I think you do need a cleric or other divine based class, for more than just healing, or do you never plan to have an encounter with: a ghost, haunt, vampire, wight, wraith or other being causing negative energy damage, loss of level/stat that needs restored. A wand won't save you from those situations. Other classes like witch can provide healing too, but I don't consider healing as the major purpose for a cleric, rather the other points above are the main reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
I think part of the problem is that many groups can't find the "tank" class in the core book, APG, or the ultimate books. (btw the term noob doesn't reflect length of experience, not calling you even passive aggressively that, just clarifying). I know with my group which we have in the past gone up to level 18 fighting appropriate enemies have had to deal with monsters capable of doing even more damage than that. Yet they didn't really ever take that much damage, because combats tended to be over in 1-3 rounds of actual combat, the preceding rounds were mostly setting up the perfect round of rocket tag (positioning, buffing, ect). When a party member gets hit, he withdraws and lets somebody else deal with the pressure (or lets the summmons take brunt of the enemies offense). If somebody dies, there is usually a res later or a breath of life now that fixes it.
1. You aren't being creative enough to find your buffs. There are tons of them available that do stack if your party has good synergy and your primary buffer knows what he is doing.
2. At higher levels sure, +2 or 4 AC boost is small, but its not small if the characters have ACs that managed to scale decently, +4 to ac can halve the enemies hit rate if the AC was decent to begin with. That can be hard for some classes to actually achieve, but its not impossible.
3. Not going to argue on the high level cleric not being good a combat if he isn't built for it. But building for combat doesn't really take much away from late game spell casting if you do so correctly. Heck is a -1 or -2 to DCs and couple less spells really that big a deal to give up an entire facet of your character? The cleric can easily buff enough to more than make up for the 3/4 BAB, has better defensive options than most std martials, and if built right can deal tremendous damage (not barbarian or archer levels, but enough to fill the role of damage dealing ability). Even in parties where the role of primary damage is already filled, having another guy who can still dish it out in a supplementary role is only a good thing.
No doubt, but that only means you prefer the cleric to the wand. It does not mean you need a cleric, which was the OPs question.
True we're getting a bit off topic. My advice is that Yes, you should have a Cleric.
Reasons: Sounds like some of the players are young or inexperienced and a Cleric is the easiest class to integrate with a party for healing and overall party balance.
Aside from having to know lots of spells they are mechanically an easy class to play as they only get a handful of class abilities.
I know with my group which we have in the past gone up to level 18 fighting appropriate enemies have had to deal with monsters capable of doing even more damage than that. Yet they didn't really ever take that much damage, because combats tended to be over in 1-3 rounds of actual combat, the preceding rounds were mostly setting up the perfect round of rocket tag (positioning, buffing, ect). When a party member gets hit, he withdraws and lets somebody else deal with the pressure (or lets the summmons take brunt of the enemies offense). If somebody dies, there is usually a res later or a breath of life now that fixes it.
1. You aren't being creative enough to find your buffs. There are tons of them available that do stack if your party has good synergy and your primary buffer knows what he is doing.
2. At higher levels sure, +2 or 4 AC boost is small, but its not small if the characters have ACs that managed to scale decently, +4 to ac can halve the enemies hit rate if the AC was decent to begin with. That can be hard for some classes to actually achieve, but its not impossible.
3. Not going to argue on the high level cleric not being good a combat if he isn't built for it. But building for combat doesn't really take much away from late game spell casting if you do so correctly. Heck is a -1 or -2 to DCs and couple less spells really that big a deal to give up an entire facet of your character? The cleric can easily buff enough to more than make up for the 3/4 BAB, has better defensive options than most std martials, and if built right can deal tremendous damage (not barbarian or archer levels, but enough to fill the role of damage dealing ability). Even in parties where the role of primary damage is already filled, having another guy who can still dish it out in a supplementary role is only a good thing.
