Is a cleric needed?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:
Always saying yes leads to munchkin-ville.

And what's wrong with that?


Scrogz wrote:

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.

And that is fine, but when running a game that deviates that far from the standards assumed by the ruleset, you have to take things into account.

A low magic game of the type you describe does a good job of keeping the martial classes (dependent on magic gear) and Wizards (dependent on access to spells) in check...but affects spontaneous Arcane and Divine casters to a much lesser degree. If you are running this sort of game and don't take into account the fact that these rule changes do not have a level effect on all classes, do not be surprised at all when your players begin to gravitate to the classes that are affected the least.


B_Wiklund wrote:
0gre wrote:


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.

The enlightened player realizes that there are far fewer people who want to GM then want to run PCs. So, it's shooting yourself in the foot to try to put demands on the GM or whine until the GM caves - and it's majorly rude and immature.

Most players eventually realize that the best way to have a particular campaign is to be the GM.


Alexander Kilcoyne wrote:

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.

+1. I'll never force a player to fulfill a "party role".

Of course, I prefer swords-n-sorcery over high fantasy, anyway, so I tend to have house rules or optional game mechanics such as faster natural healing & non-magical treatments.

I also detest level-drain mechanics as being too gamist for my tastes. My undead might do ability drain, but my vampires go for sucking blood, not draining levels by smacking the heroes around.

There are plenty of options, both with the RAW and via 3rd-party supplements, to deal with the lack of a cleric.

I also dislike the idea that the cleric must be a healer. I vastly prefer a clerics magical abilities to be representative of the deity's portfolio. Why should the god of wine & drunkeness or the goddess of traveler's be able to heal on par with the god of healing?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Scrogz wrote:
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....
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.

I think the bigger problem with that guide is that it is intensely, intensely 3.5-oriented, and Spell Compendium/Magic Item Compendium reliant to boot. In a pure-Pathfinder game, most of it is useless, and some of it is flat-out wrong now (like, for instance, summoning a unicorn via summon nature's ally).


Low magic setting:

Roll 2d6
on 7+ you can play a class with partial spellcasting, like the ranger
on 10+ you can play a class with partial spellcasting, like the bard
on 12 you can play a full caster

pure evil...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Carpy DM wrote:
I think the bigger problem with that guide is that it is intensely, intensely 3.5-oriented, and Spell Compendium/Magic Item Compendium reliant to boot. In a pure-Pathfinder game, most of it is useless, and some of it is flat-out wrong now (like, for instance, summoning a unicorn via summon nature's ally).

And? You act like everyone plays core-only. Or that the ideas are invalidated because the examples are.


Oh the hilarity of cleric vs martial classes...

Let me start with the original topic, then I'll address the cleric vs fighter discussion.

I don't believe a cleric or druid are MANDATORY, but your group has to play a whole heck of a lot smarter if you don't have these classes. UMD is almost a must, and I would strongly recommend somebody picking up the "Dangerously Curious" trait (UMD class skill , +1 bonus on UMD checks) , that way it opens up the use of wands and staffs.

Wizards will come into their own right with certain spells to cripple their opponents such as ray of enfeeblement, or crowd control with wall spells to slow down the hordes of enemies.

I'm currently in a campaign with a wizard (myself) , another wizard (conjuration specialist who took evocation and necromancy as his restricted schools), a cavalier, a summoner, and fighter.

The summoner & conjuror creates enough summons to be our meatshields in most fights, the fighter has specialized in bullrush/shield slams to pin and crush opponents, i nuke, and the cavalier has his obscene damage charge attacks (hit and run = little damage taken).

- - - - -

Now the semi off topic discussion - is a cleric better than a fighter?

Yes and no. This isn't 3.5 anymore where you can stack ridiculous buffs as a cleric.

Lets break it down to the basics

Armor: Fighter > Cleric - Fighter wins, gets heavy armor proficiency automatically, cleric has to burn a feat.

Weapon proficiency: Fighter > Cleric - Sky is the limit with fighter - you have a concept, you make it. You can even dip into some bow skills along with melee skills. As a cleric you are limited to whatever weapon your god prefers (which can be restricting on character concept) , also with the limited feats you are quite tied down to a specific chain of feats.

