| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have not looked at the other healing-during-battle threads but it didn't take long to throw together some averages.
A 7th level Cleric can cast Cure Critical Wounds (heals 4d8+7 damage for an average of 20 HP healed) or channel energy (heals 4d6 damage for an average of 14 damage healed.)
Take a typical CR 7 monster, a Chimera. On a full attack, it will be doing 2d6+4, 1d8+4, 1d8+4, 1d6+4, 1d6+4 damage, for an average of 41 damage. That's just the average; the minimum is 26, which a Cure Critical Wounds might heal...if you roll well. Alternately, the Chimera can use its breath weapon for 6d8 damage (average of 27 damage) to most or all of the party.
So say you have a party of Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue fighting a Chimera. Let's forget about what most of the rest of the party is doing and concentrate on the Cleric, and assume that the battle lasts longer than 3 rounds. The Fighter is up front meleeing the creature, and as a 7th level Fighter with a 16 CON and all of his favored class bonuses into HP, he has an average of around 75 HP max.
Round 1, the Chimera full attacks the Fighter for 41 damage. The Cleric steps up and casts Cure Critical Wounds, healing the Fighter for 20 HP. The Fighter is now at 54 HP.
Round 2, the Chimera uses its breath weapon and hits the Fighter and the Cleric standing in front of him. They both take 27 damage. The Cleric channels energy to heal them for 14 HP. The Fighter now has 41 HP.
Round 3, the Chimera full attacks the Fighter again for 41 damage. Oh look...the Fighter is staggered. The Cleric casts Cure Critical Wounds again (and is now out of non-domain 4th level spells -- assuming his WIS is high enough to cast 2 4th level spells at level 7) and brings the Fighter back up, healing him for another 20 HP. The Fighter now has 20 HP and if the battle doesn't end in the next round or the Fighter backs out of melee range, there is a good chance he will be dead in the next round.
Now imagine that the Cleric did other things in those 3 rounds. Say the party was able to correctly identify the Chimera and identify what type of dragon head it had, so in round 1, the Cleric casts Communal Resist Energy. Then when the Chimera uses its breath weapon in Round 2, it only deals 7 points of damage. So on Round 2, the Cleric casts Debilitating Portent on the Chimera, causing it to deal half damage to the Fighter in Round 3. At this point, the Fighter still has over 20 HP left and no healing has been done at all, the Chimera is going to continue doing reduced damage on both its breath weapon and its full attacks, and the Cleric is free to hit the Chimera with his +1 morning star for 1d8+4 (assuming a 16 STR) damage...or cast Prayer to further buff himself and his party while debuffing the Chimera...or use the Touch of Good domain ability to grant the Fighter a bonus to attack rolls, saves, etc.
Yes, I realized this is very generalized and doesn't take a lot of things into account, such as equipment, AC vs. attack rolls, and what the rest of the party is doing. But the point I am trying to illustrate is that in-battle healing often times cannot keep up with the damage being dealt (except perhaps at very low levels.) In even an average-lengthed battle, the enemies' damage output is going to exceed what a Cleric can reasonably heal and eventually party members are going to drop anyway. But if a Cleric instead utilizes his rounds by helping prevent damage from happening, or by doing damage himself (thus eliminating the threat faster) you can reduce or negate the enemies' damage output in the first place.
Can in-battle healing be useful? Yes. When an enemy lands a crit or a party member fails a save, absolutely having someone to pop a quick channel or cure spell to prevent them from suddenly dropping can be handy. Is it necessary? No, I firmly believe it is not. If the above scenario had a raging Barbarian instead of a Cleric, along with a Fighter and a flanking Rogue, I'm willing to bet that Chimera would not last past round 2.
As an aside, the casting time for Restoration is 1 minute, so I really hope no one is actually using this spell in-battle. If you absolutely need it in-battle, you will need a scroll of it...which can be activated by non-Clerics/healbots. Even Lesser Restoration has a casting time of 3 rounds...still not a very in-battle-friendly spell to actually cast.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the general idea that you do not need a healbot. I like having a healer in any group for emergencies, but that is a personal preference. The problem is convincing your GM and group. If he will not accept the argument that preventing damage is easier than healing it, you are out of luck. Maggiethecat's number crunch is great, but I doubt they will accept that logic if they wouldn't even look at Treantmonk's guide.
