Setting up a game for my family. Six pc's total (2 per player). Here's what we have established so far:
A dwarf rogue who will be focusing mostly on the physical skill set (Stealth, Disable Device, Sleight of Hand, etc)...
A elf/halfling bard (race undecided) who will be the party face & either be party buffer at range (the halfling) or backup melee (elf with curved blade)...
A tank - barbarian or fighter, race undetermined....
A caster - either elf or human, deciding between sorcerer, wizard & witch with a role as a mix of controller/buffer/debuffer (any thoughts/ideas on which class here would also be appreciated)...
This leaves me with the final 2 spots, going to different players. One player is interested in trying an inquisitor of Desna, while the other is debating a paladin or a cleric. So here's my dilemma - if the group ends up with a paladin, a witch & an inquisitor, will we be ok without a cleric? After 1st level, the paladin will be able to lay on hands, plus the witch/inquisitor can both have CLW. Also, the witch could take the Healing Hex. I'm concerned this is not enough healing &/or a solid use of party resources compared to a cleric's channeling. And no, the cleric is not going to be the 'party band-aid' - probably another backup fighter or another support caster (depending on what the bard does). But channeling can bring a lot of healing with relatively minimal resources for the group.
Anybody else's thoughts? Thanks in advance!
A cleric isn't really needed. The bard can use wands of Cure Light Wounds.
Generally, I recommend 2 cleric/oracle/druidic types, 2 full BAB classes, a 3/4ths BAB "skill monkey" and one full arcane caster for a party of 6.
1 full divine caster can generally keep 3 other PCs alive and kicking reasonably well from what I've seen.
1 full BAB and a 3/4ths BAB can be swapped out reasonably well, especially if the group is going to take advantage of teamwork feats (inquisitors and cavaliers excel at this) along with having a bard.
The usual argument is that in combat healing is less productive that just killing the foe outright. Just toss a wand of infernal healing/CLW in and they should be able to heal in between combats.
My biggest concern is the 1st couple of levels - after that, wands should pretty much be able to bump them up enough. But a 750gp wand isn't going to happen at 1st level...
As far as the spellcaster goes, I'm leaning towards recommending either the wizard or the witch, just to have a second character with some knowledge skills. I know the bard has it covered, but I can see the value of a backup, just like in other areas. We'll likely already have a couple of characters with solid Charisma scores...
You can just give them a wand, or one with less to simulate the less healing they'd get. Its not unusual to find things during an adventure or dungeon to help heal up.
Even two characters with healing capability, but not one dedicated to it, will cover your bases. A paladin, witch, inquisitor, and bard will ensure that no single character gets "stuck" healing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not just about healing hit points - removing nasty stuff like ability damage, diseases, poisons, fatigue, etc. etc. all add up PDQ.
Well, one of the players is only 9yrs old (gotta start that next generation of gamers!)so experience is a bit if a factor for a smaller group... but mostly, because they wanted to.
With a Bard, Inquisitor, and a Paladin you do not need a cleric. If you also have a Witch that lessens it even more. Healing HP is actually the thing you should worry about least. What is going to be more of a problem is removing of conditions. Luckily Paladins get lesser restoration as a first level spell.
If you are really worried about healing have the witch be a hedge witch. A hedge Witch gets pretty much all the condition removal spells as bonus spells. They can also spontaneously cure like a cleric, which will probably be more useful than channeling energy in the long run. Don't bother with healing hexes in this case focus on buff and debuff with both hexes and spells.
The weakest character I see is the dwarf rogue. The inquisitor and bard can cover any role he can and bring a lot more to the table. Consider going with a Dwarf Ranger with the trapper archetype. He will have almost as many skills as a rogue and a lot better combat.
Nobody will have Disable Device, though. In my games, that would be a problem...
My family is much more about flavor/character than optimization, so little repetition/overlap isn't as big a deal. The dwarf rogue is also looking at possible TWF to get as many attacks as possible, & with sneak attack damage to help boost in combat - having a barbarian, a paladin & an inquisitor around should help with the flanking options!
|
Divine caster is not needed with this group make up. With there being multiple characters that can cure. The Witch can focus on just crowed control. Let the bard do all the buffing.
