Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Malph Aug 24, 2014 19:12:06	I will be running a 5e game.  There will be 4 PCs.  One wouldn't mind being a cleric, but is debating other options.  I haven't played a 5e game yet, so I don't know if the absence of a cleric handicaps a group.   How much of a handicap would it be for a group to lack a cleric?
#2 Redbeard2 Aug 24, 2014 19:37:01	Malph wrote:
#3 Psikerlord Aug 24, 2014 19:56:17	Malph wrote:
(Reply to #3) Redbeard2	Psikerlord wrote:
#5 baronspam Aug 24, 2014 20:09:32	You need healing, but that healing doesn't have to a cleric.  Fighters have their second wind and a battlemaster can hand out a few temporary hitpoints at level 3.  Paladins have quite a bit of healing available if they don't mind not having their spells slots available to smite.  Even if they do, you have a reserve for lay on hands.  Bards and druids can heal a fair amount as well.  A life domain cleric is probably the best healer, but certainly no the only option for haivng a healer.
#6 iserith Aug 24, 2014 20:12:19	The party will only need a cleric if they're going to play as if they have one anyway. I don't think it's the role of the DM to change anything just because they don't have a cleric. They'll have to learn to solve problems without a cleric backing their play and that's part of the challenge. (Just make sure they're aware of that challenge, naturally.)   I say play on!
#7 Psikerlord Aug 24, 2014 20:13:02	baronspam wrote:
#8 Trebuchet Aug 24, 2014 21:01:02	Bards, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers can all be effective main healers. Rangers and Paladins perhaps less so, but if the party believes they need somebody to fill that role, I do think they are capable of it.   That said, I don't think 5e parties need to have a dedicated healer to succeed. Most adventures are going to provide a few potions of healing here or there, and that should be enough for emergencies. If no one in your group wants to be a dedicated healer, then I wouldn't force them to. Just be aware that it will impact gameplay a little. They will have to rely on self healing features and mundane healing from rests.   With healing magic, if things go wrong, the cleric can fix it. Without healing magic, the party should still be able to defeat similar threats, but they don't have the same safety net. They may need to rely more on scouting, planning, and aggressive strikes. A clever party should be able to take on the same threats as long as they play to their strengths.   As long as the party is aware of the "weakness," and the DM doesn't actively punish them for not having a healer, I see no reason why you need one.
#9 SpedGuy Aug 24, 2014 21:42:52	It's like not having someone to disarm traps; it definetly makes you change your playstyle, and some challenges become much harder than they could be, but it doesn't end the party
#10 Jharii Aug 25, 2014 5:54:12	Redbeard2 wrote:
#11 KarlB Aug 25, 2014 7:20:38	As someone said above, Druid and Bard are very strong healers in their own right, and match the Cleric in healing unless that cleric takes the Life domain specifically.   There's a debate going on right now whether you can cast material and somatic spells while using a two handed weapon. If your DM says no, then you'd be gimping your ranger or paladin by having him or her act as main healer.
#12 nightwalker450 Aug 25, 2014 7:49:40	In the last season of Encounters (still using playtest), I was the main healer for our party... As a Rogue 5/Ranger 3, with the Healer feat... The healer feat was left more or less untouched in going to the official rules. So no a cleric isn't really necessary, as long as the characters in your group excercise caution when its necessary. But if the characters expect to have every scratch they receive healed instantly, then someone will have to dedicate themselves fully to being nothing but the healer.
#13 ArkPanda Aug 25, 2014 12:24:26	I think they will be OK once they hit second level and more options start opening up.  It seems unlikely that there will not be a cleric, bard, druid, ranger, or paladin.  Throw in Second Wind and hit dice and they should be fine.   I haven't had problems making it to second level in my games, since it's just 300 XP.  I guess it depends a lot on the luck of the dice.