Hit die: Fighter > Cleric - d10 vs d8, nuff said. Also fighters dont have to worry about MAD as much as clerics do (Multiple attribute distribution). A figher can stack CON and STR and be very successful, whereas a cleric will have watered down stats and spread out (Str, Con, Wis, and Cha are all important for the cleric).

BAB: Fighter > cleric - Full BAB vs 3/4 BAB , nuff said.

Skills: Fighter < Cleric - The knowledge skills are quite nice for the cleric.

Feats: Fighter > cleric - This is really simple, fighter gets more feats - rawr!

Now it comes down to spell casting. Is it fair that the cleric can cast magic weapon (greater) and be running around with a +2 sword essentially for "free" at level 8 ? Well at level 8 , a fighter should probably have his typical +2 sword.

I have to also reiterate , this isn't 3.5, the fighters got a bunch of nice abilities.

So lets look at a typical level 20 fighter.

+5 weapon

Lets say he has a 18 on his strength score at level 1. 5 stat increase bonuses on his way to 20 puts that at 23. Get a manual of gainful exercise +5, so that puts his str at 28, and now he has a belt of physical might, +6 so he has a 34 str. That is a +12 bonus to attacks and damage.

Also the fighter will have Weapon Training of his favorite/prefered weapon - so that is another +4 hit , +4 damage.

Now feats, Greater weapon focus, Greater Weapon Specialization (+2 hit, +4 damage).

So lets add it up:

To hit:
20(bab) + 12(str) +5(weapon) + 4(weapon training) + 2(Greater weapon focus)
= +43

Damage (assuming the fighter is using a 1 handed weapon)
12(strength) + 5(weapon) + 4(weapon training) + 4(Greater weapon specialization)
= +25

Now lets look at the cleric

Lets say he has a 16(and that is being generous...) on his strength score at level 1. 5 stat increase bonuses on his way to 20 puts that at 21. Get a manual of gainful exercise +5, so that puts his str at 26, and now he has a belt of physical might, +6 so he has a 32 str. That is a +11 bonus to attacks and damage.

+15 BAB (3/4 progression)

Divine Favor and Divine Power are now "luck" buffs. In 3.5, Divine power used to make the cleric have the same BAB as the fighter, and you could also stack Divine Favor on top of that (which was a total of +6 bonus, not +3). So with Pathfinder, You now only get a +6 luck bonus on attacks and damage from Divine Power - no point in casting divine favor anymore since its only a +3 luck bonus, so Divine power overrides it.

Weapon +5 (Greater magic weapon)

Righteous might grants a size bonus to str of +4, however you also get a -1 to hit since you are a size category larger, so realistically its only a +1 bonus to hit.

Now lets add it up

15(bab) + 11(str) +6(luck , divine power) + 5(Greater magic weapon) + 2(str size bonus) - 1(Size)
=+38

Damage (assuming the cleric is using a 1 handed weapon)
11(strength) + 5(weapon) + 6(divine power) + 2(Righteous might strength size bonus)
= +24

Overall the hit bonus on the fighter is superior, however the bonus to damage is relatively the same - however I would give the edge to the cleric simply because his weapon will be 1 size category larger, so that would make up the difference between cleric to fighter.

Lastly , what gives the fighter the final edge, they don't require preparation to do this. A cleric will require 2 rounds to do these buffs and by that time, a lot can happen - perhaps a party member takes a heap of damage and actually requires a heal spell , that puts the cleric far behind.

I've played my fair share of clerics, in fact cleric & paladins are my favorite classes - so i'm not discounting them in anyway - I think pathfinder did an extraordinary job in giving the fighters the buffs they need, and toning down the clerics.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Carpy DM wrote:
I think the bigger problem with that guide is that it is intensely, intensely 3.5-oriented, and Spell Compendium/Magic Item Compendium reliant to boot. In a pure-Pathfinder game, most of it is useless, and some of it is flat-out wrong now (like, for instance, summoning a unicorn via summon nature's ally).
And? You act like everyone plays core-only. Or that the ideas are invalidated because the examples are.

