My group is only me, the DM, and 2 members. We are 3 friends that love to play DnD but since we are adults and each has his responsabilities, we can’t play as much as we’d like.
In regards to this, my view of our games is that, I’m trying to make the players have as much fun as possible. This means that i can be relax on some stuff (like if a player realized he made a mistake and doesn’t like his character, and ask if he can change, i will allow it).
Each player plays 2 character each. We play with Fantasy Grounds.
One on those 2 players is always playing a cleric, because we believe that a cleric is essential for healing. We had a discussion about leaving the cleric behind but I’’m afraid that this will mean they will die more often in combats.
What do you guys and gals think? Can we manage a game, heavy on strategic combat, without a cleric in the party? If so, how could we do that? I do not wish to add healing pots after each fight.
Having a Cleric is not necessary. Sure it helps the party but it isn't at all necessary. A Paladin, Druid, Bard, and Ranger can all heal as well, and as long as the Cleric in question isn't from the Life domain, then a Druid and Bard can do just as well as a Cleric. And since you are having 4 characters, then I think it is pretty likely at least one of them will play at least 1 of those classes. Bards, in my opinion, even can play a healer (or at least support) BETTER than a Cleric! Bards can use Vicous Mockery to prevent damage before it even happens, and can use Bardic Inspiration to mak an ally succeed on a saving throw, thus preventing a failure. So no, Clerics aren't necessary, but they do sure help.
Druids (especially Dream druids) can heal/support just as well as clerics. As mentioned, bards can as well. So do you need a cleric? Absolutely not.
The real question it sounds like you’re asking is “do you need a healer?” And the answer to that question is also no, but without access to some magical healing, it’ll be a lot harder. If you have a paladin and a ranger, they can share the load of bringing people back up when they go down, but without healing, it’s likely that someone who’s knocked unconscious is simply out of the fight, which makes things more challenging.
Druids (especially Dream druids) can heal/support just as well as clerics. As mentioned, bards can as well. So do you need a cleric? Absolutely not.
The real question it sounds like you’re asking is “do you need a healer?” And the answer to that question is also no, but without access to some magical healing, it’ll be a lot harder. If you have a paladin and a ranger, they can share the load of bringing people back up when they go down, but without healing, it’s likely that someone who’s knocked unconscious is simply out of the fight, which makes things more challenging.
It's important to have a means of bringing characters at 0 hp to positive hp, and healing potions are a tad expensive at lower levels. It's otherwise possible enough to get all the healing you need out of hit dice and long rests (it won't make much difference in a single fight, matters more for multiple fights per day). It's not important to have a serious dedicated healer, a paladin or (at level 2+) a ranger with Goodberry can meet the minimal requirements.
You could give one (or more) of the players the healer feat for free. Or encourage someone to take it. That can take care of in combat healing, and help with out of combat a bit. I’m usually against giving things away, but I don’t think it would be game breaking.
You could give one (or more) of the players the healer feat for free. Or encourage someone to take it. That can take care of in combat healing, and help with out of combat a bit. I’m usually against giving things away, but I don’t think it would be game breaking.
Ugh, healer feat. I'd probably be willing to say that you can get the effects of that feat by taking a tool proficiency in a healer's kit. Or that you can do it for free if you make a medicine check. For example:
When you use a healing kit to stabilize a dying creature, make a medicine check as normal. On a failed check, other than a natural 1, the creature is stabilized. On a success, the creature also gains 1 hp.
I think you'd quickly surprise yourself if you didn't have a cleric or healer in a party. Your party would need to adapt to the situation, but I think if you tried playing a party without a healer, you would probably learn quickly that you never really needed one to begin with. It's probably harder to play without one, and you'd have to deal with the resources you had-- which might mean learning when to flee, however, I think it could be done.
Another option to get a healer that isn't a Cleric is to have a Divine Soul Sorcerer. You still get to do all the Sorcerer things, but you get a number of spells from the Cleric list that don't count against your known. You then also get a number of class specialization effects that pair well with healing.
In 5e there is no tactical need for a healer. Damage mitigation is no much more effective than damage restoration in combat it isn't even funny. Bringing someone up from 0 is the only situation where healing is the superior choice. With HD conversion of short rests and HD restoration during long rests, it takes two days of downtime on average to fully restore health pool.
Going off some common homebrew rules makes a healer much more desirable. And having some way of removing conditions is very vital once the party clears low level.