Starting from scratch:
Dwarf : Ranger6/Rogue XX : Focusing on Str along with two weapon fighting. Then taking both the rogue and ranger skill sets.
Human : Bard : Focus on dex, and initiative in order to get buffs up before the group starts there actions for the turn. Then focus on knowledge skill's. Along with linguistics, and the two performance for versatile performance.
Elf Witch (Hedge Witch) Patron Healing : They can cover a lot of area. Focusing on crowed control and difficult problem solving. Back up on critical knowledge skills (Planes, Arcane, and Religion).
(2)Barbarian, Caviler, Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger: Melee focused characters. My top two picks are Caviler(Group buffer), and Paladin(Self healing tank).
(1) Gunslinger, Fighter, Monk(Zen Archer), or Ranger : Range focused character. My top choice is Ranger.
Nobody will have Disable Device, though. In my games, that would be a problem...
My family is much more about flavor/character than optimization, so little repetition/overlap isn't as big a deal. The dwarf rogue is also looking at possible TWF to get as many attacks as possible, & with sneak attack damage to help boost in combat - having a barbarian, a paladin & an inquisitor around should help with the flanking options!
In general, you want to have one tank, one healer (and not just hp), one scout/trap man, and one arcane caster. Suitable 5th men are bards and Fighter (archer). The larger the party, the more you need healers, and the more offensively orientated each character can afford to be.
So yeah, you DO need a Cleric, esp since you have a 9 year old who will inevitably get nailed hard. The exact mix depends on what genre and publisher you intend to run premade adventures, or if you will be writing your own.
I have noted that with larger groups than 4, you must increase the CR by 2 points every 2 extra players. That means your baddies will be able to one shot the PC's because of the extra potency, but there will be plenty of PC's around to heal up the downed one. Think about what happens when you send a single Ogre after a 1st or 2nd level party, and he hits with a swing or two. In a party of this size, I suggest a straight up Cleric, Healing (restoration) domain, and one minor healer like a Bard, Druid, or Paladin. Maybe an Oracle or Witch, I dunno.
Tell the dwarf Rogue to avoid TWF until he has all the feats for flanking, and upping his attack rolls. That means Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, Outflank, Precise Strike, Dodge, Mobility. Improved Feint is a good idea as well.
Piece of advice: Use either Highlander or Wisdom in Flesh to grant Stealth as class to the characters, ALL OF THEM, so that the Rogue doesn't have to freak out if you have to be quiet.
Yeah, part of the problem I have is trying to make suggestions that still fit in with what they're willing to play. It's easy to say "drop the dwarf rogue & go with a ranger" - with no disrepect to Mysterious Stranger, but try telling that to my 9yr old who REALLY wants to play the rogue this time (instead of his older brother always getting to).
Plus, my wife will be the group leader, but is not at all interested in being the party face, which will fall to the 17yr old. Also add in that I'm actively trying to avoid using a ranger (apologies for not thinking to mention it earlier- but there ALWAYS seems to be a ranger in the group, & I'd like to mix it up this time... hence why I'm not so keen on the sorcerer either), & it gets a little more complicated.
I think I've pretty well decided I'm going to recommend the cleric. Next will be to recommend a caster class to my wife. From the info above, with a cleric in the mix, any thoughts on which caster class she should go with?
Lay out the options in "bullet point" format, go from there.
Be honest with you, I recommended the Cleric because of the size of the party, and the age of some of the players. Forethought is a skill, and it is also something that biologically isn't present until one's early 20's. Therefore, a 9 year old will get into a few boo-boos, to put it mildly.
I recommended the Healing(Restoration) domain so he has the most efficiency in healing and so can spend spells on something else.
For the 9 year old, I recommend a Fighter, straight up. Take an archetype if you really want to. The polar opposite, the Wizard, should be only for the most experienced players, the ones that might someday become DM.