No, but there are many who do - and the list acts like everyone plays "everything with a d20 label is legal," which isn't the case either. Being told, "You don't need a cleric if you have these items from the MIC and these spells from the SC" doesn't help much if those resources aren't used in the game.

And yes, I do think the ideas are invalidated without the examples, because the idea is "use these [whatevers] to replace the cleric," but without the [whatevers], the whole thing kinda falls apart. In a Pathfinder-only game, the only relevant bits are the ones about the various cleric spells and false life - and if "you don't need a cleric" is the idea, then "here's the good healer cleric spells" isn't the right support.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Carpy DM wrote:

No, but there are many who do - and the list acts like everyone plays "everything with a d20 label is legal," which isn't the case either. Being told, "You don't need a cleric if you have these items from the MIC and these spells from the SC" doesn't help much if those resources aren't used in the game.

And yes, I do think the ideas are invalidated without the examples, because the idea is "use these [whatevers] to replace the cleric," but without the [whatevers], the whole thing kinda falls apart. In a Pathfinder-only game, the only relevant bits are the ones about the various cleric spells and false life - and if "you don't need a cleric" is the idea, then "here's the good healer cleric spells" isn't the right support.

I take the list as 'here are some things that work without a dedicated healbot'. You'll notice that not all of them are from outside sources. While core only does severely limit it, it is still possible.

The idea is only invalid if all examples are removed. Unless the DM is running no magic, that is not true. It might be impossible at some levels (the low end specifically) but not completely useless. Example: Summon Monster works at higher levels thanks to azatas having a few Cure spells per day.

Edit: I'm just pointing out that complaining about an article written for 3.5 not being suited for PF is kind of silly.

Dark Archive

0gre wrote:
B_Wiklund wrote:
0gre wrote:


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.
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.

Yep the trick is to strike that balance. Some groups are quite easy to reach that point while others not so much or a few holdouts amidst the players. A bit off topic but I feel for a campaign a GM needs to pitch a campaign concept (e.g. low magic, realistic middle ages murder mystery a la Cadfael or crazy powerful viking sons of gods vs. vampires from outer space) and then its up to the players (after willingly saying yeah I'll go for that) to concoct a character that has a reason to be there. They have a choice (and no one should feel they have to play the ____) but with some liberal guidelines. I still regret allowing a player to play a ninja in my CoCT campaign. Not for any power issues it just feels really stupid to have an elven ninja in Korvosa.

And yes, a party can be fine without a cleric and a DM should modify to some extent accordingly.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
0gre wrote:
Always saying yes leads to munchkin-ville.
And what's wrong with that?

Touche.

Shadow Lodge

B_Wiklund wrote:

Yep the trick is to strike that balance. Some groups are quite easy to reach that point while others not so much or a few holdouts amidst the players. A bit off topic but I feel for a campaign a GM needs to pitch a campaign concept (e.g. low magic, realistic middle ages murder mystery a la Cadfael or crazy powerful viking sons of gods vs. vampires from outer space) and then its up to the players (after willingly saying yeah I'll go for that) to concoct a character that has a reason to be there. They have a choice (and no one should feel they have to play the ____) but with some liberal guidelines. I still regret allowing a player to play a ninja in my CoCT campaign. Not for any power issues it just feels really stupid to have an elven ninja in Korvosa.

And yes, a party can be fine without a cleric and a DM should modify to some extent accordingly.

I can deal with that. Also, the whole thing with the ninja in Korvosa would bother me also.

I don't really care to play clerics and I've been at far too many games where someone has taken up the mantle and more or less taken one for the team. As a GM I see that there are so many ways to work around it. It frustrates me when people are so inflexible they are unwilling to work with their players because it will compromise their 'vision'.


Clerics RULE, Fighters drool!

Every game I have played that has a cleric at mid level ends up dominating the party. I have had too many GM's complain about my character's power level because I play a well designed cleric. You have the most versatility of any class and if you build a smart spell list can deal with pretty much any situation. Their only downfall is that you can't hit the broad side of a barn at lvl 1, but early on keeping the party alive is a big enough job anyway.
Every group benefits from having a cleric.

