|
Sparked from the "Party Design Coordination" thread, it seems that a lot of people suggest the "healer" role and the Cleric class are unneeded in a standard party.
I don't want to get into a discussion of "action economy" or what makes an effective character.
Rather, what do you do (as DM or player) when noone has access to Restoration, Heal, or Remove Disease (say, in a party of Wizard/Rogue/Fighter/...other wizard)?
There are some get-around tricks possible, with Summon or Call spells available to arcane casters, or natural healing, or just dealing with negative levels or ability damage.
But what happens when the party is in a dungeon, or out in the wilderness, and someone catches Mummy Rot? Or triggers a trap on the way into the dungeon (which they really SHOULD clear out, whether through plot reasons or because the enemies inside will only get worse with time) and suffers whole bunches of ability damage on the 1st trap in the place?
Do you just let the chips lie where they fall, and the next group comes better prepared? Do you avoid using things like Shadows or Ability Damage traps/monsters? Do you add in an NPC Cleric who follows along and throws free cures at the party?
For my part (I have a player who loves playing Clerics, so it's a moot point most of the time), I refuse to run NPC's for the party. It's my job as DM to keep track of monsters, NPC's, the world, the plot, and the maps/minis. I will not add on another level of complication, solely to make your adventuring easier.
Also, I do not avoid particular types of encounters simply because they will be difficult. In Savage Tide, one PC was a Cleric/Radiant Servant. There are a bunch of Undead encounters in that path, especially during the 2nd to last book - they became non-encounters with that PC at the table, but I didn't avoid their inclusion. Why would I go the other way?
So, what do you do?
So, what do you do?
Part of what I do is change the game's rest mechanic.
|
I tell my players to play what they want and work around them. I have serious beef with the 'token cleric' that someone nearly always plays because 'the group needs one'.
Paladins can heal. Bards can heal. Rangers can heal. Druids can heal. Any character with sufficient ranks in UMD can heal.
As a DM I try and drop a wand of CLW a couple of sessions into the game if they haven't mentioned pooling some cash and buying their own.
Let the chips fall where they may. A party without a cleric will find ways to adapt to it, or die. Adventuring ain't easy.
I guess it's really a question of your style as a GM.
I consider ymself a fairly smart and flexible kind of GM. I am also a strong believer in "it is what it is". Just because a party does not have a cleric if a place in my world has, for example, a Mummy then that will not change just bcause the characters do not have access to a 'Cure Disease' spell.
My game also tends to be a lower magic game so things like "Wands of Cure Light Wounds" are not something you can just wander into a random town and buy.
I hav also found my combats tend to be much longer than what I am seeing from many examples here. For example, my group recently finished a 28 round combat. I also will tend to have multiple combats in a day so the 'Dump everything we have and rest' is not always a viable option.
With my style and especially if a group in play in "My" world they are almost certainly going to need some type of healing. Not necessarly a cleric, maybe a paladin or two would fill in the void.
Having no healer would be a real challenge with my style of running especially in the curretn environment in "My" world.
A Cleric is only needed if you want your party to be full of awesome. If you can settle for half-awesome, go forth without one.
I have been DM'ing for almost 20 years now, and have sorta insisted on a cleric and/or druid in the party. In fact in the last campaign I DMPC'd a cleric.
That won't happen again, and I have come to agree with what someone else said, "I have too much other work to do to add the level of complexity" so the next campaign (Kingmaker), they can play what they want.
As long as someone has UMD, or there is a ranger or paladin or bard in the group, they should not have a problem as I'll drop wands in as treasure.
I've also looked at the Trailblazer Rest Mechanic, and Action Points but have not made that call yet.
-- david
Papa.DRB
A Cleric is only needed if you want your party to be full of awesome. If you can settle for half-awesome, go forth without one.
