trollbill wrote: So essentially I am sucking up damage so that the squishies don't have to and burning charges on my own wand while the squishies don't have to because I am taking the hits for them. The solution is simple. Buy yourself a sling and quit tanking as soon as you get below half hit points. As soon as someone in the back row gets hit and asks why aren't you tanking you tell them you're too low on hit points. If they point to your wand, you tell them that's for emergencies.
Any squishie on your team with half a clue will heal you up and tell you to get back to the front. My archer ranger has purchased barkskin for a paladin because the woman fearlessly and consistently did her job.
You don't have to "demand" healing. You don't have to ask for it. You just roleplay based on the condition of your character and exhibit the same conservation of your resources as everyone else. Also be prepared to retreat if things get out of hand. Make it clear you aren't going to die in some noble last stand.
I think the philosopher Rocko said it best with
you just do you
umma do me
nosig wrote: pathar wrote: TOZ wrote: nosig wrote: Which one do you want on your team? Whichever one shows up. Bingo. see my other post...
they both did, and you only have one seat left.
;)
Clearly, they must fight to the death over it.
what if one of them is me and the other is say vin diesel
Lamontius wrote: what if one of them is me and the other is say vin diesel
You're hosed? =p
Lamontius wrote: what if one of them is me and the other is say vin diesel May the odds be ever in your favor.
trollbill wrote: Okay, so I noticed a dearth of tanks in my area and decided to create a monk to fill the void. By 4th level I have an AC of 23 and 39 HP. Not stellar but not crappy either. But because I frequently am the only tank at the table I still take a lot of damage and because there is also a dearth of healers in the area, most of my healing comes from my own Happy Stick a.k.a. Wand of Cure Light Wounds. As a result, at 4th level I am already on my 2nd wand and i can only imagine that is going to excellerate exponentially. I have 9th and 12th level characters that are still on their first wand.
So essentially I am sucking up damage so that the squishies don't have to and burning charges on my own wand while the squishies don't have to because I am taking the hits for them. Never mind that if I wasn't taking the hits, the squishies would be burning twice as many charges on their own wands because of all the hits they would taking, it's my sole responsibility to provide healing for myself because i decided the local area could use a tank and chose to fill that void. Does anyone else see a problem here?
If there is no healer at the table - who do you think has the responsibility to heal your character (and a negative channeling cleric is not a healer - though I have been called selfish for making my cleric a negative channel character in the past).
nosig wrote: pathar wrote: TOZ wrote: nosig wrote: Which one do you want on your team? Whichever one shows up. Bingo. see my other post...
they both did, and you only have one seat left.
;)
That means I'm seating seven already. Split the table.
if that still doesn't work, then it's a question of which player annoys me less.
If I don't know either of them, I roll dice. Literally.
SCPRedMage wrote: If you DON'T bring a wand (when you COULD have), then I see that as freeloading. I have to emphatically disagree. A tank who exposes himself to combat so others in his party can do what they do, is never freeloading whether he he brings his own healing or not. The fighter spends his money on armor and weapons and items to do his job. He has every right to save his PP for resurrections.
Your cleric or your wizard wants to brag about having better AC than everyone else because your burning spells to fulfill a roll someone else is willing to do? Fine, you go tank and pay for your own healing while your at it. I'll just go ranged. Sure, we are far less efficient this way, but at least you can feel smug that no one is mooching off your CLW wand.
Lamontius wrote: what if one of them is me and the other is say vin diesel
Then I'll show you to the door, play a rousing game of PFS with a celebrity, then tweet about it.
If you're competing with Vin Diesel for a seat, you lose, even if you bring a wand AND a pizza.
Dhjika wrote: If there is no healer at the table - who do you think has the responsibility to heal your character (and a negative channeling cleric is not a healer - though I have been called selfish for making my cleric a negative channel character in the past). Anyone who doesn't want to be in the direct line of fire. You don't want to heal him? No problem. That just means you're taking point because he's not obligated to fight until he'd dead.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It is the healer's job to keep the other characters alive in combat by using his healing powers (whether spells, channels, whatever).
Once combat is done, supplemental healing should not be an additional burden on the healer. Thankfully, wands of CLW (or Infernal Healing) are available for any PC to purchase with 2PA.
pathar wrote: nosig wrote: pathar wrote: TOZ wrote: nosig wrote: Which one do you want on your team? Whichever one shows up. Bingo. see my other post...
they both did, and you only have one seat left.