Sounds like your battles are a little more planned than ours. Our current GM tends to spring stuff on us so there is little to no time for pre-battle buffs or positioning. We also limit the amount of communication between players during combat to mimic the fact that on the battlefield only seconds are passing per round. It also speeds up combat because before we did that we would spend 20 minutes a round discussing tactics and we thought that was kinda metagaming because for example: my character doesn't know the rogue will break stealth on his turn so that I know where he is so I can hold action until he's in range of my buff, unless the player tells me this.
As for finding creative buffs vs healing. I'd love to hear some I've been over the spell list many times and just about every buff I have is already covered by magic gear.
Ability score buffs, sheild bonuses, AC enhancements, saving throw buffs- These are all out due to magic items. That's probably a dozen buff spells right out the window.
What I find effective are the various wall spells, energy protection spells, dispels, higher level healing spells, high level summons and a few direct damage spells.
Surprisingly, I find the Power Word spells and many of the "faith" based spells such as dictum fall short due to effects based on number of HD. The things we fight are always higher HD than us.
Also I find a lot of the planar based spells are too situation specific. And divination based magic is kinda nerfed in our camapaign but that's specific to our game and isn't really a class drawback.
If there's prep time, I agree a cleric can be great in melee. But you have to expend an extrodinary amount of spell resources to do so. I find the trade off is rarely worth it unless it's an emergency. Also, and I admit this is just my group, our GM and gaming style rarely leaves us any prep time for battles. And spending 3-4 rounds in combat buffing myself for combat is a complete waste.
|
True we're getting a bit off topic. My advice is that Yes, you should have a Cleric.
Reasons: Sounds like some of the players are young or inexperienced and a Cleric is the easiest class to integrate with a party for healing and overall party balance.
Aside from having to know lots of spells they are mechanically an easy class to play as they only get a handful of class abilities.
This I can agree with completely.
My question was not meant to be a general "do you need a cleric in a game?" but rather "do I need a cleric in my specific campaign?" I'm not totally sold on having the witch in the party (nothing wrong with the class, just not sure if it fits the flavor I'm looking for).
If the witch is included, with an inquisitor & a paladin, I think I might be able to do alright without the cleric (I don't have to use undead that much in this particular campaign). If the witch isn't included, I don't think the paladin & inquisitor by themselves are enough. That brings in the cleric, which means either the inquisitor or the paladin is gone (probably the inquisitor), because of who is playing what. I just read the class guide on reach-clerics & thought it was very interesting. With my earlier post about going back to some of the classic gaming, I'm tending to lean towards the cleric at this point, unless a really strong argument can be made otherwise.
The paladin (my wife) is not intended as lawful-stupid, but more of a 'lead by example & try to show how the right way to be' - not so judgmental of people, but will not hesitate to eliminate evil when present. This character is also intended to be the party leader. As far as the leader & the face not being the same character - well, it worked for the A-Team....
again, i think it necessary to point out that you should be making these decisions with PLAYER INPUT as they are the ones who will be running those PC's.
With a 9 year old in the party, just as if you had someone with ADHD, you will need a Cleric to duct tape them back together. I tend to allow for Murphy's Law to kick in, especially in dungeon crawls.
I also think an arcane caster for distance firepower is a good idea, or a dedicated archer of some kind.
If there's traps, lots of skill rolls etc, I think a Rogue would be the best to have on board, despite what others might think they are just too damned versatile to ignore, but make sure it has darkvision if you expect it to scout any.
Already ahead of you - the rogue is a dwarf, & the paladin will be an archer specialist (got the paladin idea from the class guides, again - those things were quite informative & helpful).
Normally, I would be working with the player closely. But since this is our little experiment... well, I've mostly decided I want a cleric in the group. Especially since the 9yr old is playing the barbarian...
I appreciate all the input from everyone- that was the whole idea of the post, to get other thoughts & ideas on the subject. You guys certainly did not disappoint!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do the Cleric a favor, and remind the Barbarian to up his AC before he tries upping offense. Barbs are 5pts down on AC compared to Fighters and Paladins. How about the Barb gets a Adamantine chain shirt?