Liberty's Edge

The general point of saying "you don't need a cleric" isn't to say that healing is easy or trivial or can be ignored; it' to point out that, unlike every other version of D&D ever, a party does not have to have a person who does nothing but stand in the back and heal all the time.

Being forced to play a healbot sucks. Being forced to design adventures where someone has to play as a healbot for the party to get through sucks. Pathfinder made is so it's not a requriement.

Having a healbot in the party is really good and helps significantly in a wide variety of ways, and it's certainly a valid character concept if that's what you want to play; the point is, no one has to, which is also nice.


I used to believe you should play whatever your heart desires. Then I got a look at what happens when you have 3 rogue/rangers, a warlock, a warmage, and a fighter. We couldn't stealth, because half the party would fail the checks. When we scouted, the scout either died (Age of Worms) or we got back information. Unfortunately, not a single one of us had access to a utility or buff spell, so having that information didn't change anything. We had no front line, characters died a lot and the DM had to make frantic adjustments to keep us alive and, failing that, funnel us cash to raise people.

Just work together on party design. It makes the game more fun and the DM's job easier. DnD is so customizable for player character design, there's really no point in being a purist about character concept.


use a witch

Shadow Lodge

Steelfiredragon wrote:
use a witch

Or a bard or a Pally and at higher levels ranger. Or a Rogue w/ use magical device or play a combination.

All the best,

Kerney


I am currently a druid on the verge of second level in the party we also have a witch, I had both my regular and bonus spell slot for CLW then obscuring mist for my domain.

We invested in a wand of CLW so now I will still keep one CLW memorized (call it caution).

It took all of the party resources to afford the wand, but it is for everyone.

The druid fortunately can not be pressured into dropping spells to cast those pesky cures.

Silver Crusade

I allow my players to play whatever they want. If they ask for advice I say that a variety of different types leads to more success but their final choice is up to them.

All you need is someone that can heal or at least use a CLW wand through UMD. Bards make fairly adequate healers and the combination of a paladin and ranger could muddle through.

Of course a cleric is far better at healing than any other class but they are not absolutely essential.


KenderKin wrote:

I am currently a druid on the verge of second level in the party we also have a witch, I had both my regular and bonus spell slot for CLW then obscuring mist for my domain.

We invested in a wand of CLW so now I will still keep one CLW memorized (call it caution).

It took all of the party resources to afford the wand, but it is for everyone.

The druid fortunately can not be pressured into dropping spells to cast those pesky cures.

Advice for later on- have a PC in the group be able to craft, make many, many pearls of power 1st level.

Use them for cure light wounds, or if the campaign allows a spell that grants more healing over time (they exist outside of core either from 3.5 material and Paizo pathfinder material).

This can handle downtime healing.

During combat healing is useful, but can be minimized by the group design and proper tactics.

-James


I'm running a group through Second Darkness, and they are currently without a cleric or any full caster class; all they have is a bard. We've had 2 clerics, but both players have dropped out of the campaign. The difference is *huge*. With a cleric, the party only once had a near-TPK, and that was due to unknowingly alerting a complex to their presence before they went in so they ended up facing several encounters at once since the bad guys had time to set up an ambush. Without a cleric, I'm constantly having to pull punches as a DM to avoid bringing the campaign to a premature end. I recently was in a situtation where the PCs were about to walk into the lair of the BBEG at the end of the module with their two melee guys already down 40-60 HPs each due to attrition just getting there (and the bard's 2 or 3 CMWs don't go very far). I had to place a storage room full of healing potions toward the beginning of the lair for them to even have a shot, and then I also had to put a DMPC cleric/prisoner in there for them to free to help them through the final battle -- and that's after converting two battles-to-the-death to negatiotion situations and completely bypassing another room of enemies.

Granted, this was a bit of special situation because the PCs were both on a tight timetable and thus unable to rest while facing several encounters in a row, and completely cut off from allies and supplies. However, it was NO FUN to DM. I'm hopeful that I'll be able to get them through the next module by giving them a wand or two without having to run a DMPC or having someone replace their character with a cleric.


Wow just a bard, even a druid works....

