Oh cleric what are thou? When most classes can heal...

[Tony Vargas]

Hello

It used to be that a cleric was almost mandatory in a party. However, in this edition of D&D, I've noticed how many classes have healing powers, that usually couldn't.

That goes way back, really. Even in 1e, the Paladin & Druid could heal - just not enough, at 1st level, to see a party through to 2nd. 1e also gave the cleric bonus spells at 1st level, that was really the cleric-mandatory edition (and mainly so at 1st level) moreso than 0e, when the cleric didn't even cast at 1st level, or 2e where the cleric (priest) was considerably more customizeable and might not be able to heal, either), or 3e when it became the C in CoDzilla (and any class that got CLW on it's list - Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Bard - could keep the party going with a wand), or 4e when everyone got surges (like HD, but a much more significant, more accessible resource) & each Source (Divine, Arcane, Primal, Psionic, even Martial) had a 'leader-Role' class (Cleric, Bard/Artificer, Druid/Shaman, Ardent, Warlord) who could help restore hps in some way.
5e is very evocative of the classic game, but as far as which classes can heal and how well, it most strongly emulates 3.x, with the Cleric the stand-out best healer, followed by the Druid & Paladin, with the Bard showing and the Ranger trailing(pi). The most visibile difference is that everyone can fall back on HD when they have some time to kill (short rest) in 5e, while in 3e it was wands (wielded by the afore-mentioned classes, or someone with UMD skill) that provided systematic between-combat healing.

I think that to an extent, the lack of cleric-dependence has helped with the popularity of 5e. In my experience, clerics are not a popular class, perhaps because of their religious connotations.

That's my experience, as well. Clerics were absolutely necessary in the classic game, but unpopular because of the concept and because the healing function took up most of their actions in combat and most of their spell slots each day, making it downright boring. Each WotC edition has tried to 'fix' that, only 4e succeeded. 3.x made the cleric wildly overpowered to boost it's popularity, bringing us CoDzilla, while 5e spread out healing a little with HD, but left spell slots a necessity, expanding the 'you must have a cleric' maxim to 'you must have a caster who can heal, and, oh, now the Sorcerer & Warlock can heal.'

I believe that 5e was written on a clean sheet of paper, without taking the previous versions (i.e. 3e, 4e) into much consideration.

Throughout the playtest, WotC openly affirmed that they were taking every previous edition into consideration, and no small number of column inches in 5e are taken almost verbatim from past editions.

Instead, I believe they just looked at what makes a fun game: Giving players a lot of options and freedom.

5e gives players fewer options than 2e, 3e, & 4e did, even though 5e has no been actively published longer than 4e was, and less freedom to use those options than either 3e or 4e did. Slow pace of release & DM Empowerment are excellent reasons to restrict player options & freedom, but restricted they are.

It's great that no single class is mandatory in a party!

It's nice, in theory, and it was equally nice in 3e when you could get by with a Cleric or Druid or hefty supply of wands. But, the party still definitely needs a healer who brings a daily resource to supplement HD. They're basically the same list of classes in 3.x/PF & 5e Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, Ranger (3.5/PF, obviously have a lot of lesser-known classes & PrCs). But neither went as far as 4e in that regard.

And why shouldn't some nature-wizard (i.e. druid) be able to heal?

It always has been able to do so in every edition of D&D.

Why shouldn't the most charismatic person be able to soothe?

Heh.

It's up to the DM to adjust the encounters and the difficulty, to allow short/long rests, and to make healing potions more common when a party cannot heal itself so well.

That's a legitimate style of DMing, and 5e does put the DM very much in the driver's seat as far as the style & tone - and balance - of his own campaign.

Frankly, I think that you should be able to have fun with a group that is totally out of balance

Nod, it's entirely up to the DM to establish and maintain balance for his own campaign, both in terms of putting each character in the splotlight a fair proportion of the time, and in making combats feel sufficiently challening without bringing unitentional TPKs.