^ This
you can possibly implement (many) divine pells into the wizard/sorcerer's spell list making cleric spells into arcane spells of 0 - 2 levels higher, so that the party isn't so dependent on clerical healing.
sample list :
shillelagh, doom lvl 1
cure light wounds, command, sound burst lvl 2
cure moderate wounds lvl 3
cure serious wounds, lesser restoration, freedom of movement lvl 4
cure critical wounds, death ward lvl 5
restoration, breath of life, animate object lvl 6
raise dead lvl 7
heal lvl 8
resurrection, regenerate lvl 9
If you want a cleric then I suggest someone awesome as this one....
Click on Donager.
A dwarf in full plate with travel and liberation domains.
Speed is 30 (just like everyone else)
unless he casts longstrider for a bump up to 40....
Following the god of drink and ale!
You can get by without a druid/cleric.
A well rounded cleric brings several things to the table.
Healing in and out of combat.
Party Buffs, enemy debuffs
Secondary damage dealer
Secondary battlefield control
As long as you have most those things covered in some other manner you are fine.
|
|
Unlike most editions of the world's oldest RPG (I can't speak for 4th Edition... my experience with it only includes reading the three core books, putting them back in the sleeve they came in and putting it on my shelf... just wasn't for me), no single class is absolutely necessary. It makes sense that it used to be this way.
The role may still be necessary, however. The party will still need access to healing, arcane magic, martial prowess and the ol' sneaky bastidges. The classes dedicated to those roles may be the best andd most efficient at them but other classes can cover them even if they can't do them as well.
Personally, I prefer it that way.
I'm currently getting ready to run Kingmaker and the players have created a party that does not include a cleric, fighter nor a rogue. They know they're headed out into a wild frontier where they won't be able to visit a big city for the services of those classes without completely diverting from their goals (at least at the start). The fact that these jaded players feel confident enough to play a campaign without these iconic roles says a lot. That I don't feel immediately compelled to provide NPC's to provide those services says at least as much.
I can't remember the last time we had a cleric in one of our parties. We just work our way through. As DM, I don't provide the players with anything extra. They need to figure out how to handle the problems that come with not having a cleric. Currently what they've done is invest in Use Magic Device and use wands and potions. The party also has a paladin, druid, and inquisitor. I am running them through the Age of Worms. They are adapting. That's what I expect from my players and that's what I do when I play.
A Cleric, specifically, isn't needed. There are several classes who can fill the healer/buffer role to varying degrees of effectiveness. Clerics are the best at it, but by no means the only viable choice.
Now, doing away with that role altogether is much more difficult. Still doable, but it requires careful consideration on the part of the DM because the game is designed assuming the party has access to heals and buffs.
|
One thing I've done is port in reserve points from Iron Heroes. Essentially each character has RPs equal to their max HP. Outside of combat they can spend 1 minute of rest to convert one RP to a HP (essentially they spend this time first aid, reset the joint or just gritting their teeth and pushing on). Off hand I can't recall how quickly they recover them (it might be level + Con score per 8 hours rest). Either way, handy for the party without the cleric and even with the cleric. Combats remain just as challenging, deadly and if needed they can still gulp down a potion of cure mod.
Otherwise in response to the original question, clerics aren't necessary but they do make things a lot easier.
I'm about to start Kingmaker too as the DM and I don't think our party will have a cleric or fighter type to take the big hits. Should be interesting but I won't modify the game simply to avoid cheapening the experience.
If the party really needs a cleric or fighter type they can always try to hire someone for the job!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just something from the Wizards forums I like to post every time this question comes up.
The Problems
Some players think they *have* to have a cleric or druid to cover the healing role, and place healing as an extremely high priority, even in combat, and even if they don't, many even spend inordinate amounts of money on extremely inefficient healing items that may hurt them more than help them.
To summarize a few common issues:
- Players overprioritize healing in combat when there are more effective options available to them.
- Players spend too much money on healing, often spending wads of cash on things like potions of Cure Moderate Wounds.
- Players believe they can't heal efficiently without a Cleric or Druid or similar class in the party, and view such as an essential role, to the point where some even *force* others to play a Cleric or Druid just so that they can have a dedicated healer, and then downplay the extraordinary talents of those classes and belittle them to a mere healing role, making for an unenjoyable experience for the victim of this treatment.