(Reply to #13) Gruff_Ironfist	Just as an aside, the bard (cutting words, hold spells, etc.) and druid can each add other damage-mitigation options that (potentially) reduce the need for traditional healing. Our group's druid is using this to amazing effect, and has provided vastly more "healing" and other benefits than a cleric could at this level, in our humble opinion.   Level 2 druid (circle of the moon) turns into a Dire Wolf and now has a free pool of 37 HPs. He runs in and takes the alpha strike that would have otherwise hit his allies. The wolf 14 AC will mitigate a few hits, but count on getting hit a lot. And he wants to get hit, because that means his allies are not getting hit, and he's doing his job (of proactive healing via forms). Once that form's HPs drops to 0, he gets knocked back into his normal form. On his turn, as bonus action, he uses the 2nd wild shape to pop back in a new Dire Wolf form, and now has another free 37 HPs.   Take a short rest, and you've got 2 more wild shapes back. That's 74 points of damage he can take each rest.   As a great benefit, you're contributing nice damage in the form (2d6+3), have advantage on attacks (pact tactics) with an ally nearby, have advantage on hearing/smelling perception checks, can stealth, and move very fast (50 ft). You can even knock foes prone if you bite them, giving advantage on attacks to your other melee-based allies.   He uses the remainder of his spell slots to cast goodberries. Each ally has a couple on hand at all times, so they can use it to bring an unconscious ally back to 1 HP mid-fight. O therwise they eat them during downtime for non-variable healing.   All of this doesn't take into account the massive benefit from other wild shape applications. Turn into a house cat and stealth around, recon a place before the PCs have to go in. Eventually turn into an eagle (with observant feat) and read lips from on high. Crazy!   Soon, he'll be conjuring dire wolves with a spell slot, and then turning into a a dire wolf himself (functioning as a quasi-mirror-image effect now, with multiple wolves, but they all do damage and don't generally die in one hit). At higher levels, he'll be conjuring elementals and turning into an elemental himself, all nicely resisting damage from nonmagical sources.
#15 Ashrym Aug 28, 2014 14:33:16	Clerics aren't needed. Healing is rather helpful, however, and is available from a wide variety of sources. Bards and druids can cover clerics easily enough and I wouldn't call it a need to have one of those 3 classes either.
#16 Leugren Aug 28, 2014 14:41:52	Gruff_Ironfist wrote:
#17 Gruff_Ironfist Aug 28, 2014 15:47:08	Leugren wrote:
#18 Thank_Dog Aug 28, 2014 16:20:33	At 1st-level a cleric is definitely a boon simply due to the healing but I personally don't think it's necessary as long as you don't play kick-in-the-door style and instead actually worry about your character dying. I've played in dozens of 5e games already both in person at an FLGS and with friends at home and online, and I've seen how cautious play can make a huge difference to party survival at low levels. Everyone claiming that 5e is deadly, I think, would have just as much problem in every other edition of D&D other than 4e but for some reason 5e is singled out. The death potential seems no greater than it was in 1st edition, 2nd edition or 3rd edition. In fact, with the way death saves and instant death and reviving from unconscious work, I'd say it's the least deadly out of them all.   I honestly believe that the people who are claiming that 5e is deadly are the ones most used to kick-in-the-door style of play with munchkin characters that have little threat of dying at 1st-level. The loss of munchkining characters is the real bane to their existence, and not the system itself. Once more splats come out and they can min/max for low-level invincibility, I'm sure they'll be fine and stop whining so that the rest of us can enjoy the threat of character death rather than merely waltzing through every encounter as if it's all just a paper-mache kid's play pen.
#19 crimfan07 Aug 28, 2014 16:33:56	Malph wrote:
#20 Illithidbix Aug 28, 2014 17:13:27	In the playtest game our cleric got eaten by a mimic disguised as a chair. ... we've found we've done fine since then with a combanation of a Moon Druid and Paladin.   My Moon Druid took the Magic Initate feat at level 4 to get the Spare the Dying Cantrip. - However given it's now a far more sensible "Stablise 0HP Character" rather than "Heal 1HP on 0HP character" I personally feel it's far less "manditory."   Whilst Life Clerics are the premier healers, both Druids and Bards are full spellcasters who also get Cure Wounds and Healing Word. And Rangers and Paladins also get Cure wounds as 1/2 level spellcasters.
#21 Emirikol Aug 28, 2014 17:23:12	I've always made it a point in my games to avoid the "must have religious person" in the game through simply house ruling and access to other types of healing (and by stopping the endless-dungeon-murder insanity).     In our conan 3.5 campaigns and Warhammer 4e games, I simply made healing a lot more accessible.  They really arent necessary for anything else, as if there's no cleric, you're not stuck throwing HORDES OF UNDEAD at the PCs and can pick and choose a couple cool ones, instead of artificially bloating the encounters.             jh
(Reply to #11) CorwynnMaelstrom	KarlB wrote:
(Reply to #18) Ashrym	Thank_Dog wrote:
(Reply to #20) Ashrym	Illithidbix wrote:
(Reply to #19) Ashrym	crimfan07 wrote: