i need to fit in a party [Archive] - Wizards Community

i need to fit in a party [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Negueb
10-20-07, 09:22 AM i'm joining a game that has alredy started. the party is composed of a drow ranger, a halfling rogue, a human wizard and a human fighter.
the party is in obvious need of a healer, however i really don't wantto play a religiuos characher, so i'll play a druid.
the question is: can a druid fill the role of the cleric? should i pick any feats that could help me to fill this role? should i use any tactic that wold help me do this better?
i was thinkin on picking spontaneos healer at the start and brew potion on the third level, so that i coud have many options to cure my fellow party members. besides, i would be really cool to play a panoramix-like druid, that makes all kinds of "special potions" with rare herbs.
also, what race shoud i choose? i was thinkink elf, but that may bring trouble with the drow, any suggestions? i really don't want to play anything with level adjustment and i'm not in desperate need of feats.
thak you in advance.

PS: sorry if my english is not perfect, i'm not a native speaker.
metalmayhem80110
10-20-07, 09:34 AM Druid could fit the role. But if you're willing to commit to a full healer, the mini's handbook has an actual healer class.

Despite what people are going to say after this post, it is a playable class. I will agree it isn't as powerful as the cleric, but completely playable.

A druid with a CLW is as good of a healer as a Cleric in my oppinion anyway :P
Nameless-Ronin
10-20-07, 10:50 AM Dunno what campain it is, but could you fit in as a cleric commited to Law/order without connecting that to gods?

Say this cleric guy here has learned his powers himself via a strong commitace to goodness. No religion involved.

best to take it up with the DM though, discuss your options.

best of luck!
DrMorganes
10-20-07, 12:44 PM I agree with Nameless_Ronin.

D&D removed the direct relationship between cleric and deity with the release of the 3.0 rules. It's entirely possible to play a non-religious cleric these days.
FoulQ
10-20-07, 12:49 PM As long as you going by standard or higher wealth levels, I think a druid will be good enough as a healer as long as you prepare a decent amount of healing spells. There are plenty of magic items and other things that can easily provide healing as well as any healbot can. On top of decent healing, you will have a very good character who the party will definitely not mind having around.

In fact, I think there is a thread in the CharOp forums about how to handle a party without a dedicated healer, if you are not familiar with it.

However, if you want to learn to despise D&D and all affiliated products, Healer is definitely the class to be. :P
danielinthewolvesden
10-20-07, 07:53 PM Augment Healing.

Or take the PHII alternative Druid class Feature which allows them to burn spells for a healing aura.

As for "I think there is a thread in the CharOp forums about how to handle a party without a dedicated healer"; yeah, the same guy started 2-3 identical threads, he has been completely refuted.

The Healer is not a bad class at all. In a large party, he is the healer & party-buffer supreme. I actually played a healer thru Epic in a 8 PC (of which 5 were power gamers!) party in Age of Worms. My PC was consistently voted "Most valuable member", even to the point of the BBEG singling him out to kill 1st. One of our group is a CPA and he did a spreadsheet calculation proving that having the dediciated healer increased the overall DAMAGE output of the party by around 50%.

For party healing there is also: Favoured Soul, Shugenda, Spirit Shaman, and even the Dragon Shaman (his "heal everyone up to 50% aura" is pretty darn good). I would add the Crusader, but it is the most complicated and difficult class to play I have seen.

Truely, if you are joining a new group, there is no better way to get their respect than play a decent healer.
zenlike
10-20-07, 11:48 PM Do you want to play a Druid? If not, why not try a Warlock with max'd out UMD. Throw in a wand of CLW or greater and you should be fine. While not nearly as powerful as a Druid the Warlock is a heck of a lot of fun to play. I'm currently playing one in a party with no healer and we've gotten on pretty well.

