Something came to my attention after our PF session last night, that I would like to get some input on. We are all between 4th-5th level.
We have 5 players, 3 of whom are rolling up new characters(2 died, and I'm just bored with what I'm currently playing). I haven't made my new character yet, but the other 2 players already have.
What came to my attention, was that after looking over our party roster, we now have no divine spellcasters whatsoever, aside from a 5th level Ranger. One of the PC's that died recently was an Inquisitor, which had been shouldering the healing duties of the party up to that point. Our party now consists of:
A Wizard
A Ranger(archery-focused)
A Barbarian
A Witch
Me: ?????
So, since I am the last one making a new character, am I obligated to roll up the divine spellcaster of the group? Be it a Cleric, Druid, whatever, would I be a jerk if I didn't roll up healing support?
I'll be honest, I had been pondering making a new character for a while, and our DM even allowed me to use 3.5 material(which I was giddy as **** about, if anyone know my issues with PF). I've been combing over my old material the past few days for ideas, and really, being a divine spellcaster was very low on my idea list.
But now, I feel like my ideas have to be put on hold so I can play a nanny character to the group; make sure everybody's fed(Create Food and Water), patch up their boo-boos(Cure spells), make sure they're properly outfitted(buff spells).
I realize divine spellcasters are much more than healbots, but if I make a one, that's all I'm going to be good for to the team. We already have a strong melee, ranged, and 2 arcane spellcasters, so all that's left is divine cleanup duty.
It seems like every other character I roll up is a healer, and frankly, I'm a little tired of it. I'm not saying it should necessarily be someone's else's problem, but I've shouldered the burden of being healbot more than a few times. I've tried making non-traditional clerics, but they always come up short; Mystic Theurges/multiclassed, War-domain battle clerics, etc.
Does anyone have any ideas on how the party can manage healing and support, without one of us being relegated to being a healbot?
Depends, what do you WANT to play?
You can probably get away with playing a partial divine caster. A paladin maybe, or an inquisitor. Or heck even a battle oracle. Something that has healing if you need it, but isn't dedicated. Then see if you can't get your Witch friend to take the Healing hex.
Then invest in wands of CLW.
Just make the realization that the more spellcasting/crowd control/buffing you have the less healing you'll NEED and pack spells accordingly. In the right setting a Heavens oracle can be devastating, and end the battle before it begins.
Learn Craft Wand. Craft lots of cheap Cure Wands. Keep your spells for something else.
Maybe go Channel Smite + Power Attack or invest in becoming a Summoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Play what you want to play. If (when) someone dies from a lack of healing, let them generate a cleric. Your players obviously aren't broken up by dying, so take it as a play point. If no one ever wants to play a cleric, you'll get real good at doing without. And you'll be awesome Call of Cthulhu players; "Bob, you're dead again, but you roleplayed it MAGNIFICENTLY!"
|
Healing hitpoints is pretty trivial, it's the cleric's ability to remove/prevent debilitating status effects that truly make it and encounter destroying badass. Craft Wand/Scroll are two pretty solid feats. Though make sure your party is actually contributing to the scrolls of restoration/deathward/w/e that you are casting on them as well.
Also because most of your support spells aren't really dc based you can still afford to be whatever kind of cleric you want usually, though channeling generally suffers a bit if you want to be a combat cleric.
If your party is already good on damage it's surprisingly fun and gratifying to play a well built support cleric. My personal favorite is restoration/heroism, but there are so many amazing combos like luck/travel etc...
I wouldn't feel obligated by any means there's usually just the alternative of buying consumables at market price/finding them as loot. Which works out perfectly fine unless it's a low magic setting. Though healing being rather hard to come by fits the theme of said settings quite nice.
A party doesn't need a healer and yours already has two. Don't play a divine caster unless that's at the top of your list.
|
I say speak with the group and the GM and make sure they are cool with it. Maybe you can get Wands of CLW for the Ranger to use or maybe your GM will adjust the scenarios to that magical healing is not so essential (my preferred option). If none of those work see if your GM will use Reserve Points from 3.5 Unearthed Arcana (and completely OGC so available for free).
Thanks for the help everyone! I'm truthfully not that familiar with what a Witch can and can't cast, so I was unaware they even got Cure spells.
