human Bard. I've got a few character ideas that I've been waiting to try, but I'm not sure which to go with.
What are other people's experiences with groups that have members who can heal, but without a primary healer? One idea is a cleric of Gozreh, stuck in Westcrown for months because of poor luck and a mix up with the law. I'm also considering a wizard/fighter/arcane archer, or a straight sorcerer.
|
It dpends on your group. I have seen groups be very successful without a cleric to provide healing. On the other hand, I have also seen parties get TPKed because thy didn't have a cleric with them. Talk to your GM and find out what kind of campaign he intends to run. If it isa lot of dungeon crawl and combat, you wll really wat a cleric. Other models, such as political intrigue or empuire building may not need a cleric as much.
|
Other models, such as political intrigue or empuire building may not need a cleric as much.
nor a fighter...
that is my complain about how the skillsets work right now... they limit many classes to nothing ut adventure and killing, which in some cases is rather absurd... and in other cases it boring for some of this characters in "social" games since they will be getting bored all the time...but this remark David is particlarly in one specialiced version of the cleric... the healbot..., but since the OP as if its necesary to have one or not, I suppose it cames to the case... it just makes me cringue when I suppose people see the cleric into one simple niche, and all other clases by the way... its so limiting that it feels like 4E...
PD: sorry, i said i wouldn't complain anymore about these things...
Other models, such as political intrigue or empuire building may not need a cleric as much.nor a fighter...
that is my complain about how the skillsets work right now... they limit many classes to nothing ut adventure and killing, which in some cases is rather absurd... and in other cases it boring for some of this characters in "social" games since they will be getting bored all the time...but this remark David is particlarly in one specialiced version of the cleric... the healbot..., but since the OP as if its necesary to have one or not, I suppose it cames to the case... it just makes me cringue when I suppose people see the cleric into one simple niche, and all other clases by the way... its so limiting that it feels like 4E...
PD: sorry, i said i wouldn't complain anymore about these things...
Clerics are very versatile. The biggest problem they have is cr@ppy skill points. Put points into Diplomacy and Sense Motive for the Roleplay. Take comabat feats for the Rollplay.
That is my question. I'm starting my first Pathfinder group (as a player anyway) tomorrow night. The others in the group are playing a Human Monk, Human Druid, and Human Bard. I've got a few character ideas that I've been waiting to try, but I'm not sure which to go with.
What are other people's experiences with groups that have members who can heal, but without a primary healer? One idea is a cleric of Gozreh, stuck in Westcrown for months because of poor luck and a mix up with the law. I'm also considering a wizard/fighter/arcane archer, or a straight sorcerer.
I think the cleric is probably pretty mandatory. One problem I've seen with the D&D system--that Pathfinder hasn't corrected prior to next year's expansion to the classes--is that there isn't a good healer substitute other than the cleric. Want to play a mage? You can be a bard, sorcerer or wizard. Want to be a warrior? Barbarian, paladin, ranger or fighter. Want to be a versatile skill monkey? Bard, monk, ranger or rogue. Want to be a healer? Cleric...or druid, sometimes, if you want to be not so good at healing.
So I'd play a cleric, if I were you. On the plus side, there is an incredibly versatility of cleric types (from holy warriors to shrouded necromancers to scrappy rascals) and the cleric often has a disproportionatly large role in party decisions ("Okay, you if you guys want to go that way, fine, but I'm going this way..." "Alright, we'll all stick with the cleric.")
Just my 2 cp from my experience.
That is my question. I'm starting my first Pathfinder group (as a player anyway) tomorrow night. The others in the group are playing a Human Monk, Human Druid, and Human Bard. I've got a few character ideas that I've been waiting to try, but I'm not sure which to go with.
What are other people's experiences with groups that have members who can heal, but without a primary healer? One idea is a cleric of Gozreh, stuck in Westcrown for months because of poor luck and a mix up with the law. I'm also considering a wizard/fighter/arcane archer, or a straight sorcerer.
I think the cleric is probably pretty mandatory. One problem I've seen with the D&D system--that Pathfinder hasn't corrected prior to next year's expansion to the classes--is that there isn't a good healer substitute other than the cleric. Want to play a mage? You can be a bard, sorcerer or wizard. Want to be a warrior? Barbarian, paladin, ranger or fighter. Want to be a versatile skill monkey? Bard, monk, ranger or rogue. Want to be a healer? Cleric...or druid, sometimes, if you want to be not so good at healing.