;)
That means I'm seating seven already. Split the table.
if that still doesn't work, then it's a question of which player annoys me less.
If I don't know either of them, I roll dice. Literally. sigh...
I only have 7 chairs at my table - this is in my kitchen remember? by invite only.
Which guy do we invite?
but never mind - I think you understand.
This is a social game. we all try to have people like us. Some people just try more - and those get invited back.
Helping with healing is part of the "try more"... kind of like the guy who offers to help the judge pack up at the end. Who helps clear the table, etc. More likely to get invited.
Like you said: "...it's a question of which player annoys me less. "
yeah, the guy with the wand.
Keep adding all the artificial restrictions you like nosig, it won't change my answer. :)
nosig wrote:
I only have 7 chairs at my table - this is in my kitchen remember? by invite only.
Which guy do we invite?
but never mind - I think you understand.
This is a social game. we all try to have people like us. Some people just try more - and those get invited back.
Wait, you mean setting up a game at home has a separate set of considerations from setting up a game in public?! 8o
Seriously, though. Yes, when you're building a home game, even a PFS-legal one, you can plan on party composition. When you're playing in public, you can't. If you can't plan on having a healer, you need to be able to heal yourself in and out of combat. And if you can already do that, why would someone else have to expend their resources for you?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
This reminds me of an old 1E game I played. Back then you only got magic items you found (so everyone having their own wand was out of the question) and clerics were pretty much the only source of healing. The party cleric decided that if NPCs could charge for healing, he could to. So he started charging PCs 50 gp for CLWs. Next battle an axe wielding Orc charged the party. The fighter stepped aside and let the Orc charge past him to the cleric. The cleric screamed "what did you do that for?" the fighter said, "Oh, you want me to stand in front of the monster? That will be 50 gold, please."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
nosig wrote: Netopalis wrote: N N 959 wrote: Perhaps the disconnect here is that I haven't played anything above level 7. Maybe higher level games burn through CLW wands like rice paper and it becomes more pronounced. Well, let me throw this out there. When my first character was a level 1, and I was playing my first scenario as him (My third scenario altogether - the first two were with pregens), I was the only one in a certain party with a viable Wand of CLW. (One other person had one, but refused to use it because it was "low on charges"). I burned through twenty-something charges on that scenario because I was healing the entire group. For a level 1 character, that's no small amount of gold, and had I not done it, it would have been a TPK. It was nearly a TPK anyway.
You say that it is wrong to use societal pressure to force people to buy Wands of CLW. What about the societal pressure to make those who do spend money on Wands of CLW to pay for everybody else's healing? Is that any better? Should I have put my foot down and let the party TPK? you do the same thing you would do if you're out with friends for lunch and the bill comes and one of them doesn't have the cash. You cover for them. If it happens more than once? You don't do lunch (game) with them again. Simple.
1st time? On me....
More times? well, that depends doesn't it.
I was a level 1 character. There were level 4 characters at the table. It was my first session, and all of them had been around a lot more. If you go out to eat with friends who are filthy rich, and you make minimum wage, wouldn't you feel a bit put out if they asked you to pick up the tab?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
N N 959 wrote: SCPRedMage wrote: If you DON'T bring a wand (when you COULD have), then I see that as freeloading. I have to emphatically disagree. A tank who exposes himself to combat so others in his party can do what they do, is never freeloading whether he he brings his own healing or not. The fighter spends his money on armor and weapons and items to do his job. He has every right to save his PP for resurrections.
Your cleric or your wizard wants to brag about having better AC than everyone else because your burning spells to fulfill a roll someone else is willing to do? Fine, you go tank and pay for your own healing while your at it. I'll just go ranged. Sure, we are far less efficient this way, but at least you can feel smug that no one is mooching off your CLW wand.
Actually, I do that.
I have two Clerics I built and run just to do that.
Very high ACs (and built in miss chances), and in the front rank all the time. Fast movement (40' plus fly/dim door/teleport). and I normally shield other to keep the glass cannon up...
Between fights? if you don't have healing, I'll heal you... this game. Next game? if you don't have healing, I'm not at your table.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Keep adding all the artificial restrictions you like nosig, it won't change my answer. :) which is?
the question was - with all things the same, which PC are you going to invite?