Just a thought. Good luck.:P
Shadowhowler
10-20-07, 11:57 PM I think if you make the Druid as you mentioned you'd be a fine addition to the group. Remember, they had NO healer at all before you joined... so any healing ability you bring to the table is more then they had before... and the Druid also brings a LOT of other considerable abilities to the group.

See if you can do something to get rid of the Drow Ranger tho... they leave a bad taste in my mouth. :P
12Shark
10-21-07, 01:23 AM Funny, looking over the thread at no point do I get the impression that it's been completely refuted. You're sure it's been completely refuted? :confused: He seems to have done a good job of defending his mission statement of showing that a party can survive without a healer...

Here's a link all the same: A Player's Guide to Healing (And, why you will be Just Fine without a Cleric to heal) (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=900334).

But back to the OP's question, looks like you've got a concept there - just go for it; you'll be able to pull off enough healing in a pinch to hold damaged party members together.

Just put together your character concept and then kick the rules they make the concept work. Or just take the concept down to the Char Op forums - I think they've got an industrial laser down there :P.
danielinthewolvesden
10-21-07, 01:47 AM Funny, looking over the thread at no point do I get the impression that it's been completely refuted. You're sure it's been completely refuted? :confused: He seems to have done a good job of defending his mission statement of showing that a party can survive without a healer...
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14068638#post14068638
There and the other several times he posted the exact same thread. See post #96 where I said "Note that this identical OP has shown up a couple times. Here:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread...=900290&page=2

Here is my reply there:
"First of all, only a few classes can use a Wand. So, for them, a wand is not an option. It is a better choice for after combat healing, assuming your party has scads of extra cash.

And then there's that- scads of extra cash. With a cleric (and yes Augument healing is a good feat) you get lots of healing for FREE. With wands, you are constantly bleeding cash. After three wands, there is a permanent +1 weapon that the party does not have.

Healing Belt- Not Core, takes up the very valuable Belt slot, and by one reading can only be used by a cleric ("channels positive energy"). Nice for PC's around 3-6 level, however.

"Touch of Healing" is nice, but it means the party is going to run around at 1/2 HP too much. Toss up between that and Agument healing, IMHO. Now,if you have a Dragon Shaman as the 5th party member, you have that built in, which is nice.

Let us compare doing 50 points of damage as opposed to healing 50 points. If you want to cause 50 points, the cleric has to generally TOUCH the enemy, which requires a roll to hit. Even touch attacks can miss. If there is no roll to hit, there is very often a saving throw, and there is also SR- not to mention DR and Energy Resistance. With all that taken into consideration, you have to assume that 1/2 of damage output does not arrive. However, healing is nigh 100% effective, thus healing is twice as effective as dealing damage.

I have run a dedicated Healer (yes, the much maligned MH class) in Age of Worms, in a large party of powergamers, with a super powergamer DM- all the way thru Epic. My Healer was consistently voted "most valuable PC" by the players, and the DM paid me the doubtful compliment of having the BBEG make me the #1 target in most encounters.

At higher levels, Mass heal can do WAY more healing than any damage spell can do.

Now there are other costs of "not healing" and they include a much decreased party damage output. Yes, I said DECREASED party damage output. If the "damage dealers" are casting defensive spells, going full defence, running or drinking potions- they are NOT dealing damage. And of course, if they think the next hit will kill them, they WILL do this. One of my group is a CPA, who calculated that our party had a 50% INCREASE in damage output as no one had to worry about being healed- the very effecient dedicated Healer WOULD heal them. That is a CPA folks, with spreadsheets and all, not just opinion.

Then there is the "final " cost of not healing- dead party members. Dead folks do no damage. Raising them costs a LOT. Most importatly, while dead- the players do not get to play, thus they have less FUN. A dedicated healer adds fun for the whole group.

Sure, the heal-bot role is the least fun role of all. Thus, for a small party, a Healer as a Cohort is not a bad idea at all."

On_the_wings_of_TPK had a good refutation there also. As did Downtym."