The DM did at one point, mention to one of the other players rolling a new character, that "I think Josh is making a melee-guy, so I think the party has that covered..." So at least the DM is open to me not making a healer.
Wands for everyone!
Just to echo everyone else - play what you want. If you really feel the need to be the healer, go for it, but you're under no obligation to do so.
Since you're feeling the need to ask this, I would suggest spending some of your new character's starting wealth on a wand of CLW for the party, even if your character can't use it himself. Just hand it off to the witch or the ranger, and let them be the healer. That will show you're thinking about the issue, without constraining your choices.
Well there's a healing hex too. At high levels, with the cost of 2 hex choices, the witch could cast Cure Critical and Cure Moderate each once a day on every player. At 10th level that's a decent amount of healing. And, again, combined with wands and probably one other player capable of casting cures (even a Bard!) you'll be fine.
Your party isn't too far gone that it can't be finessed so that you don't have to play a healbot. Pursue other options.
Ever since playing a full support cleric, I've seen that a cleric's strength is not in healing, but in buffing party members to the point where healing will not be required. Ok, that is a stretch, but my point remains. Clerics are great supports, and are sub-optimal if taken as healbots.
I guess the bigger problem of your group is ability damage/drain (Restoration spells). Witches/Rangers/Bards can't do that, Clerics/Oracles/Inquisitors/Alchemists/Paladins can (Druids only get Lesser Restoration, that's not enough, imho).
But this also depends on your DM and whether you fight undead and similar monsters on a regular basis.
One question would be how good your wizard is with crowd controllig to hinder your enemies and ease up combat. Witches are good at this by default unless the player screwed around/up.
So, melee, right?
If you wanted to be roguish, you could make a Vivisectionist (Alchemist). This would also allow you to craft the potions your group might need, but that requires your DM to give you time between adventures to craft (deadlines are bad for this).
I love Inquisitors myself, what about you?
Paladin could rock, too (I don't like the alignment restriction, personally).
Also Oracles kick butt, but they might be too close to Clerics for your liking, but it's really a matter of writing a good background (why would a Dark Tapestry Oracle take healing spells?) to explain your choices.
The bigger question is: do you risk being pressured by your group into becoming the heal-bot? Can you resist the needs of your group for a healer, if you play an oracle/inquisitor (and not pick the cure spells as your known spells)?
Do you think you can agree with your Witch to split healing amongst her (HP) and you (ability)?
Inquisitors are great, I've played 2 in the past 6 months. Kind of been down that road a few times.
Ability Damage/Drain is going to be a big problem. We've already had several encounters with things that dealt those to us.
Back in 3.5, everyone just wore Healing belts and took care of their own HP. We've had multiple parties with no actual healer, and got along alright, so long as we could get to a temple in a town somewhere when Ability Drain and Damage happened. Currently, we're kind of in the middle of nowhere, so if someone got drained badly, we'd be up the creek.
If you could play what you want (everything covered), what would you WANT to play? :-)
Apparently you wanted melee. I guess you don't want to be a second Barbarian or Ranger? Barbarian&Ranger + Fighter sounds redundant/boring too. So what did you have in mind, before you knew what the others chose to play?
I think you have an obligation as a capable player of helping smooth out the various roles in the party, but I don't think healing is so necessary if your DM if fine with having wands of CLW around. That being said, I don't believe you have any obligation to do something you don't want to do. If you'd enjoy playing some variation of a divine caster that could help close the gap in the party's abilities, that's great!
As far as healing goes with the addition of channeling to clerics and oracles of life for the occasional in-combat healing, your party is not likely to go wanting for healing if you do end up playing either.
As for my 2 cents about an interesting character idea that can be a lot of fun to play a dual cursed oracle of Life has some fantastic support capabilities, such as the misfortune mystery which in actuality allows you to "force" all of your allies to reroll a terrible roll in a critical moment once per day, while getting access some of my favorite low levels pathfinder spells such as Ill Omen as a 1st level mystery spell, and Embrace Destiny as a 1st level spell. If you can grab some nice 3.5 spells to an oracle's casting list, you could make a very flavorful but powerful support caster. The spontaneous casting lets all of your spells be possible cures, restoration line, and later even breath of life.
I'm currently playing a gestalt homebrew game with a halfling oracle of life/luck inquisitor who has the helpful trait with bodyguard and combat reflexes and the character is a blast to play.
I agree play what you want.