- Many players just don't know how to get the best healing for their buck.
Some Information and Comparisons
First, an effort at dispelling some of the myths. First off, you should probably never be buying healing potions, perhaps with the exception of Cure Light Wounds or a similar level 1 spell. The reason for this is simple. The cost is exorbitant, and it's really not worth it. A Cure Serious Wounds potion will heal, on average, 18.5 hp, and it will cost you 750gp, and it will take either a standard or a full round action to use, and it will provoke AoOs unless you did some further investment to prevent that, and on top of that it probably smells bad and tastes bitter. Yuck. For the same price, you could have gotten a Wand of Cure Light Wounds (275hp total instead of 18.5hp), a Wand of Lesser Vigor (550hp total instead of 18.5gp), or a Healing Belt (Either 6d8 hp (average 27 hp) a day, or 18 hp (same as the potion!) per day if you burst heal, usable as a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.)) Would you rather get 18 hp, or 18 hp per day? Now would you rather use a standard or full action that provokes AoOs, *and* need to draw the item, or would you rather use a standard action that doesn't provoke AoOs? And hey, wouldn't you like the option to heal even more for efficiency, outside of battle? There's even another option, this one for artificers, that costs a mere 50 gp a pop: Infuse an ally with Greater Healing armor. This will give them 6d8+30 total healing (3d8+15 as a swift action, usable twice). As an added bonus, it will even automatically heal you if you get knocked unconscious. The point is... potions are bad. Potions are inefficient. So are scrolls of Cure Moderate Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds, and so forth.
Second, a dedicated healer is not a necessary combat role. Seriously.
First off, healing often does not outpace damage. Moreover, removing an enemy a threat can often be much more effective at saving your allies' necks than going up and poking them with Cure X Wounds. If an enemy were to deal 50 damage to an ally, and you can take that enemy out by either disabling or killing them, then you've "healed" that ally of the 50 damage he would have taken. Additionally, as healing often does not keep up the pace with damage, even if you can't disable the enemy, healing the ally might not be good enough to save them. Instead, you might want to use an ability to help the ally escape, or block the enemy from attacking them (this can be something as simple as Benign Transposition, really). In fact, healing in combat is only situationally a good choice, and is often a subpar tactical option.
Secondly, you can get very efficient out-of-combat healing quite easily without a Cleric or Druid, and indeed a Rogue, Artificer, Paladin, Ranger, Factotum, Warlock, or Bard could fill the healing role with a wand of Cure Light Wounds or Lesser Vigor. In fact, you can even get good, cheap burst healing comparable to the Cleric or Druid's ability at low levels with items like the Healing Belt.
Actually, the Artificer can prove to be a fantastic healer, cheaply (we're talking 37.5% market price here) turning out healing belts, wands of lesser vigor, and providing Greater Healing armor infusions (a mere second level infusion) at an early level. The Paladin and Ranger can use wands of Cure Light Wounds without penalty, and the others can use UMD to master the efficient wands. On top of that, members of *any* class can easily chip in with the very efficient Healing Belt.
These things considered, you really can get by without a Cleric or Druid. In fact, if you do have a Cleric or Druid, they're probably going to be more useful in most combats if they are doing something OTHER than healing, since they have considerable talents in many regards.
How to Heal Effectively
(Author's note: I have excluded a few very potent and efficient means of healing because things like the infinite-healing-for-cheap trap and other such things are just plain abusive, and few sane DMs will allow them)
[LIST]
Instead of taking up an action to heal during combat, take an action to heal up to 1 hour / level before combat ever happens! See also, Aid (Cleric 2, PHB)
I think it depends on the party. I was once DM'ing two groups at the same time. One group was very tactical, rarely got in over their heads, but the other group would have died due to the "rush in" approach to every situation. Their in combat tactics were very lacking to say the least.
Is a cleric needed? Not at all. In most campaigns other classes can provide the healing and restorative magic through other means.
Paladins, druids, and bards can all keep the party alive, and operate wands of cure light. I would say you can be at 95% of awesomeness if you have one or more of these classes.