And then go to the linked thread and see On_the_wings_of_TPK & Downtym's killer refutations

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14022318#post14022318
post 96.

This in the Players forum:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=900290
Yami
10-22-07, 04:14 PM I would just offer that the ranger can use cure light wounds wands for out of combat healing, which greatly improves the chance that a non-cleric, non-healer character will be able to provide the required healing. All you'd need to provide is a couple of your higher level slots for in combat emergency healing. I would also propose leadership and a cleric or healer cohort for some member of the party - because then you'd be able to, eventually, take your spell slots back and use them for other spells, and your character shouldn't suffer much. I would avoid making too many "healing only!" decisions with your druid build, considering two character can use clw wands, and they all have the option of a healing type cohort. :)
VulcanStormwrath
10-22-07, 09:07 PM Dragon Shaman. 1) Aura that provides party with fast healing in combat up to 1/2 total hit points can be on as long as you like.
2) Ability similar to lay on hands except more powerful, that allows you to not ony heal a large # of hp per day but also remove conditions and heal ability damage.

All that a decent attack bonus and a breath weapon.
FoulQ
10-22-07, 09:38 PM If you want more info on what race to play, what feats to take, etc. search for the druid handbook on google, which should bring up the druid handbook thread.

Also, Masters of the Wild is a great book for druids.

(That is, if you plan on going druid.)

Depending on the party alignment you could be an evil/neutral cleric as well and command undead as well as animate them, which could be fun. This isn't a necessarily serious suggestion, but a fun one nonetheless. :P
danielinthewolvesden
10-23-07, 02:34 AM If you want more info on what race to play, what feats to take, etc. search for the druid handbook on google, which should bring up the druid handbook thread.

Also, Masters of the Wild is a great book for druids.

AFAIK, there is no such WotC product as "Druid Handbook".

Masters of the Wild is 3.0.
Puritan13
10-23-07, 03:00 AM AFAIK, there is no such WotC product as "Druid Handbook".

Masters of the Wild is 3.0.Druids handbook refers to work on the CO boards.

Search CoDzilla too.
Shadowhowler
10-23-07, 12:47 PM Druids handbook refers to work on the CO boards.

Search CoDzilla too.

What he said.

Yeah, WotC didn't make a Druid's Handbook... but some players did, and it can still be useful for a player looking to get his Druid on. :P
Lincoln Hills
10-23-07, 05:02 PM i'm joining a game that has alredy started. the party is composed of a drow ranger, a halfling rogue, a human wizard and a human fighter.

Oh, a dark elf in the group? OK, my advice is to create an illusionist and announce very loudly to every NPC you meet, "By the way, that dark elf is actually just an illusion. I figured out how to cast major image, but I can't figure out how to turn it off." If the guy playing the drow ranger gets upset that you keep claiming he's just an illusion, just say to the NPC, "Pretty realistic, isn't he? I don't know what he's going to say myself half the time. But, of course, drow live deep under the earth, and are psychopaths, so it's obvious that he's not really one. Besides, I think I got the nose wrong: it's way too big." Carry on until you make the player cry.

(I'm not serious, Negueb. Although I always wanted to use that tactic whenever a "CG drow renegade" - or two - was rolled up by my fellow players.)
FoulQ
10-23-07, 06:41 PM Like they said, I meant the druid's handbook created by players, just like they made a bunch of the other handbooks...

And personally I don't see what is wrong with using 3.0 material, considering most of it was just recycled into 3.5 anyway, though perhaps the DM doesn't allow it.
BoringInfoGuy
10-24-07, 12:42 AM Stick with your choice of Druid. As others have said, a party with no healing will appreciate any healing.

As for race, pick dwarf. It's in the adventuring party bylaws. "Any adventuring party with more than with 5 or more adventurers must include at least one dwarf."