Why do your clerics keep dropping?

I might suggest that you offer an incentive and let the clerics have heavy armor prof back instead of making them burn a feat for it!

Plus Dwarven clerics with the travel domain rock full plate!

Click on this character and see for yourself


Donagar wrote:

Wow just a bard, even a druid works....

Why do your clerics keep dropping?

I might suggest that you offer an incentive and let the clerics have heavy armor prof back instead of making them burn a feat for it!

Plus Dwarven clerics with the travel domain rock full plate!

Click on this character and see for yourself

The first cleric actually had heavy armor proficiency, as we started in Beta rules. He left over not-playing-nice-with-the-party issues: expecting personal side quests to take priority over the storyline of the AP, and not agreeing that selling captured foes into slavery and killing people in their sleep were evil acts. The second cleric was a mystic theurge, back-row-buffer type; he was great but had to quit due to RL obligations.


psionichamster wrote:

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)?

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 me, it entirely depends on what type of campaign the players have agreed to play.

If the players agreed to a "standard" D&D-like campaign (complete with dungeons et al) or an Adventure Path, and then made 4 wizards... well, they're boned. Tough s%&* for them. I certainly won't be changing encounters to make up for their self-imposed deficiency. Hell yeah, they'd better have a healer.

If, OTOH, they agreed to play a Harry Potter college-of-wizardy type of campaign and then made 4 wizards (rightfully so), I'll ensure that the encounter types fit their characters and campaign, and that they have other methods of accessing healing.

So to reiterate: It all depends on what type of campaign the players have agreed to play.


Arnwyn wrote:
psionichamster wrote:

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)?

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 me, it entirely depends on what type of campaign the players have agreed to play.

If the players agreed to a "standard" D&D-like campaign (complete with dungeons et al) or an Adventure Path, and then made 4 wizards... well, they're boned. Tough s*&* for them. I certainly won't be changing encounters to make up for their self-imposed deficiency. Hell yeah, they'd better have a healer.

If, OTOH, they agreed to play a Harry Potter college-of-wizardy type of campaign and then made 4 wizards (rightfully so), I'll ensure that the encounter types fit their characters and campaign, and that they have other methods of accessing healing.

So to reiterate: It all depends on what type of campaign the players have agreed to play.

And not one of them took the heal skill? No one put any points into use magic device (even if not a class skill in both cases)?

No a single player thought to maybe grab some alchemical items for these cases (there are several available in both 3.5 and pathfinder)?

They couldn't even figure out a way to keep back from the poison/disease/whatever despite the fact they have four wizards?

I would think with that many wizards someone could find some way to handle these things.

IF you don't have a cleric it's not the end of the party -- you just have to be smart about how you do things.

Spells a wizard has access to that are good to have:

Infernal healing, delay poison *anything that prevents you from being hit!*


Abraham spalding wrote:
IF you don't have a cleric it's not the end of the party -- you just have to be smart about how you do things.

Totally agree with you. I'm just answering the OP (in his post itself: What do you do?) - on the DM's side of things "I do nothing different".

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

psionichamster wrote:

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)?

This has been a problem since 1st edition. The party needs access to at least hit point curing. In 3rd edition/pathfinder, its easily solved by:

1. Potions of healing, lesser restoration, cure disease, neutralize poison.
2. Wands and scrolls of cure wounds, silence, lesser restoration, remove disease, remove curse, etc..
3. Scrolls of restoration, raise dead, heal, etc.

Bards, rangers, paladins, and rogues with a good Use Magic Device check can all handle this.

Note that if the players don't bother to pursue these solutions, the DM should *not* coddle them. They are choosing a hard road and so they must be allowed to lay down on that road and feel its hardness.


Yes.

People act like it's the healing you need the most. It isn't.

It's everything else a cleric brings to the table. Divine magic is amazing. At high levels, things like holy aura or shield of law are magnificent and amazing. All of their other spells have so much more weight than their heal spells.

If you plan on playing past level 10, a cleric becomes necessary. Otherwise you're going to seriously be missing their abilities.