BTW, why can't we have a shield made of adamantine? That way a mithral breastplate would be handy, and still get all the -1 DR and AC.
Odd choice for a Pally. Most want that flanking bonus, and up Str so they can wear heavy armor.
Skimming through many of the posts I am surprised no one advised to do the "gestalt" thing where players have two classes at once. It might save you from the headache of each player having to maintain 2 characters at once during combat.
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.IME, it's about damage. I doubt any PC IMC could stand three rounds against any boss monster that gets thrown at us, but other than the occasional healing hex we don't heal in combat. We just kill the thing fast, usually through damage, but sometimes through Ice Tomb (whatever the spell is actually called). Needless to say, we often end up with single-digit hit points by the end of a battle, and then break out the Wands of Cure Light Wounds and Goodberries.
HA! Any game where that happens, I as DM would happily nail you with a few more beasties in a second wave, JUST to prevent that sort of nonsense. If you end up in that bad of condition after a fight, especially a planned one like fighting the big cheese, then obviously you are creating glass cannons. Anyone stupid enough to pull that, deserves to be nailed hard in my games. But then, as DM, I am pretty old school. A hardass in a fight, but generous when it comes to remuneration and ideas for tricking out a PC.
HA! Any game where that happens, I as DM would happily nail you with a few more beasties in a second wave, JUST to prevent that sort of nonsense. If you end up in that bad of condition after a fight, especially a planned one like fighting the big cheese, then obviously you are creating glass cannons. Anyone stupid enough to pull that, deserves to be nailed hard in my games. But then, as DM, I am pretty old school. A hardass in a fight, but generous when it comes to remuneration and ideas for tricking out a PC.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.IME, it's about damage. I doubt any PC IMC could stand three rounds against any boss monster that gets thrown at us, but other than the occasional healing hex we don't heal in combat. We just kill the thing fast, usually through damage, but sometimes through Ice Tomb (whatever the spell is actually called). Needless to say, we often end up with single-digit hit points by the end of a battle, and then break out the Wands of Cure Light Wounds and Goodberries.
The game is balanced around a certain expectation about the challenge of encounters. If you have only a round or three between encounters then that 2nd encounter is really part of the first for balancing issues. Which means that unless you really like forcing PCs to face APL+4 or higher encounters every encounter than this style might be overly punishing, and actually push some groups to alpha strike even harder so they don't need to heal at all (yes I've actually seen this happen).
I've GMed for groups that could wipe out 7-8 encounters a day without breaking a sweat, but a 9th encounter would just kill them. Even then that many encounters of any reasonable difficulty would be hard on even a defensively oriented traditional w/healbot group. In fact the offensively oriented party actually has better staying power than a in combat healing group, as in combat healing is inefficient in terms of both actions and resource use.
You don't really need a cleric. But having one wouldn't hurt. The cleric can be another source of buffs and control. They can channel energy (negative energy ftw, but positive energy doesn't hurt (see what I did there???)) But yeah you already have a pretty decent make up so far. And don't forget that you have other classes that can heal ability damage and nasty things.
If you end up in that bad of condition after a fight, especially a planned one like fighting the big cheese, then obviously you are creating glass cannons.Or you are getting hit with extra hard fights because the GM doesn't like the way you're playing.
(Toz, lemme ask you, what in your mind is the difference between a bunch of the enemy who doesn't know you are coming, and a bunch of the enemy that DOES know you are coming?)
Not quite. I go by ECL. That means I stick to encounters that are close to or exactly on your character level in difficulty. I just use them effectively. I run bad guys, the kind that really are villainous and DO kick you when you are down, run away when it makes sense, regroup with the rest of the enemy, and return to pound the crap out of the PC's. If my villains can kill a PC, they *will do so*.
This isn't a cheesy videogame, where you are always expected to win without a struggle. This is grim and gritty, where villains really are horrible and effective people. If I am in doubt as to how likely they'd come up with a good tactical plan, I roll an intelligence check.
