Pathfinder 1E Options for party with no cleric
pming
Legend
Hiya.
My Curmudgeon-Grognarditis must be flaring up again...but...I honestly don't really understand the problem. I'm seeing "No cleric. Two rogues. Lots of undead being encountered". Ooooo-kaaay.... I'm still not understanding. To me, this is the same as someone saying "No rogue. Two clerics. Lots of locked doors and chests being found".
Are you saying you want to keep playing the exact same way and don't want any of the drawbacks for not having a cleric in the group? (that's the closest I could come up with). If so, my suggestion is...to alter your tactics and style of play. If you don't have someone to turn undead...try and avoid undead (or accept that it will always be dangerous). If you don't have someone to cure disease, neutralize poison, heal you up, etc...then try to avoid getting into situations that would give you those.
I'm honestly not trying to sound "flippant", but, really, if you didn't have any warrior types you'd try and avoid more fights, correct? Without having a cleric, it's the same thing...but different liability. Learn to work around it as a party. Develop and nurture friendships with NPC clerics, paladins, or other patrons that can help you if you end up in certain situations.
Anyway, how I see it, is that the players feel entitled to "not dying because of no healing/curing/turning", and that just because they have means to actually *do* those things, it shouldn't count against them...the GM should just "make it all better". I definitely don't cotton to this idea. In my campaigns, the world rolls on more or less independant of what the PC's do the vast majority of the time. If the PC's start to actually -DO- something big (re: found a new kingdom, destroy an evil goddess, bring down the Tyrant-Emporer-Dragon of the Empire of Deathbloodkill, etc.), then the world reacts appropriately. Just exploring ruins and killing a lich that hasn't been bothering anyone for the last 164 years...not so much reaction.
^_^
My Curmudgeon-Grognarditis must be flaring up again...but...I honestly don't really understand the problem. I'm seeing "No cleric. Two rogues. Lots of undead being encountered". Ooooo-kaaay.... I'm still not understanding. To me, this is the same as someone saying "No rogue. Two clerics. Lots of locked doors and chests being found".
Are you saying you want to keep playing the exact same way and don't want any of the drawbacks for not having a cleric in the group? (that's the closest I could come up with). If so, my suggestion is...to alter your tactics and style of play. If you don't have someone to turn undead...try and avoid undead (or accept that it will always be dangerous). If you don't have someone to cure disease, neutralize poison, heal you up, etc...then try to avoid getting into situations that would give you those.
I'm honestly not trying to sound "flippant", but, really, if you didn't have any warrior types you'd try and avoid more fights, correct? Without having a cleric, it's the same thing...but different liability. Learn to work around it as a party. Develop and nurture friendships with NPC clerics, paladins, or other patrons that can help you if you end up in certain situations.
Anyway, how I see it, is that the players feel entitled to "not dying because of no healing/curing/turning", and that just because they have means to actually *do* those things, it shouldn't count against them...the GM should just "make it all better". I definitely don't cotton to this idea. In my campaigns, the world rolls on more or less independant of what the PC's do the vast majority of the time. If the PC's start to actually -DO- something big (re: found a new kingdom, destroy an evil goddess, bring down the Tyrant-Emporer-Dragon of the Empire of Deathbloodkill, etc.), then the world reacts appropriately. Just exploring ruins and killing a lich that hasn't been bothering anyone for the last 164 years...not so much reaction.
^_^
Herobizkit
Adventurer
I'd just like to chime in my vote for either:
a) get the players to make a character that can heal (via class or UMD); or
b) have the players live on the edge and take their licks.
Now, on the DM side:
Unless you're only using low-level undead (skeletons and zombies), you're potentially setting players up to fail by inflicting statuses to which they have no remedy. Multi-turn paralysis, temporary strength drain, and debilitating curses are just some of the ways you can semi- to permanently cripple characters who choose to face off unprepared against undead.
Regarding your NPC cleric, the easiest solution is to have said NPC set up a church/temple/shrine to his patron deity and start acting like an NPC cleric. Offer some blessings and (perhaps) light cures free of charge, but start getting characters to pay for the higher-level stuff. You could even RP it as "you kicked me out of the PC 'club', I don't have to like you guys any more".
If players protest, well... you can either choose to keep throwing them to the undead and hope they still want to play, or vary your encounters by throwing in the occasional undead (or undeads?) to increase tension.
a) get the players to make a character that can heal (via class or UMD); or
b) have the players live on the edge and take their licks.
Now, on the DM side:
Unless you're only using low-level undead (skeletons and zombies), you're potentially setting players up to fail by inflicting statuses to which they have no remedy. Multi-turn paralysis, temporary strength drain, and debilitating curses are just some of the ways you can semi- to permanently cripple characters who choose to face off unprepared against undead.