If you are operating without any of the above classes, it falls to a ranger with wands/scrolls or rogue or sorcerer with a good UMD. It would also be possible to operate in an urban environment where safety or healers-for-hire are close by. I would say that with a little care you could keep it between 75%-85% of awesome.
If you have a party where no one can use a wand or read a scroll, things get really tough. Potions are expensive, and in some cases don't do much good. The other characters are going to have to play in a very specific way to do more then an encounter or two a day. Without drastic measures, or DM help, you would be lucky to maintain 50% of awesomeness.
(In the most recent game we started, the party consists of 2 sorcerers, a monk, and a barbarian is probably about to join... should be interesting.)
I wouldnt say they ar eneeded, but it really shows when you have one. When ive done no healer parties alot of your resources are blown in consumables and i found it a struggle.
In our current game i am playing a witch with the healing hex and i was the main healer. While i could handle it when we finally did get a cleric the improvement shows.
When it comes to healing clerics ar ejust way better and it makes things easier. though i dont know that they are mandatory
TriOmega... the problem I have with the post you linked is it is 100% dependant on magic items. Based on that argument you can obsolete any class....
Don't need a fighter/tank if everyone has bracers, rings, etc.....
Don't need a wizard if everyone has a Helm of Teleportation, etc...
and it goes on and on....
It's just a personal quirk of mine in that I hate "counting" on magic items to fill a miss role or a gap in a party.
Many GM's, including me, run games that are much lower magic than most. In my world there are not magic shops, period, end of story. In my last 3 games the players have rarely had time to settle in and make items.
I think the question of if you can get by without a cleric is really more of a question for the GM rather than the players. It will be almost 100% delendant on how the GM is planning on running their game, house rules and how liberal the magic.
|
|
TriOmega... the problem I have with the post you linked is it is 100% dependant on magic items. Based on that argument you can obsolete any class....
...
Many GM's, including me, run games that are much lower magic than most. In my world there are not magic shops, period, end of story. In my last 3 games the players have rarely had time to settle in and make items.
I think the question of if you can get by without a cleric is really more of a question for the GM rather than the players. It will be almost 100% delendant on how the GM is planning on running their game, house rules and how liberal the magic.
You missed the Touch of Healing feat, Heal, Delay Death, Revivify, and Summon Natures Ally spells in that writeup didn't you? Besides, if you remove magic items from your game, you're playing wildly differently from the expected baseline. Even in a 'no magic shoppe ever' campaign, I would at least expect to be able to crank out a healing wand or other item. It might not keep up with the beatdowns the party suffers, but it would at least be there.
TriOmega... the problem I have with the post you linked is it is 100% dependant on magic items. Based on that argument you can obsolete any class....
Don't need a fighter/tank if everyone has bracers, rings, etc.....
Don't need a wizard if everyone has a Helm of Teleportation, etc...
and it goes on and on....It's just a personal quirk of mine in that I hate "counting" on magic items to fill a miss role or a gap in a party.
Many GM's, including me, run games that are much lower magic than most. In my world there are not magic shops, period, end of story. In my last 3 games the players have rarely had time to settle in and make items.
I think the question of if you can get by without a cleric is really more of a question for the GM rather than the players. It will be almost 100% delendant on how the GM is planning on running their game, house rules and how liberal the magic.
Just wondering here...do you also reduce the magic that wizards and clerics have to compensate for the restrictions on martial based classes?
I personally find that when a DM pushes players along their path or restricts them to timeline campaigns with no item shops or low magic drops, the arcane and divine classes tend to outshine the marshal classes due to innate abilities.
|
|
I personally find that when a DM pushes players along their path or restricts them to timeline campaigns with no item shops or low magic drops, the arcane and divine classes tend to outshine the marshal classes due to innate abilities.
Particularily the cleric, who laughs at the +1 weapon the fighter spent weeks of in game time finding, while applying greater magic weapon and vestment on his weapons and armour, ending up with +3 on each...
I have a friend who runs a 'low magic' game- only the items are the only things that are restricted. Clerics are king in his game because of this... 3 of the 5 players are playing Clerics...