If I run encounters from a premade module, I run them the way they are supposed to, targeting the types of PC's they are assigned to. If they are nonintelligent or just plain stupid, they mindlessly attack the last guy to hurt them or the most convenient target.
I basically know my tacticals, and I am not afraid to use them. That means my players plan for the worst to happen in a fight, and know darned well I will use any weakness against them.
You show me a glass cannon, and I will show you one dead PC. Worse, I'll do it fairly, with level appropriate encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
COME WITH ME IF YOU AM WANTING TO LIVE.
|
@ TOZ, in your opinion, how would you rate our groups healing in/out of combat?
Having played a Fighter, a Paladin, and 2 Clerics with you as both GM and another player, and a variety of play styles, encounter builds, and sometimes levels, what do you think about our group in relation to encounters per day and ECL?
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.
Yeah, the only time I've ever done pregens was like last week one of our players couldn't make it to the game, so instead of playing without him, the rest of us played Paizo's "We Be Goblins!" adventure and just used the pregen goblin characters in the back. Since it's a single night's adventure to finish it and it's done, there was no reason to waste time making our own goblins. However, had it been an actual campaign, yeah.
SOMETIMES I might make a character for a new player, if they specifically want to jump right in and learn character creation after they learn how the game works, but other than that... save for one-shots I don't do pregens.
|
GM really needs to be aware of the potential mismatch between incorporeal encounters and the cleric-less party and give them opportunities to avoid them. There have been a couple of warnings about it in this thread, but the thread itself has been primarily about healing.
There is another thread going right now that is a bit of a horror story on the theme.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I would ask each person if they want to make their own character or play one you made. Some brand new players prefer pregens. In general I prefer pregens for brand new players. I just make a stack and let everybody pick what sounds interesting. Learning how to play is usually enough to manage without also having to learn how to build.
I also wouldn't worry about optimal party composition and class roles and whatnot. That is 200 level stuff. Focus on Gaming 101 level stuff.
Also, you're the GM. They don't need a cleric unless the adventure you throw at them makes them need a cleric.
tl;dr Don't sweat the experienced group stuff with a group of first-timers, just keep it simple and easy.
Also, you're the GM. They don't need a cleric unless the adventure you throw at them makes them need a cleric.
Yeah its not like anything stops the GM from handing out a use activated Widget of Heal or convenient chests full of healing items, or protective amulets. For free.
WBL and item creation costs are guides and tools not requirements.
Skimming through many of the posts I am surprised no one advised to do the "gestalt" thing where players have two classes at once. It might save you from the headache of each player having to maintain 2 characters at once during combat.
Not familiar with that one... care to elaborate?
Odd choice for a Pally. Most want that flanking bonus, and up Str so they can wear heavy armor.
Well, my wife is more of a stay-back-&-support kind of person, so I thought this might appeal to her. Ironically, I just talked with her about it today, & she said she expected the pally to be more of a front-line combatant - so I'll have to think on it a bit more. We really could use another front-liner though, IMO. Maybe the cleric or bard could do something with ranged atacks instead....
I would ask each person if they want to make their own character or play one you made. Some brand new players prefer pregens. In general I prefer pregens for brand new players. I just make a stack and let everybody pick what sounds interesting. Learning how to play is usually enough to manage without also having to learn how to build.
I also wouldn't worry about optimal party composition and class roles and whatnot. That is 200 level stuff. Focus on Gaming 101 level stuff.
Also, you're the GM. They don't need a cleric unless the adventure you throw at them makes them need a cleric.
tl;dr Don't sweat the experienced group stuff with a group of first-timers, just keep it simple and easy.
A couple of points:
EVERYONE agreed to try my idea of pregens, & are interested/curious in the idea to see how it plays out. So the whole debate about pregens vs player-created pc's is a moot point. I AM MAKING THE CHARACTERS. I don't wish to be harsh about it, but it's not the point of the topic.
