Clerics, or can we do without them...

[Agback]

G'day

There hasn't been a single cleric in any of the parties I've played in under 3.5 (except that one contained a cleric of Lloth--none of us trusted her to heal us, though, so that doesn't count). The first party got by with my bard as the chief healer. The second had to make do with the assistance of potions. The third depended on my Paladin with maxed-out heal skill.

But note that none of these parties was engaged in classic dungeon-crawling. We were involved in plot-based adventures without too much repeat combat. So enough healing to make someone survive was usually enough.

Regards,


Agback

 

[candidus_cogitens]

Why not just eliminate the distinction between arcane and divine magic, allowing wizards and sorcerers access to healing spells?

It wouldn't make those classes much more powerful--just a bit more versatile. But if you think it would be too much, then tinker away!

Anything to get rid of the cleric would be a welcome change! It's an messed-up archetype anyway!

 

[Kesh]

Any decent combat team needs a medic. However, you can crib from other classes instead of using a cleric. Bards are very versatile, and can apply a quick cure spell in a pinch (as can druids). If you have Oriental Adventures, the Shaman class makes for a very interesting cleric replacement.

The Heal skill is neat, but useless when you need to heal 20+ HP in a dungeon just minutes before a big battle.

 

[ForceUser]

Druids can heal but are a poor substitute for a cleric. Same for bards. If nobody wants to play a cleric and you don't feel like bending the rules to accomodate them, I suggest stocking up on cure potions and wands of cure moderate wounds for those non-cleric classes with access to that spell. If your party is TOTALLY berift of healing, I suggest the rogue becomes very familiar with the Use Magic Device skill, and access wands of healing that way.

All that said, somebody should just play a cleric. They are invaluable. As for the fellow who said his cleric in the 3-person party never got to shine because he was putting out fires, I say to you - for a cleric, that IS shining

 

[Nifft]

IMC, I allow Druids to take the Healing Domain as a Feat, which allows them to convert prepared spells into Cure spells.

-- Nifft

 

[Quasqueton]

My party has very limited clerical healing.

Barbarian 3
Monk/Psy War 2/1 <- me
Rogue 3
Wizard? (mostly elf archer) 3
Fighter/Cleric 2/1 (spent first two levels as fighter, only last game session had cleric level)

Five 3rd-level characters with only a 1st-level cleric for healing. The barbarian's player joked that he has never been at full hit points until this past game session when the party spent 2 days in full rest (with my monk applying a healer's kit for long-term care).

Fortunately, we've had some potions available for healing. Otherwise we'd have to rest a week after every serious combat.

By the core rules, a party without a cleric is seriously slowed. A single hit from an orc for 11 points (my monk took this hit last game session) would require 3 full days of *complete bed rest* for recovery if no cure spells were available. And when the party is on the road, taking a few days for rest is not an option.

In a previous campaign (different group), I played the only cleric. We played up to 8th level, and my cleric allowed the party to continue at times that would have required a withdrawal for a week or more without a cleric.

I am definitely considering allowing faster healing (of positive hit points) in my next campaign. Considering that most damage is supposed to be nicks, scratches, bruises, and windings, I feel comfortable allowing positive hit points to heal faster. I'd keep negative hit points serious and slow to heal, because that is the "real" blood and bone damage.

But, to directly answer the question, clerics are absolutely necessary to a successful adventuring group. Even if all the cleric does is cure wounds, his presence is worth a share of the treasue.

Quasqueton

 

[A'koss]

Originally posted by ForceUser:

As for the fellow who said his cleric in the 3-person party never got to shine because he was putting out fires, I say to you - for a cleric, that IS shining

Well I can understand his pain. The game is supposed to be fun for all and certainly most don't want to have to play the waterboy of the team. Everyone deserves "spotlight" time and I think Monte Cook was on the right track when he suggested undesirable chores (healing for example) should be spread out through the party.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

It can work if you take a longer time mindset, i.e. resting for days or weeks. We did this recently and the campaign seemed better for it, battles are fewer, more tense and more costly.

Depends on players and dm.

Reminds me of an old movie, think it was Ivanhoe, where the hero spends most of the film healing after a mighty battle.

 

[DragonLancer]

Does no one ever play clerics capable of holding their own in combat? Healing, multipurpose spells and some combat abilitey are what the traditional D&D cleric is surposed to be after all.

 

[Urbannen]

Yes, clerics can be decent in combat if they have a high Strength and a good weapon and armor combo. However, if clerics don't spend a lot of time in combat healing their comrades and providing support, then some of their comrades will likely die, especially considering that (my little rant) many players are not good about playing defensively and tacitly expect the cleric to pull their fat out of the fire when they overextend themselves (end little rant - not always true, but heck, it is true a lot).

As Quasqueton said, clerics are absolutely essential in almost all D&D parties under current core rules.

(BTW, Quasqueton, love the name - I have a secret fascination with that module.)