I personally find that when a DM pushes players along their path or restricts them to timeline campaigns with no item shops or low magic drops, the arcane and divine classes tend to outshine the marshal classes due to innate abilities.
Particularily the cleric, who laughs at the +1 weapon the fighter spent weeks of in game time finding, while applying greater magic weapon and vestment on his weapons and armour, ending up with +3 on each...
I have a friend who runs a 'low magic' game- only the items are the only things that are restricted. Clerics are king in his game because of this... 3 of the 5 players are playing Clerics...
Couldn't agree more, it's what I'd do. If you're doing a low magic world you need to restrict the classes as well.
Honestly, I have never had a problem with the class balance other than the buit in system imbalances. It's a low magic world, not a NO magic world.
Fighter types can still pick up decent weapons and armor to keep them in-line with their casting companions as well as an occasional interesting toy or two. What you will not find is magic shops where people can buy multiple stat increasing items, unlimited wands or 3 different pairs of boots for 3 different circumstances.
The magic is there, you just have to go get it rather then just strolling into a store and buying it.
In the example above, the cleric could laugh it up all they wanted but I'll still argue a +1 weapon is better than two buff spells.... with limited duration..... that the cleric has to cast EVERY TIME they want that effect.
Wizards are somewhat self-restricting based on spell access. I believe one of the reasons people feel, in general, Wizards are much better than sorcerers is totally open access to spells. You have to allow enough spells for the wizard to benefit from being a flexible caster but I don't believe wizards should have access to any spell anytime they want to write into their spell books. What's the fun in that.
Also, I use the "Ed Greenwood" style of running a game. I let my players set the direction of the game and pace I just offer some general direction to get them moving. I don't "Lead players by the nose". My players just tend to get wrapped up in their characters and what's happening in the world and just tend to never take downtime. Ya gotta make them care more about the story adn their goals more than their +'s to hit and the save DC's of their spells.
As I say, it's just a different style and a different challenge for the players.
|
|
In the example above, the cleric could laugh it up all they wanted but I'll still argue a +1 weapon is better than two buff spells.... with limited duration..... that the cleric has to cast EVERY TIME they want that effect.
Normally that would be a pretty valid point, but these bad boys are hour/level.
yup, still, it's two spells the cleric would need to cast any time they wanted that benefit. I think that's a fair trade.
If players usually only have one fight a day or fights in a short time frame it works out well. if the fights are spread out during the day it might become an issue.
It's almost pointless to argue about the cleric. It is totally dependant on how the GM runs their game.
Honestly, I have never had a problem with the class balance other than the buit in system imbalances. It's a low magic world, not a NO magic world.
Fighter types can still pick up decent weapons and armor to keep them in-line with their casting companions as well as an occasional interesting toy or two. What you will not find is magic shops where people can buy multiple stat increasing items, unlimited wands or 3 different pairs of boots for 3 different circumstances.
The magic is there, you just have to go get it rather then just strolling into a store and buying it.
In the example above, the cleric could laugh it up all they wanted but I'll still argue a +1 weapon is better than two buff spells.... with limited duration..... that the cleric has to cast EVERY TIME they want that effect.
Wizards are somewhat self-restricting based on spell access. I believe one of the reasons people feel, in general, Wizards are much better than sorcerers is totally open access to spells. You have to allow enough spells for the wizard to benefit from being a flexible caster but I don't believe wizards should have access to any spell anytime they want to write into their spell books. What's the fun in that.
Also, I use the "Ed Greenwood" style of running a game. I let my players set the direction of the game and pace I just offer some general direction to get them moving. I don't "Lead players by the nose". My players just tend to get wrapped up in their characters and what's happening in the world and just tend to never take downtime. Ya gotta make them care more about the story adn their goals more than their +'s to hit and the save DC's of their spells.
As I say, it's just a different style and a different challenge for the players.
I think the cleric would go for both. +1 weapon and the buff spells just for kicks. If you can anticipate and encounter by 12 seconds the two buff spells are going to be much better than the +1 mace (if given the choice).