Second, with the exception of the 9yr old, my wife & oldest son are NOT 1st-timers. Both are reasonably experienced gamers. As for the 9yr old, he's in my other, expanded campaign & he has yet to do anything you would associate with a 1st time 9yr old player. He likes chess & strategy-based computer games, & is willing to listen to the older players for advice/suggestions - which I allow more of given his age. He's actually done some pretty clever things in that game, so I'm not overly worried about him in this one.
Although I don't beat up on the group very hard, they do take their lumps, & they can die if the circumstances warrant it. As much as I like the idea of a paladin & an inquisitor, I keep getting the gut feeling that a clericis probably a good idea, even if it's not 'necessary' in the strictest sense. I am just looking for additional input on that subject, which you all have been very informative on (thank you again!).
Here you are.
(saving the link in My Favorites folder)
Thanks! It looks interesting, but also like more than I want to get into right now. Maybe in a future campaign.....
I think that a cleric is a very cool pg and if u have one in your group it will be very useful. it's not necessary, that's for sure, but clerics are good in a lot of jobs and can be customized for almost everything. I your guys prefer a melee focused what about an Holy Warrior? :) have a nice play :)
If you think the party will need a cleric, make a party cleric suited for the group. I belive this is a party of 6 with only 3 people playing 2 characters if I remember correctly. You as a gm can also play a character just for fun. But that's up to you. You could have 3 characters and have them make a party cleric. Everyone gets to play this cleric each combat or Once a session. Is it really important for there being 2 characters for each player? Especially if you have a few new players at the table. Seems over kill.
EDIT: I suggested a party cleric because that can help with teaching the new players with only 2 classes, but not all at once. Can have the experience player help pick spells with the newbs and explain how the cleric works and what not. Learn positioning, when to channel, learn to ready a heal and all the other good stuff.
My two cents for original poster:
1) A Cleric/Druid isn't too necessary if you keep them supplied with healing via treasure (I.e., Potions and Wands, etc.) Especially if...
2) ...you don't worry too much about the things like encumbrance or other rules I refer to as "background" rules. If you've played, you know the ones I'm talking about. You are getting the next generation, but take your time to ease them in. Nothing can run off a young gamer like realizing your pastime is almost like Math and English homework, with a pinch of Drama thrown in.
Also, Have you considered the Starter Box Set?
My two cents for original poster:
...you don't worry too much about the things like encumbrance or other rules I refer to as "background" rules. If you've played, you know the ones I'm talking about. You are getting the next generation, but take your time to ease them in. Nothing can run off a young gamer like realizing your pastime is almost like Math and English homework, with a pinch of Drama thrown in.
Yeah, I've never been one to obsess over the numbers (my friend's game gives me enough of that), so things like encumbrance, movement & such are generally fluid for me... "Am I close enough to the monster to hit it with my bow?" (I consider the situation for a minute - NO math or measurements involved)"Sure, you're close enough." or "No, but you can get in range for next round with your movement this round." As long as you try to be fair about it, I've never had any complaints. Also, if a player disagrees, I'll listen to their reason, & if it's good, I'm not above changing my decision.
Also, Have you considered the Starter Box Set?
We're already pretty well-stocked on materials: CoreBook, APG, UM, ARG, all 3 Bestiaries, GMHB, ISWG & some player companions, so no. The family currently plays in 2 other campaigns with various family/friends. This game is just for the times when the other games don't fit our schedules. :)
If you think the party will need a cleric, make a party cleric suited for the group. I belive this is a party of 6 with only 3 people playing 2 characters if I remember correctly. You as a gm can also play a character just for fun. But that's up to you. You could have 3 characters and have them make a party cleric. Everyone gets to play this cleric each combat or Once a session. Is it really important for there being 2 characters for each player? Especially if you have a few new players at the table. Seems over kill.
EDIT: I suggested a party cleric because that can help with teaching the new players with only 2 classes, but not all at once. Can have the experience player help pick spells with the newbs and explain how the cleric works and what not. Learn positioning, when to channel, learn to ready a heal and all the other good stuff.
I suggested having them each run just 1 pc, & I could run a cleric as a healbot/party buffer npc, but they unanimously wanted to play 2 characters each....