Mind you we would also boot out "Larry" from our group as well. Though you kind of made the case that his way was somewhat better though his method of presenting it was still annoying. The guy leaves and 5-6 pc die. Sorry that's a table that has no concept of tactics imo. It maybe fun but I don't like pc death.
Having gamed with someone like this for over fifteen years, it's hard to let go, because of the thing you mentioned.
But at the same time, how do you learn the tactics for yourself and have fun doing so if you don't have the opportunity to do so?
Which is an important point Amanda brings up for the topic back to the original thread.
Not all sharing is finite trackable consumables. Sometimes it's the sage wisdom of years of play -- or one horrific module that went south...
I'm sorry but just because I can be raised does not mean I like a character who dies at the table if it can be avoided. If I play a character stupidly rushing into battle all the time. Then I deserve to have my character die all the time.
One thing I'm noticing how too many in the thread threat character death. It's never fun at all for whatever reason.
I agree completely. I don't like PC death either (apart from PC/player stupidity, I mean). But it's a metric that's easily understood and compared. That's all I meant by noting the deaths.
Mind you we would also boot out "Larry" from our group as well. Though you kind of made the case that his way was somewhat better though his method of presenting it was still annoying. The guy leaves and 5-6 pc die. Sorry that's a table that has no concept of tactics imo. It maybe fun but I don't like pc death.
Again, it depends on how you define 'better'. His way was more efficient, we all agreed on that. But 'most efficient' was never our measurement for fun. Fun was our measurement for fun. And his way was only fun for him.
As for 5-6 people dying, over the course of a 3+ year campaign where the PCs went from level 1 to level 21 and eventually went into mythic tiers, 5-6 deaths (or 6-7, including that first one) is pretty good, in my opinion. And those deaths included three instances of PCs 'taking one for the team' (voluntary in-game self sacrifice for the greater good is about as teamwork oriented a thing as I can think of), two instances of blatant player/PC foolishness, and 1-2 instances where $#@& just happened. 'Larry's' presence may have prevented those last 1-2 deaths, but the cost would have been too great. (The cost being the general lack of fun from always doing things his way versus the cost of two PC deaths over the course of 3+ years.) I don't like PC death either, but while our tactics weren't as efficient as 'Larry's' we were still tactical and worked together very well. Without ever feeling 'obligated' to do this or that because it was 'better'.
But at the same time, how do you learn the tactics for yourself and have fun doing so if you don't have the opportunity to do so?
Which is an important point Amanda brings up for the topic back to the original thread.
Not all sharing is finite trackable consumables. Sometimes it's the sage wisdom of years of play -- or one horrific module that went south...
That's very true. The new-ish guys at the table learned exactly two things under 'Larry's instruction:
1. Wait to be told what to do every round, even if you have a better idea. Your ideas are only good ideas if they match 'Larry's' ideas.
2. Disobeying 'Larry' opens you up to bullying and abuse. (Yes, I use the term on purpose. 'Larry's' tirades hurt at least three of the players so badly they nearly quit the game. Undoing the damage 'Larry' did to them took months of support and gentle teaching.)
Our game wasn't as efficient post-Larry. But we rarely made the same mistake twice. We learned better tactics and teamwork for ourselves, rather than being spoon-fed the tactics 'Larry' choose for us. And learning things for ourselves made for better memories, better stories (often of the 'no $%&#, there I was...' sort), and better players overall.
If your character, or someone else's character, dying is so awful to you that it automatically trumps all other concerns, then do yourself a favour and play nothing but clerics for a good while. It is a fun class to play, you will enjoy it. But, of course, for one teeny little thing.
Whatever your build, people will demand that you heal them. Buff them. Rush to save them with in combat heals. Whatever you want to do. Regardless of your damage output. No matter where you are on the map. No matter what else you could do with your round. See, in peoples' minds, cleric = healbot and buffer. This goes even further. They will start taking more risks than they need because "hey, we have a healer".
And then, one day, you do not buff or heal them. Expect them to get on your case like a ton of bricks, about how "PF is a game about teamwork! You need to act like a healer should! Be a team player!"
Tl;dr: You want the party to have a dedicated healer that spends his time just propping up the others, PLAY IT YOURSELF!
|
That's the counter argument. If all you want to play is a dedicated healer than play it yourself. Interesting but too bad I never said that.
