| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I recently had someone offer me a spot in their home game, but I had to turn them down. Why? Because the GM wanted me to play THE HEALER. The strong suggestion (well, more like 'If you don't play this I will make your life a living hell') was that I play a cleric, with an emphasis on healing, positive channeling and support. I don't play support. I play damage dealers.
The conversation went something like this:
Friend: "Hey, I hear you play Pathfinder now. We have a game going, you want in? They could really use a healer."
Me: "No thanks, I don't play healers. I could do a barbarian..."
Friend: "C'mon, man, they could really use a healer."
Me: "What level are they?"
Friend: "Uh, average sixth, why?"
Me: "Because if they've lasted this long without a cleric, then they don't need one. In my experience, having a healer in the party is only a license to play dumb and get into trouble. Players start doing dumb things with the mentality of 'Well, if I get into trouble, we have a healer!' Without a healer a party plays cautious and smart."
Friend: "Yeah, they got in trouble a few times the last game. That's why they could really use a healer."
Me: "There's also the fact that I play damage-dealers and tanks. I like being able to -hit- things. I don't like having to spend combat actions healing the mistakes of the party. Tell you what. I'll play an Inquisitor, and I can heal the party out of combat using a happy stick."
Friend: "No, that wouldn't work. They REALLY need someone to heal them in combat. You can play a cleric. I'll even let you start at 7th level."
Me: "I don't think I want to be in your game after all. Champions Online is looking more attractive..."
Yes, he was being a dick about it, but it's my right to play the character I want to play, right? If that means I don't play the game, then so be it, I have other things I could be doing with my time. Clerics are one of the weaker classes, IMO: Crap for skill points (and I'm all about the skills), good combat potential but not full BAB, spells I don't like using, and this reliance on the part of the other players to be the one who fixes THEIR mistakes. Hell no. Let someone else be the cleric.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does a godforsaken healer heal? Don't they get their healing powers from their god? If their god forsakes them, wouldn't they lose their healing powers?
I thought it was a better title than asking 'Why do I always have to play the f---ing healer?'
How does a godforsaken healer heal? Don't they get their healing powers from their god? If their god forsakes them, wouldn't they lose their healing powers?
This was funny!!
Your offer to play an Inquisitor should have been sufficient. They would have more healing with your character than without you -- so what's the problem? In our campaign, our cleric player became unreliable and eventually stopped showing up -- but we had enough healing abilities distributed amongst the party that we were able to do without him for quite a while.
I genuinely like and prefer playing support-focused characters, including (but not limited to) healers.
However, I would not want to play a Cleric. If I was asked to heal, I'd gladly do it, but I'd much prefer to play an Oracle of Life or Hospitaler Paladin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like he's stuck in the mentality of "Must have an in-combat healer" and isn't aware of how inefficient it is. I agree that the Inquisitor offer should have been plenty. When you got past that to the demands of "No, you have to play a healing-focused, dedicated healer Cleric", it's no longer really your character, but you playing a sheet they've given you. And that's no fun when it isn't what you enjoy playing.
I wouldn't have gone for it either, and I like Clerics. (Though I prefer Oracles - go go spont casting - or Paladins, likewise, myself.)
clerics are hardly one of the weak classes. In fact, they can be pretty dangerous if done right... And I'm not even talking about healing.
On that note, if you don't want to be healbot, that's fine. If you gave a compromise and it wasn't accepted, at least you don't end up in a game you don't like. (If healing is an issue, they should get potions/wands/scrolls of it anyways.)
EDIT: Alternatively, they could get a NPC Healbot. My only Pathfinder home game we had a NPC cleric with us that mostly did healing (and some blasting due to domain)
(If healing is an issue, they should get potions/wands/scrolls of it anyways.)
Yeah he tried to offer that, the guy said it wasn't enough, they needed an in-combat dedicated healer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately, no. You don't have the right to play what you want in his game. You can play what he says you can play, or you can choose not to play.
Any GM who makes that kind of demand isn't worth playing under.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Unfortunately, no. You don't have the right to play what you want in his game. You can play what he says you can play, or you can choose not to play.Any GM who makes that kind of demand isn't worth playing under.