If you have not already, I would talk to the barbarian / cleric player. It is their job to fight for their right to play what they want, and the DM's job to make sure everyone is having a good time. It is great that you are working towards group harmony, but you aren't the one that buckled to the DM. If the barbarian/cleric doesn't want to push the issue, I doubt you are going to get anywhere on this.
You can make arguments about the efficiency of prevention over cure all day, but if your group won't listen, you will be talking to hear yourself talk. You are still playing a character that can do a lot of prevention. The only way I can think of to prove your argument is play your character to the best of your ability. If the cleric is never healing in battle because the rest of you are doing your jobs well, it will sell your point better than any number crunch.
So, what does your DM do if everyone refuses to play the healing "focused" character?
Tons of classes can do healing, no one needs it as a "focus".
Is choosing your class and build for you one of your DM's houserules?
If so, I think that is the worst one I've ever heard.
I want to know this also.
Glass Cannon refers to someone who can deal a lot of damage but can't take very much damage themselves. A Sorcerer would be a prime example. Barbarians are generally Meat Shields as they get in front and take the physical damage a Glass Cannon would take. If they have a high AC they could be a Tank. Hard to damage while dealing a lot of physical damage. Also he could have been a Beat Stick. Dealing out damage.
Now on topic. In an undead heavy campaign a cleric should be a great help. But no class is NEEDED. If he had to change class, I think a ranger would have been better. Similar flavor to barbarian but can specialize in undead and eventually he also gets healing.
You have a bard for healing. Give him a wand and you are golden. If the player isn't happy with his character he won't enjoy the game.
So, what does your DM do if everyone refuses to play the healing "focused" character?
Tons of classes can do healing, no one needs it as a "focus".
Is choosing your class and build for you one of your DM's houserules?
If so, I think that is the worst one I've ever heard.
the conversation went pretty much like this:
PC- "I want to be *insert class her"
GM- "You don't have a cleric"
me- " We'll be fine, we'll just need to buy a CLW want later"
GM- " Yeah, ok *smug voice*"
me- "seriously, I think we can live without a cleric if no one want to play one, I read a few guides that talked about in-combat healing not being essential"
GM- "I don't care what some stranger on the internet says, you need a healer. We have 2 melee classes already, one of you needs to switch to a cleric"
Barbarian- "I just played a cleric last campaign, I'm not really interested"
Fighter- "I've already made my character concept, so I'm all set"
Barbarian- "fine...."
GM- "Make sure you take the merciful healing archetype and have the healing domain"
Me- "That archtype isn't really necessary"
Gm- *evil eye*
Me- "ok.... whatever"
Like I said, in the end everyone I'm playing with are long time friends, but the GM is very stubborn.
Change your DM.
pretty much this
A single cure light wand in the hands of the bard should be plenty.
Now we have a very old fashioned group, and the DM was unhappy that we didn't have a healer (cleric specifically) in our group. I argued that we'd be fine without a cleric, and that we'd eventually just pick up some wands for out of combat damage. however, after much pressure our barbarian player is now playing a general healbot cleric. They're enthusiasm has dropped greatly, and they don't seem to be having any fun with the class.
That's a bummer! My condolences. I don't usually even like planning party composition ahead of time and really have a pet peeve for forcing class choice (narrowing it in advance, it is fine, with notice).
I personally loathe the Healing Domain... Rebuke Death is very situational and won't be used much, and Healer's Blessing is okay...but the domain spells are crap. I mean, really, the cure spells? If you're a good (or neutral and choose to channel positive) you can spontaneously cast as many cure spells as you want...you don't need more.
If I were the barbarian-turned-cleric, I would seriously consider doing nothing but healing, prepare nothing but cure spells and not bother with fighting, buffing, etc...and then when the GM or party says "why can't you do/cast xxx" tell them, "I'm the healbot, I'm here for healing and nothing else since that's what you told me to do." When enemies attacked me, I would full withdraw to run away, take full defense and do nothing, or channel energy just to heal myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Show up with no healer, just the character you want to play. He has basically assured you that someone will be unhappy with the character layout. Make sure it's him. I used to be that player who demanded a healer, I used to be that DM, but now I'm really reformed and it took some force to get me here. Smart players are at least twice as good as a player forced to play a healer.