Though I don't agree with magic items dropping like candy I do think that level appropriate equipment is necessary because it also helps to balance out the martial classes against appropriately challenged encounters. ie Giants, Dragons and liches.
It does rely upon the GM interpretting what is necessary.
*Hate hate HATES "low magic" games because they invariably mean low magic -item- games, not low magic games*
Seriously... we were all level 6 or 7 in one such game. We had one magic item in the entire party and it was a +1 mace. Oh yeah, and we were in Ravenloft. Then we had to deal with the DM's best friend who got to play a level 18ish "NPC" loaded to the gills with magic gear because "every group has to have a 'Gandalf'"... Not fun.
yup, still, it's two spells the cleric would need to cast any time they wanted that benefit. I think that's a fair trade.
It's not even remotely close to fair. Not even remotely. The cleric needs to use two low-level spell slots (which they have in abundance) to get 300% of the benefit of the fighter's gear, when it's the fighter who needs the help and is supposedly the one to benefit from the "low magic" nature of the campaign!
What everyone else is saying is correct: when most people make "low magic" campaigns, what they really make is "low magic item" campaigns. That's a problem because "low magic" campaigns are usually intended to reduce the number and power of full spellcasters, but in fact have virtually no negative effect on them at all! Non-spellcasters are many times as dependent on magic items as spellcasters are.
In my low-magic campaign, I implemented a bunch of other house rules to prevent that problem. Magic items cost double the listed price, but all characters get automatic enhancement bonuses to attack, AC, and stats as they level (eliminating the need for +x magic items) and all the world-breaking spells (teleport, wind walk, planar ally, and the like) are either nonexistent or turned into lengthy casting time rituals.
People seem to have such a narrow minded interpretation of what "low magic" means.
To me, "low magic" means there is not easy access to any type of magic, either spells or items. It does not mean they don't exist or that players cannot get their grubby little paws on items. All it really means if you cannot stroll into the smallest hamlets, into the nearest Walmart of Magic and upgrade your +2 Strength belt to a +4 if you happen to have a few thousand gold.
If your world has magic so common that every player has multiple stat increasing itesm, multiple wands, as many magic weapons as they can carry, gallons of potions and half a dozen artifacts at 6th level I shudder to think what's in a dragon horde =) I mean, a dragon can only sit on the Throne of the gods for so long!
One of the great things about RPG's is there is no right or wrong way to do things. It's up to the players and the GM to define what's fun for the people involved and that's what it's all about.
Anyway, none of this is relevant to the original question about needing a cleric.
Nope Genius, I agree. I'm generally a cleric type of guy myself.
|
|
Okay...as I kind of expected, we're straying OT rather quickly.
To the original point: some extra healing mechanics, extra downtime, & alternative "healers" handle HP damage very well. Playing a Paladin in Legacy of Fire has shown that well.
But what about:
Ability damage?
Energy Drain?
Blindness?
Curses?
Sure, the Paladin or Druid can get rid of some of that, or anyone with UMD and lots of GP.
Do you refrain from such attacks?
Do you not use Ghosts, Giant Vermin, or other such critters?
Just trying to see what other tables look like...
|
|
People seem to have such a narrow minded interpretation of what "low magic" means.
...
One of the great things about RPG's is there is no right or wrong way to do things. It's up to the players and the GM to define what's fun for the people involved and that's what it's all about.
Anyway, none of this is relevant to the original question about needing a cleric.
You seem to not understand the gist of our statements. The game expects a certain level of bonuses as you progress. Yes, it really thinks you should have that Batcave of weapons, armor, and magic items as you get up in level.
So when you take all that away, you have to balance it on the other end. If not, players will react accordingly. See the comments about 'everyone play a cleric'. Maybe you've been lucky to have players that think being a 10th level Fighter without a magic sword is fun. Kudos to you.
But you're right, this has nothing to do with the party needing a cleric. It's all about adjusted playstyles.
