So the problem here is the nature of the game system. In 3E you had many people who could fulfill the various roles: a Cleric, Druid, Bard, or Paladin could heal. A Rogue, Monk, Ranger, or Barbarian could sneak. Of course you’d be better off with the Cleric or the Rogue. But a smart party would make sure there were some backup people for each activity.

In 1E / 2E it’s more of a problem. At 3+ levels you really need Fighters because they quickly outstrip the others in combat. You need a Thief because the Magic-User and Cleric can’t always get together for a Silence + Invisibility. And nobody but the Cleric can really heal – Druids and Paladins can heal a little but nowhere near as good as the Cleric.

I haven’t played 4E but I’ve heard each role can be filled by a few different characters.

But I’m in favor of players playing what they want – after all, you only get one character. If the party doesn’t have any healing ability, oh well. They can rest outside. Maybe use the nonmagical healing skills. Maybe pay out the money for potions. That’s their choice.

And it’s not the selfishness of the player of the former Cleric causing the lack of healing. If it is, then it’s equally the selfishness of the other players who aren’t willing to “take one for the team” and retire their Wizards and Barbarians so the party has some curative mojo.

As for doing without a cleric. In 3rd ed i’d say you can get away with it. In 4th Ed if you don’t have a cleric or warlord, you might be in real trouble. I’m a player in a 4th ed game and we’d have had several TPKs if it weren’t for the cleric.

In 3rd ed we never had to worry about this quite so much. I played and GMed in two games where the party consisted of 1 wizard, 1 sorceror and 1 druid, and 1 wizard, 1 sorceror and 1 bard. These games were great and we never had to sit around wondering how we’d cope without a “leader” or “Tank” role.

Mind you, my groups have always tended to be low on the dungeon crawl style of play for more narrative, urban campaigns.

Clerics have no personal power. They’re just the forward observer for whatever god-of-the-week wants to smite. Might as well be a 10th level Commoner employed by a powerful entity.

They need to shake that image if they want to be respected. Come to think of it, if you change the description to say they gather power from other followers of that religion, rather than indirectly through the god, that might be enough to do it. Even if the god still has veto power, it’s your personal ability that makes it work.

This brings up another gripe of mine about clerics in general though: Few people I know seem to ever be interested in playing a cleric. The only person I can remember who did played the character as sort of a eschatological prophet rather than a warrior-priest.

The D&D cleric seems to have something for everyone to dislike: Athiests can dislike it because it involves belief in gods giving power. Monotheists can dislike it because it involves serving gods other than their own. Polytheists and animists can dislike it because it’s a ridiculous caricature of the real thing. People indifferent to ideologies, creeds and spirituality can dislike it because it forces them to take a stance on these issues.

Of course these are broad generalizations. Players can obviously overcome or ignore their real-world inclinations when playing a given sort of fictional character, or play a character as satire. But I still think these are reasons clerics are less likely to inspire some players than other classes might.

I have no solid evidence, but my suspicion has always been that the abilities heaped on the cleric (spells (including healing), fighting, armor, undead turning, and granted powers) weren’t so much necessary to make the class “balanced”. But instead to make the class attractive in some way to folks who could care less about the underlying concept.

Personally I’ve always wished there were a different core class that provided a wide range of healing abilities but without the other conceptual baggage thrown in. Psionics can do this pretty well, though as an alternative I’ve occasionally toyed with a sort of holistic magician patterned generally after the Sorcerer but substituting the clerical spell list for the arcane one.

I’d rather have any holy or devout characters in a campaign be defined more by their actions than by their powers, generally acting as non-combatant stewards or inspirers of the faithful first and maybe scholars or healers second. But without the whole armored warrior deal heaped on top of it. Paladins already cover that angle anyway.

Anyway, that’s my two cents.
(Heads off in search of grumble cakes.)

A number of rounds are lost buffing yourself, during which a ‘straight’ Cleric would be a far more effective group buffer. And you can only flex your divine power so many times a day, while a Fighter can swing a sword (sing it!) all night long… (all night)…

Balanced party? Screw that.

1. Players should play what they want and not be pigeon-holed. That’s what board games are for.

2. Rpgs are fluid games (any gm who says differently is smoking his koolaid). Players are going to go left when you planned for right.

3. The best characters come from left field. Have you ever played a game with a cleric who couldn’t heal? It’s hellava lot of fun when your cleric spends his time building lightning powered carriages rather than healing.

4. Really, parties without a thief make it through traps and can sneak, parties without warriors can smash stuff and plan, parties without magic figure out how to kill magical beasts, and frankly parties without healing figure out how to live.

We’re starting up a Serenity game and we’ll have two medics and a lot of people with leaky brainpans.

Just go with it.

Potions in combat help too, but that’s very situational, easier to work around. Healing after combat is much more arduous (who wants to trek back to town after *every* encounter?)

Trapmonkey is actually much harder to replace, and has been causing more stress in our group. You pretty much need Rogue’s Trapfinding, even if you’ve got +40 in Perception. Bleh.

B) Meh. Clerics were the best fighters in 3.5. Just go for a Divine Meta Magic cheese and he’ll make the fighters look pathetic in melee. And then still be a good caster. So, essentially, making the fighter entirely pointless. (Man, I love 3e/.5/.75)

That said, a lot of gamers want a balanced party. I’ve ridden the pendulum on this a few times, but there’s no arguing that a balanced group has far fewer weaknesses, and much better balanced strengths, than an unbalanced one.

I think you covered all the bases pretty well, Walt. As a GM, I’ve always been ready to help the party shore up any weak spots in the lineup, either through NPC clerics or Wands of Healing, specific magic items, or what have you. There are a number of ways the GM can facilitate the fun for the players.