Overall, there is no shame in laying out what's needed to the group, that means fulfilling certain general roles. As long as those roles are filled, then you are good. A Cleric fills healer/buffer spot nicely. If you don't want a Ranger, then a Rogue or Inquisitor could fill the skill monkey/scout position nicely, but make sure the PC has darkvision!
Oh, and I never said to drop the dwarf Rogue, just that certain feats are more necessary in the early levels than others. For a Rogue, that's Great Fortitude, Weapon Finesse, Iron Will.
Usually the group leader is also the Face Man of the bunch, but whatever makes you happy.
As for your wife, you know what? If she knows what she's doing, how about she picks something out herself? Show her all the stuff you have, or first ask her what she would generally like, and show her that specific stuff that matches the description.
Dunno, he sounds like the type of DM that prefers not to have limitations as to what he can throw at the PC's, with the exception that it isn't overpowered.
Anyway, like I wrote before, it's up to the OP.
Oh, and I never said to drop the dwarf Rogue, just that certain feats are more necessary in the early levels than others. For a Rogue, that's Great Fortitude, Weapon Finesse, Iron Will.
I wasn't referring to you when I said about dropping the rogue- in my comment, I mentioned no disrepect to Mysterious Stranger, who felt the rogue was the weak link & suggested dropping the rogue for a ranger... Thank you for your advice on how to help make the rogue more 'survivable', especially for a 9yr old :)
Actually, he's a pretty smart 9yr old who's been playing strategy games for a couple of years now. He usually plays a caster (sorcerer or summoner), but I wanted him to try something different. His 2nd character is going to be a full-BAB, either a fighter or barbarian.
Speaking of trying something different, I was trying to keep this from tainting the responses, but the family has agreed to allow me to make all the pc's for them for this campaign- an experiment, if you will. I read about doing this once on another board. The idea is the DM will be able to make sure he has what he needs in the party to face the challenges he has in mind. Also, it offers an opportunity for the players to try something outside their comfort zones, to a degree. So the final decision is with me, but I am really trying to make sure it's something my wife will be willing to give a shot with. She's a pretty experienced gamer who generally likes nature-based support roles, so I'm thinking having her try arcane-based support shouldn't be too far off her comfort zone.
Then, here's a neat idea: Make characters based on what you think they'd enjoy the most, given their personalities. Interesting idea, no?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With a Bard, an Inquisitor, and a Witch, they're golden. If the PCs seem low on healing at low levels, toss them a bone (or a wand of cure light wounds with 10 charges).
The point of the game is to have fun. Let them have fun and play what they want to play. I don't know where you got the idea of "making their characters," but its a bad idea. Nothing ruins a game faster for people than playing pre-gens. However, it is your game, and your rules.
I don't know where you got the idea of "making their characters," but its a bad idea. Nothing ruins a game faster for people than playing pre-gens. However, it is your game, and your rules.
EXCEPT if you build one to suit their personality, and you know them well. I've done it before, and got a player from running a Monk to running a Barbarian, and he was pleased as punch with his new PC. Really suited his personality (kick down the door type).
As far as arcane casters go...if nobody has played one in D&D or Pathfinder, simpler is usually better. Sorcerers are simpler than wizards, and you just keep track of slots, not having to worry about spell selection daily.
To play, Sorcerers are simple, but to design, they are difficult. Spell selection is critical, because it is not easily changed once the game starts. So too is picking out a bloodline and ensuring it works well with one's secondary and tertiary attributes.
Well, I play a pretty fast & loose style (rules lawyers don't like me) - I feel the whole point is to have fun. My son is a huge fan of Pokemon & Yu-Gi-Oh, so the summoner really appealed to him in our last game. I helped him make the character, so while it may not be completely 'optimized', it certainly wasn't a train wreck. Plus, like I said, he's pretty smart (his 2nd grade project choice on a famous American was Bill Gates...).