My group is in a similar boat. We have 4 players, but frequently on 3 can play at a time. If no one wants to play a dedicated healer we have a "party controlled" cleric in the group. But at one point is was a tank, and currently I am DM and the party character is a Cleric of Knowledge, Fr. Iar, because they could us a primary healer, and none of the characters have access to Identify. Brother Oaken, Father Agmentation have served in other parties.
Needed? No, but it rounds out the party and lets players be more creative with their own builds. I think 2 secondary healer classes can more than make up for a primary healing cleric.
You could give one (or more) of the players the healer feat for free. Or encourage someone to take it. That can take care of in combat healing, and help with out of combat a bit. I’m usually against giving things away, but I don’t think it would be game breaking.
Ugh, healer feat. I'd probably be willing to say that you can get the effects of that feat by taking a tool proficiency in a healer's kit. Or that you can do it for free if you make a medicine check. For example:
When you use a healing kit to stabilize a dying creature, make a medicine check as normal. On a failed check, other than a natural 1, the creature is stabilized. On a success, the creature also gains 1 hp.
For a party of 4 at lvl 5 and one short rest per day, the healer feat will average at 100 hp equaly split between members and rests . A clerric (16 wis) burning all of his 1st and 2nd lvl slots will average at 61 hp split however he wants.
Or just put lots of healing potions in the monsters' treasure so that after a battle they can heal up.
Or space out encounters so there are rests in between.
A contrasting opinion ( surprise! ) here.
Personally - and it's only my opinion - I really dislike the idea of "the world scaling to the Characters": monsters, loot, and circumstances are altered by the DM to "fix" the perceived deficits and surpluses of Party abilities. I think that's one step away from altering die rolls to "fix" the events of the Narrative.
Solving the "problems" that the Party has is not the role of the GM. The GM is there to create interesting problems and situations with which the Players/Characters can interact, adjudicate the actions of the Players, and have the campaign world react to those actions in a plausible manner.
It is the Players job to determine the scope of those problems, find creative ways to apply their strengths, shore up their weaknesses, and solve their situation. One could argue that the GM is also responsible for creating resources with which the Party can solve those problems - which is almost true, but I believe that if the GM has created a plausible and consistent setting, and a plausible Adventure scenario, those resources are almost always implicitly present in the world for a creative Party. If not, then yes, I can see the GM spinning out an impromptu story element which gives the Players a nudge, so long as it's still plausible ( although repeating low probability events - always finding lots of healing potions in Monsters' lairs when they are rare in the world at large - are not plausible ).
In this case - the GM doesn't need to be concerned ( in fact almost shouldn't ) about whether or not the Party has enough healing; that is the domain of the Players to figure out ( although it's the role/necessity of a Healer in the group is an interesting theoretical discussion, to be sure ). Maybe the Party will rest more, be more tactically cautious, save up for lots of healing potions, hire a local Cleric NPC, etc. - which of the endless possible solutions they select ( if any ) is up to them, not the GM.
You mention that the game is "heavy on strategic combat" - so I'm assuming the Players enjoy the challenge of that. OK, the level and breadth of required strategy since they can't insta-heal just went up; so long as it's not overwhelming, that's a good thing, right? You're wondering the the game is playable without a Healer in the Party? Let them try and find out.
I recognize that the Party may not catch on to the changed situation right away, and go charging into combat the first few times, before they realize "hey, we're squishier now!", and it's not fun for anyone if the Party TPKs. There are alternatives to bending plausibility into pretzels, in order to prevent the Party accidentally suiciding until they catch on that their tactical situation is different. Light, judicious, and short term use of multiple fail states, until the Party catches on, is one idea. Also recognize that not all combat needs to end in death: the bad guys can capture the Party and now it's an escape scenario.
In short, don't worry about it - trust in the Players' ability to deal creatively with the situation, and your ability as a GM to come up with new and interesting ways for the Party to fail . Never take away their failures or their ability to fail - just realize that failure doesn't need to be irrevocable death all the time.
If you don't try and prop up your Players, and just roll with it, you may be pleasantly surprised by your Players' creativity rising to the occasion.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
My group currently doesn't have a Cleric in it. They do good enough as most spell casters get cure wounds and healing word, also they buy up alot of health potions
Current group that I have a player with doesn't have a cleric. We depend on the two Rangers for healing, and for the rest, it's up to my wizard. He was raised in a traveling circus, and learned how to treat a lot of different injuries (backstory for why he's proficient in Medicine) and everyone mostly just relies on him rolling really well when it's time to deal with disease or poison or stabilizing people.
It's more difficult, sure, but can also be really interesting in it's own way.
