| Alaka-ooze |
Aight, here's the situation. Same DM as my previous AC advice question, but this time I'm having a bit more a person to person issue; namely, the DM is under the belief that Clerics can't be tanks, and that only Fighters/Barbarians/what-have-you have a place in the front lines.
He went so far as to say that the point of Clerics are to buff and be healers. He did eventually concede that Clerics can, after all that nonsense, assist in close-combat, but basically the general thrust of his argument was that Clerics are purely support and can't really tank or fight.
Where it actually became a bit of an issue with me, however (besides the rather obvious 'Heal-gimp' scenario), was when he conceded to targeting people who he thought weren't playing their characters the way he thought they should be played; IE, he targeted my guy with this homebrewed monster that could hit like a mack-truck and do so many times a turn, because he figured I was buffing myself too much and not everyone else.
Now, I get partially where he's coming from; I should spread the magical-love a bit, yes. However, where I have a great issue is the idea that classes are built for one thing, and that if it's not according to what the DM thinks, he's just going to lay down the hand of god and start being a wanker about the entire thing.
I can concede certain points, don't misunderstand me, but the idea that there's only one primary role for a cleric, and that any deviation from that role should be punished, irks me. He said it was because he was targeting 'powergamers,' but this doesn't exactly strike me as being entirely honest. . .