So I'd play a cleric, if I were you. On the plus side, there is an incredibly versatility of cleric types (from holy warriors to shrouded necromancers to scrappy rascals) and the cleric often has a disproportionatly large role in party decisions ("Okay, you if you guys want to go that way, fine, but I'm going this way..." "Alright, we'll all stick with the cleric.")
Just my 2 cp from my experience.
Paladins druids and bards are all quite able to fill in the cleric roll unless you need a true resurrection. The paladins lay hands, mercy, and channel positive energy make it a great healer for a group without having to play a cleric. Rangers can use wands to backup heal as well.
|
|
Other models, such as political intrigue or empuire building may not need a cleric as much.nor a fighter...
that is my complain about how the skillsets work right now... they limit many classes to nothing ut adventure and killing, which in some cases is rather absurd... and in other cases it boring for some of this characters in "social" games since they will be getting bored all the time...but this remark David is particlarly in one specialiced version of the cleric... the healbot..., but since the OP as if its necesary to have one or not, I suppose it cames to the case... it just makes me cringue when I suppose people see the cleric into one simple niche, and all other clases by the way... its so limiting that it feels like 4E...
PD: sorry, i said i wouldn't complain anymore about these things...
The way the OP phrased his question, it seemed to indicate that he was asking about a healbot. Sadly, to most players that is all a cleric is. I played a buffing cleric one time, who was both a diplomat and had a better damage output than the fighter and the other players and the DM told me I was "doing it wrong."
|
|
I would not be a healbot. My character would be the primary healer, but I would not be focusing him entirely on that by any means. I would try to strike a balance between a battle cleric and a healer.
I'm not as worried about buffing, because with a druid and a bard in the group I think we'll have plenty to offer in that department.
EDIT: For those curious, we're playing the Council of Thieves AP. My question is more one of party balance, and how the survivability is of a group without a cleric.
I would not be a healbot. My character would be the primary healer, but I would not be focusing him entirely on that by any means. I would try to strike a balance between a battle cleric and a healer.
I'm not as worried about buffing, because with a druid and a bard in the group I think we'll have plenty to offer in that department.
EDIT: For those curious, we're playing the Council of Thieves AP. My question is more one of party balance, and how the survivability is of a group without a cleric.
Your group already has two healing capable members. If you want to play a cleric go for it, but remember that damage prevention (proactive) is always superior to healing (reactive) I would consider a diviner with improved initiative. Debuff the enemies in the surprise round and your healing becomes far less necessary.
Your monk buddy will also definately appreciate some mage armor in hard fights.
EDIT: For those curious, we're playing the Council of Thieves AP. My question is more one of party balance, and how the survivability is of a group without a cleric.
In my experience, the survivability of a group has more to do with the tactics a group uses. Even in a combat heavy game, you can get by without a cleric as a primary healer if the group is based on movement, ranged attacks, or striking before your enemies can do much about it.
On the other hand if the group as a whole are inexperienced or are more of an in-your-face combat style, a cleric is very nearly a must.
If possible, talk to the druid and bard players before making your descision. I've seen a couple games like this get ruined quick, because the guy in your boots decides not to play a healer, the guy playing the druid never memorizes cure light wounds, and the guy playing the bard blows all his spells durring the encounter thinking the druid's got it handled.
If the druid and bard are on the ball, you should be ok (haven't seen council of thieves yet, so keep that in mind). Either class can cast some cure spells, the bard can boost up use magic device and the party can chip in to purchase wands of whatever is lacking.
I'm curious about the previous comment about if you wanna play a mage, there is BARD sorcerer and wizard. Other than using wands and use magic device I'm not seeing how the bard is a substitute for a wizard/sorcerer at all. If you do include wand use, then rogue's would quallify too...with the added boost of sneak attack on some of those spells.
We just started Council of Thieves with a Tiefling Monk, two Human Bards, and a Halfling Bard (yes, three bards).
I think Bard/Druid is probably enough healing for a group (with scrolls/wands of cure light early). Especially in a city based campaign, where getting new healing resources isn't too difficult. Fraust's point about talking to the players is important too though (in my group, only one bard has cure light wounds).
|
|
If the Bard takes cure light wounds, the Druid prepares cure light wounds (which can always be turned into summon nature's ally) and the Monk avoids getting pounded on too heavily, your party should be fine.
If you play a Paladin, Celestial Sorcerer or other class with *some* healing potential, you should be able to get by.
The DM may choose to throw the party a bone and let the Monk pick up Wholeness of Body early, in place of some 1st level feature he's doesn't mind waiting for, which would give everyone a dab of healing potential.