Clerics are good things to have. When a member of your party needs to be stabilized they can stabilize them so we can keep going on with the adventure. My group has a cleric and she has proven to be very useful
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you ever ask a wizard to list the books they've read recently, prepare to be there for a solid week. " - Original.
Hi people,
My group is only me, the DM, and 2 members. We are 3 friends that love to play DnD but since we are adults and each has his responsabilities, we can’t play as much as we’d like.
In regards to this, my view of our games is that, I’m trying to make the players have as much fun as possible. This means that i can be relax on some stuff (like if a player realized he made a mistake and doesn’t like his character, and ask if he can change, i will allow it).
Each player plays 2 character each. We play with Fantasy Grounds.
One on those 2 players is always playing a cleric, because we believe that a cleric is essential for healing. We had a discussion about leaving the cleric behind but I’’m afraid that this will mean they will die more often in combats.
What do you guys and gals think? Can we manage a game, heavy on strategic combat, without a cleric in the party? If so, how could we do that? I do not wish to add healing pots after each fight.
thanks for your time and input!
Having a Cleric is not necessary. Sure it helps the party but it isn't at all necessary. A Paladin, Druid, Bard, and Ranger can all heal as well, and as long as the Cleric in question isn't from the Life domain, then a Druid and Bard can do just as well as a Cleric. And since you are having 4 characters, then I think it is pretty likely at least one of them will play at least 1 of those classes. Bards, in my opinion, even can play a healer (or at least support) BETTER than a Cleric! Bards can use Vicous Mockery to prevent damage before it even happens, and can use Bardic Inspiration to mak an ally succeed on a saving throw, thus preventing a failure. So no, Clerics aren't necessary, but they do sure help.
D&D is a game for nerds... so I guess I'm one :p
Druids (especially Dream druids) can heal/support just as well as clerics. As mentioned, bards can as well. So do you need a cleric? Absolutely not.
The real question it sounds like you’re asking is “do you need a healer?” And the answer to that question is also no, but without access to some magical healing, it’ll be a lot harder. If you have a paladin and a ranger, they can share the load of bringing people back up when they go down, but without healing, it’s likely that someone who’s knocked unconscious is simply out of the fight, which makes things more challenging.
Yeah I meant do we need a healer indeed.
Thanks for the ideas. It’s a great start.
It's important to have a means of bringing characters at 0 hp to positive hp, and healing potions are a tad expensive at lower levels. It's otherwise possible enough to get all the healing you need out of hit dice and long rests (it won't make much difference in a single fight, matters more for multiple fights per day). It's not important to have a serious dedicated healer, a paladin or (at level 2+) a ranger with Goodberry can meet the minimal requirements.
You could give one (or more) of the players the healer feat for free. Or encourage someone to take it. That can take care of in combat healing, and help with out of combat a bit. I’m usually against giving things away, but I don’t think it would be game breaking.
Or just put lots of healing potions in the monsters' treasure so that after a battle they can heal up.
Or space out encounters so there are rests in between.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Ugh, healer feat. I'd probably be willing to say that you can get the effects of that feat by taking a tool proficiency in a healer's kit. Or that you can do it for free if you make a medicine check. For example:
Thanks for all the ideas and suggestions, with this help, I’ll come up with a good solution for my group after some discussion with the players.
you guys, rock!
I think you'd quickly surprise yourself if you didn't have a cleric or healer in a party. Your party would need to adapt to the situation, but I think if you tried playing a party without a healer, you would probably learn quickly that you never really needed one to begin with. It's probably harder to play without one, and you'd have to deal with the resources you had-- which might mean learning when to flee, however, I think it could be done.
Another option to get a healer that isn't a Cleric is to have a Divine Soul Sorcerer. You still get to do all the Sorcerer things, but you get a number of spells from the Cleric list that don't count against your known. You then also get a number of class specialization effects that pair well with healing.
Celestial warlock, gives you cure wounds, revivify, and a bunch of d6 to use like healing word.
Artillerist Artificer, as a bonus action you can give everyone within 10ft 1d8+int temporary HP each round for 1 hour up to 4 times a day at lvl 3
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]In 5e there is no tactical need for a healer. Damage mitigation is no much more effective than damage restoration in combat it isn't even funny. Bringing someone up from 0 is the only situation where healing is the superior choice. With HD conversion of short rests and HD restoration during long rests, it takes two days of downtime on average to fully restore health pool.
Going off some common homebrew rules makes a healer much more desirable. And having some way of removing conditions is very vital once the party clears low level.
