D&D 5E D&D without the Cleric

[Li Shenron]

With so many healing and self-healing options to many classes, I seriously doubt that you specifically need a Cleric to play the game.

It is OK if having a Cleric allows for a little bit more combat in a day, just like having a Fighter or Evoker Wizard or another class more combat-oriented than exploration-oriented or interaction-oriented would also do. But if the difference was so large that you had to start playing adventures of a lower level, then there would be a serious design issue in the edition!

The Cleric has other very useful capabilities, such as removing short-term and long-term negative effects from party members. But this is similar for all classes... if you don't have a Cleric you are more vulnerable to diseases, curses, poison etc., if you don't have a Rogue you are more vulnerable to traps and to missing useful stuff in secret or locked areas, if you don't have a Ranger you are more vulnerable to wilderness hazards, if you don't have a Paladin you are more vulnerable to fiends and undead and so on... This is part of the game and it's a good thing! It's a strategic choice when forming a party. If you don't like being vulnerable in any area, there are workarounds (skills, feats, multiclassing, magic items...), or the DM can adjust the adventures for you in order to de-emphasize the dangers you are more vulnerable against.

 

[Leatherhead]

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.

Or you could remove the majority of combat healing (stabilization is necessary to keep unless you want to be evil), rebalance the encounter attrition appropriately, and provide alternative means to recuperate grievous injuries.

But yeah, healing surges were kind of a mess.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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...

You don't even need to do that. We have no PC who can heal, and the DM hasn't altered anything. You just have to be smart

 

[evilbob]

I wouldn't worry about it. Healing is usually a trap anyway. Even if you are highly specialized, you can never heal enough to mitigate incoming damage in a typical battle, meaning that your best option is nearly 100% of the time to attack and not heal. Healing is just an emergency measure and the most important part of healing - getting someone standing who is out - can easily be handled by potions.

 

[tannersharp]

So in my group we have a wizard warlock monk sorcerer and a drewid, are drewid makes herb kits and potions that we can use so he is like are healer but he specialized in shapeshifting and he still has the potion ability

 

[Zaran]

I think a druid can do pretty well with the healing role as well. 5e Clerics aren't much different in healing unless you get the life domain.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think a druid can do pretty well with the healing role as well. 5e Clerics aren't much different in healing unless you get the life domain.

It is worth noting that Clerics of the Life domain are very good at healing, being one of very few sub/classes to gain significant amounts of healing on a short rest (with no Hit Dice expenditure).

 

[bedir than]

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...

As a DM I wouldn't adjust rests, nor encounters. As a player I would adjust my behavior. I'd be a bit more likely to retreat. A bit less likely to take the opponent from hostile to violent. That's on players and characters.

Life isn't easy. Life with fire breathing dragons, vampires and fiends is even harder.

 

[Bupp]

Thanks, lots of great responses!

Reading through made me realize that my main issue is with the "cleric as healbot". In one game I'm running, one player is playing a 5e life cleric, so he has been hitting that trope pretty well, though he much prefers to wade into melee.

I'm going to be playing in a game my daughter is running soon, and we're going to be running 2 characters each. I've rolled up a paladin and a bard. One of the players said "I guess I'll play a cleric", and I told him he didn't need to, figuring I had healing covered. He went with a light cleric, so he's going to be blasting! I'm waiting to see how it plays out.

 

[KarinsDad]

I wouldn't worry about it. Healing is usually a trap anyway. Even if you are highly specialized, you can never heal enough to mitigate incoming damage in a typical battle, meaning that your best option is nearly 100% of the time to attack and not heal. Healing is just an emergency measure and the most important part of healing - getting someone standing who is out - can easily be handled by potions.

Unless you like healing in combat and design your PC to cover both healing and damage in the same round.

I just started playing last weekend (nephew offered to DM) and I created a Life Cleric 1 / Necromancer Wizard 5 (now 6 since we were just at the cusp of level 7). I have no problem ordering my skeletons to fire arrows while I go over and cast a D8+6 Cure Wounds on a "bloodied" PC (we use the 4E bloodied concept to illustrate to players how wounded foes are as per the 5E PHB sidebar on letting everyone know when PCs and NPCs are half damaged). The skeletons can also take over the job of using healing potions on a downed PC so that my PC can cast a worthwhile spell in the same round as still performing the more typical "get an unconscious PC conscious" activity.

Even traps are relative.