One with a wand,
One with no wand, and no intention of getting one?
edit:
"Clearly, they must fight to the death over it. " ??
the guy with the healing wand will win.
;)
edit:
"the artificial restrictions" you speak of happen all the time. Who do we invite to play at our table? Even at a CON we often play with friends, with people we know. If it comes to the choice of who to play with... I feel this is likely to influence that choice.
Do you pull your own weight? do you contribute to the game?
If everything else is equal - except for the wand? Which choice?
nosig wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Keep adding all the artificial restrictions you like nosig, it won't change my answer. :) which is?
the question was - with all things the same, which PC are you going to invite?
One with a wand,
One with no wand, and no intention of getting one?
edit:
"Clearly, they must fight to the death over it. " ??
the guy with the healing wand will win.
;) I fail to see the relevance of this inquiry to the issue. Especially since this sort of job competition seldom, if ever, actually happens in PFS.
N N 959 wrote: I have to emphatically disagree. A tank who exposes himself to combat so others in his party can do what they do, is never freeloading whether he he brings his own healing or not. The fighter spends his money on armor and weapons and items to do his job. He has every right to save his PP for resurrections.
Your cleric or your wizard wants to brag about having better AC than everyone else because your burning spells to fulfill a roll someone else is willing to do? Fine, you go tank and pay for your own healing while your at it. I'll just go ranged. Sure, we are far less efficient this way, but at least you can feel smug that no one is mooching off your CLW wand.
You do like to cherry-pick your quotes, don't you?
If you paid attention to my ENTIRE posts, you'd notice that I AM willing to provide the tank some healing. So no, I'm NOT trying to "feel smug that no one is mooching off [my] CLW wand". But just because I have a wand, or just because I happen to be playing what you deem to be a "healer class", I am not obligated to pay for your healing.
And no, if he then doesn't want to be on point because we're not going to spend all of OUR resources healing him, he's not obligated to be on point.
If we have someone who decided to play a dedicated healer, fine, great. But if NO ONE is playing something they INTENDED to be a healer, they are NOT obligated to start spending charges of the wand they bought so that THEY could be healed on YOUR mooching behind.
Why is it that the tank should get free healing, when no one else does? I mean, even if I play a character I intend to be a healer, why should I have to prioritize buying wands to use on YOU, instead of items to boost my OWN defenses, or increase my versatility?
The tank's need to buy better defenses and/or raises does not mean I should sacrifice my ability to buy the same.
what if my character has a CLW wand
and vin diesel forgot to buy one for his character
or what if Vin Diesel is using a wand of infernal healing and he does not own the proper source material
vin diesel you are not taking my table seat
trollbill wrote: This reminds me of an old 1E game I played. Back then you only got magic items you found (so everyone having their own wand was out of the question) and clerics were pretty much the only source of healing. The party cleric decided that if NPCs could charge for healing, he could to. So he started charging PCs 50 gp for CLWs. Next battle an axe wielding Orc charged the party. The fighter stepped aside and let the Orc charge past him to the cleric. The cleric screamed "what did you do that for?" the fighter said, "Oh, you want me to stand in front of the monster? That will be 50 gold, please." and the players were looking over the loot... everyone gets a pick from the magic items and they roll dice to see who picks first.
1st pick Cleric:"I'll take the magic sword"
2nd pick Fighter"huh? You can't use that!"
Cleric: "I'll be selling this to get me some better armor. That orc hit hard!"
;)
But we aren't playing old D&D.
The Cleric finds the traps, the Wizard disarms them, the Rogue fights in the front rank, and the Fighter does all the talking.... easy enough to do now isn't it?
Lamontius wrote: what if my character has a CLW wand
and vin diesel forgot to buy one for his character
or what if Vin Diesel is using a wand of infernal healing and he does not own the proper source material
vin diesel you are not taking my table seat
I'll give him my wand (to use), or my copy of the book.
