D&D 5E D&D without the Cleric

Another point to bear in mind is that the Healer feat is quite powerful - it heals d6+4 plus target's level and you can use it again every time the recipient takes a short rest. So for a first level party it is an average of 9 extra HP of healing for EVERY character, EVERY time they take a short rest.

So really any class with the Healer feat makes a fine alternative to a cleric healer.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

We just finished HotDQ, book 1. So we're level 8 now. Not only no cleric, but no healer class at all. We are:

Shadow monk
F2/warlock 6
sorcerer
barbarian
rogue

And we made it. So far...
 

Healing isn't a big deal. Anyone can heal to full with a night of rest.

The real power of the cleric lies in Lesser Restoration and Remove Curse, or to a lesser extent, Greater Restoration and Revivify.
 

No cleric in my main group for a while now. There was a tempest cleric but she has to work the days we play now.
There is a paladin, ranger and druid so healing is covered.

I find that the clerics of 5th edition are fun. But they don't need to be healers during combat. The only time the group we run is going to miss a cleric is if they need to raise dead.
 

This might be helpful:

It isn't the cleric class you need to get rid of. It is the healer role that would be great if it were optional.

That is: freed from the often implied assumption of taking the healer role, the Cleric is a fun capable class with great offensive and defensive capabilities. It certainly does not need to be removed from the game.

What you do need to change is this: instead of relying on a central source of healing, you need to distribute this healing power over the entire group.

To deconstruct the problem even further: the issue is that one player takes the damage, but another is expected to sacrifice his action to heal that damage.

If each player instead becomes responsible for healing their own damage, the "unpopular healer" problem would go away - no longer can the Barbarian keep axing down foes expecting somebody else to service his hp pool while he's at it.

So. What you need is enable all characters to use up their action to heal. Either themselves or their ally.

However. What you don't want, is to fall in the 4e trap where each party member had exclusive access to their share of the group's total healing power. Why? Because that meant each party member needed to get in there and soak damage!

This absolutely destroyed the entire idea of being a "lurker" or "artillery" (to borrow 4e terminology) - being the archer, the wizard, the assassin etc that wants to stay at range and avoid melee (unless at your own terms). This didn't work in 4e, because not getting in there and taking hits meant that perhaps your most valuable resource wasn't used: your hit dice.

So. A suggested solution:

1) Pool the entire group's Hit Dice. (perhaps use poker chips and place a pile of them at the middle of your table)

2) Give all player characters the ability to spend their action to use up to their level in Hit Dice to heal themselves, or half their level in Hit Dice to heal somebody else by touching them.

Supplement this by not being stingy as DM with healing potions, and you should be able to explain to your players that they no longer should assume somebody else will heal their wounds.

Instead everyone shares in the fun of taking offensive actions that kill your foes. If you get hurt, you are primarily responsible yourself for healing that damage. That is, if it makes sense for your ally to help you, that's fine.

But no longer can you get pissed if the "party cleric" rather kills some goblins rather than rushing to heal your wounds so that you don't have to stop killing goblins yourself!

[emoji3]
 


I'm toying around with the idea of getting rid of clerics. Most groups I've run it seems like someone "gets stuck" playing a cleric "because we need a healer". I've even offered (as the DM) to let the group go cleric-less and would offset it with extra healing potions and such, but I haven't had any takers.


Anyone scrap clerics?


How did, or would you do it?

Scrap? no. Have none show up? yes.

5E needs no particular mods if no-one wants to be the cleric. Just don't use quite as high a level of opponent threat, and allow for a few extra rests. Deadly encounters are exactly that...
 

I don't think there needs to be any house rule for healing. 5E doesn't require a dedicated healer by design. In combat healing is inefficient in 5E. It should only be used to pop people up or sustain someone in a close fight. You should be letting hit points drop to very low levels. Damage ranges are much tighter, especially at lower level, in 5E.

Let's look at a recent example we dealt with mathematically. We fought a Bulette. This creature does 4d12+4 damage per hit. That is an average 30 damage. We were 6th level. My druid is the "healer" of the group. His options were to use his 3rd level slots to try to heal through this damage. A 3rd level cure wounds does 3d8+3 healing for an average of 16 to 17 points of healing. That is barely over half of one hit healed. A very suboptimal healing choice.

What's better? A conjure animals bringing a pack of wolves or snakes into the fray against the bulette to kill it faster? Yep. Adds more offense, more targets for the bulette to hit, more ability to help the party providing help options, and the like. Much better than casting a 3rd level cure wounds.

It's very clear it is better to use your 3rd level spell slot on offense than on a cure wounds spell in the vast majority of situations. You could change out bulettes for some other creature.
 

To deconstruct the problem even further: the issue is that one player takes the damage, but another is expected to sacrifice his action to heal that damage.
Some people really like being the healer. To those people, giving up your action in order to heal someone is a fun way of contributing.

If nobody at the table wants to be the healer, then don't make a healer. So you have a little more offense, and you can take the enemies out more quickly. And if someone does want to play a healer, then battles aren't as fast, but they're a little safer.

Working out some weird house-rule to try and include in-combat healing anyway, when nobody wants to be a healer, doesn't solve anything. Not every game requires in-combat healing to be a thing. This edition works fine without a dedicated healer.

If each player instead becomes responsible for healing their own damage, the "unpopular healer" problem would go away - no longer can the Barbarian keep axing down foes expecting somebody else to service his hp pool while he's at it.
Players are already responsible for managing their own HPs. It's the barbarian's job to not get hit. And if the barbarian fails at that job, then every character has Hit Dice which can be spent to heal that damage.

Even if someone is playing the team Safety Net, that's no excuse for being reckless. And once the Barbarian learns how to be more considerate, the healer will have plenty of chances to attack (or do something else) without needing to heal every round.
 


Remove ads

Top