I don't feel a Cleric is required. There are lots of other classes capable of healing. But even if the group doesn't play them there is always a way to get by. As DM I often run games with out a Cleric due to only 3 players in my group. When no healer is present as that happens quite often I just make sure healing potions and other curative potions are abundant. As time goes one player usually gets their Use Magic Device skill up high enough to use wands. I also add in terrain with healing properties like magical plants where the berries heal 1 hp per berry eaten up to maximum of X berries before the magic is used up. Or I have fountain that heals wounds but the water can't taken away from the source. Then there are NPCs available to bump into who have the ability to cure. Works well enough just takes a little planning.
I did run the entire Council of Thieves AP with out a Cleric in the group. Potions were easily accessible and the AP seem to hand them out like candy.
Sparked from the "Party Design Coordination" thread, it seems that a lot of people suggest the "healer" role and the Cleric class are unneeded in a standard party.
I don't want to get into a discussion of "action economy" or what makes an effective character.
Rather, what do you do (as DM or player) when noone has access to Restoration, Heal, or Remove Disease (say, in a party of Wizard/Rogue/Fighter/...other wizard)?
There are some get-around tricks possible, with Summon or Call spells available to arcane casters, or natural healing, or just dealing with negative levels or ability damage.
But what happens when the party is in a dungeon, or out in the wilderness, and someone catches Mummy Rot? Or triggers a trap on the way into the dungeon (which they really SHOULD clear out, whether through plot reasons or because the enemies inside will only get worse with time) and suffers whole bunches of ability damage on the 1st trap in the place?
Do you just let the chips lie where they fall, and the next group comes better prepared? Do you avoid using things like Shadows or Ability Damage traps/monsters? Do you add in an NPC Cleric who follows along and throws free cures at the party?
For my part (I have a player who loves playing Clerics, so it's a moot point most of the time), I refuse to run NPC's for the party. It's my job as DM to keep track of monsters, NPC's, the world, the plot, and the maps/minis. I will not add on another level of complication, solely to make your adventuring easier.
Also, I do not avoid particular types of encounters simply because they will be difficult. In Savage Tide, one PC was a Cleric/Radiant Servant. There are a bunch of Undead encounters in that path, especially during the 2nd to last book - they became non-encounters with that PC at the table, but I didn't avoid their inclusion. Why would I go the other way?
So, what do you do?
Minor threadjack. I started legacy of fire with a dwarven cleric trying to qualify for the achievment feat where you do 1,000 pts of healing to get all heal spells maximized, every time you do damage it removes a point of healing from the pool at a 2:1 ratio. Running around with a non-masterwork longspear and 14 STR the character never hit someone and not kill them. Perhaps a better question is who needs a fighter? /threadjack
To put in my 2 cents. Our current Legacy of Fire group is a paladin, mystic theurge, bard, and fighter, we rarely heal except between battles. Everyone is self-sufficient on healing except the fighter, and the fighter rarely gets hit. Our next group for evil kingmaker looks like it will be Sorcerer/trickster, sorcerer/diabloist, blackguard, artificier, so we'll see how that goes. artificier should be able to help a lot in the healing area.
Sorry, getting back onto the original topic.
Beyond looking for abilities and items that can provide healing, I would suggest the players need to get creative in their play style to help mitigate/avoid damage.
Some DM discretion considering the situation can help to ease players in but having the players solve the hit point puzzle in a new creative way can make the campaign really fun.
Okay...as I kind of expected, we're straying OT rather quickly.
To the original point: some extra healing mechanics, extra downtime, & alternative "healers" handle HP damage very well. Playing a Paladin in Legacy of Fire has shown that well.
But what about:
Ability damage?
Energy Drain?
Blindness?
Curses?Sure, the Paladin or Druid can get rid of some of that, or anyone with UMD and lots of GP.
Do you refrain from such attacks?
Do you not use Ghosts, Giant Vermin, or other such critters?Just trying to see what other tables look like...