Just kidding. That bylaw was repealed in '04. Seriously, while it is not an intuitive class race combo, it is not a bad fit for a healing druid concept. That extra HP per level helps fulfill the 1st rule of being the party healer: Don't die yourself.

The only penalty you get from being a dwarf druid is that your Handle animal skill will take a -1 penalty. Not too bad.

I'll admit it, I've always like dwarfs.

Beyond that, keep a couple of Cure wands on hand whenever possible. I'm not ignoring danielinthewolvesden:

"First of all, only a few classes can use a Wand. So, for them, a wand is not an option. It is a better choice for after combat healing, assuming your party has scads of extra cash.

And then there's that- scads of extra cash. With a cleric (and yes Augument healing is a good feat) you get lots of healing for FREE. With wands, you are constantly bleeding cash. After three wands, there is a permanent +1 weapon that the party does not have.

I agree completely. But it is an argument against using wands in place of a healer. If you look at the of using a wand in conjunction with a healer, that changes things a bit. Going by the Wealth by level table, the soonest a character can expect to get their hands on a CLW wand (700gp) is about 3rd level. Your DM may very. By that time, with a decent Wisdom, you can prepare 4 Cure Minor wounds (1 point of healing per use), and 5 Cure Light Wounds (1d8+3 healing per use) assuming you use your 2nd level slots to prepare more CLW spells.

In comparison, a Wand of Cure Light Wounds holds 50 charges, at 1d8+1 healing per charge. Most groups will tend to adventure until the casters run low on spells, and when then find a place to rest. Sometimes, however, you don't get that option. When things get sticky, I've found that a simple CLW wand gives a party incredible staying power.

It remains a drain on the party funds. But used correctly, the cost of a wand in the healers hands is offset by the savings in Raise Dead spells.

As for feats, consider picking up Endurance. Among other things, it lets you sleep in up to medium armor without penalty. It's another way to avoid dieing yourself. But the real reason to get Endurance is that it's the prerequisite for Die Hard. That lovely little feat lets you either automatically stabilize when dropped to negative HP, or instead remain conscious and active - player's choice.
danielinthewolvesden
10-24-07, 01:24 AM I agree completely. But it is an argument against using wands in place of a healer. If you look at the of using a wand in conjunction with a healer, that changes things a bit. Going by the Wealth by level table, the soonest a character can expect to get their hands on a CLW wand (700gp) is about 3rd level. Your DM may very. By that time, with a decent Wisdom, you can prepare 4 Cure Minor wounds (1 point of healing per use), and 5 Cure Light Wounds (1d8+3 healing per use) assuming you use your 2nd level slots to prepare more CLW spells.

In comparison, a Wand of Cure Light Wounds holds 50 charges, at 1d8+1 healing per charge. Most groups will tend to adventure until the casters run low on spells, and when then find a place to rest. Sometimes, however, you don't get that option. When things get sticky, I've found that a simple CLW wand gives a party incredible staying power.

It remains a drain on the party funds. But used correctly, the cost of a wand in the healers hands is offset by the savings in Raise Dead spells.

I have nothing at all against a party buying an occassional Wand of CLW (or lesser Vigor). It is a great idea. But depending 100% on paid for healing will drain the party's coffers too much.... unless the DM's name is Monty, of course.:P
jradd777
10-24-07, 03:13 AM Cleric/Healer is a pretty potent combo, especially if you work it so you can prestige into Radiant Servant of Pelor for massive healing. Of course, you'll be doing a TON of healing in this case probably. For race... when I did this combo, I used Raptoran... I'm not 100% on what the best choice would be, but mine worked out alright.
NordicBirch
10-24-07, 09:49 AM Depending on what you want and the powerlevel, have you looked at eldritch disciple? Warlock/cleric combo prc. Gives you some nice all-day-long stuff from warlock, lets you heal through an eldritch blast and allows for a flavor/IC connection to fey or demonic powers that can easily be used for the cleric side as well since clerics don't actually need a deity these days. :)