But I would make the suggestion of consider a negative channeling cleric. Definitely not a heal bot since can't channel to heal or spontaneously convert to healing. So you won't be stuck as a traveling band aid.
But spell list still has all those cure spells and more importantly the status removal spells on the list. So when needed they can be prepared for the down time or the party can purchase wands and scrolls for you to use on the others as needed.
I'm just not feeling the Oracle. I don't "get" that class. I've read it over a few times, but it's gimmick just isn't jiving with me for some reason. Same with Alchemist, Gunslinger, etc.
Inquisitors are cool, but I've already played several recently. Given the party's roster, I feel like I'll wind up on healing detail anyway(like they sort of did to the previous Inquisitor, the one rolling a Witch now).
I've been in this situation in the past, and I am fond of War-domain themed battle Clerics, so I might just cave and make one of those. That way, I can at least pretend to be a Fighter in combat, and tend to wounds and ability damage between encounters.
I don't mind building a character with the party's needs in mind, and trying to balance it with my personal interests in mind as well. I think that's a big part of my problem; I get to worried about what the group needs, and I put my own interests secondary, all the time. I try to cover too many bases and wind up with a whole lot of "meh." Some of the players in this party might be sort of used to me "taking one for the team" and just expect me to do it.
The problem I have noticed with some groups is, they get used to somebody taking up the heavy healing duty and thus don't use tactics and don't bother not getting hit because "that guy will patch them up". It's hard to get these people to change their combat habits.
I find that _not_ picking a heavy-duty healer forces them to adapt after biting dirt a few times. It is totally possible to play without a healer, but your group must be willing to try new ways, instead of forcing one guy into healing duty.
Now the question is, if you are willing force the issue instead of giving into the heavy-healer role...
becuase honestly, I've seen quite a few battle-clerics end up only healing during entire encounters because the frontliners didn't bother with their defense. The cleric could have done better things... but the frontliner was whining about healing every round and the cleric ended up doing nothing but healing. As a different class you can actually say: uh sorry, ran out of healing. A cleric has channeling and spontaneous conversion... when you are out of healing, you are out of everything.
What is bothering you about alchemists? TBH a Vivisectionist is a sneak-attacker (no bombs) with some spells, the ability to do potions/poisons and a special potion (mutagen) that turns him into Hulk... :-)
Another possibility would be to swarm the battlefield with summons... Summoners and Conjuration Wizards are good at this and it would take the pressure from your party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... I get to worried about what the group needs, and I put my own interests secondary, all the time. ... Some of the players in this party might be sort of used to me "taking one for the team" and just expect me to do it.
In that case, I most especially would not build anything capable of healing. Letting them take you for granted does not help anyone (but especially not you). I would show up with something like a trip focused whip magus. Use a wand of true strike with spell combat and wand mastery to trip nearly anything. Have some melee capability for when there is nothing to trip.
"Well guys since no one is playing a healer, I guess we will have to play smarter and plan for how to deal with that. First, I would suggest the party as a whole invest in some wands of CLW and lesser restoration. Second, we better do some planning rather than just leading with our chin every time. Third, maybe we should actually try to talk our way out of a few fights rather than always drawing blood. Fourth, ..."
The problem I have noticed with some groups is, they get used to somebody taking up the heavy healing duty and thus don't use tactics and don't bother not getting hit because "that guy will patch them up". It's hard to get these people to change their combat habits.
I find that _not_ picking a heavy-duty healer forces them to adapt after biting dirt a few times. It is totally possible to play without a healer, but your group must be willing to try new ways, instead of forcing one guy into healing duty.
Now the question is, if you are willing force the issue instead of giving into the heavy-healer role...
becuase honestly, I've seen quite a few battle-clerics end up only healing during entire encounters because the frontliners didn't bother with their defense. The cleric could have done better things... but the frontliner was whining about healing every round and the cleric ended up doing nothing but healing. As a different class you can actually say: uh sorry, ran out of healing. A cleric has channeling and spontaneous conversion... when you are out of healing, you are out of everything.
Good points. The party barbarian has a tendency to just go all-out and get beat up on pretty bad. Loot has been pretty sparse, but better defense would make for less need of healing.