Which, to be fair, does not conflict in any way with Gaekub's statement.
EDIT: Ninja'd.
It's more my incomprehension of the bizarre mentality of "I am the GM, I get to decide what everyone plays".
The most restrictive I've ever been, or ever played under, is "you must play an official Paizo class - no 3rd party or 3.5 stuff". The idea of a GM saying "you must play X, or not play at all" is bizarre and foreign to me, and the idea of it just pisses me off.
In the end yeah it comes to the same result, but saying it as "you play what the GM wants or don't play at all" sounds like giving the GM too much authority, where I've never played in a group that allowed or tolerated that level of command and control in the hands of the GM, and any GM who tried would just make me angry. Sure, it's semantics, but there it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's more my incomprehension of the bizarre mentality of "I am the GM, I get to decide what everyone plays".
The most restrictive I've ever been, or ever played under, is "you must play an official Paizo class - no 3rd party or 3.5 stuff". The idea of a GM saying "you must play X, or not play at all" is bizarre and foreign to me, and the idea of it just pisses me off.
I go the other way entirely. The more freedom the GM gives on classes/races, the more they are responsible for knowing/running. It's not like GMing is a paying job. I only want to allow what I'm comfortable knowing/learning and have time to deal with.
For me, I hate clockwork stuff and don't like guns. Why would I want to put so much time and effort into something I won't enjoy? It's like picking a module to run that you know you don't like.
Having said that, telling a player he can join the game only as a cleric is kinda restrictive. There's not really any choice at all.
I view offering restrictions like saying "You can buy any car here in this Toyota dealership." Telling a would be fill-in he can only play a cleric is like saying, "You can only buy THIS car."
I get that you would let the person buy a car at any dealership...
|
Both points are fair. All honesty, I never got why CPE was useful. My friend got Selective Channel and he can only EXCLUDeE 2 people. Maybe an oracle of battle or inquisitor would have been reasonable, but not the cleric. Guy mentioned above chose cleric because he WANTED to be cleric.
And Champions online sucks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spread your wings, you might even enjoy it.I don't play support. I play damage dealers.
I played a cleric all through Living Greyhawk. I've played clerics all through AD&D, 2nd Edition, and even into other games. It's not that I mind being the cleric, it's that I mind being the healer.
And as far as my preferred MMO style goes, I have two choices for superhero gaming now that NCsoft killed City of Heroes completely bogusly -- Champions Online or DCUO. And I'm a long-time Champions player. And I really dislike the DCUO precept of the idea that your character only got their superpowers thanks to Lex Luthor copying all the superpowers of the rest of the DC Universe, then implanting them into you like you illegally downloaded them from Napster.
Actually, I suggest that you propose that you play two 6th level Clerics in the aforementioned GM's campaign.
Your two clerics are siblings, follow the same Neutral deity and have the Repose domain. Reason: have you read that ability - no save, melee touch, bunches of times/day. You won't need to cure other than by channeling and maybe the occassional remove curse or something. Better yet, ask him to call you up at 11th level - make sure that you take Quicken Spell-like Ability for that 1st level domain power. 3/day = dead bad guy via CDG. The rest of the day, one of the other PCs has to CDG the bad guy.
Less useful in an undead-heavy / construct-emphasized campaign of course, but in most campaigns this pairing will rock the hazbah. ^____^
I recently had someone offer me a spot in their home game, but I had to turn them down. Why? Because the GM wanted me to play THE HEALER. The strong suggestion (well, more like 'If you don't play this I will make your life a living hell') was that I play a cleric, with an emphasis on healing, positive channeling and support. I don't play support. I play damage dealers.
The conversation went something like this:
Friend: "Hey, I hear you play Pathfinder now. We have a game going, you want in? They could really use a healer."
Me: "No thanks, I don't play healers. I could do a barbarian..."
Friend: "C'mon, man, they could really use a healer."
Me: "What level are they?"
Friend: "Uh, average sixth, why?"
Me: "Because if they've lasted this long without a cleric, then they don't need one. In my experience, having a healer in the party is only a license to play dumb and get into trouble. Players start doing dumb things with the mentality of 'Well, if I get into trouble, we have a healer!' Without a healer a party plays cautious and smart."