My group is in a similar boat. We have 4 players, but frequently on 3 can play at a time. If no one wants to play a dedicated healer we have a "party controlled" cleric in the group. But at one point is was a tank, and currently I am DM and the party character is a Cleric of Knowledge, Fr. Iar, because they could us a primary healer, and none of the characters have access to Identify. Brother Oaken, Father Agmentation have served in other parties.
Needed? No, but it rounds out the party and lets players be more creative with their own builds. I think 2 secondary healer classes can more than make up for a primary healing cleric.
Everyone is the main character of their story
For a party of 4 at lvl 5 and one short rest per day, the healer feat will average at 100 hp equaly split between members and rests . A clerric (16 wis) burning all of his 1st and 2nd lvl slots will average at 61 hp split however he wants.
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]A contrasting opinion ( surprise! ) here.
Personally - and it's only my opinion - I really dislike the idea of "the world scaling to the Characters": monsters, loot, and circumstances are altered by the DM to "fix" the perceived deficits and surpluses of Party abilities. I think that's one step away from altering die rolls to "fix" the events of the Narrative.
Solving the "problems" that the Party has is not the role of the GM. The GM is there to create interesting problems and situations with which the Players/Characters can interact, adjudicate the actions of the Players, and have the campaign world react to those actions in a plausible manner.
It is the Players job to determine the scope of those problems, find creative ways to apply their strengths, shore up their weaknesses, and solve their situation. One could argue that the GM is also responsible for creating resources with which the Party can solve those problems - which is almost true, but I believe that if the GM has created a plausible and consistent setting, and a plausible Adventure scenario, those resources are almost always implicitly present in the world for a creative Party. If not, then yes, I can see the GM spinning out an impromptu story element which gives the Players a nudge, so long as it's still plausible ( although repeating low probability events - always finding lots of healing potions in Monsters' lairs when they are rare in the world at large - are not plausible ).
In this case - the GM doesn't need to be concerned ( in fact almost shouldn't ) about whether or not the Party has enough healing; that is the domain of the Players to figure out ( although it's the role/necessity of a Healer in the group is an interesting theoretical discussion, to be sure ). Maybe the Party will rest more, be more tactically cautious, save up for lots of healing potions, hire a local Cleric NPC, etc. - which of the endless possible solutions they select ( if any ) is up to them, not the GM.
You mention that the game is "heavy on strategic combat" - so I'm assuming the Players enjoy the challenge of that. OK, the level and breadth of required strategy since they can't insta-heal just went up; so long as it's not overwhelming, that's a good thing, right? You're wondering the the game is playable without a Healer in the Party? Let them try and find out.
I recognize that the Party may not catch on to the changed situation right away, and go charging into combat the first few times, before they realize "hey, we're squishier now!", and it's not fun for anyone if the Party TPKs. There are alternatives to bending plausibility into pretzels, in order to prevent the Party accidentally suiciding until they catch on that their tactical situation is different. Light, judicious, and short term use of multiple fail states, until the Party catches on, is one idea. Also recognize that not all combat needs to end in death: the bad guys can capture the Party and now it's an escape scenario.
In short, don't worry about it - trust in the Players' ability to deal creatively with the situation, and your ability as a GM to come up with new and interesting ways for the Party to fail . Never take away their failures or their ability to fail - just realize that failure doesn't need to be irrevocable death all the time.
If you don't try and prop up your Players, and just roll with it, you may be pleasantly surprised by your Players' creativity rising to the occasion.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
My group currently doesn't have a Cleric in it. They do good enough as most spell casters get cure wounds and healing word, also they buy up alot of health potions
Current group that I have a player with doesn't have a cleric. We depend on the two Rangers for healing, and for the rest, it's up to my wizard. He was raised in a traveling circus, and learned how to treat a lot of different injuries (backstory for why he's proficient in Medicine) and everyone mostly just relies on him rolling really well when it's time to deal with disease or poison or stabilizing people.
It's more difficult, sure, but can also be really interesting in it's own way.
Clerics are good things to have. When a member of your party needs to be stabilized they can stabilize them so we can keep going on with the adventure. My group has a cleric and she has proven to be very useful
"If you ever ask a wizard to list the books they've read recently, prepare to be there for a solid week. " - Original.
Grammar Cult
Bow down to Cats! (Cult of Cats)
Still, no you don't need a cleric
"If you ever ask a wizard to list the books they've read recently, prepare to be there for a solid week. " - Original.
Grammar Cult
Bow down to Cats! (Cult of Cats)