So, what does your DM do if everyone refuses to play the healing "focused" character?
Tons of classes can do healing, no one needs it as a "focus".
Is choosing your class and build for you one of your DM's houserules?
If so, I think that is the worst one I've ever heard.the conversation went pretty much like this:
PC- "I want to be *insert class her"
GM- "You don't have a cleric"
me- " We'll be fine, we'll just need to buy a CLW want later"
GM- " Yeah, ok *smug voice*"
me- "seriously, I think we can live without a cleric if no one want to play one, I read a few guides that talked about in-combat healing not being essential"
GM- "I don't care what some stranger on the internet says, you need a healer. We have 2 melee classes already, one of you needs to switch to a cleric"
Barbarian- "I just played a cleric last campaign, I'm not really interested"
Fighter- "I've already made my character concept, so I'm all set"
Barbarian- "fine...."
GM- "Make sure you take the merciful healing archetype and have the healing domain"
Me- "That archtype isn't really necessary"
Gm- *evil eye*
Me- "ok.... whatever"Like I said, in the end everyone I'm playing with are long time friends, but the GM is very stubborn.
So basically, your DM pretty much told the Barbarian player he couldn't be what he wanted and had to be a cleric. Not only that, but he told him what archetype and what domains to have? Had I been at the table, I would have become highly sarcastic.
My recommendation: DM yourself and show him how it's done. Hitting him repeatedly with a folding chair constitutes assault and should not be encouraged under any circumstances. Really.
Undead often drain ability scores, bestowe negative levels, curses, diseases, etc... They actually don't always do large amounts of hit point damage.
I would think that is why you would need a cleric more than to heal hitpoint damage.
Yes, you could also get wands for all those. But that is beginning to get pretty darn pricey.
Yes, you could also get wands for all those. But that is beginning to get pretty darn pricey.
Not really, they're such a small cost investment that it's not even worth mentioning after about 5th level, at least in my campaign. Keep in mind I've always had at least one good controller player in the group.
Having been a DM for over 20 years I have to say we aren’t perfect. Sometimes we have misconceptions and need to be educated. I think most of us are willing to try new things, if our players what to try something different we will work them to see how it goes, and in doing so sometimes learn something that leaves us more knowledgeable and better DM’s then we were before.
I understand your DM’s point of view as well as his reluctance. Dedicated healers are needed in many fantasy RPG games, especially computer RPG’s, and the thought the party needs one tends to be become a little ingrained. After all his main concern, presumably, is that the party will wipe or players will die which is rarely fun.
When you sit down with the group encourage the player of the barbarian to stick with his choice and say it’s worth trying to do without a dedicated healer to see how it goes. Also, point out that it’s not some random stranger but a lot of other gamers like yourselves that have played in or ran pathfinder games in which there was no dedicated healer, and that, while there is a little bit of a learning curve, we found it doable.
In short, some DM’s are stubborn and need to see first hand that something works but if you “force” our hand you may be glad you did since it’ll help us learn and potentially break one or more of the misconceptions we have about the game as well as letting all the players make and play the characters they want.
*****
Having said this, a note for the group. When going without a healer there is a bit of a learning curve and it does add additional expenditures to the party (though at higher levels cost tends to stop being an issue). Also you have to think ahead and make sure you have your bases covered. As has been mentioned above, not all damage is hit point damage, you’ll need to be able to cover, disease, poison, ability damage, etc. as well (though not all at first level of course). Still, if you plan for it, it is doable, and ultimately what's important is that everyone is having fun.
|
If your Barbarian turned Cleric is not having a lot of fun, another option would be to let him go back and multi-class into Oracle and eventually Rage Prophet prestige class.
It's not an optimal build, but may let him have some more fun, while still being a healer (somewhat gimped) for the party.
Just my two cents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your Barbarian turned Cleric is not having a lot of fun, another option would be to let him go back and multi-class into Oracle and eventually Battle Rager prestige class.
It's not an optimal build, but may let him have some more fun, while still being a healer (somewhat gimped) for the party.
Just my two cents.
I don't think that will avoid the evil eye from the DM who not only made him take a cleric, but required he take the merciful healing archetype and have the healing domain.
Honestly, if a DM seriously told me that and wouldn't budge on it, I'd have handed him the character sheet and told him to make an NPC, because I was there to play what I wanted and not be his glove-puppet.