Friend: "Yeah, they got in trouble a few times the last game. That's why they could really use a healer."
Me: "There's also the fact that I play damage-dealers and tanks. I like being able to -hit- things. I don't like having to spend combat actions healing the mistakes of the party. Tell you what. I'll play an Inquisitor, and I can heal the party out of combat using a happy stick."
Friend: "No, that wouldn't work. They REALLY need someone to heal them in combat. You can play a cleric. I'll even let you start at 7th level."
Me: "I don't think I want to be in your game after all. Champions Online is looking more attractive..."Yes, he was being a dick about it, but it's my right to play the character I want to play, right? If that means I don't play the game, then so be it, I have other things I could be doing with my time. Clerics are one of the weaker classes, IMO: Crap for skill points (and I'm all about the skills), good combat...
Yep, good on you standing up for yourself. You have hopes and dreams, wants and wishes, being forced to play the healer is labour in the salt-mines of gaming. I'd never do it, there are plenty of better things to play, or other games to play in that won't force you to be a healer.
Seems like he's stuck in the mentality of "Must have an in-combat healer" and isn't aware of how inefficient it is. I agree that the Inquisitor offer should have been plenty. When you got past that to the demands of "No, you have to play a healing-focused, dedicated healer Cleric", it's no longer really your character, but you playing a sheet they've given you. And that's no fun when it isn't what you enjoy playing.
I wouldn't have gone for it either, and I like Clerics. (Though I prefer Oracles - go go spont casting - or Paladins, likewise, myself.)
Yeah, in all the parties I've been in and seen that have not had healers, they can do a lot with that free slot. Throw in a barb, ranger, cavalier, crazy spellcaster or a really well made fighter. That is efficient.
Seems like he's stuck in the mentality of "Must have an in-combat healer" and isn't aware of how inefficient it is. I agree that the Inquisitor offer should have been plenty. When you got past that to the demands of "No, you have to play a healing-focused, dedicated healer Cleric", it's no longer really your character, but you playing a sheet they've given you. And that's no fun when it isn't what you enjoy playing.
I wouldn't have gone for it either, and I like Clerics. (Though I prefer Oracles - go go spont casting - or Paladins, likewise, myself.)
I agree with this, and a Cleric made only to be a healer is a poorly made Cleric.
Quite so, lolz, first guy should have gone a cleric of zyphus or groetus, a non-healing cleric.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Negative energy Channel Force Aasimar Cleric, HO! Play Darth Vader and throw enemies around like rag dolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You did the right thing. I think sometimes the most interesting parties I've seen were the non-typical (i.e., the party wasn't healbot, arcane caster, tank, and skillmonkey), because they adapt in interesting ways to make sure niches are filled--and they often prove that that combo isn't even necessarily the best way to build a party.
Having healing in a high impact fantasy game is a good thing, but there's ways to deal with that.
It's also not fair to you if everyone got to play exactly what they wanted to play and you don't.
Now, I've said to my parties as GM, during character creation, "Okay, it looks like we're heavy on melee, have no ranged, and are light on healing. You might bear that in mind when you think about what you want to play." But if the party gets back to me and says, "Nope, we've got axe barbarian, polearm fighter, TWF rogue, whip bard, and utility wizard, that's what we're sticking with," then that's what they've got and will go from there. I've made sure they are aware of the issues, they accept the consequences, that's the end of it. If they decide (and only if they decide), "oh, gee, we really need a dedicated healer after all," then it's up to someone to volunteer to retire their current character and write up a new one, but I'm not going to force anyone to play a healer. Or they could take the leadership feat at 7th level and get a healer cohort, who really DOES do nothing but stand in the back and heal. But again, like I said, most people I play with are pretty good about working with what they've got.
Ninjas, monks and tanks is a great combo. Ninjonkanks.
Or they could take the leadership feat at 7th level and get a healer cohort, who really DOES do nothing but stand in the back and heal.This is my gaming group's second option to the 'no one wants to play a dedicated healer' question. Option One is to have two classes with healing as an option rather than a primary focus, such as a witch and a paladin.
