beaver1024
First Post
DnD was made with this assumption in mind. This is why clerics have been given such obscene amount of power. Ostensibly to compensate for their healing and buffing role.
RANT - Obsession with Clerics
- Thread starter Runesong42
- Start date
ThoughtfulOwl
First Post
In the Eberron campaing I'm currently DMing I have only two players, who alternate between two parties: a bard and a ranger in one and a rogue and a wizard in the other; they are short not only on healing but also on numbers, yet we don't have any problem.
They rely more on wands and potions of cure wounds, on smart tactics and on picking the right fights, while I adjust the challenges to account for their limited resilience. So far it's been a blast.
No role is really necessary; it's just easier when the party is well rounded.
They rely more on wands and potions of cure wounds, on smart tactics and on picking the right fights, while I adjust the challenges to account for their limited resilience. So far it's been a blast.
No role is really necessary; it's just easier when the party is well rounded.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
So far, I've noticed a tendancy to NEED a cleric unless the DM specifically designed the campaign around not having a cleric.
Fights tended to be:
Round 1
Fighter runs up, hits once.
Enemy does a full attack on the fighter doing 48 points of damage.
Fighter: "Ow, I have 93 hit points, that's more than half of them"
Rest of the party goes, variously missing, being useless or doing small amounts of damage.
Round 2
Fighter does a full attack on the enemy, leaving it at 8 hit points.
Enemy does a full attack with one crit, fighter dies.
With a cleric that same battle tended to be exactly the same but add during round 1: Cleric casts a Cure Critical Wounds on the fighter and the second round replace "fighter dies" with "the rest of the party does the 8 points killing the enemy".
Even with other characters attempting to play the role of healer it was normally never enough. Even if they got lucky and survived that combat, they'd open the next door with less than half the hit points of the fighter or they'd have enough potions and scrolls that they'd be at full but they would get unlucky and the enemy would kill them this time. Even if you had a ranger run up to the fighter first round and use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds on the fighter, it normally wasn't enough to heal him. The fighter would take so much damage you'd need to cure him for 20+ each round in order to keep him alive.
Fights tended to be:
Round 1
Fighter runs up, hits once.
Enemy does a full attack on the fighter doing 48 points of damage.
Fighter: "Ow, I have 93 hit points, that's more than half of them"
Rest of the party goes, variously missing, being useless or doing small amounts of damage.
Round 2
Fighter does a full attack on the enemy, leaving it at 8 hit points.
Enemy does a full attack with one crit, fighter dies.
With a cleric that same battle tended to be exactly the same but add during round 1: Cleric casts a Cure Critical Wounds on the fighter and the second round replace "fighter dies" with "the rest of the party does the 8 points killing the enemy".
Even with other characters attempting to play the role of healer it was normally never enough. Even if they got lucky and survived that combat, they'd open the next door with less than half the hit points of the fighter or they'd have enough potions and scrolls that they'd be at full but they would get unlucky and the enemy would kill them this time. Even if you had a ranger run up to the fighter first round and use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds on the fighter, it normally wasn't enough to heal him. The fighter would take so much damage you'd need to cure him for 20+ each round in order to keep him alive.
JoeGKushner
Adventurer
I've used everything from psychic healers from Green Ronin's Master Class series to Healers from the MIniature Handbook.
Clerics are very useful.
Is no one wants to play a cleric, I don't feel that the party shoudl be penalized. I don't give out tons of gold in my campaign in the first place so having them just buy potions and 'rent' a cleric is out.
Therefore, the NPC comes in.
Clerics are very useful.
Is no one wants to play a cleric, I don't feel that the party shoudl be penalized. I don't give out tons of gold in my campaign in the first place so having them just buy potions and 'rent' a cleric is out.
Therefore, the NPC comes in.
Henry
Autoexreginated
In my games, if a party cannot provide healing for itself, they reap what they sow. I don't "tack on" an NPC cleric if they don't have a cleric. Other groups will vary, but in my experience, 3E has provided such that a cleric's healing is no longer the only way to provide support. Keep in mind that not ONLY can one-third of the party cast healing magic now (Bards, Druids, Clerics & Rangers), but healing potions, scrolls, and items are suggested to be affordable, AND a party of adventurers heals MUCH faster than they once did.
In the "olden days," if you had only one healer, and your group was severly beaten, you STILL took weeks to rest and recuperate, because the absolute most you regained per day was 1 hit point, or 2 or 3 with complete bed rest and healers attending. A 70 hit point fighter could take a month to completely heal without help. Nowadays, you're looking at MOST two weeks for any character to heal hit point damage from zero, whether they be 1st or 20th. (Amusing thing - a high CON score means it takes LONGER to heal from zero!)
A party can, quite well, live without a healer in 3E, but they need to play with a modicum of caution. In 1E or 2E games, more than a modicum of caution was needed - it was required to be crafty as Erwin Rommel or Francis Marion.
In the "olden days," if you had only one healer, and your group was severly beaten, you STILL took weeks to rest and recuperate, because the absolute most you regained per day was 1 hit point, or 2 or 3 with complete bed rest and healers attending. A 70 hit point fighter could take a month to completely heal without help. Nowadays, you're looking at MOST two weeks for any character to heal hit point damage from zero, whether they be 1st or 20th. (Amusing thing - a high CON score means it takes LONGER to heal from zero!)
A party can, quite well, live without a healer in 3E, but they need to play with a modicum of caution. In 1E or 2E games, more than a modicum of caution was needed - it was required to be crafty as Erwin Rommel or Francis Marion.
Bah. I DM in AU, where every spellcaster can cast healing spells (although they are weaker than in regular D&D). It removes the need for a religious class. But then again, it ain't regular D&D anymore. And I messed up with the campaign enough that it isn't even regular AU either.
Narfellus
First Post
That's why i like the Midnight CS, there aren't any clerics at all, except for evil NPC legates. Wizards and druids can cast healing magic, but they aren't walking hospitals. The best you can hope for in Midnight upon dying is to get reincarnated into a useful animal before your soul is trapped in your corpse as an undead Fell.
MonsterMash
First Post
In the campaign I DM I don't have a cleric in the party, but as there is a bard and a druid there are potential healers. Full party for that campaign is:
Fighter 2 Dwarf
Bard 2 Human
Druid 2 Human
Sorceror 2 Human
Occasionally I have tacked on NPCs, but it has mainly been as a campaign related thing rather than as a specific, the party does not have a rogue/cleric/etc so here's one to match the D&D cliche. So far the NPCs with them have been a Barbarian in one scenario and another Bard and an expert in another scenario.
I'm currently playing a Cleric, but not so much for party balance as just because I felt like playing a spellcaster and was actually torn between Wizard and Cleric, but chose Cleric partly for RP reasons.
Fighter 2 Dwarf
Bard 2 Human
Druid 2 Human
Sorceror 2 Human
Occasionally I have tacked on NPCs, but it has mainly been as a campaign related thing rather than as a specific, the party does not have a rogue/cleric/etc so here's one to match the D&D cliche. So far the NPCs with them have been a Barbarian in one scenario and another Bard and an expert in another scenario.
I'm currently playing a Cleric, but not so much for party balance as just because I felt like playing a spellcaster and was actually torn between Wizard and Cleric, but chose Cleric partly for RP reasons.
Similar Threads