At that point order him to change his encounters.
Or hand him a cleric character seat and inform him hes been fired as DM and is now playing a cleric.
.... with the Healing Domain, and merciful healer archetype.
So if I'm hearing you folks right...you're saying you DON'T need a healbot?
Just kidding. As a GM I've been dragged kicking and screaming to the 21st century where you don't need one any more. Ironically my PLAYERS are old school/MMO zealots who insisted that to round out the party of a fighter, monk, alchemist and rogue they one of them should play a cleric "For the healing." After an hour of debate I finally convinced them to at least build the cleric for more buffing and ranged attacks then for healing, to which they grudgingly agreed.
Then they picked traits, and the alchemist picked Rich Parents. I actually TOLD him to buy a wand of CLW but he declined, buying a bunch of masterworks. He's actually the youngest of us and a huge MMO player. Kids today...
So now they have the alchemist wasting cash in his downtime creating healing potions to supplement the cleric. First treasure hoard y'know what they're going to find? A wand of CLW...
I think the player should bring a barbarian to the table. If the GM does not like it he can run a cleric.
It is not like he has anything to lose. He is not happy anyway.
I've seriously never seen a party survive without regular losses unless they have a healing cleric along, unless the GM is of the sort to just let them win no matter what. The attitude on the boards about healing specifically is really bizarre to me.
I usually like a player to be a cleric just for the story element. I've found that if I don't get one, players usually keep dying until someone steps up to the plate and makes one.
Danny is that you?
j/k
Heh, in fairness though, I'm a prick about healing items. They aren't for sell unless you are an agent of the church, they have to be used for free on anyone who asks, and failure to do so will get you on the paladins' most wanted list.I've seriously never seen a party survive without regular losses unless they have a healing cleric along, unless the GM is of the sort to just let them win no matter what. The attitude on the boards about healing specifically is really bizarre to me.
I usually like a player to be a cleric just for the story element. I've found that if I don't get one, players usually keep dying until someone steps up to the plate and makes one.
Danny is that you?
j/k
so wait, you restrict access to the items to the PC's, but then make them available to all NPC's who ask? In that case I'm assuming the PC's get free healing when they visit the church?
It's been said many times, and I'll repeat it here: if a GM mandates that a player--any player--play a class/character that the player isn't interested in that person shouldn't be running a game.
The name of the game is to have fun, and being forced to play a character/class simply isn't fun. Any GM that makes such a demand shouldn't be sitting behind the screen. It's legit to make recommendations ("Hey folks, I think it would be definitely worth your while in this campaign to have a true healer."); it's also legit to rule out certainly classes that may not be conducive to the game; it's not legit to tell a player exactly what they're going to play because of some preconceived notion that, frankly, has been debunked. Designated healers aren't necessary. That's not to say they aren't useful, but they aren't necessary.
Let your players play the classes that they want and don't force them into a corner just because they don't play to your (the GM's) expectations. Your players might surprise you on just how creative they can be. Then again, they might not, but at least they had fun trying.
And that's the name of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, I don't think anyone's talking about being restrictive of healing...except maybe the GM restricting who gets healing items. In a world where Alchemists get access to healing spells and a free bonus feat to make potions in a land where the clergy hoards healing to their own they must make a FORTUNE!
Personally I've never seen the point of restricting healing. If you belong to a good faith, use your gifts to heal for the good of all. If your faith is evil use it like a drug; first hit's free, after that it's gonna cost...
If you're neutral then who cares? Heal whoever you want.
But that's just the thing; a lot of folks have made the point that HEALING is necessary. Having one person in the party who's PRIMARY function is just to heal is impractical. You can do the math at any level. One poster talked about 7th level averages.
At first level a pretty standard villain for my games is a ghoul if there's undead about. At full attack it can dish out 3 attacks, each at +3. If it concentrates all on one person you're talking 3 attacks hitting an avg AC of 14 all 3 times; you can rest assured it'll hit at least once in it's attack matrix. That threatens a paralysis save as well as a disease fort save and serves up 4.5 damage. The cleric can either 1) heal for 1d6 (3.5hp - less than damage done), 2) heal using a spell (5.5 hp - just over damage done) or 3) attack. Now a "healbot" who was solely or primarily dedicated to healing should choose one of the first 2 options but what would that get the party?