On the other hand, you can mix things up and play a high-charisma negative energy channeling Cleric (you'll have to prepare cure light wounds, and you'll have a lot less healing potential than a positive energy channeling, but with only three other party members, you'll only need selective channeling and a 16 Cha to use your class ability without damaging your allies, assuming no animal companion...).
|
|
I definitely second talking to the other players. It doesn't seem like you'll need a cleric, as long as the bard and druid are aware they have to pick up the slack. Also, if you are not going to play a rogue, the bard maybe needs to know to put points in disable device.
I haven't read CoT, but as far as balance goes, I might recommend either a paladin or a rogue. A paladin offers some brute strength and the channel energy/smite evil outsiders abilities, and a rogue, well, what can't they do? Might be useful for Council of Thieves.
With two secondary sources of healing you should be okay. Our party in second darkness has a paladin, a dragon disciple, a druid and a monk. so far we've been doing just fine, and the paladin has done very little healing. Most of that has been a lay on hands here and there. Depending on how optimized you are, how your tactics are it'll change though.
|
|
The way the OP phrased his question, it seemed to indicate that he was asking about a healbot. Sadly, to most players that is all a cleric is. I played a buffing cleric one time, who was both a diplomat and had a better damage output than the fighter and the other players and the DM told me I was "doing it wrong."
point sorry sorry
as I said it just cringes me seing it niched... which I know paizo does in many senses... and yeah... I ignore players and DMs who make those comments, but I usualy tell them what kind of character I am doing... so I accept no complains about "wasting their healings"next time they want that kind of cleric i am playing a Cleric of Abadar and charge for the healings... "Freehealing? go to Sarenrae, she will be pleased to comply"
|
as a satisfied player of a cleric who complains when he has to waste spells on heals, i'd say give cleric a go anyway (ESPECIALLY if you gm allows other sources than PRPG book). the widened spell selection from other sources lets you be a half decent offensive spellcaster at EVERY spell level, and divine feats allow you to use those channel energies for other great stuff (weapon alignment for one). even if you're restricted to core spell and feat selection, combat feats, skill focus and spell penetration can make you a very versatile character, especially considering the plethora of self empowering spells that a cleric has that adds to its combat prowess.
|
I would talk to the other players before choosing. With two healing classes in the party already. You might end up with not enough damage in the party and too much healing. The Druid with there animal companion can do some really amazing damage ( playing a Halfling Druid with a Tiger animal companion ) But for the most part the Bard can increases the damage the party dose but has a hard time of doing good damage by them self’s.
Personally my favorite fighter type is the utilatank. 3 levels of rogue for evasion and 2D6 sneak attack damage and traps 3 levels of paladin for saves fear immunity and disease immunity. 14 levels of fighters for bonus feats and access to fighter only feats.
Don't forget you don't have to use spells to heal. You have channel energy too.
Don't forget you don't have to use spells to heal. You have channel energy too.
That is exactly how I play my Cleric of Gorum. He memorizes combat/fix-it spells and uses channel energy to heal primarily, when necessary he just as easily swap spells into Cure "X" spells. The party is level 4 in "Curse of the Crimson Throne" and there has been no complaints about lack of healing. Meanwhile he wears fullplate, a heavy shield and uses a bastard sword(& spiked gauntlets)... also filling in the role of 'main tank' for an otherwise DEX-based party. We ended last session just getting level 5.
Feats:
Exotic Weap. Prof. - Bastard sword
Selective Channeling
Quickened Channeling(aka Quickened Turning)
Quick Draw
Future Feats:
Toughness
Weapon Focus - Bastard sword
|
|
The wizard/fighter/arcane archer would be a very interesting choice if you specialized in transmutation magic and took the polymoprh subschool spells. That way you get a bump to a physical stat of your choice every few wizard levels that can make your stat bumps much more evenly spread throught your career.
That being said, a cleric is always a good choice since you can just channel positive energy and provide the tanking in the group with armor proficiencies and buff spells.
|
|
One other possibility might be the Cloistered cleric from Unearthed Arccana.
They get the wizards base attack bonus, d6 hit points, light armor, simple weapons. They also get 6+ int modifier for skill points. In attition to this they get the bardic lore ability, and three domains, one of which the knowledge domain.
Their spell list is that of a cleric, with a few additions. They also get spontaneous casting and turn undead.
This might be what your are looking for. It would probably be a simple matter to swap out turn undead with channel energy.
