D&D 5E How important is party balance in Next? (iow, how necessary are clerics?)

[JRRNeiklot]

I've never played an edition of D&D where a cleric was necessary. Or any other class for that matter.

 

[Wulfgar76]

I've never played an edition of D&D where a cleric was necessary. Or any other class for that matter.

No, but in every edition you've played, including the one you play now I'd wager, a cleric massively boosts the party's survivability and how long it can go before needing to rest – moreso than any other class by far.

You know what the OP was asking. No need to be coy, everyone round here knows Clerics are a traditionally a 'Tier 1' class.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No, but in every edition you've played, including the one you play now I'd wager, a cleric massively boosts the party's survivability and how long it can go before needing to rest – moreso than any other class by far.

You know what the OP was asking. No need to be coy, everyone round here knows Clerics are a traditionally a 'Tier 1' class.

I think JRR only plays and has only played AD&D. And with that game giving clerics Cure Light at 1st level and then no other healing spells until 7th level... most AD&D games barely had any healing in them anyway. So going from barely any healing to no healing (by not having a cleric) wasn't that much of a problem. Heh heh.

 

[Ichneumon]

You can successfully play with any combination of classes, provided you're willing to adjust your playstyle to accommodate any drawbacks. Without a cleric or other healing class, the PCs won't get on-the-spot healing within combat (except for potions) so it's smart for them to find ways to get the drop on their foes, dishing out lots of damage while minimising what the monsters can do back. If they let the monsters start fresh at the beginning of every fight, they're gonna burn through their Hit Dice rapidly.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

No, but in every edition you've played, including the one you play now I'd wager, a cleric massively boosts the party's survivability and how long it can go before needing to rest – moreso than any other class by far.

You know what the OP was asking. No need to be coy, everyone round here knows Clerics are a traditionally a 'Tier 1' class.

You mistake me, sir. I never tell anyone anything other than what I mean.

I don't know what a "tier 1" class is supposed to be, but the op starts with a false premise that clerics are necessary for a party. Sure, the healing they bring is nice, but it's hardly "necessary. An extra fighter instead of a cleric can end battles before the healing is needed. So can a magic user. Especially once he learns sleep or stinking cloud. The cleric is a fine class, but, like any other class, they are not necessary. The game plays just fine without them.

 

[Wulfgar76]

You mistake me, sir. I never tell anyone anything other than what I mean.

I don't know what a "tier 1" class is supposed to be, but the op starts with a false premise that clerics are necessary for a party. Sure, the healing they bring is nice, but it's hardly "necessary. An extra fighter instead of a cleric can end battles before the healing is needed. So can a magic user. Especially once he learns sleep or stinking cloud. The cleric is a fine class, but, like any other class, they are not necessary. The game plays just fine without them.

Well by that logic the game plays just fine without fighters, rogues, wizards or anybody else. You can be a party of commoners and merchants and have a rip-roaring good time.

However the time-honored D&D truism "who's gonna be the cleric" exists for a reason. Indeed Clerics are not necessary, but (at least in 3e and 4e) they are extremely helpful, much more so than an extra fighter.

 

[Mistwell]

In our playtest experience, the Cleric is very useful. Not necessary, but the presence of the Cleric allows for the front-line fighter to remain fighting in the front line longer. I imagine my group would be swapping out the front line more frequently, and facing unconsciousness more often, without the Cleric.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Well by that logic the game plays just fine without fighters, rogues, wizards or anybody else. You can be a party of commoners and merchants and have a rip-roaring good time.

Individually, the game runs just find without either of those classes, but, sans level 0, commoners and merchants don't have levels pre 3e.

However the time-honored D&D truism "who's gonna be the cleric" exists for a reason. Indeed Clerics are not necessary, but (at least in 3e and 4e) they are extremely helpful, much more so than an extra fighter.

I was mainly thinking of his "in other editions" point in the op. Silly me, thinking D&D existed before 3e.

That said, I haven't seen your "time honored tradition" in over30 years, except as applied to a single classed thief.

 

[Rhenny]

Of course, having a healing class in the party extends the adventuring day, but we've found that it is easy to play Next without a healer as long as:

1) the group plays more carefully
2) the DM gives them opportunities to rest more frequently
3) they find or have some potions to use when really in danger

The cautious playstyle is one that my group and I like. For us, it feels more gritty when PCs try to avoid combat when possible. We like fearing that we might get hurt and have to run, hide or limp to a safer area.

That's why we like 5e, especially lower levels (with or without healer). At higher levels as long as DM gives opportunities to take short rests, we feel a little more rugged even without healer.

 

[KidSnide]

I have also found that in-combat healing is just less important in D&DN than it was in 3e or 4e. My recollection of AD&D and 2e was that it was common for the fighters to have enough hit points to make it through most encounters without needing healing. In 3e and 4e, my experience was that much more damage was dished out relative to the party hit point totals and that healers spent many more actions keeping the party on their feet. Particularly in 4e, monsters typically had more hp than PCs of the same level, so the party either had to be doing a lot more damage per round than the enemy or healing was an in-combat necessity.

I find D&DN is much closer to the AD&D / 2e model. Yes, in combat healing is a very nice ability to have (and you still some potions or the equivalent to survive emergencies). But it doesn't have the same primacy that it had in 3e or 4e, at least IME.

-KS