Too late, it's his seat now!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
trollbill wrote: This reminds me of an old 1E game I played. Back then you only got magic items you found (so everyone having their own wand was out of the question) and clerics were pretty much the only source of healing. The party cleric decided that if NPCs could charge for healing, he could to. So he started charging PCs 50 gp for CLWs. Next battle an axe wielding Orc charged the party. The fighter stepped aside and let the Orc charge past him to the cleric. The cleric screamed "what did you do that for?" the fighter said, "Oh, you want me to stand in front of the monster? That will be 50 gold, please." I don't know why there's this persistent idea that the role of a tank is inherently more valuable than any other. You don't even have to pay for armor or weapon repairs. You buy gear to get better at what you do, just like everyone else. I've played where gunslingers or worse played the role of tank and we got through just fine.
The wizard could just as easily charge for crowd control or blasts
The rogue could charge per trap disabled or secret door found
etc.
Do you not buy trail rations because it's the Rangers job to hunt and scavenge food for the party?
The ubiquity of CLW wands means that this mythical role of healer is largely unnecessary in PFS. Those who are able spot heal when necessary. All other healing is handled out of combat using consumables to save spells for the actual encounters. Unless a cleric is specced for healing, they're almost always better off helping the party bring down the BBEG faster, because damage nearly always outstrips healing.
EDIT:
And to echo what SCPRedMage said earlier, if I see you're taking the lion's share of damage, I'll usually offer my wand in place of or to supplement yours. The group should all be chipping in, unless you're jumping in and soaking up damage for no particularly good reason.
No one person should be responsible for all of the healing in the party, right?
trollbill wrote: nosig wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: Keep adding all the artificial restrictions you like nosig, it won't change my answer. :) which is?
the question was - with all things the same, which PC are you going to invite?
One with a wand,
One with no wand, and no intention of getting one?
edit:
"Clearly, they must fight to the death over it. " ??
the guy with the healing wand will win.
;) I fail to see the relevance of this inquiry to the issue. Especially since this sort of job competition seldom, if ever, actually happens in PFS. happens all the time.
My example party above is the Eyes of the Ten table we are putting together now. The fighter with the Wand? that would be Bryans PC "Dean" - who has a lot of things going for him besides the wand. But you know what? he can even UMD the wand if we need it... (not that it's likely to come up with a Cleric, a Bard, a Druid, and a Ranger at the table).
the point of this thread was.... "I bought a Gosh Darn Cure Wand!", which seemed to me to be a rant about having to buy a Wand of CLW because everyone expected the PC to be responsible for his own between combat healing. To burn his own resources to keep him in the game. And the OP seemed (IMHO) to feel that it was the responsibility of the other PCs (originally the cleric, but that was dropped when he edited the OP, and seems to have become the general responsibility of the rest of the PCs).
I think that one reason to be sure to get SOME means of healing yourself, is to be more social... to be a better "team player". It improves your chance of being invited back. Kind of like bathing regularly. You don't REALLY have to shower regularly - and maybe once I'll overlook it. But I am likely to comment.... and if it happens twice? He's not likely to get a third chance.
SCPRedMage wrote: Lamontius wrote: what if my character has a CLW wand
and vin diesel forgot to buy one for his character
or what if Vin Diesel is using a wand of infernal healing and he does not own the proper source material
vin diesel you are not taking my table seat
I'll give him my wand (to use), or my copy of the book.
Too late, it's his seat now!
N N 959 wrote: SCPRedMage wrote: If you DON'T bring a wand (when you COULD have), then I see that as freeloading. I have to emphatically disagree. A tank who exposes himself to combat so others in his party can do what they do, is never freeloading whether he he brings his own healing or not. The fighter spends his money on armor and weapons and items to do his job. He has every right to save his PP for resurrections.
Your cleric or your wizard wants to brag about having better AC than everyone else because your burning spells to fulfill a roll someone else is willing to do? Fine, you go tank and pay for your own healing while your at it. I'll just go ranged. Sure, we are far less efficient this way, but at least you can feel smug that no one is mooching off your CLW wand.
Perhaps the wizard & cleric want to spend their money on armor and weapons and items to do their jobs. Jobs that help you take less hitpoint damage so that it doesn't need to be healed in the first place. Money spent healing you is money spent making their character less effective at their job.
Quote: He has every right to save his PP for resurrections. ...and no one else does?