Now adding in other potentials, what if the ghoul hit all 3 times? Healing the fighter would DEFINITELY be moot at that point. If the ghoul hits no times, only then would the healbot cleric have something to do.
I love what somebody in another thread like this one said once in character as the paladin and "healer" of the party. When he showed up with a paladin instead of a cleric the other players said "We thought you were the healer?" He responded with "yes; I'll heal you by destroying sources of damage so they don't affect you. You're healed... and you're welcome."
At higher level I'd much rather have a cleric hasted, with high dex and decent initiative to ensure that he gets to attack first, then smack the vampire with an empowered cure spell and a swift action channel rather than wait around to see if anyone needs healing after they've lost levels and such.
So let me restate at least my OWN opinion on the subject and I hope some folks agree w/me: I'd like someone in the party to be able to heal in some capacity. I don't think any ONE persone should be dedicated to that.
When planning out parties, I've watched my players closely. They plot out who the massive melee damage person is, who's handling the artilery and who the face is and all that; they inevitably create backups for ALL of this as they know no ONE source is infalible or inexhaustible. Why then put ALL the healing eggs in one basket?
Despite the players picking a cleric in my current campaign, here's what I've told them: The cleric is a decent healer, yes. But the alchemist can make potions (I know it's not cost effective...sue me; I WANT them wasting money) or use a device like a wand to heal. I STRONGLY suggested the rogue also take UMD, so that he can carry a b/up wand for additional healing. I don't want what happened in my last campaign; they didn't buy a single extra source of healing, counting on the NPC cleric for ALL healing; he was level 3 and a 15 pt build; they were level 5 and epic point buy. He took one hit, went down, then he was followed by the paladin. Now it's a barbarian, a necromancer and theif facing off against a living school-bus of a chimera. That fight was...challenging.
|
At that point order him to change his encounters.
Or hand him a cleric character seat and inform him hes been fired as DM and is now playing a cleric.
.... with the Healing Domain, and merciful healer archetype.
Heh that's great imagery there -- I have to picture a Donald Trump moment when he says "you're FIRED" as he is handed the pink slip...err...character sheet. Excellent!
Sub_Zero, it's admirable that you're trying to stick up for your friend and address what seems to be a pretty glaring overstep by the GM here. I suppose what I'm wondering is what your conscripted cleric is doing about it. Are you trying to help him out because he won't assert himself with this GM? Do you think he'll just suck it up and play this for a bit until he drops from the game? Or is he trying to find some middle ground option? If it's the last one, perhaps he is willing to start out as cleric (not sure what is RP character concept is here), and then maybe he throws the DM a curve and goes with a more complementary martial class like Inquisitor or Fighter...or anything that sounds fun really. At the very minimum though he should stand up and trash the Domain and archetype if he's not about that concept. I'm sure the player could get a lot of suggestions from the community here, beyond what has been suggested already.
EDIT: I love playing clerics, and in my current two and prior two campaigns I played some sort of cleric with another class mixed in. To me it's always been about having the healing option but getting away from being the "healer" stereotype, which was more problematic for me in older editions. I have to say that if a GM "forced" me to lose my domain choices and my channeling flexibility with that dreadful archetype I'd tell him to shove it.
I'll be honest, the only times I've EVER seen PC deaths is in parties that do have healbots (and such parties have pretty much all had at least one death each in my experience). Last TPK I saw was a party of two clerics, a paladin, and a druid, all healing-focused.
Parties with only light healing, such as a bard with CLW, a rogue with a wand, or a paladin with two or three LoH per day actually seem to fare better than those that waste a spot on dedicated healing. Especially since light healers can actually do other things, aside from heal.
Best setup I can think of is a party with no healbot, and three light healers, i.e. PCs capable of healing, but who don't specialize in it to the point that they're dead-weight in combat. But really, any setup can do fine. I've seen a party of three fighters and a wizard fare perfectly well, and that's with no healing capability whatsoever.
Tell him to obtain more experience with the game before he keeps on assuming that you need a healbot.
First I thought everyone needed a healer, even if it's just one heal spell prepared, then I played some games without them and realized they aren't really needed once you get those wands and potions going. Then I played Carrion Crown...no clerics...no heal spells..no positive energy..Now I tend to vote all campaigns be parties consisting of clerics and clerics alone.
