Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinak" data-source="post: 6294587" data-attributes="member: 6694112">Ah, yeah, if you're willing to make sure the party is never without a cleric for long periods it's never going to be a problem. I'm glad I asked, because your campaigns look completely different from mine.Ah, yeah, I never do this. I've run everywhere from six players all the way down to one, but never more than one character to a player.We run at around the 3e baseline: three or four players, each with a character. I also tend to discourage animal companions and summoning unless we're really low on people.I seem to remember my players bringing an NPC with them to help once back in 2nd Edition... say, 1998? So, aside from animal companions, familiars, and summons, not really something that comes up in my games.And, for that, I'm glad. I have plenty to do and enough NPCs/combatants to run without adding one all the time.But, in my current game, we lost the only arcane caster with no problems. We lost the only rogue with no problems and, many sessions later, got a new one with no problems.But if we lose the cleric, I have to do this dance? I'd rather just fix the game. It's easier than running a tagalong NPC for a session and I only have to do it once.That said, I understand why this wouldn't be a problem for you if you're using to having a ton of PCs and tagalong NPCs. Any party composition related issue comes out in the wash at that point.I've seen that with arcane parties, but never with a party with a healer.That might be a function of party size, though. It's possible with 8-10 people, a healer doesn't have enough spells to go around, especially if you're not playing in an edition with spontaneous healing or channel energy.In any case, I'd consider that more of a bug than a feature. Unless we're playing something like Fiasco, where that's the whole point, I don't need the system sparking debates for me.For me, it's not so much the problem of the cleric being a force multiplier, it's how it reshapes the world around them.The effectiveness of my party (fighter/paladin, fighter/ranger, rogue, and cleric) would be drastically effected by replacing the paladin with a non-frontliner. It would be as bad as losing the cleric, if not worse.It's just this stupid thing where everybody's back to full every night (two days absolute maximum) versus having to wait a week to get everyone back up. The only thing I can compare it to is gaining or losing teleporation in how it drastically warps how you relate to time constraints, resting, and wilderness travel.For what it's worth, the cleric in my current group has killed 5 things in 16 levels and loved every minute. And there's a good chance I'll be playing a healing oracle in the next game I'm a player, which is the first time I'll be playing D&D/Pathfinder in about a decade. I can respect the 4e cleric from a game design perspective, but would never want to play it. Call it a warpriest or paladin or whatever. I don't mind it being in the game, I just want the option to play an actual healer if I want.For what it's worth, in-combat healing is a poor use of actions in 3rd and Pathfinder. If someone's healing in combat consistently, either they want to be doing it or they need to take a closer look at their options. Out of combat healing is obviously a huge deal, but can be done with leftover spells after you're done being a fighter or "controller."Cheers!Kinak</blockquote>

Verification