What is bothering you about alchemists? TBH a Vivisectionist is a sneak-attacker (no bombs) with some spells, the ability to do potions/poisons and a special potion (mutagen) that turns him into Hulk... :-)Another possibility would be to swarm the battlefield with summons... Summoners and Conjuration Wizards are good at this and it would take the pressure from your party.
Alchemists don't bother me, they're just not my thing. Same with most of PF's "new" classes; I just don't dig most of them(Inquisitor and Magus withstanding). They're fine for players who are into that sort of thing, but I'm just not feeling them.
... I get to worried about what the group needs, and I put my own interests secondary, all the time. ... Some of the players in this party might be sort of used to me "taking one for the team" and just expect me to do it.In that case, I most especially would not build anything capable of healing. Letting them take you for granted does not help anyone (but especially not you). I would show up with something like a trip focused whip magus. Use a wand of true strike with spell combat and wand mastery to trip nearly anything. Have some melee capability for when there is nothing to trip.
"Well guys since no one is playing a healer, I guess we will have to play smarter and plan for how to deal with that. First, I would suggest the party as a whole invest in some wands of CLW and lesser restoration. Second, we better do some planning rather than just leading with our chin every time. Third, maybe we should actually try to talk our way out of a few fights rather than always drawing blood. Fourth, ..."
Right on. This has me thinking a lot.
... Right on. This has me thinking a lot.
I had to do some of this for one of the groups I'm in not too long ago. Since I had a life oracle (built as undead blaster) a couple of guys were just being incredibly stupid and relying on the fact that I could bring them back to full HP in a round.
They were neglecting defensive items aonly only spending money on offensive items.Not only were they not buying any healing stuff, they were actually selling healing items that they found since 'the oracle can take care of it.'
Then one of them actually started bragging about how much better his magus was than my oracle. I had enough.
After a few fights where they dropped and I just stabilized them and kept blasting the bad guys. (I was doing more damage to the undead horde than both of them together.) There was quite a bit of grumbling and whining. But they started paying for defensive and healing items and playing smarter.
The group as a whole is doing much better now. I admit that real life gaming time per encounter has gone up a bit since we have to slow down, talk, plan, strategize, etc... for the significant fights. Charge and roll dice was quicker as far as RL time is concerned.
Ideally, nobody would be forced, or even encouraged, to play a particular class/fulfill a particular party role regardless of what anybody else is playing.
|
|
Have fun. Play what you want.
If the party really needs a healer, maybe the GM will let the party hire an NPC Cleric or Oracle.
If your GM allows the Leadership feat, then once you hit 7th level maybe he'll let one of the players have a healing cohort.
It's not your problem. Don't let your fellow players make it your problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Play what you want. Just remember to cheerfully accept any consequences of the choices you make. And that applies to everybody sitting at the table. If the group leaves some important roles unfilled, someone will either have to fill them or you will continue to suffer whatever consequences ensue from having it unfilled.
A character with good UMD who can use a scroll of Restoration might be all your group needs. A charisma-focused class like sorcerer, bard, paladin or ninja would work well.
What was the old character that you got bored of did you say?
Archery Ranger, actually. The one I listed in the OP is actually one of the other players now, making their own(since I announced I wanted to make something else).
Ranger is one of my all time favorite classes, but this AP is really not Ranger-friendly; all I get to do is stand there and shoot arrows. No time or chances to track, scout, doing anything "naturey," nadda. So, I got really bored and want to do something else.
1. Ask your DM for an NPC healbot, possibly salaried if your DM is squeamish about NPCs. Call it a hireling, a cohort, a fellow adventurer with a wallflower personality, or whatever. Buy him a few wands of CLW for out of combat healing.
2. Alternatively just make whatever kind of character you want to make, and if PCs end up dropping like flies, well sooner or later someone's going to roll up a replacement PC capable of healing.
|
|
Naw. I mean, if it really is that much of a problem, maybe...but, think on this. Both the ranger AND the witch (assuming the ranger isn't some archetype) have access to CLW on their spell lists, so they can use wands without having to make skill checks. So, buy some wands for your two buddies and, I dunno, if you're really concerned with lacking a healer, play a clas with a high UMD yourself so that you can chip in with wands and scrolls. You shouldn't have to play any class you don't want to play, and there are plenty of ways to improvise a way of solving a class deficiency without sacrificing your fun. Wands, potions, and scrolls exist with good reason, and a great deal of classes have minor healing.