Character death does not trump all concerns. I just don't like it. Nor should I be happy if another character can stop it from happening does nothing about it. No one saying that a character has to always heal/buff another character. It all depends on the situation. If fighting a fire immune creature and the wizard still casts fireball. Then it's a wasted action. If a Fighter is close to dying and asks for healing ignore it then wonder why the person playing the Fighter is unhappy. Well don't be. Sure casting the fireball at the creature maybe huge amounts of fun. It can also lead to a tpk. Or worse the death of the caster. As you have just put a big target on your character.
Once again play whatever way you want to at the table. Assume the responsibilites and consequences both positive and negative that can arise from that. You can't have it both ways. Do your own thing at the table then cry foul when something bad happens and the rest of the group calls you out on it.
Oh and I have played a Cleric. Enjoyed it. No one died on my watch either. I buffed my character and attacked when I needed to. Made sure to keep a eye on the group to make sure no one came close to dying. With the right feats you don't even waste a standard action channeling. It's not that hard to be both a healer and melee type of cleric imo.
Mind you my current group realizes and understands that depending on the situation if the Cleric cannot heal the party they understand. As Channeling really is not that great at later levels and sometimes it is better and fun to keep attacking a enemy.
That's another meme I have found on this forum. players who always react in the most negative manner if they can't get their way despite the situation. It's as if they never react like real people. More like the worst stereotype imaginable. My questions is why are you still playing with such a group. I would have left eons ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, my problem here is still telling someone they are obligated to do something just because it's a better option and where you draw the line at "reasonable request".
Yes, it's most often going to be a better action on the part of the wizard to drop haste on the party rather than fireball.
It's also the most boring thing the wizard player can do from his perspective and he hates it. So he doesn't do it. That's valid. It's not optimal, but it's valid.
Telling the player he's a selfish jerk for not buffing you, is incredibly hilarious ironic.
Ultimately, this depends on how extreme it goes. I know, I know. This is the internet and every argument boils down to digging in at extreme ends and automatically assuming extreme positions from the people you're arguing with.
Are players obligated to work with each other? From a practical standpoint, considering this is a group game, yes, you are. If not, why are you playing together? But exactly how this accomplished varies. Never buffing or using teamwork with your fellow PCs is selfish on your part. Never relenting from demanding buffs from you is selfishness on their part. There's a space between these extremes where the game plays well and everyone can have fun. Find it.
Why does the cleric have to be the one healing the wounded fighter, though? I mean, the barbarian can do it just as well with a potion. WHY DOES PLAYING A CLERIC PUT YOU AT GROUND ZERO OF HEALING AND BUFFING DEMANDS WHEN OTHER CLASSES DO NOT?
|
|
Sometimes a potion is not enough and the damage taken by a character requires the cleric healing spells or channeling Aura. A few points of damage sure another class with a potion can do the trick. When one takes 30+ damage a potion is not going to be enough. Or the Cleric is the ones that is closest to the character who took damage. Or the person with potion is in battle. I'm not taking a AOO because the Cleric is unwilling to heal. Again no one but you Sissyl insist that Clerics be the ones to heal. It depends on the situation.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes a potion is not enough and the damage taken by a character requires the cleric healing spells or channeling Aura. A few points of damage sure another class with a potion can do the trick. When one takes 30+ damage a potion is not going to be enough.
Um, potions are based on spells. So unless the cleric has the healing domain or an empower rod or something, his spells aren't really so far above potions as you make them out to be. (Until he gets heal and breath of life, which are game-changers and not really part of the complaint. Even my battle cleric kept those handy for emergencies.) But this idea that "potion isn't enough, need a spell"? That's boloney. Maybe you're remembering some earlier D&D version where potions and spells healed different amounts or something?
Or the Cleric is the ones that is closest to the character who took damage. Or the person with potion is in battle. I'm not taking a AOO because the Cleric is unwilling to heal.
You know that the cleric provokes for casting, right? (Casting defensively means you might not get that heal at all.)
Again no one but you Sissyl insist that Clerics be the ones to heal.
Not true. I have literally been called "sociopathic" by a multi-star PFS GM for not being willing to blow all my battle cleric's spell slots on healing a hypothetical 8th-level barbarian who refused to chip in for a wand of CLW. I have had someone else scream and whine about how selfish it was for my battle cleric to stab things instead of healing him; he thought he put me in my place by threatening to retreat to the back and leave me in the front lines (exactly where I was trying to be). Stuff like that happened over and over and over across ten levels of play. Any time I shared a table with someone who'd played at least one prior edition of D&D, I faced the same "cleric is responsible for healing" crap. That attitude is everywhere.
|
|
Your right about potions and cure spells. Still a cleric if he has the right feats can Channel without a AOO and still do something else. Or Simply Channel one round move. Then attack. It's not like healing limits what else a cleric can do. All I'm saying is if the difference between a fellow PC dying and taking another swing. In saving the PC. Mind you if the PC keeps getting in over his head consistently then I'm not going to bother healing him either. I will never call a fellow PC by names or assume that they have to heal my PC. It works both ways. If a PC consistently refused to heal my PC im not going to go out of my way to help him either. Fair is fair it's like a player who kept playing a cowardly character hiding and never doing anything yet wanted a full share of the loot. If all he is doing is hiding never getting a scratch he aunts getting a full share of the loot for doing nothing at the table.!
Why does the cleric have to be the one healing the wounded fighter, though? I mean, the barbarian can do it just as well with a potion. WHY DOES PLAYING A CLERIC PUT YOU AT GROUND ZERO OF HEALING AND BUFFING DEMANDS WHEN OTHER CLASSES DO NOT?
BECAUSE THEY'RE BETTER AT IT THAN PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE ELSE.
WHY AM I SHOUTING? I SOUND LIKE I'M HOSTING LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH AND FAMOUS. I'M ROBIN LEACH.
I mean, really, it ain't rocket science. Why are barbarians expected to be front liners? Why are rogues and ninjas expected to find traps? They're geared to be pretty good at it. Same with clerics and healing.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still a cleric if he has the right feats can Channel without a AOO and still do something else.
A cleric who was specifically built to be good at healing isn't really a part of this conversation, is he? At least, not if we're trying to have an honest discussion here.
Or Simply Channel one round move. Then attack. It's not like healing limits what else a cleric can do.
Just like a fighter can drink a potion this round, then take another swing next round. Self-healing is no more limiting to "what else a [fighter] can do" than healing the fighter is for the cleric.
Regardless of who does the healing, it costs that PC's turn, as well as an AoO or two. So why are you so dead-set on it being the cleric who has to spend a turn and take the AoO(s), instead of the fighter?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Why does the cleric have to be the one healing the wounded fighter, though? I mean, the barbarian can do it just as well with a potion. WHY DOES PLAYING A CLERIC PUT YOU AT GROUND ZERO OF HEALING AND BUFFING DEMANDS WHEN OTHER CLASSES DO NOT?BECAUSE THEY'RE BETTER AT IT THAN PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE ELSE.
WHY AM I SHOUTING? I SOUND LIKE I'M HOSTING LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH AND FAMOUS. I'M ROBIN LEACH.
I mean, really, it ain't rocket science. Why are barbarians expected to be front liners? Why are rogues and ninjas expected to find traps? They're geared to be pretty good at it. Same with clerics and healing.
Barbarians are better than anyone else at using 0gp clubs as their primary weapons, yet nobody expects it of them because there are far better things barbarians can be doing, unless they just happen to be built specifically for club-wielding (or in certain circumstances, like if it's your last backup weapon against a rust monster).
Same for clerics and healing. They're better at it than other classes are, but unless the cleric happens to be specifically built for healing, there are far better things the cleric can be doing (except in certain specific circumstances).
I know there's a deep-rooted, classic fantasy RPG trope that spans nearly half a century of tabletops, video games, and even board/card games, which states that divine spellcasters are the healers/buffers/anti-undead guys. But (whether from plain old assumption, or from lack of ability) an awful lot of people fail to recognize that not every single game that falls into this genre will actually support that trope.
Why does the cleric have to be the one healing the wounded fighter, though? I mean, the barbarian can do it just as well with a potion. WHY DOES PLAYING A CLERIC PUT YOU AT GROUND ZERO OF HEALING AND BUFFING DEMANDS WHEN OTHER CLASSES DO NOT?BECAUSE THEY'RE BETTER AT IT THAN PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE ELSE.
WHY AM I SHOUTING? I SOUND LIKE I'M HOSTING LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH AND FAMOUS. I'M ROBIN LEACH.
