Pathfinder 2E Healing issues, and multiclassing in 2e?

[Velderan]

You might consider providing the Free Archetype option; it doesn't overly boost the linear capability of characters, but would allow someone to go off into the Medic Archetype or maybe one of the magical healer ones without hosing down their core competency.

That's a good option if no one wants to switch and is better than making someone play something they're unhappy playing IMO.

 

[Kaodi]

The inventor could also take searing restoration at level 2 which would give them healing of a similar sort as the champion without likely significantly changing their character concept.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The inventor could also take searing restoration at level 2 which would give them healing of a similar sort as the champion without likely significantly changing their character concept.

That said, being dependent on a Champion for all your healing is not liable to work well unless they also invest in some Medicine feats and the skill. The magical healing they get is occasionally useful, but its not going to prop a party up.

 

[Kichwas]

Everyone wants the inventor to change.

I actually managed to convince the rogue not to be a gunslinger, which I'm thankful he changed, but the inventor isn't so willing. Early on we started making characters under the assumption we'd just multiclass later to fill in the gaps, two people planned to hop on a few levels of cleric. but now I'm not so sure how to do that.

It probably would have been better the other way around - having the rogue stay with Gunslinger and then vetoing the Inventor.

Gunslinger and Inventor are 'uncommon' so if your campaign takes place outside of major trade routes you can easily justify not allowing them. Technically you can justify not allowing them anywhere but that starts to get annoying. Between them - the Gunslinger is going to be a lot less headaches to have in play. Though if the player goes for a big slow gun with either kickback or splash damage - I've seen those be extremely ineffective.

You've got a party of 5 that lacks both in combat healing. With one player making it to Medicine with Assurance, and the Paladin's Lay on Hands you'd have out of combat healing covered. But with no in combat healing things will always be rough.

With no Fighter you also lack someone who can make it harder for enemy's to move around, so enemies can and should run all over the map brutally hitting the PCs, flanking them, tripping them, shoving them, grappling them, and more. And if you do that - multiple PCs will take heavy hits every fight. Not only is it perfectly easy for a moderate challenge enemy to one-shot your wizard - they can run right past all of your group's other PCs, do it, then run back out on their third action...

So you've actually got more issues here than just no combat healing. Groups can handle having no fighter or no cleric (or other healer), but lacking both means you will either have to play with kid gloves or TPK them a few times.

 

[ZebraDruid]

Did you do a Session 0 to figure out the role the characters are going to play in the group? Do the backstories connect at all to the campaign and the other players? If not, I'd really suggest you back up and give all the players the opportunity to make characters with the goal of synergy.

I did yeah, two of them assumed they could do a full multiclass at some point and it didn't really seem like an issue to not have a solid healer at level 1, but it seems that isn't the case.

As an example, let's say you have a 7th level character with Dex 14 and Trained Thievery. Assuming regular gear, they will have a Thievery bonus of +11. A typical level 7 trap has a Disable DC of 27, so the character needs to roll a 16+ to succeed. Oh wait, no they don't, because you don't even get to try unless you're an Expert. And I mean sure, you can retry, but it's still to the point where you wonder why you even bothered investing a rank in Thievery.

I'm not sure how they're going to work around it without a rogue or other character dedicated into it. They did a low level dungeon and were still getting wrecked by traps and blocked by locks.

You might consider providing the Free Archetype option; it doesn't overly boost the linear capability of characters, but would allow someone to go off into the Medic Archetype or maybe one of the magical healer ones without hosing down their core competency.

That is an idea, I sort of am looking at a similar thing.

With no Fighter you also lack someone who can make it harder for enemy's to move around, so enemies can and should run all over the map brutally hitting the PCs, flanking them, tripping them, shoving them, grappling them, and more. And if you do that - multiple PCs will take heavy hits every fight. Not only is it perfectly easy for a moderate challenge enemy to one-shot your wizard - they can run right past all of your group's other PCs, do it, then run back out on their third action...

I thought the paladin could fill that role but I'm seeing he's a bit different. It's a little annoying that I basically need to tell at least two people they have to play either fighter or cleric. It makes some sense composition wise but not everyone is so flexible in what characters they want to play.

