A Party with no Cleric/Druid?

[Shades of Green]

Have you ever had an adventuring party without the "mandatory" Cleric/Druid healer? Could such a party survive for long? Can, say, a Ranger or a Paladin, augmented by a larger-than-avarage supply of potions, fill the same role?

 

[demiurge1138]

Many times, actually. People in my games seem to resist divine casters. A ranger with access to wands and a rogue with maxed UMD and wands works alright. Not nearly as well as a cleric, of course, but mostly survivable.

Demiurge out.

 

[Yair]

Sure. The characters might have a little more difficult time with dungeoncrawls, but they can certainly brave it. Make sure you leave plenty of time for resting, though, and lighten up on dungeoncrawls - one to four encounters at a time, with days apart, is ideal. With more intense fighting, the party is sure to lose PCs but can, on the whole, survive and succeed.
Then again, the party tends to lose PCs when I DM regardless of the amount of clerics.
Some kind of healing is all but needed, I think. We had a bard once, worked very well - he cured when it was absolutely essential, and otherwise they relied on healing potions and simply resting to regain hp.

Yair, the Killer DM

 

[the Jester]

A smart, tactically sound party can do fine without a healer. You don't need extra potions or other items of healing; you don't need to make allowances for them.

If they aren't smart and tactically sound enough, natural selection will fix the problem.

The initial 3e game I ran had about 8-16 players depending on the day. We nicknamed the group "the adventuring 30". They had NO clerics for several levels. Now, granted that I'm a bastard and I run a high fatality game, but they did fine.

 

[tetsujin28]

If your DM loves undead and you don't have a paladin or cleric, you're toast.

 

[Azul]

Many times, actually. People in my games seem to resist divine casters. A ranger with access to wands and a rogue with maxed UMD and wands works alright. Not nearly as well as a cleric, of course, but mostly survivable.

Demiurge out.

I've played in a party where the paladin was the main healer. Lay on hands, a few cure spells and the ability to use healing wands and staves goes a surprisingly long way. That paladin eventually acquired Brew Potion (he had a thing for cooking) as a feat to allow him to make cure wounds potions. It wasn't as powerful a healer as a cleric, but hey, he was a better melee combatant than most clerics too.

Paladins, rangers, bards and anyone with UMD can use wands or scrolls of cure X wounds. Paladins also get lay on hands, which is a decent little chunk of healing if your Cha bonus is good.

 

[Rostek]

Echo what Jester said- if they're stupid, they'll die, but if they're smart, a paladin and/or ranger and/or bard can handle duties well enough.

 

[fusangite]

Have you ever had an adventuring party without the "mandatory" Cleric/Druid healer? Could such a party survive for long? Can, say, a Ranger or a Paladin, augmented by a larger-than-avarage supply of potions, fill the same role?

A Paladin could certainly fulfill the role, as could a bard of second level or greater (especially if equipped with UMD).

 

[Corinth]

Without access to some form of regular, reliable healing magic you swiftly experience the joy of a Total Party Kill.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

In the game I'm running, there is no cleric or druid. And they are going through Ravenloft, mwahahahahahaha.