Regarding your NPC cleric, the easiest solution is to have said NPC set up a church/temple/shrine to his patron deity and start acting like an NPC cleric. Offer some blessings and (perhaps) light cures free of charge, but start getting characters to pay for the higher-level stuff. You could even RP it as "you kicked me out of the PC 'club', I don't have to like you guys any more".
If players protest, well... you can either choose to keep throwing them to the undead and hope they still want to play, or vary your encounters by throwing in the occasional undead (or undeads?) to increase tension.
Argyle King
Legend
Both rogues have access to Use Magic Device, right?
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
You should really get that looked at. It seems to be going around.
Celebrim
Legend
I don't know what rules you are using, but one thing to keep in mind is that the main advantage to the DM of a party with strong healing magic is you can increase the tempo of play because one combat doesn't leave 1 or more party members too wounded to risk further adventures. Without healing magic, you can adventure just fine, it just means that encounters must generally either be less dangerous or spread further out in space and time.
You can generally replace a cleric completely with any two other classes that also have access to healing magic - Paladins, Druids, Shamans, etc. There are a ton of these in 3.X - more than the system needs really. I personally like the Green Ronin Shaman and the Green Ronin Holy Warrior classes better than Druids/Paladins respectively in terms of game balance, though - as with everything - I've modified them to suit my taste and YMMV depending on the power level assumed by your campaign. Mine tends to be on the low side, and balances things accordingly.
At sufficiently high level, a Wizard/Sorcerer can do healing by being creative in what they summon.
Stock 3.X is also pretty darn broken in that it allows Wands of Cure Light Wounds, easily usable by any divine caster with Cure Light Wounds on its spell list (practically all of them) or by any class with sufficient UMT. A few wands more than adequately replace almost all of your between encounter healing needs... arguably too well. I don't allow divine wands in my game simply because wands of 'Cure' spells are simply too cost efficient - they do just about everything a Ring of Regeneration does (and extremely powerful item) for a fraction of the cost, however most groups seem happy with them. There are probably even more broken items in 3.5, but I tended to ignore 3.5 for the most part.
And that might be a good time to mention that it's quite easy in Stock 3.X to create characters that are so powerful they don't need healers, because they pretty much can't be hurt or are so rarely hurt that natural healing does the job. So, simply ramping up your optimization may render the problem pointless, though really, breaking your game in order to get rid of an NPC is probably a bad trade.
If you want a low magic game but still want access to healing, you might consider altering the Heal skill to allow actual healing. One of the things Heal does in my game is 'First Aid', which lets you spend 10 minutes binding up wounds, doing a bit of stitching, applying salves, etc. and heals 1d4-1 hit points. The only restriction is a person can't receive First Aid unless he has been injured since the last time he received First Aid, and First Aid cannot heal more damage than a person has received since the last time he received First Aid. There are also Feats like 'Master Physician' and 'Combat Medic' that improve on First Aid in minor ways (as well as other improvements to the Heal Skill). If your interested in a game with few or no spell-casters, this would be the way to go.
You can generally replace a cleric completely with any two other classes that also have access to healing magic - Paladins, Druids, Shamans, etc. There are a ton of these in 3.X - more than the system needs really. I personally like the Green Ronin Shaman and the Green Ronin Holy Warrior classes better than Druids/Paladins respectively in terms of game balance, though - as with everything - I've modified them to suit my taste and YMMV depending on the power level assumed by your campaign. Mine tends to be on the low side, and balances things accordingly.
At sufficiently high level, a Wizard/Sorcerer can do healing by being creative in what they summon.
Stock 3.X is also pretty darn broken in that it allows Wands of Cure Light Wounds, easily usable by any divine caster with Cure Light Wounds on its spell list (practically all of them) or by any class with sufficient UMT. A few wands more than adequately replace almost all of your between encounter healing needs... arguably too well. I don't allow divine wands in my game simply because wands of 'Cure' spells are simply too cost efficient - they do just about everything a Ring of Regeneration does (and extremely powerful item) for a fraction of the cost, however most groups seem happy with them. There are probably even more broken items in 3.5, but I tended to ignore 3.5 for the most part.
And that might be a good time to mention that it's quite easy in Stock 3.X to create characters that are so powerful they don't need healers, because they pretty much can't be hurt or are so rarely hurt that natural healing does the job. So, simply ramping up your optimization may render the problem pointless, though really, breaking your game in order to get rid of an NPC is probably a bad trade.
If you want a low magic game but still want access to healing, you might consider altering the Heal skill to allow actual healing. One of the things Heal does in my game is 'First Aid', which lets you spend 10 minutes binding up wounds, doing a bit of stitching, applying salves, etc. and heals 1d4-1 hit points. The only restriction is a person can't receive First Aid unless he has been injured since the last time he received First Aid, and First Aid cannot heal more damage than a person has received since the last time he received First Aid. There are also Feats like 'Master Physician' and 'Combat Medic' that improve on First Aid in minor ways (as well as other improvements to the Heal Skill). If your interested in a game with few or no spell-casters, this would be the way to go.
Similar Threads