Better healer than a druid and maybe a bit more interesting if you already know the basic classes. Just a thought in a different direction.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Negueb 10-20-07, 09:22 AM	i'm joining a game that has alredy started. the party is composed of a drow ranger, a halfling rogue, a human wizard and a human fighter. the party is in obvious need of a healer, however i really don't wantto play a religiuos characher, so i'll play a druid. the question is: can a druid fill the role of the cleric? should i pick any feats that could help me to fill this role? should i use any tactic that wold help me do this better? i was thinkin on picking spontaneos healer at the start and brew potion on the third level, so that i coud have many options to cure my fellow party members. besides, i would be really cool to play a panoramix-like druid, that makes all kinds of "special potions" with rare herbs. also, what race shoud i choose? i was thinkink elf, but that may bring trouble with the drow, any suggestions? i really don't want to play anything with level adjustment and i'm not in desperate need of feats. thak you in advance. PS: sorry if my english is not perfect, i'm not a native speaker.
metalmayhem80110 10-20-07, 09:34 AM	Druid could fit the role. But if you're willing to commit to a full healer, the mini's handbook has an actual healer class. Despite what people are going to say after this post, it is a playable class. I will agree it isn't as powerful as the cleric, but completely playable. A druid with a CLW is as good of a healer as a Cleric in my oppinion anyway :P
Nameless-Ronin 10-20-07, 10:50 AM	Dunno what campain it is, but could you fit in as a cleric commited to Law/order without connecting that to gods? Say this cleric guy here has learned his powers himself via a strong commitace to goodness. No religion involved. best to take it up with the DM though, discuss your options. best of luck!
DrMorganes 10-20-07, 12:44 PM	I agree with Nameless_Ronin. D&D removed the direct relationship between cleric and deity with the release of the 3.0 rules. It's entirely possible to play a non-religious cleric these days.
FoulQ 10-20-07, 12:49 PM	As long as you going by standard or higher wealth levels, I think a druid will be good enough as a healer as long as you prepare a decent amount of healing spells. There are plenty of magic items and other things that can easily provide healing as well as any healbot can. On top of decent healing, you will have a very good character who the party will definitely not mind having around. In fact, I think there is a thread in the CharOp forums about how to handle a party without a dedicated healer, if you are not familiar with it. However, if you want to learn to despise D&D and all affiliated products, Healer is definitely the class to be. :P
danielinthewolvesden 10-20-07, 07:53 PM	Augment Healing. Or take the PHII alternative Druid class Feature which allows them to burn spells for a healing aura. As for "I think there is a thread in the CharOp forums about how to handle a party without a dedicated healer"; yeah, the same guy started 2-3 identical threads, he has been completely refuted. The Healer is not a bad class at all. In a large party, he is the healer & party-buffer supreme. I actually played a healer thru Epic in a 8 PC (of which 5 were power gamers!) party in Age of Worms. My PC was consistently voted "Most valuable member", even to the point of the BBEG singling him out to kill 1st. One of our group is a CPA and he did a spreadsheet calculation proving that having the dediciated healer increased the overall DAMAGE output of the party by around 50%. For party healing there is also: Favoured Soul, Shugenda, Spirit Shaman, and even the Dragon Shaman (his "heal everyone up to 50% aura" is pretty darn good). I would add the Crusader, but it is the most complicated and difficult class to play I have seen. Truely, if you are joining a new group, there is no better way to get their respect than play a decent healer.
zenlike 10-20-07, 11:48 PM	Do you want to play a Druid? If not, why not try a Warlock with max'd out UMD. Throw in a wand of CLW or greater and you should be fine. While not nearly as powerful as a Druid the Warlock is a heck of a lot of fun to play. I'm currently playing one in a party with no healer and we've gotten on pretty well. Just a thought. Good luck.:P