So at this point, I'm going to dredge up:

In 4e, the Cleric class as we knew it was more or less outmoded. The Leader Role (and some downtime streamlining) broke up their monopoly on healing. The Divine Power source expanded the "person who prays for power" idea into two more classes (both of which were arguably cooler than the Cleric ever was), which in turn meant that they could gut the New Cleric of it's seemingly endless array of powers.

The Leader Role was still nominally needed in every party (in as much as any role other than Controller was, anyway, certainly /very/ nice to have), but each Source had a leader class (or two) and Source was the broadest take on heroic fantasy archetype, so if you did want to play a warrior rather than a caster, but the party 'needed that Role covered,' you could play a warlord. If you really wanted to play a caster, but the party 'needed a tank,' you could play a swordmage. If the DM wanted to run a setting where certain archetypes were just not an option - the Gods are Dead or psionics is too-sci-fi or whatever - he could ban a whole Source, and all the role bases could still be covered.

With this there was much rejoicing, for CoDzilla was dead, with a vengeance. A monster grown out of trying to fix a problem by treating the symptoms instead of the disease.

This path more or less continued into 5e. Healing is again covered by multiple classes, and multiple classes get their powers from the gods. However, now that the specter of Codzilla is no longer at the forefront of the players minds, it begs the question: What exactly is a Cleric for? It's not that religious connotations aren't popular. Not only do the Paladin, Warlock, Druid, and Monk classes cover that out of the gate to various degrees, but there is an ever-growing collection of subclasses that are aping that angle. It's not that healing isn't useful, as evidenced by the also large number of characters and classes who can pull that off.

No, the problem now, is that the Cleric can't latch itself onto an external rules problem anymore, forcing the Cleric to stand on it's own merits, while people slowly realize it had none to begin with.

Harsh. The Cleric as undead-turning zealot has a bit of genre lore on it's side, a very little bit, more from Bella Lugosi recoiling from Van Helsing's cross than anything. It was the glowing-healing-every-round dynamic that was sadly counter-genre, but it was a function of D&D's hp mechanics (which were otherwise pretty useful mechanics, really), the game just needed better genre-evoking concepts of restoring hps than the pious guy in full plate with a mace touching you ever round to make your wounds disapear.

5e has not been too bold in going there. It has the Fighter's Second Wind feature, and a few other little odds and ends hidden here or there, but you still /need/ the caster with Cure Wounds or the like on his list, for the healing resource (& versatilty) of the slots he brings.

 

[Satyrn]

Oh absolutely - esp the life cleric. But if you had a party with, say, a paladin and a celestial warlock (now that's a duo...) in it, that should be more than enough to heal no?

My group has a paladin, druid and cleric in it and we still don't have more than enough healing. As it stands after last session, we barely even have enough healing. If there's much fighting still to come before we find a safe place to take a long rest, I'm thinking we have a decent chance to TPK. (I'm just glad we finished up last session on a short rest so tbat I'll have a couple snakefuls of extra hp from wildshape.)

As for the basic question of the OP. The player's cleric distinguished himself clearly as a unique and vital addition to the party by single-handedly destroying a horde of undead. And then showed off just how connected he is to Thor Kord, using the tempest cleric's channel divinty on a nova blast from a fully charged wand of lightning bolts.

Dude really looked like a cleric, and nothing else but a cleric.

 

[AmerginLiath]

All classes can fight, but the Fighter is still arguably overall best at it.
Any class can now take proficiency in thieves tools or stealth (vs in early editions), but the Rogue still gets abilities that make them the best at those roles.
Most classes have some sort of full or near-full caster ability (or they can take feats to learn magic) — compare that early editions where the Magic-User was the only full-caster (or OD&D, where the MU was the only class to get spells at first level) — yet the Wizard still has the most adaptable spell list and ritual casting ability in the game.