I mean, really, it ain't rocket science. Why are barbarians expected to be front liners? Why are rogues and ninjas expected to find traps? They're geared to be pretty good at it. Same with clerics and healing.
So all clerics are better at it than pretty much everyone else? Such as a neutral cleric who put all his feats into a reach build, and channels negative energy? Or are merely SOME clerics better at it than everyone else? And if it's just SOME clerics, why does that have to hurt EVERY cleric, Bill? If you played a barbarian specialized in archery, and everyone not only expected you to, but DEMANDED that you take your place in the front melee, would you be annoyed with them? Would you see these demands as unfair? Or would you accept throwing away your bow and instead using the greataxe they handed you because YOU'RE BETTER AT IT THAN PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE ELSE?
Barbarians are better than anyone else at using 0gp clubs as their primary weapons, yet nobody expects it of them because there are far better things barbarians can be doing, unless they just happen to be built specifically for club-wielding (or in certain circumstances, like if it's your last backup weapon against a rust monster).Same for clerics and healing. They're better at it than other classes are, but unless the cleric happens to be specifically built for healing, there are far better things the cleric can be doing (except in certain specific circumstances).
And that bit I've bolded above is the point. The cleric may have other good things to do, but when the circumstances come up and the healing of another PC may be serious matter, I don't think it's any great shock or imposition to look to the PC who is better geared for it than anyone else and expect them to take one for the team.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that bit I've bolded above is the point. The cleric may have other good things to do, but when the circumstances come up and the healing of another PC may be serious matter, I don't think it's any great shock or imposition to look to the PC who is better geared for it than anyone else and expect them to take one for the team.
Barbarians are better than anyone else at using 0gp clubs as their primary weapons, yet nobody expects it of them because there are far better things barbarians can be doing, unless they just happen to be built specifically for club-wielding (or in certain circumstances, like if it's your last backup weapon against a rust monster).Same for clerics and healing. They're better at it than other classes are, but unless the cleric happens to be specifically built for healing, there are far better things the cleric can be doing (except in certain specific circumstances).
When people balk against the "clerics should heal" mantra, it's not because they keep running into people saying "You've got breath of life prepped and I just F***ING DIED from a scythe crit, mind letting me get back in the game?". It's because they keep running into people saying "They've whittled me down to half HP; you should blow one of your highest-level spells to put me back to full"; or even "Hey cleric, don't forget to buy enough CLW wands to keep the party full— what? No, I'm not paying for it, that's your job."
Those "certain specific circumstances" where it's a good idea for a non-healer cleric to heal are a lot narrower than "someone is low on HP", yet in practice that seems to be all that's required for folks to start whining if the cleric says "no".
|
|
Honestly, potions are absolute s%$! for healing. It takes your entire round to drink and provokes AoOs, for a measly amount of healing. It's much better to have someone that can spend a single action without provoking to heal more than 2d8+3 or whatever. (Cost per healing is pretty crap with potions too.)
So all clerics are better at it than pretty much everyone else? Such as a neutral cleric who put all his feats into a reach build, and channels negative energy? Or are merely SOME clerics better at it than everyone else? And if it's just SOME clerics, why does that have to hurt EVERY cleric, Bill? If you played a barbarian specialized in archery, and everyone not only expected you to, but DEMANDED that you take your place in the front melee, would you be annoyed with them? Would you see these demands as unfair? Or would you accept throwing away your bow and instead using the greataxe they handed you because YOU'RE BETTER AT IT THAN PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE ELSE?
You know, if I came to a game with a barbarian archer and nobody else had built a front-line capable character and we came to find that having one was important, I'd come to a couple of conclusions:
1) We didn't coordinate very well in developing our characters and forming our adventuring company. That's a mistake we're all making at the table and it needs to be corrected.
2) Someone needs to step up and fill the role or we need to hire someone to do it.
And if no one else was capable of stepping up and hiring someone wouldn't work out, I'd do it and be OK with it. I might find ways to use my character's archery prowess more often like do more wilderness adventuring in which encounter ranges can be longer or we might evolve an engagement style in closer quarters that involves a more cautious approach than charging in so I could get a couple of shots in. But in any event, we're still playing and having fun and a reasonably efficient shift on my, or anybody's part, improves our success at this game more than sticking to our prior character concept.