Shadowhowler 10-20-07, 11:57 PM	I think if you make the Druid as you mentioned you'd be a fine addition to the group. Remember, they had NO healer at all before you joined... so any healing ability you bring to the table is more then they had before... and the Druid also brings a LOT of other considerable abilities to the group. See if you can do something to get rid of the Drow Ranger tho... they leave a bad taste in my mouth. :P
12Shark 10-21-07, 01:23 AM	Funny, looking over the thread at no point do I get the impression that it's been completely refuted. You're sure it's been completely refuted? :confused: He seems to have done a good job of defending his mission statement of showing that a party can survive without a healer... Here's a link all the same: A Player's Guide to Healing (And, why you will be Just Fine without a Cleric to heal) (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=900334). But back to the OP's question, looks like you've got a concept there - just go for it; you'll be able to pull off enough healing in a pinch to hold damaged party members together. Just put together your character concept and then kick the rules they make the concept work. Or just take the concept down to the Char Op forums - I think they've got an industrial laser down there :P.
danielinthewolvesden 10-21-07, 01:47 AM	Funny, looking over the thread at no point do I get the impression that it's been completely refuted. You're sure it's been completely refuted? :confused: He seems to have done a good job of defending his mission statement of showing that a party can survive without a healer... http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14068638#post14068638 There and the other several times he posted the exact same thread. See post #96 where I said "Note that this identical OP has shown up a couple times. Here: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread...=900290&page=2 Here is my reply there: "First of all, only a few classes can use a Wand. So, for them, a wand is not an option. It is a better choice for after combat healing, assuming your party has scads of extra cash. And then there's that- scads of extra cash. With a cleric (and yes Augument healing is a good feat) you get lots of healing for FREE. With wands, you are constantly bleeding cash. After three wands, there is a permanent +1 weapon that the party does not have. Healing Belt- Not Core, takes up the very valuable Belt slot, and by one reading can only be used by a cleric ("channels positive energy"). Nice for PC's around 3-6 level, however. "Touch of Healing" is nice, but it means the party is going to run around at 1/2 HP too much. Toss up between that and Agument healing, IMHO. Now,if you have a Dragon Shaman as the 5th party member, you have that built in, which is nice. Let us compare doing 50 points of damage as opposed to healing 50 points. If you want to cause 50 points, the cleric has to generally TOUCH the enemy, which requires a roll to hit. Even touch attacks can miss. If there is no roll to hit, there is very often a saving throw, and there is also SR- not to mention DR and Energy Resistance. With all that taken into consideration, you have to assume that 1/2 of damage output does not arrive. However, healing is nigh 100% effective, thus healing is twice as effective as dealing damage. I have run a dedicated Healer (yes, the much maligned MH class) in Age of Worms, in a large party of powergamers, with a super powergamer DM- all the way thru Epic. My Healer was consistently voted "most valuable PC" by the players, and the DM paid me the doubtful compliment of having the BBEG make me the #1 target in most encounters. At higher levels, Mass heal can do WAY more healing than any damage spell can do. Now there are other costs of "not healing" and they include a much decreased party damage output. Yes, I said DECREASED party damage output. If the "damage dealers" are casting defensive spells, going full defence, running or drinking potions- they are NOT dealing damage. And of course, if they think the next hit will kill them, they WILL do this. One of my group is a CPA, who calculated that our party had a 50% INCREASE in damage output as no one had to worry about being healed- the very effecient dedicated Healer WOULD heal them. That is a CPA folks, with spreadsheets and all, not just opinion. Then there is the "final " cost of not healing- dead party members. Dead folks do no damage. Raising them costs a LOT. Most importatly, while dead- the players do not get to play, thus they have less FUN. A dedicated healer adds fun for the whole group. Sure, the heal-bot role is the least fun role of all. Thus, for a small party, a Healer as a Cohort is not a bad idea at all." On_the_wings_of_TPK had a good refutation there also. As did Downtym." And then go to the linked thread and see On_the_wings_of_TPK & Downtym's killer refutations http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14022318#post14022318 post 96. This in the Players forum: http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=900290