Serum wrote: Money spent healing you is money spent making their character less effective at their job. Conversely, money spent on healing items is money spent making him less effective at taking the hits.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Serum wrote: Money spent healing you is money spent making their character less effective at their job. Conversely, money spent on healing items is money spent making him less effective at taking the hits. Only if you think of matters from a single encounter point of view. PFS missions all involve multiple encounters. If you want to be able to continue beyond the first fight then you had better bring the means to do so as you cannot be certain that anyone else will have any. Given the nature of PFS you could very easily sit down at a table with not a single spell caster.
Not bringing your own healing is short sightedness of the highest order. How such a foolish person survives basic training is quite a puzzle. Personally I put it down to incompetence in the upper ranks of the society leadership but there might be a teeny weeney little bit of personal responsibility in there too.
SCPRedMage wrote: You do like to cherry-pick your quotes, don't you?I am not obligated to pay for your healing. You keep ranting that someone is "demanding" healing and that you shouldn't be responsible for "all" someone's healing. Yet, in some 380 posts I have seen exactly ONE person post that you are obligated to heal as a cleric. One single person. I have not seen one single person say you "must" use your wand to heal me. Not one. Not one single person.
Yet, you and others keep acting like people who do their job and don't bring a wand are "freeloading." As if the risk of getting getting critted, or afflicted or whatever else can happen to you as the person in front is somehow trivial. Lets reread what the OP wrote:
Quote: I can’t count the number of times I was the only one at the table able to identify a monster. In Slave Pits of Absalom my familiar saved the party from a TPK. In Frozen Fingers of Midnight I disarmed the big bad in the first round of combat. In Rise of the Goblin Guild I caught the goblin after jumping out a window. In the Veteran’s Vault my wizard sprinted across the battle field and used one of his own potions to stabilize a party member while the heavy hitters ran away. I contribute. I'll quote you again,
SCPRedMage wrote: If you DON'T bring a wand (when you COULD have), then I see that as freeloading. Calling someone a "freeloader" because they didn't bring a wand is, imo, violating the don't-be-a-jerk policy when that player has unquestionably contributed to the group in countless other ways. Healing someone who spends his money on doing his job and plays smart and is willing to take all the damage is called common courtesy where I come from. And everyone who isn't prepared to take his place should be grateful.
The problem with this whole discussion is the "you're a freeloader" side has taken an extreme position and marches out these fringe cases of bad behavior and play to justify social condemnation of people who don't carry CLW wands.
Now watch me switch sides as soon as it happens to my ranger...ROFL.
TriOmegaZero wrote: Serum wrote: Money spent healing you is money spent making their character less effective at their job. Conversely, money spent on healing items is money spent making him less effective at taking the hits. First of all, let me fix that for you:
Quote: Conversely, money spent on healing items is less money spent making him more effective at taking the hits. Subtle difference.
Second, everyone else is in the same boat on that one. The thing is, by trying to shift the tank's healing expenses onto someone else, you end up causing that someone else to have even less money to spend on being more effective.
Healing is an expense that everyone has to deal with; it's not fair for the cleric to have to foot the bill for the fighter's healing, any more than it would be fair for the fighter to have to foot the bill for the CLERIC'S healing.
The things is, I'm not the one trying to shift anyone's expenses. I'm saying that you have as much right to my prestige/gold as I have to yours.
That is, none.
SCPRedMage wrote: Healing is an expense that everyone has to deal with; it's not fair for the cleric to have to foot the bill for the fighter's healing, any more than it would be fair for the fighter to have to foot the bill for the CLERIC'S healing. If I'm an archery fighter teamed with a battle cleric who is using all his spells to make himself a better tank, then yeah, I will 1) have a CLW wand; and 2)I would be absolutely happy to let the cleric use my wand to heal himself.
If he's not out front saving my bacon, then I'm healing myself anyway. More to the point, his tanking is letting me do what I do best and means we take a lot less damage overall. So I'm going to heal the cleric as an incentive because it benefits me more in the long run anyway.
Now, if that same cleric is taking trap damage because he refuses to let the Rogue take 20 looking for traps...then I'm not so generous with my wand.
N N 959 wrote: SCPRedMage wrote: You do like to cherry-pick your quotes, don't you?I am not obligated to pay for your healing. You keep ranting that someone is "demanding" healing and that you shouldn't be responsible for "all" someone's healing. Yet, in some 380 posts I have seen exactly ONE person post that you are obligated to heal as a cleric. One single person. I have not seen one single person say you "must" use your wand to heal me. Not one. Not one single person.