Of course, if a cleric player refuses to heal even after combat, the party doesn't handle that very well.....
Could play a low ac buff cleric that uses a two handed weapon, and keeps what little healing they have for themselves. Lol.
Dex is low, perhaps they took int, bwaahahahahaha.
I recently had someone offer me a spot in their home game, but I had to turn them down. Why? Because the GM wanted me to play THE HEALER. The strong suggestion (well, more like 'If you don't play this I will make your life a living hell') was that I play a cleric, with an emphasis on healing, positive channeling and support. I don't play support. I play damage dealers.
The conversation went something like this:
Friend: "Hey, I hear you play Pathfinder now. We have a game going, you want in? They could really use a healer."
Me: "No thanks, I don't play healers. I could do a barbarian..."
Friend: "C'mon, man, they could really use a healer."
Me: "What level are they?"
Friend: "Uh, average sixth, why?"
Me: "Because if they've lasted this long without a cleric, then they don't need one. In my experience, having a healer in the party is only a license to play dumb and get into trouble. Players start doing dumb things with the mentality of 'Well, if I get into trouble, we have a healer!' Without a healer a party plays cautious and smart."
Friend: "Yeah, they got in trouble a few times the last game. That's why they could really use a healer."
Me: "There's also the fact that I play damage-dealers and tanks. I like being able to -hit- things. I don't like having to spend combat actions healing the mistakes of the party. Tell you what. I'll play an Inquisitor, and I can heal the party out of combat using a happy stick."
Friend: "No, that wouldn't work. They REALLY need someone to heal them in combat. You can play a cleric. I'll even let you start at 7th level."
Me: "I don't think I want to be in your game after all. Champions Online is looking more attractive..."Yes, he was being a dick about it, but it's my right to play the character I want to play, right? If that means I don't play the game, then so be it, I have other things I could be doing with my time. Clerics are one of the weaker classes, IMO: Crap for skill points (and I'm all about the skills), good combat...
I feel your pain. My past several characters have all had to have some kind of divine spellcaster levels because NOBODY in the entire group wanted to worry about healing.
So, I get to play the healer. Nearly every time. I try to balance it out though, because I don't terribly mind playing support if the other roles are covered. I try to mix in some martial training, typically making clerics of war-domained gods, or mixing with magic-themed ones and going Mystic Theurge just so I can have some variety outside of healbot-dom.
An argument could easily be made as to "Why don't you make the character YOU want to play? Why submit to being the healer?" Well, it's my personality. I'm the "rock" of the group, I'm usually the one playing it safe and covering our tails, while everyone else goes gonzo and makes ridiculous characters, doing ridiculous things. I'm just so used to being the veritable "parent" of the group, and picking up the check when everyone's low on HP and near death. I feel like if I don't make a healer, I'm dooming the party due to my selfishness. And yes, I do realize how ridiculous that sounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ever seen the old cartoons where the sergeant asks for a volunteer to step forward and everyone but the main character steps backwards?
That's you. You take the fewest steps backwards.
Yep. This is me. Every damn time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's more my incomprehension of the bizarre mentality of "I am the GM, I get to decide what everyone plays".
If you want to run the game, you are on the wrong side of the table as a player.
Any GM I've played with who ran a good campaign spent time before we started going over character options with the players to make sure everyone fit together, fit the setting, and that he could come up with good stories and motivations for everyone.
You don't tell the players what they can and can not play. But you sure as hell decide to approve or not approve options brought to you, and even on approved characters, you make suggestions.
Once the game gets going, the GM should get out of the way of the players making whatever choices they want to develop. But how is a player supposed to be able to pick a character for a setting or adventure when they don't know what is going on.
There is a reason Paizo puts out player guides for the Adventure Paths.
Mmm...I gotta say, to me it doesn't really read like he was the one being a "dick".
A guy ask you to play, in a game he is putting some effort into running, but asks you fill a specific slot because of the way the groups worked out.
That is entirely reasonable.
Having your response be "Nah, i can't play what I want, so I am going to go play an MMO", that sounds like a dick move.