In addition, you could always play a conjurer or abjurer. Make it so that your enemies are too concerned with fighting summoned minions, or buff your party's AC to high heaven, so that you never HAVE to heal.
|
Erm....well if your allowed access to 3.5 stuff and have an eye towards optimization there isn't really any reason not to be a Cleric. Especially since Pathfinder gives the class a few nice abilities.
Grab all that overpowered garbage from Complete Divine and completely outshine everyone while also somehow healing and buffing them too.
Erm....well if your allowed access to 3.5 stuff and have an eye towards optimization there isn't really any reason not to be a Cleric. Especially since Pathfinder gives the class a few nice abilities.
Grab all that overpowered garbage from Complete Divine and completely outshine everyone while also somehow healing and buffing them too.
Optimization is extremely low on my priority list. I could whip up a game-breaking combo in 5 minutes that would have my DM crying. I constantly go out of my way to not over-optimize, and my builds still come off as a little "too good" to some of my tablemates.
I'm all about flavor and fun. I've wrecked campaigns with accidentally OP'ed cheese builds, and it's not something I ever want to do again. I've even done it with some of the weakest classes around, just to prove a point, which simply netted me a reputation of "better watch him, he knows stuff..."
So yeah, I'm digging myself out of a massive creative rut, and I want flavor and fun above all else.
I'm actually working on a mechanical "Walking arsenal/steam-powered cyborg" half-golem, using PF's Advanced Race Guide. I want to take Totemist levels(Magic of Incarnum), and reskin the flavor of the class so that instead of Magical Beast soulmelds, the soulmelds manifest as mechanical weapons and attachments that fold out of my character's chassis like a Transformer. It's still in the concept phase, so it might get dumped.
First of all, I agree with the majority here, play what you like. Well, yes, there comes a time where no-one wants the play the healer, etc and thus the group has to have a agreement on who will do so. If you then agree- yes, you have to.
It depends on your group on whether or not you need one. Mainstream campaigns will need quite a bit of in-combat healing. This can’t be done by wands of CLW. However, not all tables are mainstream. Maybe yours in a high Optimized rocket tag group where combats only last three rounds, tops. Or you’re part of a group that treat PC’s as “toons’ and once one dies just brings in a new one from a stack.
But even if you are one of those, you will likely need condition removal, such as Blindness and Restoration. A Divine caster can do some pretty decent combat. Finally, other than a bard there’s no better buffer than a divine caster, and buffing the part so that less healing is needed is THE way to go.
You know, I have heard many times that idea that healers are just enablers for the guys who want to charge in. This is not so. Those guys will charge in anyway, then you won’t have them for the next combat. Or, if you have real jerks like Kydeem talks about, sitting down and talking to them like adults is way better than being passive-aggressive.
Wands of CLW and such are fine, but they are a constant drain on the parties funds and WBL. One you realize you have substandard gear due to the fact you have been spending all your cash on expendable items, you’ll realize this is a bad road.
Based upon what you have said, I suggest a Hospitaler paladin (or a “Oradin”, Google it) with a couple of Channel feats. Great heavy tank who heals himself with swift actions and heals the party with a move action. But honestly, you will regret not having a cleric.
Good points Dr. D.
*sigh*
I haven’t had time to read everything on here but I can tell you if you don’t like the heal bot feel of 3.5 cleric , the pathfinder version can be be a ton of fun and you can always tell your party im not that of cleric!!
An idea I have been toying with is to play a level 1 cleric and pick channel negative energy.
Then play as a neutral cleric worshiping a neutral deity.
Im probably thinking of a half elf, as they can add 1/3 of a +1 to heals and damage for the favored class option.
Take selective channel and then at 3rd versatile channel ( allows you to do the negative or positive, the one you don’t pick at 1st level cleric at cleric level -2) so you will do 2d6 damage +1 and heal 1d6 +1 at lvl 3. At 5ht you are doing 3d6+1 and 2d6+1 .
This leaves your spells to be open to what every you want them to do.
Also if you find combat cleric is more to your liking you can take the holy vindicator and get a better base attack and keep your channeling healing abilities growing as you level.
The other just doing damage idea I have been playing around with is lvl1 cleric, and then take inquisitor with the channel scourge feat. ( feat that allows inquisitor levels to count as cleric levels when you use channel to do damage). Healing others would be tough with a build like this but your get to play a priest type class with some access to needed healing spells but in combats you aren’t mitigated to being the party healbot .