I hope this helps
Be another druid. With two druids, you should have the curing handled between the two of you, if you work together on spell selection. Plus, with 2 sets of spontaneous summon nature's ally (very strong early), your team will take less damage to heal anyway. Trust me: the increased offensive power of a druid is noticeable.
I am playing a cleric focusing on healing, BUT I am really enjoying my fire domain...
I like how each God cleric can play really differnt. In my CoT game we have a cleric of Shelyn. She hides behind the tank and swings her glave, and giggles as she drops a ton of pain on the baddies mcbaddies
That is my question. I'm starting my first Pathfinder group (as a player anyway) tomorrow night. The others in the group are playing a Human Monk, Human Druid, and Human Bard. I've got a few character ideas that I've been waiting to try, but I'm not sure which to go with.
What are other people's experiences with groups that have members who can heal, but without a primary healer? One idea is a cleric of Gozreh, stuck in Westcrown for months because of poor luck and a mix up with the law. I'm also considering a wizard/fighter/arcane archer, or a straight sorcerer.
I think the cleric is probably pretty mandatory. One problem I've seen with the D&D system--that Pathfinder hasn't corrected prior to next year's expansion to the classes--is that there isn't a good healer substitute other than the cleric. Want to play a mage? You can be a bard, sorcerer or wizard. Want to be a warrior? Barbarian, paladin, ranger or fighter. Want to be a versatile skill monkey? Bard, monk, ranger or rogue. Want to be a healer? Cleric...or druid, sometimes, if you want to be not so good at healing.
So I'd play a cleric, if I were you. On the plus side, there is an incredibly versatility of cleric types (from holy warriors to shrouded necromancers to scrappy rascals) and the cleric often has a disproportionatly large role in party decisions ("Okay, you if you guys want to go that way, fine, but I'm going this way..." "Alright, we'll all stick with the cleric.")
Just my 2 cp from my experience.
We found the Paladin to be a better healer than the Cleric except when the Cleric has the Healing Domain. With lay on hands and the feats extra channel and extra lay on hands the Paladin is quite bit better. Of course 1st level you lack healing entirely but that wasn't as much of an issue as there was a druid group. As soon as the paladin got channel energy the druid found he didn't have to pick cure spells anymore.
We found the Paladin to be a better healer than the Cleric except when the Cleric has the Healing Domain. With lay on hands and the feats extra channel and extra lay on hands the Paladin is quite bit better.
Well, clerics can get extra channeling, too. They don't have lay on hands, but they do get to channel.
Plus, they get healing magic at every level.
A paladin can be okay as a healer, but a cleric still outperforms them.
well if it was me, I'd take cleric,if a member of your party dies as it stands, the druid can only reincarnate, which as one funky deal with it is that you can come back in the body of a dragon.... hahahahahaha. no dm would allow that though.
Reincarnate has a very specific list, and I dont recall ever seeing dragons on that list.
That is my question. I'm starting my first Pathfinder group (as a player anyway) tomorrow night. The others in the group are playing a Human Monk, Human Druid, and Human Bard. I've got a few character ideas that I've been waiting to try, but I'm not sure which to go with.
What are other people's experiences with groups that have members who can heal, but without a primary healer? One idea is a cleric of Gozreh, stuck in Westcrown for months because of poor luck and a mix up with the law. I'm also considering a wizard/fighter/arcane archer, or a straight sorcerer.
I'd go Cleric, but that's just me. Clerics in PFRPG are very, very, VERY shiny.
Reincarnate has a very specific list, and I dont recall ever seeing dragons on that list.well if it was me, I'd take cleric,if a member of your party dies as it stands, the druid can only reincarnate, which as one funky deal with it is that you can come back in the body of a dragon.... hahahahahaha. no dm would allow that though.
it's that 100 - other that gets you every time..
We found the Paladin to be a better healer than the Cleric except when the Cleric has the Healing Domain. With lay on hands and the feats extra channel and extra lay on hands the Paladin is quite bit better.Well, clerics can get extra channeling, too. They don't have lay on hands, but they do get to channel.
Plus, they get healing magic at every level.
A paladin can be okay as a healer, but a cleric still outperforms them.
By my experience the Paladin does better for about 4 level the the Cleric pulls ahead. Those would be level 4-8. After that the cleric clearly pulls ahead healing wise. If you take the healing domain the cleric is the king of healing and the Paladin can't match it.