Yami 10-22-07, 04:14 PM	I would just offer that the ranger can use cure light wounds wands for out of combat healing, which greatly improves the chance that a non-cleric, non-healer character will be able to provide the required healing. All you'd need to provide is a couple of your higher level slots for in combat emergency healing. I would also propose leadership and a cleric or healer cohort for some member of the party - because then you'd be able to, eventually, take your spell slots back and use them for other spells, and your character shouldn't suffer much. I would avoid making too many "healing only!" decisions with your druid build, considering two character can use clw wands, and they all have the option of a healing type cohort. :)
VulcanStormwrath 10-22-07, 09:07 PM	Dragon Shaman. 1) Aura that provides party with fast healing in combat up to 1/2 total hit points can be on as long as you like. 2) Ability similar to lay on hands except more powerful, that allows you to not ony heal a large # of hp per day but also remove conditions and heal ability damage. All that a decent attack bonus and a breath weapon.
FoulQ 10-22-07, 09:38 PM	If you want more info on what race to play, what feats to take, etc. search for the druid handbook on google, which should bring up the druid handbook thread. Also, Masters of the Wild is a great book for druids. (That is, if you plan on going druid.) Depending on the party alignment you could be an evil/neutral cleric as well and command undead as well as animate them, which could be fun. This isn't a necessarily serious suggestion, but a fun one nonetheless. :P
danielinthewolvesden 10-23-07, 02:34 AM	If you want more info on what race to play, what feats to take, etc. search for the druid handbook on google, which should bring up the druid handbook thread. Also, Masters of the Wild is a great book for druids. AFAIK, there is no such WotC product as "Druid Handbook". Masters of the Wild is 3.0.
Puritan13 10-23-07, 03:00 AM	AFAIK, there is no such WotC product as "Druid Handbook". Masters of the Wild is 3.0.Druids handbook refers to work on the CO boards. Search CoDzilla too.
Shadowhowler 10-23-07, 12:47 PM	Druids handbook refers to work on the CO boards. Search CoDzilla too. What he said. Yeah, WotC didn't make a Druid's Handbook... but some players did, and it can still be useful for a player looking to get his Druid on. :P
Lincoln Hills 10-23-07, 05:02 PM	i'm joining a game that has alredy started. the party is composed of a drow ranger, a halfling rogue, a human wizard and a human fighter. Oh, a dark elf in the group? OK, my advice is to create an illusionist and announce very loudly to every NPC you meet, "By the way, that dark elf is actually just an illusion. I figured out how to cast major image, but I can't figure out how to turn it off." If the guy playing the drow ranger gets upset that you keep claiming he's just an illusion, just say to the NPC, "Pretty realistic, isn't he? I don't know what he's going to say myself half the time. But, of course, drow live deep under the earth, and are psychopaths, so it's obvious that he's not really one. Besides, I think I got the nose wrong: it's way too big." Carry on until you make the player cry. (I'm not serious, Negueb. Although I always wanted to use that tactic whenever a "CG drow renegade" - or two - was rolled up by my fellow players.)
FoulQ 10-23-07, 06:41 PM	Like they said, I meant the druid's handbook created by players, just like they made a bunch of the other handbooks... And personally I don't see what is wrong with using 3.0 material, considering most of it was just recycled into 3.5 anyway, though perhaps the DM doesn't allow it.