I will avoid just pitting the characters against encounters where I know the Players will be thoroughly screwed by those types of damage. By this I mean I exclude them from random encounters. In specific encounters I will use them but I also make sure the players have a way to cure themselves. It might not be obvious or might cost a lot but it is there in or about the encounter. Stuff like 4 encounters before they might get potion that can cure blindness then they hit a creature that blinds them. Just to be tricky and not give things away I toss out these things when no encounter will require them. This so the player don't get a cure blindness potion only guess that creature that can blind them will show up. I can say my player never sell divine potions because of this.
|
One of the things I really love about the APG classes is that there are a ton of alternate ways to handle various party roles that were previously limited to one or two classes. Four of the APG classes have access to delay poison, remove curse, remove disease, lesser restoration, and restoration. Similarly many of the traditional arcane roles are spread over a lot of the classes.
So if no one in your group wants to be the cleric you can have a witch, an inquisitor, or an alchemist split many of the tasks that were previously the sort of things limited to clerics and druids only.
Having no healer would be a real challenge with my style of running especially in the curretn environment in "My" world.
This sort of greedy GMing philosophy has really started to bug me. It isn't YOUR world, it's a world that you share with your players. As a GM you should strive to say yes to your players and give them options as often as possible. Forcing players to cowtow to your limited view is just not cool in my book.
But what about:
Ability damage?
Energy Drain?
Blindness?
Curses?
Please keep in mind that this is my answer, specific to my current campaign. Here's the full rundown of healing/countermeasures in play:
* Long-Term Care & Treating Deadly Wounds via Heal skill
* The Ten-Minute Rest Period
* Use of Action Points to help avoid damage, boost saving throws, et cetera.
This seems to handle most issues so far encountered. I'm not a fan of energy drain mechanically speaking. I'm almost certainly going to rewrite or else just remove energy drain from play. I've never liked curses being one spell away from being removed. If and when such curses come up in my campaign, removing curses will be handled via side quests.
That pretty much leaves blindness as a possible complication. My current group of players have no one who'll ever be able to cast remove blindess/deafness. Since the only magic items available for sale are scrolls and potions, blindness could be a showstopper.
|
|
I will avoid just pitting the characters against encounters where I know the Players will be thoroughly screwed by those types of damage. By this I mean I exclude them from random encounters. In specific encounters I will use them but I also make sure the players have a way to cure themselves. It might not be obvious or might cost a lot but it is there in or about the encounter. Stuff like 4 encounters before they might get potion that can cure blindness then they hit a creature that blinds them. Just to be tricky and not give things away I toss out these things when no encounter will require them. This so the player don't get a cure blindness potion only guess that creature that can blind them will show up. I can say my player never sell divine potions because of this.
This is an enlightened way to run your game. It does come off as a bit contrived sometimes but it's a subtle way to encourage the group to keep important cures on hand. Knowledge checks and rumors are also good ways to give the group some foreshadowing so they can prepare.
I've reduced the cost of healing potions if a group has limited healers or even created custom magic items that the characters stumbled across that are a bit better than the typical healing items.
|
|
This sort of greedy GMing philosophy has really started to bug me. It isn't YOUR world, it's a world that you share with your players. As a GM you should strive to say yes to your players and give them options as often as possible. Forcing players to cowtow to your limited view is just not cool in my book.
Meh..., if you let the players know in advance this is how I roll as a GM (and your methods still keep the game fun) and they agree then all's well I'd say. A GM forcing players to kow-tow can and often is just as intolerable as the GM giving all the options and always saying yes to everything.
|
|
Meh..., if you let the players know in advance this is how I roll as a GM (and your methods still keep the game fun) and they agree then all's well I'd say. A GM forcing players to kow-tow can and often is just as intolerable as the GM giving all the options and always saying yes to everything.
This sort of greedy GMing philosophy has really started to bug me. It isn't YOUR world, it's a world that you share with your players. As a GM you should strive to say yes to your players and give them options as often as possible. Forcing players to cowtow to your limited view is just not cool in my book.
Always saying yes leads to munchkin-ville. There is a happy medium. Setting things up so someone has to play a specific role is where I draw the line. I would say the same about someone requiring a wizard or a rogue. Players should have the choice about what they want to play.