Maybe you hate playing clerics, you could have turned him down politely. If your hatred is more a dislike, perhapes you could even have given it a go, and backed out later if you really weren't like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of the jerk-positioning of the DM in question, is that he/she/it was hellbent on the OP playing a very specific class and role, with no regard to a plethora of other ways that same role could be filled and both sides be happy. OP offered to play an Inquisitor, and the DM still rallied for "cleric healbot onry."
Mmm...I gotta say, to me it doesn't really read like he was the one being a "dick".
A guy ask you to play, in a game he is putting some effort into running, but asks you fill a specific slot because of the way the groups worked out.
That is entirely reasonable.
Having your response be "Nah, i can't play what I want, so I am going to go play an MMO", that sounds like a dick move.
Maybe you hate playing clerics, you could have turned him down politely. If your hatred is more a dislike, perhapes you could even have given it a go, and backed out later if you really weren't like it.
I kind of thought that too.
It is like a GM comes up and says they are playing a Sci-Fi game, and hears that you play it too and wants to know if you will join.
GM: "There were 4 positions: Engineer, Weapon's Officer, Pilot, and Medical Officer. We already have the first three covered, we need someone for the Medical Officer, you up for it?"
Guy: "I hate playing Medical Officers. I like playing Weapon's Officer. Besides when ever there is a Medical Officer, everyone wants to touch strange things, thinking I can heal them up. It makes them play stupid."
GM: "Yeah we already got the W.O. position filled, but really need a person in the M.O. position."
Guy: "I am so good at W.O., that I never even take damage, so don't even need a M.O. Worst case, I need to put a band-aid on. People that need M.O. are dumb. I'm going to play Star Trek Online."
And as far as my preferred MMO style goes, I have two choices for superhero gaming now that NCsoft killed City of Heroes completely bogusly -- Champions Online or DCUO. And I'm a long-time Champions player. And I really dislike the DCUO precept of the idea that your character only got their superpowers thanks to Lex Luthor copying all the superpowers of the rest of the DC Universe, then implanting them into you like you illegally downloaded them from Napster.
That is the premise behind DCUO?!?
Wow, no wonder I have never had any interest. I've played Champions Online. I wouldn't say it sucked, but I really liked CoH better. Enough so that I haven't tried going back to MMO's since it shut down.
I may try Star Trek Online, since they actually have a Player Generated Content Mechanic & that was one of the things I miss most about CoH. My son was starting to really enjoy writing missions.
As far as your issue with the GM went, I can see both sides, but given that he came to you, he could have been more willing to consider your suggestions.
Amusingly enough, I am playing the 'Healer' in my Pathfinder games, as a MAGUS. No one in the party has Detect Evil so none of them have twigged that I have been using Infernal Healing on them. Granted, it gets expensive since the GM & I realized Eschew Materials wouldn't work to negate the need for an unholy water flask for the material component & each of those is 25 gp a pop, not even counting where am I going to find unholy water for purchase in most of Varisia. Needles to say, when I can find it, I stock up. I really need to start charging the other party members...
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Granted, it gets expensive since the GM & I realized Eschew Materials wouldn't work to negate the need for an unholy water flask for the material component & each of those is 25 gp a pop,
Er, the material component isn't an entire 25gp flask of unholy water. As per Core Rules, any material component that doesn't list a gp value right there in the spell description is assumed to be in a spell component pouch/covered by Eschew Materials.
Granted, it gets expensive since the GM & I realized Eschew Materials wouldn't work to negate the need for an unholy water flask for the material component & each of those is 25 gp a pop,Er, the material component isn't an entire 25gp flask of unholy water. As per Core Rules, any material component that doesn't list a gp value right there in the spell description is assumed to be in a spell component pouch/covered by Eschew Materials.
Holy water costs 25g a flask. Alright, the spell says one dose, not one flask, sloppy wording. I guess Eschew Materials does still work, that helps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i have wanted to try either a healer, face, trapfinder, or skill monkey. but DM say no. and the last one i played was back in 2007 with 3.5. where Channeling wasn't even an option, the oracle didn't exist, and there were no alternate favored class bonuses. Weekly William keeps telling me, "play a martial, cause you can pull that off."