Example: A recent fight against a hit-and-run creature that was constantly shifting in and out of the ethereal plane ended when the cleric in the party used ethereal jaunt to join it in the ethereal plane, and then filled the entire area in the ethereal as much as possible with blade barrier. This forced the creature-- which could only move at 20 ft. per round-- to phase down in to the material plane. Or it would have, had blade barrier not done so much damage that the creature almost literally evaporated in the storm of d6s.

Without the cleric? They would've probably ended up with a lot more hurt.

That's the real value of the cleric. Support magic and battlefield control. Not a piddly 1d8+1 on touch.


Ice Titan wrote:


That's the real value of the cleric. Support magic and battlefield control. Not a piddly 1d8+1 on touch.

Seriously? I would rather have the wizard for this... though I tend to prefer the arcane to the divine at every turn even if the divine are generally "more powerful" mechanically speaking.


a wizard can do it, a cleric can do it, a druid can do it.
so can a sorcerer.
the others, not sure about... yet.

but mind you, a wizard cant create food and a cleric can......

anyway, a cleric is not necessary, but whether or not its wise to go without one depends on how much a DM will drop rings of regenration, potions that cure wounds etc and how much that it costs to buy them at temples and whether or not said temple will sell them to the PCS.

I don't think a Temple to Razmiran will sell said potions to a cleric of Iomedae.... I think they would likely burn said cleric at the stake

The Exchange

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

TriOmegaZero, your guide is most helpful. Thanks for posting it.

That said, I've always wondered which was better at dealing with undead & outsiders.

Wizards have an impressive selection of spells for control and banishment, but does the Cleric's magical selection make them better suited for dealing with say massive HD undead or magic resistant outsiders...


Just a few random thoughts on clerics and their necessity:

-- No one should be forced to play the cleric
-- In Pathfinder, clerics are pretty awesome, so I have a hard time seeing why so many people don't want to play them.
-- You can play successfully without a cleric.
-- Playing without a cleric requires either a) smarter/more tactical play by the PCs or b) a sympathetic DM
-- The cleric is inherently the best healer and arguably the best buffer in the core classes.
-- Lacking one means you have to find ways to heal and buff without a cleric.
-- Other characters can do these things if built the right way, however that means tradeoffs in terms of other skills/feats/spells, etc. those characters might have otherwise taken, or magic items they might otherwise have obtained.
-- If magic items aren't readily available or affordable, filling in for the missing cleric becomes trickier.
-- In my opinion, at the lowest levels, before characters find or can afford a wand of CLW or even some measly potions, is when a cleric might be most missed.

Bottom line for me: As a DM I don't require that there be a cleric, but I do recommend it. If the group decides to play without one, I'll probably scoot a few more healing potions and the occasional wand of CLW their way, but I'm not going to rewrite the entire adventure to accomodate their choice. As a player, I want a cleric in my party, and if no one else wants to play one, I'm happy to. A couple of my most memorable characters were clerics, and that was in first and second edition, when they weren't anywhere near as cool and versatile as they are now.


We a;ways have some sort of healer in the party, but not always a cleric (with one house rule the warlock makes a great jack-of-all-trades), I usually suggest a healer of some sort, but do not force one. If nobody wants to heal, that is a party problem. It is there's to deal with, not the DM's.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I said this in a different thread, but it bears repeating:

Quote:
As far as "the party needs X class" goes, IMO this says more about the people who hold this view than the Pathfinder rules. It's a holdover from 1st/2nd Ed AD&D and 3.x D&D by people who have a narrow view of the classes. 3.x D&D eliminated the need for a dedicated healer (bards, clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers all have native healing and any character with a high Use Magic Device check can heal with wands), although there was still a strong need for a rogue (beguiler, ninja, scout, spellthief, etc.) to open locks and detect/disarm traps. With the way skills work in Pathfinder, you can now have a straight fighter fill the "locks/traps guy" role (Disable Device, Perception).

Make it a human fighter, add Use Magic Device, and the character can heal with wands, too; all with 10 Int.

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Scrogz wrote:

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....

You missed the Touch of Healing feat, Heal, Delay Death, Revivify, and Summon Natures Ally spells in that writeup didn't you?