Both my wife & my older son have some idea of what they're going to get & are curious to see how it plays out. They think the 9yr old will be ok with my plans as well, but I can understand the concern regarding pre-generated pc's.
Honestly, I am tired of the hate I keep reading on this forum about the standard classes, like Rogue, Cleric, Fighter etc. It's getting monotonous.
The facts are that there are archetypes for Bard, Ranger, Alch, Oracle, and... (did I miss anyone?) that give the ability to disable magical traps and that 1/2 lvl to disable bonus. Since most of these can bring more to the table then rogue then yes it is common for people on the advice forums to advise against them. As to do otherwise would be bad advice.
Also the idea that a cleric is needed has long since been proven exaggerated. There is no such thing as something only the cleric can deal with. With UMD, Other classes the get things like heal and restoration and a ton of classes with cure spells there is no need for a cleric. Sure they are still a fine class as they are a full caster but if no one wants to play it that works too.
Honestly, I am tired of the hate I keep reading on this forum about the standard classes, like Rogue, Cleric, Fighter etc. It's getting monotonous.
Part of my intent in this campaign is to get back to some of the classics of d&d. It seems everyone wants a sorcerer, an alchemist, etc. - there's nothing wrong with that. But mention the core classes, & suddenly nobody wants to mess with them. There's 'always a better option' it seems, but I feel the core classes can still have a lot of fun.
Same thing with the original core races (human, elf, dwarf & halfling). Everybody wants to be a tengu, the aasimar, the dhampir, etc. Again, nothing wrong with them, but there's nothing wrong with the classics, either.
Maybe I'm weird, but I'm not always worried about the most optimal way to defeat the monsters - the flavor's just as important.
You need a cleric unless you know the GM isn't going to use monsters that have abilities only a cleric can mitigate.
Since you're the GM just don't use anything with its CR dependent on the level at which the counter appears on the cleric list (shadows and spectres are the most notable, each having their CR equal to the level at which the restoration line spell capable of repairing the damage is available to a cleric -- and screw parties with oracles or druids.
There are no attacks that only a cleric can migrate. The spells you mention being needed are indeed very important but a cleric is not the only one who has access to them. Alchemists, Bards, Druids, Inquisitors, Oracles, Paladins, Rangers and Witches all have access to some healing spells. Not all the classes have access to everything but you can cover what is needed without a cleric.
The life Oracle is probably the best healer in the game. His revelations mean that his spells can cure more damage than a cleric, and add temporary HP as well. His bonus spells include the most common needed non HP healing spells.
A Hedge Witch will match a cleric on everything but channel energy, but that is not as important as most people think.
Another big danger of relying on a single healer is what happens when he is taken down. If he is the only one able to heal the party is in big trouble. Spreading out the healing responsibility is good tactics. You may have a character that is better at healing then the rest, but he should have backup.
Honestly, I am tired of the hate I keep reading on this forum about the standard classes, like Rogue, Cleric, Fighter etc. It's getting monotonous.Part of my intent in this campaign is to get back to some of the classics of d&d. It seems everyone wants a sorcerer, an alchemist, etc. - there's nothing wrong with that. But mention the core classes, & suddenly nobody wants to mess with them. There's 'always a better option' it seems, but I feel the core classes can still have a lot of fun.
Same thing with the original core races (human, elf, dwarf & halfling). Everybody wants to be a tengu, the aasimar, the dhampir, etc. Again, nothing wrong with them, but there's nothing wrong with the classics, either.
Maybe I'm weird, but I'm not always worried about the most optimal way to defeat the monsters - the flavor's just as important.
If someone wants to play a cleric great, people should be able to play what they want. The cleric is a good class and there is not a single reason not to play one. The problem comes when you ask do I need this class. There is not a single class that is needed. There are roles that must be fulfilled but the great thing about pathfinder is there is not any role that has to be filled with a specific class. If you come to the boards and ask do I need <favorite class> the answer is always going to be no.
A cleric isn't really needed. The bard can use wands of Cure Light Wounds.