As my magus says in one of the games I play in, Im not that type of Mage!! No reason you cant just state Im not that type of Priest!!
Anyway just my 2 cooper , as I once hated to play the cleric in the group but since switching from 3.5 to pathfinder I almost always look to playing a divine class, cheers!
|
|
Seriously though Josh M. Just feel free to make what you like. It's the party's responsibility to change the play style if they are lacking in something and the GM's responsibility to not weigh too heavily against them for that as far as responsibility.
You don't "need" a divine character at a table. You've got a Witch already that can easily activate certain curative wands and scrolls. Make what you like and make sure your group plays smart and you should be fine.
Make friends with the priests in town of course just to be safe. ;)
I know it was suggested above, but I'd also say go for a hospitaler paladin if you want to be a different kind of healer, maybe add in the Divine Defender archetype with it as they can be combined. If you do that (since barbarians are usually glass cannons), then you can fill the roles of healer and tank at the same time and most of the time you are the one getting hit most often so the divine defender part will come in super handy. You'd be a pretty hard PC to kill.
Oh another archetype that would fit with those other two is the Warrior of the Holy Light. They give up spells, but can do more with their LoH and grant allies and themselves a bit more defense.
I haven’t had time to read everything on here but I can tell you if you don’t like the heal bot feel of 3.5 cleric , the pathfinder version can be be a ton of fun and you can always tell your party im not that of cleric!!
An idea I have been toying with is to play a level 1 cleric and pick channel negative energy.
Then play as a neutral cleric worshiping a neutral deity.
Im probably thinking of a half elf, as they can add 1/3 of a +1 to heals and damage for the favored class option.
Take selective channel and then at 3rd versatile channel ( allows you to do the negative or positive, the one you don’t pick at 1st level cleric at cleric level -2) so you will do 2d6 damage +1 and heal 1d6 +1 at lvl 3. At 5ht you are doing 3d6+1 and 2d6+1 .
This leaves your spells to be open to what every you want them to do.
Also if you find combat cleric is more to your liking you can take the holy vindicator and get a better base attack and keep your channeling healing abilities growing as you level.
The other just doing damage idea I have been playing around with is lvl1 cleric, and then take inquisitor with the channel scourge feat. ( feat that allows inquisitor levels to count as cleric levels when you use channel to do damage). Healing others would be tough with a build like this but your get to play a priest type class with some access to needed healing spells but in combats you aren’t mitigated to being the party healbot .
As my magus says in one of the games I play in, Im not that type of Mage!! No reason you cant just state Im not that type of Priest!!
Anyway just my 2 cooper , as I once hated to play the cleric in the group but since switching from 3.5 to pathfinder I almost always look to playing a divine class, cheers!
I've played the "not that kind of Cleric" type before, and it works fine, until we come across something that beats the party down really bad. Then, everyone at the table is looking to me(i.e. The Cleric) for help, and all I can do is shrug my shoulders and say "sorry guys, I'm not that type of Cleric." I've done this before, and I've seen the rest of the table cringe and groan, just before the ensuing TPK.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that 3.5's Cleric was a healbot, for as far as that goes, PF's Cleric is much more healing-focused, having Channel Energy instead of Turn Undead and all. A lot of PF's Cleric's non-healing toys have been nerfed, so really, the best thing it can do is heal. 3.5's Cleric had a gazillion different options, with Feats allowing you to trade Turn Undead attempts for other uses.
I'm halfway done working on the Half-Golem concept I mentioned upthread. I'm going to finish that character up, and roll up a Cleric. I'll bring both characters to the next gaming session, and if my Half-Golem is met with groans and whines, I'll use the Cleric.
No, you are not obligated. If they didn't feel obligated to talk it over while all of you were making characters, you certainly have no obligation to play something you don't enjoy to fill the hole their selfishness left.
Someone might want to invest in UMD and the group as a whole may want to invest in wands of CLW though, for out of combat topping off. :)
Just wanted to give an update. A new player joined the group and made a Cleric! Apparently she likes playing healer/support. Color me celebrating!
I got to play my half-golem Incarnate 3/Totemist 2 last night, and it rocked. Built like a tank. I'm super excited to be playing this character, and feel very invested in play again.