Touch of healing, heal, and revivify all require.... a cleric. delay death if I recall require a higher level paladin or bard. The ONE SNA spell you mention with the unicorn, is actually pretty neat, but requires.....a mid-level druid.

None of which help a low level party, which will be completely dependent on magic items....

Dark Archive

I can see a smaller 3-4 man party surviving without a cleric. It might be difficult, but I can see it being done.

Our current group? No way. 7 party members plus 2 cohorts, we NEED a full time cleric. And not just for combat healing. There are combat spells that work nicely, plus non-comabt spells.....


Abraham spalding wrote:
Ice Titan wrote:


That's the real value of the cleric. Support magic and battlefield control. Not a piddly 1d8+1 on touch.
Seriously? I would rather have the wizard for this... though I tend to prefer the arcane to the divine at every turn even if the divine are generally "more powerful" mechanically speaking.

Death ward. Holy aura. Holy word. Heal. Restoration. Resurrection.

It's all about death ward. Good god, is it all about death ward.

Arcane and divine have different purposes and spells, but the point of my statement is that a cleric is _not_ about healing, much like an arcane caster is _not_ about damage. No 4th level arcane spell compares to the defensive power of death ward, just like no 3rd level divine spell compares to the offensive power of haste.

It's not all about the cure critical wounds and the fireballs, and people who think it is are misinformed. Sometimes it is about the right fireball or the right cure critical wounds in the right place, for when you need them, but you do not bring a wizard for magic missile, much like you do not bring a cleric for cure light wounds.


Ice Titan wrote:

much like you do not bring a cleric for cure light wounds.

This be blasphemy. Do not listen to this heathens(spelling?) words. You must cure. If you ain't curing you aint doing nuthin'.

<Goes off to give more bad advice>


Ice Titan wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Ice Titan wrote:


That's the real value of the cleric. Support magic and battlefield control. Not a piddly 1d8+1 on touch.
Seriously? I would rather have the wizard for this... though I tend to prefer the arcane to the divine at every turn even if the divine are generally "more powerful" mechanically speaking.

Death ward. Holy aura. Holy word. Heal. Restoration. Resurrection.

It's all about death ward. Good god, is it all about death ward.

Arcane and divine have different purposes and spells, but the point of my statement is that a cleric is _not_ about healing, much like an arcane caster is _not_ about damage. No 4th level arcane spell compares to the defensive power of death ward, just like no 3rd level divine spell compares to the offensive power of haste.

It's not all about the cure critical wounds and the fireballs, and people who think it is are misinformed. Sometimes it is about the right fireball or the right cure critical wounds in the right place, for when you need them, but you do not bring a wizard for magic missile, much like you do not bring a cleric for cure light wounds.

Ah, we are on the same page then, I simply misunderstood what you were posting originally.

For an alternate to the cleric I would always forward the bard.

He has decent healing ability (and honestly -- the heal skill is a great choice in pathfinder at most any level) great buffing ability and all sorts of other stuff too. For a party without a cleric having a bard is a great thing.

It goes without saying however that paladins are also great healing types (in pathfinder almost without choosing to be) and druids can do fine at it too. Having played a witch I wasn't impressed with the class's healing abilities (even with the healing hex) but then again it was a secondary (at most) focus for the class I guess.


there is a lot that a cleric can bring to the table. thought it's not a requirement. some will feel that it is. such as any dm in any of my groups in which i have been a member. and most of these dms i had were fairly "traditional". even with the application of point buy, they try to force pcs into predetermined roles that have lasted for decades.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
carmachu wrote:
None of which help a low level party, which will be completely dependent on magic items....

And how does that invalidate the point? What will the cleric bring to the table in that level band more than 'pop pop fizz fizz okay I'm out'? The low level party is just as dependent on magic items to prolong the adventuring day regardless of if they have a cleric or druid or just a bard.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
carmachu wrote:
None of which help a low level party, which will be completely dependent on magic items....
And how does that invalidate the point? What will the cleric bring to the table in that level band more than 'pop pop fizz fizz okay I'm out'? The low level party is just as dependent on magic items to prolong the adventuring day regardless of if they have a cleric or druid or just a bard.