After the low levels, wands can't keep up with enemy damage output. The only things that can are metamagic enhanced healing and the heal spell.
I recommend a class that can fill that requirement.
Anybody else's thoughts? Thanks in advance!
Besides just healing, keep in mind undead encounters are drastically more difficult without a cleric or oracle. The core book even mentions upping the DC of such encounters without a cleric in the party.
Also incorporeal undead are the worst thing ever without a cleric or ghost touch weapons to deal with them.
A cleric isn't really needed. The bard can use wands of Cure Light Wounds.After the low levels, wands can't keep up with enemy damage output. The only things that can are metamagic enhanced healing and the heal spell.
I recommend a class that can fill that requirement.
Can I assume from this statement that you heal in combat? I might be presuming a bit too much so I won't get into that.
For higher levels wands are still viable, just have to have a bundle of them, they are still cheap consumables. Also a well prepared party can use buffs and abilities to avoid damage, preventing damage is better than restoring lost HP.
Heal spell is still really nice, but it takes up a very good spell slot. And its unlikely that the cleric will have more than a couple at any given time. Sure he could have metamagic cures prepared, but going full heal bot is the same thing as playing a health dispenser instead of a real character.
I think the comment boils down to "an entire wand of cure light wounds doesn't last very long at higher level play".
1 or 2 charges per PC patches everyone up at 1st and 2nd level, making one wand last an entire level or very close to it.
The lifespan of a fully charged wand of cure light wounds drops precipitously fast as the APL increases. In some cases, the entire wand won't be sufficient to replenish the hp of the entire party (let alone any eidolons, familiars, pet rodents, cohorts, animal companions/mounts, etc).
A Life Oracle is even more of a health dispenser than a Healing domain Cleric. At least the Cleric can prepare death and destruction, spontaneously converting cures. The Life Oracle ... not so much.
Its a 750 gold consumable, use it up like any other consumable. At high levels I see individual party members suck down 300+gold in potions/scrolls ect in fights. Does it make sense to suddenly get cheap about post combat stuff and make a party member give up a good chunk of his limited class abilities as a result?
I think the comment boils down to "an entire wand of cure light wounds doesn't last very long at higher level play".
1 or 2 charges per PC patches everyone up at 1st and 2nd level, making one wand last an entire level or very close to it.
The lifespan of a fully charged wand of cure light wounds drops precipitously fast as the APL increases. In some cases, the entire wand won't be sufficient to replenish the hp of the entire party (let alone any eidolons, familiars, pet rodents, cohorts, animal companions/mounts, etc).
A Life Oracle is even more of a health dispenser than a Healing domain Cleric. At least the Cleric can prepare death and destruction, spontaneously converting cures. The Life Oracle ... not so much.
A life Oracle does not have to prepare any spells. He also has the entire cure line of spells in addition to any other spells so he can spontaneously cast them. There is no reason an Oracle can't chose death and destruction spells as his spells known. Keep in mind most of the condition removal spells are on his bonus list. That pretty much means that he can chose combat spells and still heal as well as a cleric. With right revelations he can get more mileage out of his lower level heal spells then a cleric.
A cleric isn't really needed. The bard can use wands of Cure Light Wounds.After the low levels, wands can't keep up with enemy damage output. The only things that can are metamagic enhanced healing and the heal spell.
As you point out, the Cure spells can't keep up with damage output anyway. The occasional Heal is definitely cool, but not something to rely on. Better try to prevent damage in the first place through buffing, debuffing and battlefield control. Or simply killing them before they kill you. In-combat healing should be a rare emergency situation.
I'm not implying that clerics are useless, though. They can be very powerful, but they're powerful because they're so much more than healbots. Don't think you need a cleric just to heal. If he's there and he heals, fine. But if he's not, there are other equally viable strategies.
A cleric isn't really needed. The bard can use wands of Cure Light Wounds.After the low levels, wands can't keep up with enemy damage output. The only things that can are metamagic enhanced healing and the heal spell.