I've seriously never seen a party survive without regular losses unless they have a healing cleric along, unless the GM is of the sort to just let them win no matter what. The attitude on the boards about healing specifically is really bizarre to me.
I usually like a player to be a cleric just for the story element. I've found that if I don't get one, players usually keep dying until someone steps up to the plate and makes one.
IIRC don't you normally have battles that are CR=APL+2?
Did you ever implement those houserules nerfing casters?
If the first question does not apply I apologize in advance.
I only bring this up because in a normal game not having a dedicated healer is still possible to survive in even if it is a lot more difficult. Even though I say a dedicated healer is not needed I still think having one is better than not having one.
Heh, in fairness though, I'm a prick about healing items. They aren't for sell unless you are an agent of the church, they have to be used for free on anyone who asks, and failure to do so will get you on the paladins' most wanted list.I've seriously never seen a party survive without regular losses unless they have a healing cleric along, unless the GM is of the sort to just let them win no matter what. The attitude on the boards about healing specifically is really bizarre to me.
I usually like a player to be a cleric just for the story element. I've found that if I don't get one, players usually keep dying until someone steps up to the plate and makes one.
Danny is that you?
j/k
Soo... there are no Bards/Alchemists/Witches/etc etc who see this trend and think "Man, the churches are being well and proper douches about these healing itmes, and since I can heal, and am only a feat away from being able to make these myself, I should be making a killing by selling healing scrolls/potions/wands/wondrous items to everyone who has the cash, and even mark up the price!".
What has history taught us about restricting goods and services that people feel that they cannot live without? Did everyone just accept that alcohol was no longer legal in the 20s? No, it was a godsend for organized crime.
Well, there are no witches or alchemists in my game because I think those classes are really stupid. Druids hold the same rules as the church: follow my law and receive healing, or don't and don't. Only bards can really do what you are talking about, and they are rare like unicorns. Someone who has the ability to heal that manages to get out from under the thumb of the church or the mystic traditions, who has the ability to heal but no concern for the criminal behavior or philosophy of the people he is healing: yeah good luck finding that.Heh, in fairness though, I'm a prick about healing items. They aren't for sell unless you are an agent of the church, they have to be used for free on anyone who asks, and failure to do so will get you on the paladins' most wanted list.I've seriously never seen a party survive without regular losses unless they have a healing cleric along, unless the GM is of the sort to just let them win no matter what. The attitude on the boards about healing specifically is really bizarre to me.
I usually like a player to be a cleric just for the story element. I've found that if I don't get one, players usually keep dying until someone steps up to the plate and makes one.
Danny is that you?
j/k
Soo... there are no Bards/Alchemists/Witches/etc etc who see this trend and think "Man, the churches are being well and proper douches about these healing itmes, and since I can heal, and am only a feat away from being able to make these myself, I should be making a killing by selling healing scrolls/potions/wands/wondrous items to everyone who has the cash, and even mark up the price!".
What has history taught us about restricting goods and services that people feel that they cannot live without? Did everyone just accept that alcohol was no longer legal in the 20s? No, it was a godsend for organized crime.
It's your world obviously, but yeah, I can see finding that quite easily. Heck if I was a bard I'd set up shop and pretty much do only that. Sure I'd be dealing with scum, but it's scum who'd have to pay me very well for a service they couldn't otherwise get.
Also I assume that your entire group also finds all witches and Alchemists stupid? Otherwise it seems your needlessly preventing a player from playing a class just because you don't like it.
Yup, as long as the player characters are known for good deeds they always get free healing, item identification, access to the library, whatever. If they get know for being selfish, the church tries to keep them from magical healing.
I think your setup was the altruism strawman in Atlas Shrugged. Kinda ridiculous.
Especially as that means they could beg healing potions off of anyone they meet, and when they get rebuffed, tell the paladins on them.
Wait, I don't think anyone's talking about being restrictive of healing...except maybe the GM restricting who gets healing items. In a world where Alchemists get access to healing spells and a free bonus feat to make potions in a land where the clergy hoards healing to their own they must make a FORTUNE!
If my DM ever does this, my next character will be a very mercantile minded alchemist. Just call me Dr. Feelgood!