Channel energy 5 or so times for 1d6 healing for everyone in the party at low levels seems like it could do a bit more than any 2 druids or bards to me.

-James

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Again, 'pop pop fizz fizz'. Especially if you're spectacularly unlucky enough to roll a 1 every time. The point was that while clerics can have a longer run of healing, at low levels EVERYONE needs magic items to have a working day longer than 15 minutes.


if I run into a party with out a healer I typically:

As a DM: I make potions a little more available than I would otherwise and I might lower the cost of NPC healing in town (depending on party makeup, no way the cleric of most good alignments is going to discount heal the party of rapists and murderers ect.)

As a Player: I become alot more cautious....not alot more you can do.

actually as both a DM and a player I find that parties without healer a in some ways a little more fun it makes everyone really think about their actions and instills a greater sense of excitement to the game.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've gotta go with the argument that clerics (even at low level) bring way more to the table than a healbot.

Why, because I've seen an low level evil cleric (who channels neg energy and prepared no cure spells) totally rock the DM's world and save the party. At 1st level a evil cleric of war or death's a massive damage dealer, whacking that hunting party with a 30ft bubble of d6 really softens up CR1 monsters and NPCs. It's worse if its an evil party in an area where the cleric can aggravate the local NPCs into focusing on him for attacks, he's gonna have a reasonable AC (provided he buff's before hand) and the guard/militia/whatever he's just pissed off is going to go for him over the others... Thugs are thugs, but priests of x are true threats to the world.


I would suggest that at lower level magical healing isn't a great choice since there are so many good mundane (and cheap) means of healing that aren't quite as limited as magical means.

For example there is troll styptic. Granted buying this is 100 gp a pop -- but making it with the alchemy skill is 33 sp a go and you get 4 hp minimum out of a dose.

Also the Healing skill can be used an unlimited number of times per day, and can be used to heal deadly wounds (in addition to poisons, disease, and increasing healing from rest). At level 1 having a +8 is pretty easy to do for most classes, and if out of combat you can aid each other in order to up that a bit more. Considering a healing kit is 50 gp and has 10 uses with 2 uses being used to heal damage you still get 5 uses for 50 gp -- not a bad deal at all. Even the cleric can make good use of this to prolong the day for a party (in fact he can do it better than most with a +9~10 being fairly easy for him).


Abraham spalding wrote:
Considering a healing kit is 50 gp and has 10 uses with 2 uses being used to heal damage you still get 5 uses for 50 gp -- not a bad deal at all. Even the cleric can make good use of this to prolong the day for a party (in fact he can do it better than most with a +9~10 being fairly easy for him).

5 gp per use, 1 hour, and a DC 20 check to heal (level) hp once per day (which means, at low level, 1-4 hp); if you use it many times (on different peoples), with 1 hour per use, you don't prolong the day for a party (4 hours is half the duration of a day of adventuring). A wand of CLW cost 15 gp per use, a standard action, no check at all (or a DC 20 UMD check), and 2-9 hp per use. Heal deadly wound is a very bad deal.

edit : 10 gp to heal deadly wounds, not 5...


0gre wrote:


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.

Indeed. If they can't pick the door lock silently (rogue way), maybe they can open it using magic (wizard), or create a distraction (bard, fighter-types), or knock the door pretending to try to convert people (cleric/paladins).... there should always be many ways to achieve a goal.

The Exchange

Spes Magna Mark wrote:


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.

FYI, from Healers & Healing by Eldersygn Press there is this use of the Heal skill (DC = Effect's save DC):

"Acupuncture (restore sight/hearing): Through the careful application of acupuncture, the healer can reverse the effects of the blindness/deafness spell or other similar spell or natural effects. Restoring sight or hearing is a difficult process, requiring long-term care. At the end of a full day of care, the victim is entitled to a new saving throw against the blindness or deafness effect, with a +2 circumstance bonus, to a maximum of your Wis bonus. A victim can only attempt this saving throw once and, if it fails, further acupuncture treatments will have no effect. You can attempt to heal your own blindness/deafness through acupuncture."

51 to 100 of 148 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is a cleric needed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.