This transition in how is done vis-a-vis the role of the Cleric, freeing up the players to not play one or play one differently, is part of a broad trend of opening up closed class roles across the game while still maintaining certain specializations if a player wants to play the Class That’s The Best At in a traditional sense. We simply pay the most attention to the issue of clerical healing because it draws our attention when our characters are bleeding out on the battlefield and we need to know which character to turn to...

 

[Ganders]

Hello

It used to be that a cleric was almost mandatory in a party. ...

I would argue this isn't quite true, except by the transitive property. "It used to be that healing was almost mandatory in a party." and "Clerics were the only healers" combined to make that statement true.

The first statement is still true. But the second statement has been intentionally and thoroughly erased.

Clerics still have many of the same niches as ever, including curing things other than HP (including disease, curses, and death), and have similar roles uncluding being an armored divine caster. They are still rather good at healing too, they just aren't the only ones.

I think they've gained a bit as well, being more of a themed caster, the theme being determined by which deity you espouse. Knowledge clerics know stuff, Tempest clerics do thunder and lightning stuff, War clerics fight good, and so on. And I like a character with a theme.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Satyrn]

It is times like this, and threads like this, that make me think we should re-evaluate the position of Bargle in D&D lore.

I know what you are thinking. Bargle? The ur-Bad Guy? What could I possibly revisit about him?

Well, the answer is right in front of us. Think not of Bargle as the evil and duplicitous slayer of your friend, Aleena. Do not view him as the person who taught you that all you choices were meaningless.

NO!

Bargle made the hard choice so that you wouldn't have to.

"My name is Aleena. I’m a cleric, an adventurer like yourself. I live in the town nearby, and came here seeking monsters and treasure. Do you know about clerics?"

That's right- Bargle taught you the one thing you needed to know. The best cleric, is a dead cleric. It's the lesson that is evergreen.

Don't listen to the trickster. He's just bitter that the best cleric is a tempest cleric.

 

[Gadget]

I agree with others that 5e has gone a considerable way (more than any other edition than 4e) to right the "we need a cleric" ship. Over-correction? I don't think so. As to what role the cleric has now -- I would go with a "white mage" type role, though I realize clerics aren't all 'good' in that sense. It may be that their turning/channel divinity powers could be beefed up to be more of a fight evil (as 5e defines it, outsiders, elementals, and fey) iconic power.

 

[Staffan]

The Leader Role was still nominally needed in every party (in as much as any role other than Controller was, anyway, certainly /very/ nice to have), but each Source had a leader class (or two) and Source was the broadest take on heroic fantasy archetype, so if you did want to play a warrior rather than a caster, but the party 'needed that Role covered,' you could play a warlord. If you really wanted to play a caster, but the party 'needed a tank,' you could play a swordmage. If the DM wanted to run a setting where certain archetypes were just not an option - the Gods are Dead or psionics is too-sci-fi or whatever - he could ban a whole Source, and all the role bases could still be covered.

I think you're overlooking another thing 4e did to make the cleric unnecessary. It moved the long-term condition relief into the realm of rituals, which were accessible to anyone (some classes got ritual casting for free, but it was accessible to everyone with a feat). Cure Disease, Raise Dead, and Remove Affliction (basically restoration) were all rituals. A Leader-type class would aid you immensely in short-term condition relief (ongoing damage, stun, etc.), but you didn't need one if you got bitten by a dire rat or something like that.

 

[BookBarbarian]

When I play a Cleric I play a guy trying to manifest his deity's will in the world. That may or may not include healing.

So I don't really care if other classes can heal too.

 

[Yes]

Clerics can do many things. They have more subclasses than most other class, each with powerful powers, with a strong identity and lore and a social function. I'm glad they're not just expected to be "the healers" anymore, and that you have to pick this class out of taste rather than necessity.

Plus, I find healing in general to be a very bland part of roleplaying games. The ability to just magically "undo" the hardships suffered during a fight or a setback are close to negating the entire experience.