D&D 5E D&D without the Cleric

[Diamondeye]

I don't really see why you would 'get rid' of clerics if no one wants to play them in the first place. Just play without clerics.

 

[tannersharp]

No one is a cleric in my group and we have done just fine, if you count losing a child having an old man slayn me being in a heap of gnoal and my friend turned into a sheep [emoji14]

 

[Uller]

We have a Paladin, Monk, Warlock, Wizard and Arcane Trickster in our group. Really this set up just makes stuff less fun for me because my baddies get stun-locked and their minions get turned to cinders before they can do much. Lack of healing is made up for by me making potions of healing and greater healing available for purchase in most towns. Clerics (or healers in general) are helpful but not really necessary.

 

[Mistwell]

We have no cleric in our main online game (two years old now), and we're about to have no cleric in our in-person game. For the online game a combination of a Paladin and Ranger handle healing. For the in-person game it's going to be a Bard.

 

[LapBandit]

We use some homebrew which makes healing more valuable: Long Rests healthy recovery is 1 HD. You still recover your HD at the same rate and can spend as many as you like on a Long Rest. Magical healing is a HUGE boon in this case, but it is still viewed as a method of being battle ready again faster. That said, Clerics are just one of the five classes that can heal so perhaps this top is better framed as "D&D without magical healing".

 

[LapBandit]

double post

 

[Dausuul]

Our group consists of a bard, a monk/warlock, a rogue, and a barbarian. We do fine without a cleric.

The only thing you need to change is the mindset of your players. Having a cleric in the party hasn't been a necessity for two editions now.

 

[Psikerlord#]

To answer the OP, you don't need a cleric (or other full capability healer such as a druid or bard) at all.

A half healer like a paladin, or someone with the Healer feat or Herbalism Kit making potions in downtime/or buying them, is good enough in my experience, combined with every PC's personal HD healing on a short rest. And we use the slow healing optional rule and injuries table (for being reduced to zero hp only).

In fact... in some ways... if you have a full healer, especially something like a life cleric - it may be self defeating. Your DM will probably end up throwing more monsters etc at you, to get that "challenging" feel most want (especially if they are not using slow healing or injuries at zero hp). It's like the PC vs Monster damage arms race. The DM knows what the party is capable of and will adjust his encounters to suit.

 

[iserith]

I've played in groups without a cleric and DMed for some. We haven't missed them. If you want to make a campaign without them, I imagine it will work just fine. Players will work around it (or should, at least). The key to having few healing resources is to avoid playing as if you have a lot of healing resources. That sounds stupid-simple (and is), but players often forget that in my experience until the characters get thrown a beating.

Personally, I love playing clerics. Healing and enabling are just something I like doing (I was always a Leader in D&D 4e). I'm up for playing my 5e clerics Wanda Curelight and Marshal Heeling any day of the week.

 

[Rhenny]

A DM can certainly adapt to a party without healing, and there are so many other classes that grant healing, but the cleric offers a ton of utility/curative other than healing (revivify, lesser restoration, bless, etc.).

Like others have said, you can play without clerics but I would not eliminate them unless your campaign has an edge where gods are absent (like Dragonlance did).

I really like playing clerics, especially now that there are domains that dabble in combat or fire/spellcasting. I'm playing a Tempest Cleric in a campaign now and I love it. In some campaigns I've run over the past year, players have run War Clerics and Light Clerics. They've all had a blast.