And YOU keep cherry-picking your soundbites, trying to make it seem like I'm saying something I'm not.
Here, let me give you the bit in between those two sentences you quoted:
SCPRedMage wrote: If you paid attention to my ENTIRE posts, you'd notice that I AM willing to provide the tank some healing. So no, I'm NOT trying to "feel smug that no one is mooching off [my] CLW wand". But just because I have a wand, or just because I happen to be playing what you deem to be a "healer class", I am not obligated to pay for your healing. My point has been that YES, I'm willing to help the tank out with his healing, but seeing as he'd still need SOME healing, even if he didn't play a tank, he should still take responsibility for his healing.
Nothing anyone chooses for their character build, not class, not race, not feats, ever makes anyone obligated to do ANYTHING for the other party members. When they do provide those things, they should be thanked for their good teamwork. When they don't provide you with something YOU think they should, YOU need to have your expectations corrected.
Now, as to anyone "demanding" healing, well gee, it appears to me that this entire thread got started because someone didn't want to buy a healing wand, but still wanted to receive healing.
N N 959 wrote: Yet, you and others keep acting like people who do their job and don't bring a wand are "freeloading." Hmm, I wand why I would consider it freeloading...
free·load [free-lohd, -lohd]
verb (used without object) Informal.
1. to take advantage of others for free food, entertainment, etc.
verb (used with object)
2. to get by freeloading: He freeloaded several meals a week.
Gee, I wonder if taking advantage of other party members for free healing would be considered "freeloading"...
N N 959 wrote: As if the risk of getting getting critted, or afflicted or whatever else can happen to you as the person in front is somehow trivial. Wow, more words in my mouth!
It's going to take me a while to wash the taste out...
N N 959 wrote: Lets reread what the OP wrote:
Quote: I can’t count the number of times I was the only one at the table able to identify a monster. In Slave Pits of Absalom my familiar saved the party from a TPK. In Frozen Fingers of Midnight I disarmed the big bad in the first round of combat. In Rise of the Goblin Guild I caught the goblin after jumping out a window. In the Veteran’s Vault my wizard sprinted across the battle field and used one of his own potions to stabilize a party member while the heavy hitters ran away. I contribute.
Oh, goodie, he contributed!
So did I.
So why is it, precise, that I have to pay for healing, and he gets a free pass?
N N 959 wrote: I'll quote you again,
SCPRedMage wrote: If you DON'T bring a wand (when you COULD have), then I see that as freeloading.
Joy of joys, you can repeat the same out-of-context quote as before! But I have to wonder, would the sentence immediately preceding that one make a difference?
SCPRedMage wrote: If you bring a wand, I see that as you taking responsibility, and I'll help you with the healing, including using some of my own resources to do so. Nope, guess not, it doesn't at all show any willingness to help a fellow player out, such that the cost he has to pay to help protect the party isn't as great, nope, no siree.
N N 959 wrote: Calling someone a "freeloader" because they didn't bring a wand is, imo, violating the don't-be-a-jerk policy when that player has unquestionably contributed to the group in countless other ways. You know what I see as a violation of the "don't be a jerk" policy? Not buying your own wand, and then trying to paint others as jerks when they don't fork over the resources THEY paid for.
If only there was some sort of middle ground...
SCPRedMage wrote: If you bring a wand, I see that as you taking responsibility, and I'll help you with the healing, including using some of my own resources to do so. Nope, guess there's no middle ground, no siree...
N N 959 wrote: Healing someone who spends his money on doing his job and plays smart and is willing to take all the damage is called common courtesy where I come from. And everyone who isn't prepared to take his place should be grateful. You know what else is "common courtesy"? Not expecting someone else to spend all their money healing your cheap behind, so THEY can spend more money on THEM being more effective.
N N 959 wrote: The problem with this whole discussion is the "you're a freeloader" side has taken an extreme position and marches out these fringe cases of bad behavior and play to justify social condemnation of people who don't carry CLW wands. Yes, I'm taking such an extreme stance. So extreme that I'm outright refusing to help
SCPRedMage wrote: If you bring a wand, I see that as you taking responsibility, and I'll help you with the healing, including using some of my own resources to do so. others with their healing at all.