I recommend a class that can fill that requirement.
Can I assume from this statement that you heal in combat? I might be presuming a bit too much so I won't get into that.
For higher levels wands are still viable, just have to have a bundle of them, they are still cheap consumables. Also a well prepared party can use buffs and abilities to avoid damage, preventing damage is better than restoring lost HP.
Heal spell is still really nice, but it takes up a very good spell slot. And its unlikely that the cleric will have more than a couple at any given time. Sure he could have metamagic cures prepared, but going full heal bot is the same thing as playing a health dispenser instead of a real character.
I am aware of the flame wars between healing in combat and healing outside of combat. I for one never understood how a play style without healing in combat works. Maybe it works if you're playing PFS, but no way can I see it in a homebrew campaign. Out tank has a little over 200 HP. At level 15 enemies are doing 100+ dmg a round even through our buffs. So how do you keep the tank upright without healing in combat? He'd be down after round 2. At higher levels healing in combat is a MUST. And we're not noobs at this. This campaign has been around since 2nd ed.
I find the cleric gets so many spells that preparing a few metamagic heals and the heal spell is waaaaaaaay more effetive than many buffs. This is for a few reasons.
1. At upper-mid and above levels many of the buffs don't stack with enhancements from magic items and become useless.
2. Again at upper-mid and above levels granting someone a +2 or even +4 to AC or DR etc etc, is (surprisingly) not as helpful as you might think. Many combat oriented enemies have bonuses that laugh at defensive buffs. With the exception of energy based buffs. Those are amazing at all levels.
3. After mid-level unless a cleric is optimized for front line combat, they shouldn't even bother trying. Even with buffs you can't hit often and hard enough to make a dent. So I stick to buffs and heals. (and dispel magic which is amazing on highly buffed high level enemies)
But our style of play is also a pretty detailed one where we even RP the shopping so trying to get many, many wands of cure spells is an undertaking among itself and would require trips to several towns and clean out their inventories for quite some time. If we relied on wands we'd probably run through them after about a days worth of encounters and then have to wait until we can track down merchants with fresh supplies.
So to sum up- low to early-mid levels, buff away and hold off the healing. At higher levels enemies hit often and hit hard and healing in combat is a must. Sometimes the battles come down to who attacked first because both sides have such devastating attacks at that point.
Just some math on the wands at higher levels.
Wand of Cure Critical Wounds, the strongest of the cure wands, will heal a paltry average of 25 points per use. (avg on a d8 is 4.5 x 4 + 7 for caster lvl) And it costs 21,000 gp.
This means you're spending an average of 420gp for every 25hp. That is ri-g~!+!~n-diculous.
Just to heal a party's tank your looking at about 9-10 charges at higher levels.
Congratulations that just cost 4,200gp in consumables.
I'd rather use heal spells and spend my gold on items that give a constant boost thanks.
That's why you leave it to wands of Cure Light. Much cheaper.
But then aren't you just burning through them faster which requires finding and purchasing more?
How many are people carrying at a time? As a GM if my players went to a town and tried to buy like 30 wands of cure light wounds well... first, that's a game session in and of itself. And as a GM I'd rule that there just aren't that many. It seems kinda ridiculous.
"Oh look I can just somehow keep buying as many potions/wands/etc as I want until I can't carry anymore. The vendor never runs out." Makes Pathfinder feel like a videogame.
At least that's how it feels to me.
AVG cure light heal rounding up = 6hp
To restore a tank let's say avg 200hp you're using 33 charges.
Cost per charge 15gp
33 charges = 495gp
That's much more economical.
But I can't even fathom the amount of wands you'd have to carry. As I mentioned in my previous post. It breaks my suspension of disbelief and makes the game seem like a cartoon or videogame.
Maybe that's a weird place to draw a line, especially when characters are throwing around magic and monks are jumping 60 feet straight up, but there it is. Somehow it breaks the fantasy and takes it from a story based game to a mechanics based game, from Tolkien to Final Fantasy. And that's just not what our group is about.