Nope, I never asked them if they want to play the class. I don't see anything wrong with a GM setting rules for the tone of his campaign. I always invite players who can't deal with that with a smile on their face to find the door. I don't do player entitlement whining.
Hold on, I wasn't making the argument that you can't restrict classes based on the setting of the campaign, and that's not what you originally said. your statement was and I quote:
"Well, there are no witches or alchemists in my game because I think those classes are really stupid."
That's a far cry from, disallowing a class because it doesn't fit a particular campaign setting. So please don't put words in my mouth. I wasn't arguing for "entitlement whining".
to put it another way. It's be one thing to disallow all divine PC's b/c your running a campaign where the God are all dead and therefore there's no divine magic. It's another thing all togather to say "you can't play a divine caster b/c I think they're stupid". Ones in place to fit a theme and enhance the story, the other is a childish argument.
edit: I'd also like to add that it's totally acceptable to ban all base classes, and say that you need to choose from the core classes. I've seen alot of GM's do this because it save them time from having to learn entirely new classes and not get blindsided by abilities they weren't aware that the character might possess.
It's your world obviously, but yeah, I can see finding that quite easily. Heck if I was a bard I'd set up shop and pretty much do only that. Sure I'd be dealing with scum, but it's scum who'd have to pay me very well for a service they couldn't otherwise get.
Also I assume that your entire group also finds all witches and Alchemists stupid? Otherwise it seems your needlessly preventing a player from playing a class just because you don't like it.
Nope, I never asked them if they want to play the class. I don't see anything wrong with a GM setting rules for the tone of his campaign. I always invite players who can't deal with that with a smile on their face to find the door. I don't do player entitlement whining.
And sure, you could do that, as a player character, and make lots of money. That's what the game would be about: you trying to determine if your healing comes from heaven or hell, the church in your business, paladins blaming you for the crimes of the criminals you protected, angry powers and organized crime, criminals perceiving you as the goose that laid the golden egg and trying to control you. All that is fine for a player character, but you aren't going to find that story in an NPC.
Either way, you do realize that you change the premise of the game so violently that your opinion on the "need" for a healer is invalid, right? It is like if I made a Waterworld setting. Swim would be the most useful skill ever. Not by virtue of its inherent necessity as the game is designed, but because I made it so.
If I made metal super rare in a setting, monks would be comparable to fighters. Not because they ARE in and of themselves, but because the circumstances make it so.
Nope, I never asked them if they want to play the class. I don't see anything wrong with a GM setting rules for the tone of his campaign. I always invite players who can't deal with that with a smile on their face to find the door. I don't do player entitlement whining.
Hold on, I wasn't making the argument that you can't restrict classes based on the setting of the campaign, and that's not what you originally said. your statement was and I quote:
"Well, there are no witches or alchemists in my game because I think those classes are really stupid."
That's a far cry from, disallowing a class because it doesn't fit a particular campaign setting. So please don't put words in my mouth. I wasn't arguing for "entitlement whining".
to put it another way. It's be one thing to disallow all divine PC's b/c your running a campaign where the God are all dead and therefore there's no divine magic. It's another thing all togather to say "you can't play a divine caster b/c I think they're stupid". Ones in place to fit a theme and enhance the story, the other is a childish argument.
edit: I'd also like to add that it's totally acceptable to ban all base classes, and say that you need to choose from the core classes. I've seen alot of GM's do this because it save them time from having to learn entirely new classes and not get blindsided by abilities they weren't aware that the character might possess.
Also this. I made a homebrew campaign that is best explained as Dystopian WW2 Psi-Punk. Where the facist state, backed by a LE religion akin to Asmodeus more or less ran the show. Players could not be wizards or sorcerers, as they had been hunted to extinction by the church, the only healing available was psionic versions, as the LE church intentionally controlled that resource, and made it available only for the faithful.
The players had a blast as they fought psionic nazis and the inquisition, but that game was NOT a representation of the game at it's core.
I usually like a player to be a cleric just for the story element. I've found that if I don't get one, players usually keep dying until someone steps up to the plate and makes one.
Paladins, druids, bards, oracles, inquisitors, witches and alchemists can all heal. So why single out clerics? It's like saying you HAVE to have a rogue to scout, when in Pathfinder rangers, monks, even druids can scout almost as well.
I like to have one character in the party that can heal, but I certainly don't require any party have a dedicated healer.