BoringInfoGuy 10-24-07, 12:42 AM	Stick with your choice of Druid. As others have said, a party with no healing will appreciate any healing. As for race, pick dwarf. It's in the adventuring party bylaws. "Any adventuring party with more than with 5 or more adventurers must include at least one dwarf." Just kidding. That bylaw was repealed in '04. Seriously, while it is not an intuitive class race combo, it is not a bad fit for a healing druid concept. That extra HP per level helps fulfill the 1st rule of being the party healer: Don't die yourself. The only penalty you get from being a dwarf druid is that your Handle animal skill will take a -1 penalty. Not too bad. I'll admit it, I've always like dwarfs. Beyond that, keep a couple of Cure wands on hand whenever possible. I'm not ignoring danielinthewolvesden: "First of all, only a few classes can use a Wand. So, for them, a wand is not an option. It is a better choice for after combat healing, assuming your party has scads of extra cash. And then there's that- scads of extra cash. With a cleric (and yes Augument healing is a good feat) you get lots of healing for FREE. With wands, you are constantly bleeding cash. After three wands, there is a permanent +1 weapon that the party does not have. I agree completely. But it is an argument against using wands in place of a healer. If you look at the of using a wand in conjunction with a healer, that changes things a bit. Going by the Wealth by level table, the soonest a character can expect to get their hands on a CLW wand (700gp) is about 3rd level. Your DM may very. By that time, with a decent Wisdom, you can prepare 4 Cure Minor wounds (1 point of healing per use), and 5 Cure Light Wounds (1d8+3 healing per use) assuming you use your 2nd level slots to prepare more CLW spells. In comparison, a Wand of Cure Light Wounds holds 50 charges, at 1d8+1 healing per charge. Most groups will tend to adventure until the casters run low on spells, and when then find a place to rest. Sometimes, however, you don't get that option. When things get sticky, I've found that a simple CLW wand gives a party incredible staying power. It remains a drain on the party funds. But used correctly, the cost of a wand in the healers hands is offset by the savings in Raise Dead spells. As for feats, consider picking up Endurance. Among other things, it lets you sleep in up to medium armor without penalty. It's another way to avoid dieing yourself. But the real reason to get Endurance is that it's the prerequisite for Die Hard. That lovely little feat lets you either automatically stabilize when dropped to negative HP, or instead remain conscious and active - player's choice.
danielinthewolvesden 10-24-07, 01:24 AM	I agree completely. But it is an argument against using wands in place of a healer. If you look at the of using a wand in conjunction with a healer, that changes things a bit. Going by the Wealth by level table, the soonest a character can expect to get their hands on a CLW wand (700gp) is about 3rd level. Your DM may very. By that time, with a decent Wisdom, you can prepare 4 Cure Minor wounds (1 point of healing per use), and 5 Cure Light Wounds (1d8+3 healing per use) assuming you use your 2nd level slots to prepare more CLW spells. In comparison, a Wand of Cure Light Wounds holds 50 charges, at 1d8+1 healing per charge. Most groups will tend to adventure until the casters run low on spells, and when then find a place to rest. Sometimes, however, you don't get that option. When things get sticky, I've found that a simple CLW wand gives a party incredible staying power. It remains a drain on the party funds. But used correctly, the cost of a wand in the healers hands is offset by the savings in Raise Dead spells. I have nothing at all against a party buying an occassional Wand of CLW (or lesser Vigor). It is a great idea. But depending 100% on paid for healing will drain the party's coffers too much.... unless the DM's name is Monty, of course.:P
jradd777 10-24-07, 03:13 AM	Cleric/Healer is a pretty potent combo, especially if you work it so you can prestige into Radiant Servant of Pelor for massive healing. Of course, you'll be doing a TON of healing in this case probably. For race... when I did this combo, I used Raptoran... I'm not 100% on what the best choice would be, but mine worked out alright.
NordicBirch 10-24-07, 09:49 AM	Depending on what you want and the powerlevel, have you looked at eldritch disciple? Warlock/cleric combo prc. Gives you some nice all-day-long stuff from warlock, lets you heal through an eldritch blast and allows for a flavor/IC connection to fey or demonic powers that can easily be used for the cleric side as well since clerics don't actually need a deity these days. :) Better healer than a druid and maybe a bit more interesting if you already know the basic classes. Just a thought in a different direction.