A paladin and druid works well together combined with a bard they you healing should be fine.
|
my reccomendation to cover both the heals and the lack of damage is a human cleric of Gorum. put a 16 and your racial bonus in strength (18), a 14+ in wisdom (14 is fine) dump int (7) and the rest as you wish. take power attack and a greatsword, put your level bumps in wisdom. take a feat to wear plate. don't put more than 12 in dex. consitution supersedes charisma.
heres the array (Assuming 20 points)
Human Cleric of Gorum
Str 18 (16+2)
Dex 12
Con 14
Int 7
wis 14 (+1 per 4 levels)
Cha 12
Feats; Power attack, Heavy armor proficiency
Weapon of choice, Greatsword (Gourums favored weapon) domains, if 3.5 dnd, war and strength, if pathfinder, i'm not sure. if 15 points, change charisma to 7 and dexterity to 13, if 25 points, bump wisdom and constitution to 16, either way, channeling is not your thing,
buffing yourself and swinging that huge sword is. basically you are a warrior blessed by Gorum.
bulls strength only lasts until you get divine power. your party will either love you for picking up thier slack or hate you for cheesing. your dm will definitely have some enmity towards you. just don't tell him it's from a former gleemax user. (the least skilled user no less)
Put your favored class bonus in hit points, you will never be a skill monkey anyway. if concentration is a skill max it out, if not, max out knowledge (religion) or intimidate. i'd look at intimidate. i beleive brandishing a weapon provides huge circumstance bonuses.
|
|
Thank you, everybody, for all the suggestions. I showed up last night with two characters ready to go, and decided to go with the cleric.
He's a Dwarf cleric of Cayden Cailean (strength and travel domains). We rolled stats with a very lenient system, and I was fortunate enough to roll a pretty bad-ass set. After racial modifiers, I've got:
Str 18
Dex 13
Con 16
Int 9
Wis 19
Cha 12
This puts me in a good position to not have to choose between combat power and casting as much as I had feared. I plan on taking a level of Fighter (at 4th level) to get access to heavy armor and all martial weapons, with a bonus feat as an extra perk.
I took Extra Channel to make up for my mediocre charisma, but from here on out I plan to spend most of my feats improving my combat prowess.
As an aside, I had a blast playing a Dwarf cleric. I'm basically playing a younger version of my Warhammer tabletop army general and MMO character.
Best moment of the session: a small group of goblins tried to ambush us in the sewers of Westcrown, and with my first attack, I hit and plant my axe in his head. I then cast enlarge person on myself and begin growing. After two rounds of my groupmates missing every attack, I hit with my axe again, dropping another goblin and sending the third running....right around a corner and into our druids staff, who crits with his AoO and knocks him out cold.
I have to say, having seen them in action, a cleric's healing is pretty amazing. Channeling has made them into uber-healers. Hell, I can tell you hands down, on the battlefield, the side that has more clerics is going to win. The other nice thing is that since there are many gods with many different associations, you can make a cleric who seems a bit like a rogue, wizard, or fighter, but still heals like a champ.
On a side note, one has got to wonder what major battles in Golarion look like with clerics on the battelfield. It must be very weird, with guys falling and getting back up again, their wounds closing back up.
|
|
On a side note, one has got to wonder what major battles in Golarion look like with clerics on the battelfield. It must be very weird, with guys falling and getting back up again, their wounds closing back up.
Of course, they get back up on the side of the evil armies, too, but their wounds don't necessarily close... :)
|
That is my question. I'm starting my first Pathfinder group (as a player anyway) tomorrow night. The others in the group are playing a Human Monk, Human Druid, and Human Bard. I've got a few character ideas that I've been waiting to try, but I'm not sure which to go with.
What are other people's experiences with groups that have members who can heal, but without a primary healer? One idea is a cleric of Gozreh, stuck in Westcrown for months because of poor luck and a mix up with the law. I'm also considering a wizard/fighter/arcane archer, or a straight sorcerer.
To Cleric. Definitely.
I'd also like to point out if you are interested in shaming your party in all things.....
in the pathfinder campaign setting, there is an alternate cleric ability.
you loose the domains and abilities from them, but you gain a full bab, and a bigger hit die, not to mention the non domain cleric spells.
The druid is a very capable healer ... as long as the druid realizes that ;)
Using magic devices such as wands and staffs can always assist the druid when he doesn't want to prepare cure spells. Also if you are allowed to use 3.5 source material , there is a feat from (I believe complete divine) which allows a good divine character to spontaneously cast positive energy spells like a good cleric can.