So you've actually got more issues here than just no combat healing. Groups can handle having no fighter or no cleric (or other healer), but lacking both means you will either have to play with kid gloves or TPK them a few times.

I don't know what to do about a TPK. I asked them what they wanted to do about character death and said they shouldn't be able to die unless it makes story sense, or they mess up badly.


I'm trying to work with the rogue to make him into a cleric that is a "shadow cleric" with a custom doctrine around stealth, and making him an assassin of sorts.

Shadow Cleric Doctrine (working title)
First Doctrine (1st): You’re trained in light armor, and you have expert proficiency in Reflex saves. You gain the rogue dedication feat, and may select a relevant skill. If your deity’s weapon is agile or finesse, you gain the Deadly Simplicity cleric feat. At 13th level, if you gain the divine defense class feature, you also gain expert proficiency in light armor.
Second Doctrine (3rd): You’re trained in martial weapons. (Might change it to 1d4 sneak attack, even though it's normally 4th level, or a free rogue feat)
Third Doctrine (7th): You gain expert proficiency with your deity’s favored weapon, simple weapons and unarmed attacks. When you critically succeed at an attack roll using your deity's favored weapon, you apply the weapon’s critical specialization effect; use your divine spell DC if necessary.

(didn't work any further until I learn the system better)

He worships Norgorber, so he can't heal until level 2, with versatile font. But it seemed the best way to get him to play cleric and still feel a bit like a rogue early on. Deadly simplicity is a little op on a short sword, making it 1d8, and getting it buffed to 2d8 with magic weapon, but he loses 1d6 sneak attack.

Some people want to switch to 1E, but It's a good deal more complicated, and they're already new to 2E. So I mostly advised against it.



Also, the Inventor didn't have enough time to play regularly (only one session per two weeks) and we're basically down to 4 players now.

 

[Retreater]

I thought the paladin could fill that role but I'm seeing he's a bit different. It's a little annoying that I basically need to tell at least two people they have to play either fighter or cleric. It makes some sense composition wise but not everyone is so flexible in what characters they want to play.

My group is doing fine with a champion (paladin) in place of a fighter, as well as a druid in place of a cleric. In fact, we have a druid, champion, rogue, and monk - not exactly the standard group. It's working fine, but we had some bumps along the way until they learned the system.
There are ways to work around the standard party composition.

 

[billd91]

Pathfinder 2e is a team game - probably even more so than most other TTRPGs. If the player isn't able to learn the character and be able to start pulling its weight for the team, it's time to tell your player "hey, look, you're being a little selfish here. Your character voice, backstory, etc., are coming at the cost of the party's chance of survival."

You know, every time I start to think I might want to give PF2 another try (currently the Tian Xia stuff coming out next year piqued my interest), something like this comes along and offers me a sharp correction.

 

[Velderan]

You know, every time I start to think I might want to give PF2 another try (currently the Tian Xia stuff coming out next year piqued my interest), something like this comes along and offers me a sharp correction.

For whatever it's worth, I don't agree with his take. The math of the game is tight enough that as a GM, you can easily run a game that isn't reliant on ideal composition without too much trouble. This page on Archives of Nethys gives an overview of how to balance an encounter.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My group is doing fine with a champion (paladin) in place of a fighter, as well as a druid in place of a cleric. In fact, we have a druid, champion, rogue, and monk - not exactly the standard group. It's working fine, but we had some bumps along the way until they learned the system.
There are ways to work around the standard party composition.

While a druid isn't quite able to optimize toward healing as a cleric, its capable of holding up that pole of support okay.

 

[Thomas Shey]

You know, every time I start to think I might want to give PF2 another try (currently the Tian Xia stuff coming out next year piqued my interest), something like this comes along and offers me a sharp correction.

If you don't want a team-focused game, its absolutely not where you want to go. That's just the reality; its based around mutual support and if you have a group where a significant portion of the characters are all doing their own thing without any care in that direction--well, let's just say the GM better get used to low-balling the encounter types.