Healing wands are cheap. At worst, they'll delay any other prestige purchases you make by ONE session, and they won't delay your gp purchase at all. Help your fellow players out by sharing the burden.
trollbill wrote: Sigh... I knew I shouldn't have mentioned stats any. It always seems to change the discussion from the one intended (in this case a discussion of fairness) to one of implicate blame on the OP for not having a Über optimized, cracked out, munchkin-fest and unfounded assumptions of inferior play practices.
The problem is an issUe of fairness, not builds.
No build IS AN ISSUE as well. You make a horrible build, then YOU are responsible for keeping said horrible build standing...NOT THE OTHER PEOPLE. Hell squishes have that kind of AC in most cases by level 4. The fact that you made a build that is bad at it's job isn't the other players being a jerk. Expecting other players to support you bad build IS.
N N 959 wrote: trollbill wrote: So essentially I am sucking up damage so that the squishies don't have to and burning charges on my own wand while the squishies don't have to because I am taking the hits for them. The solution is simple. Buy yourself a sling and quit tanking as soon as you get below half hit points. As soon as someone in the back row gets hit and asks why aren't you tanking you tell them you're too low on hit points. If they point to your wand, you tell them that's for emergencies.
Any squishie on your team with half a clue will heal you up and tell you to get back to the front. My archer ranger has purchased barkskin for a paladin because the woman fearlessly and consistently did her job.
You don't have to "demand" healing. You don't have to ask for it. You just roleplay based on the condition of your character and exhibit the same conservation of your resources as everyone else. Also be prepared to retreat if things get out of hand. Make it clear you aren't going to die in some noble last stand. If the healer role people aren't healing you IN COMBAT...well that is an issue. They should try and keep you up in combat. Out of combat, it is unreasonable for others to take care of YOUR BUILD. If you make a build that takes a LOT of damage (like say my barbarian), then it's YOUR responsibility to take care of that aspect yourself.
as a player or GM in PFS I am going to do my best to make sure the people involved are going to leave the session having had a blast and wanting to come back for more
I basically read most of the posts in this thread with that idea at the forefront of my mind
it is making this thread much easier
SCPRedMage wrote: Now, as to anyone "demanding" healing, well gee, it appears to me that this entire thread got started because someone didn't want to buy a healing wand, but still wanted to receive healing. I bring potions to every game I sit at.
Cold Napalm wrote: trollbill wrote: Sigh... I knew I shouldn't have mentioned stats any. It always seems to change the discussion from the one intended (in this case a discussion of fairness) to one of implicate blame on the OP for not having a Über optimized, cracked out, munchkin-fest and unfounded assumptions of inferior play practices.
The problem is an issUe of fairness, not builds.
No build IS AN ISSUE as well. You make a horrible build, then YOU are responsible for keeping said horrible build standing...NOT THE OTHER PEOPLE. Hell squishes have that kind of AC in most cases by level 4. The fact that you made a build that is bad at it's job isn't the other players being a jerk. Expecting other players to support you bad build IS. So you look at a single stagnant stat of my character and decide it is a bad build solely on that without knowing anything else I might bring to the table. Then you decide that since I did not, in your imagination, meet some arbitrary measure of brokenness, it is entirely my fault I am taking damage and am thus solely responsible for healing it.
And people wonder why Power Gamers get such a bad rap.
And, No, it is not an issue of builds. If I had an AC of 300 and 2 Million HP it would still be an issue of fairness.
trollbill wrote: And people wonder why Power Gamers get such a bad rap. Oh, don't mind him. Cold Napalm is always that way.
SCPRedMage wrote: Stuff... The very fact that someone takes damage while engaged in combat means they aren't freeloading. When you contribute resources/effort to the endeavor you are no longer a freeloader. Your roommate who buys an axe to chop wood for heat and nails to fixes the house is not a freeloader because he doesn't bring his own food to dinner. A fighter who buys a weapon and armor is making a financial contributing to the success of the mission.
Every single person who shows up and uses an item they have purchased is a contributor and has contributed financially to the effort. The only way you become a freeloader is by doing nothing. By standing in the back and refusing to lift a finger to aid the success of the mission. No frontline fighter is ever guilty of freeloading when he steps into battle.
Now, they may be guilty of bad playing, but calling them "freeloaders" is just factually inaccurate. By falsely categorizing a group of people, you do an injustice to the game. PFS is a social game. The point is to encourage people to work together, not incite them to unfairly label people in an attempt to control their behavior.
That's right. People who don't bring wands, but risk life and limb to the success of the mission have every reason to expect someone to heal them. Just like the wizard who doesn't have a high AC and lot of hitpoints expects the barbarian or fighter to step in front of combat. I had a person playing a Cleric of Calistra berate me OOC because I didn't send my Rapid Shot using ranger in front of her to protect her from melee. If had been playing my Sword and Shield ranger, I would have agreed with the criticism.
It's a demonstrable fact that when players focus on things that leverage their abilities, they are stronger than if everyone generalizes. 2 PP spent on a wand is not trivial. As I have already stated, a fighter who spends that two 2 PP on potions of Darkvision may save everyone far more money in the long run than if he spends it on a 1d8+1 CLW wand.
But hey, if you suddenly decide you don't want to heal someone, then don't.
TOZ wrote: trollbill wrote: And people wonder why Power Gamers get such a bad rap. Oh, don't mind him. Cold Napalm is always that way. ...sigh... were he the only one on these forums...
trollbill wrote: TOZ wrote: trollbill wrote: And people wonder why Power Gamers get such a bad rap. Oh, don't mind him. Cold Napalm is always that way. ...sigh... were he the only one on these forums... I resemble that remark. 8)
trollbill wrote: TOZ wrote: trollbill wrote: And people wonder why Power Gamers get such a bad rap. Oh, don't mind him. Cold Napalm is always that way. ...sigh... were he the only one on these forums... Napalms ideas of optimization are a little higher than most, so when you have a pretty basic character it looks reaaally bad to him, kind of like someone driving 65 on the autobahn.
TimrehIX wrote: SCPRedMage wrote: Now, as to anyone "demanding" healing, well gee, it appears to me that this entire thread got started because someone didn't want to buy a healing wand, but still wanted to receive healing. I bring potions to every game I sit at. Then why did you need the wand?
pathar wrote: TimrehIX wrote: SCPRedMage wrote: Now, as to anyone "demanding" healing, well gee, it appears to me that this entire thread got started because someone didn't want to buy a healing wand, but still wanted to receive healing. I bring potions to every game I sit at. Then why did you need the wand? Because other people demanded he get one.
TriOmegaZero wrote: trollbill wrote: TOZ wrote: trollbill wrote: And people wonder why Power Gamers get such a bad rap. Oh, don't mind him. Cold Napalm is always that way. ...sigh... were he the only one on these forums... I resemble that remark. 8) Oh, don't get me wrong. I am considered one of the biggest power gamers in my area. So I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with being one. My comment was in reference to attitude, not play style.
TriOmegaZero wrote: pathar wrote: TimrehIX wrote: SCPRedMage wrote: Now, as to anyone "demanding" healing, well gee, it appears to me that this entire thread got started because someone didn't want to buy a healing wand, but still wanted to receive healing. I bring potions to every game I sit at. Then why did you need the wand? Because other people demanded he get one. It was a rhetorical question, TOZ.
If other people were demanding that he buy a wand, the potions were clearly not getting the job done by themselves. The fact that he touts his potion-owning as a plus means he understands the necessity of healing; I don't understand the disconnect between a willingness to buy potions (50gp per dose) and a willingness to buy the wand (15gp per dose).
nosig wrote: So, which guy you going to accept in your team?
Bob La Feet - Barbarian "Glass Cannon" who prides himself in putting down the monsters in 3 rounds.... and relies on the rest of the team to heal him up?
Jo La Feet - Barbarian "Glass Cannon" who prides herself in putting down the monsters in 3 rounds.... and has a wand of CLW?
Everything else the same...
Except everything is not the same. Why? Because the player who's focused on healing damage is less capable than the player who's focused on stopping it to begin with. I don't want a fighter who can heal himself, I want a fighter who makes it so he doesn't need to be healed in the first place. The player who's savvy enough to take a proactive stance is going to be smarter, safer player, than the guy who just buys a CLW because that's what people told him to do.
Is getting a CLW a prudent thing to do? Yes. Is it the best decision every character can make? Not in my opinion. And I would never, ever, begrudge healing to a front liner who was willing to play tactically and clearly had the party's best interest at heart.
|