If there's nobody else geared up for healing in the party, that neutral, damage channeling cleric may still be the best go-to person for healing. So what choice are you going to make if the need starts to arise? Stick to your concept and hope someone else changes theirs to account for the need? Stock up on components for a lot more raise dead spells? Or divert some of your development into picking up the slack by either prepping some healing or investing in magic items that you can use to boost emergency combat healing? What will serve the table and its success at surviving, having fun, and overcoming the game's challenges best?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, Bill. Consider. I show up with a negative-channeling neutral cleric built for massive numbers of AoOs with a reach weapon, mobility, and serious damage infliction. Every spell slot I have, and that's not many due to not even trying to bump up Wisdom since I need the physical stats more, I use to boost my combat damage. The end result, damage dealt, is quite adequate.
I have NO healing spells memorized. I CAN'T channel for them. I can't even cast fifth level spells, so no Breath of life either.
What duty do I have to heal your barbarian? Do I have to use a wand of CLW? If so, why can't you do it yourself? Why can't the rogue do it, who has UMD?
Do I have to change my spell list to hold cure spells, despite me then becoming far, far less effective in dealing damage?
Do I have to get the healing-related feats instead of my damage-oriented ones, thereby giving up on my chosen style of combat?
Do I have to change into channeling positive energy for you?
Do I have to dump my physical stats to boost wisdom so I can cast more heals for you?
What if playing a cleric was something I did for a few levels before changing to something else, do I have to give up those plans because you want ME, and nobody else, to provide the healing you demand of the group and refuse to provide yourself?
Honestly, potions are absolute s&!* for healing. It takes your entire round to drink and provokes AoOs, for a measly amount of healing. It's much better to have someone that can spend a single action without provoking to heal more than 2d8+3 or whatever. (Cost per healing is pretty crap with potions too.)
Sounds like you are volunteering to fill the healbot role. That's very sweet of you, TOZ.
Okay, Bill. Consider. I show up with a negative-channeling neutral cleric built for massive numbers of AoOs with a reach weapon, mobility, and serious damage infliction. Every spell slot I have, and that's not many due to not even trying to bump up Wisdom since I need the physical stats more, I use to boost my combat damage. The end result, damage dealt, is quite adequate.
I have NO healing spells memorized. I CAN'T channel for them. I can't even cast fifth level spells, so no Breath of life either.
What duty do I have to heal your barbarian? Do I have to use a wand of CLW? If so, why can't you do it yourself? Why can't the rogue do it, who has UMD?
Do I have to change my spell list to hold cure spells, despite me then becoming far, far less effective in dealing damage?
Do I have to get the healing-related feats instead of my damage-oriented ones, thereby giving up on my chosen style of combat?
Do I have to change into channeling positive energy for you?
Do I have to dump my physical stats to boost wisdom so I can cast more heals for you?
What if playing a cleric was something I did for a few levels before changing to something else, do I have to give up those plans because you want ME, and nobody else, to provide the healing you demand of the group and refuse to provide yourself?
My first question would be: did you coordinate with the other players on what character you were bringing to the table? If you did, I think the reasonable presumption is someone has taken on the role you have not - in which case, someone's got some healing abilities for the pinch. If you didn't and everyone showed up with an unvetted character and the party has all the cohesive direction of brownian motion, I'm calling the game a mulligan and telling everyone to try again.
And if, over the course of a campaign, the group is struggling because nobody's coordinating their character development in favor of their independent concepts and needs are consistently unmet, I'm going to push people to tone down their concept in favor of more cooperation - including you no matter how effective you are as a loner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And of course, push the barbarian to tone down his concept of frontline melee combatant in favour of being able to heal. I mean, someone has to be able to heal, so why can't the barbarian take a few life oracle levels, or start a whole new character that can take all the healbot bells and whistles?
Or even better, why not the rogue? I mean, the reach cleric consistently out-damages the rogue, and the rogue has a good UMD skill.
Please, it would be good to hear your answers on how far I need to change my character because the class is named "cleric", when other characters don't need to change.
|
|
Sounds like you are volunteering to fill the healbot role. That's very sweet of you, TOZ.
My Life Oracle never let a character die, from 1st to 12th. My Winter Oracle is the closest thing we have to a dedicated healer in Reign of Winter, and we're also 12th level without a death. Our Skull and Shackles party has a Paladin who focuses on archery with a Cleric cohort, but the player doesn't always show up. I play a melee Druid/Monk. We've only had NPC deaths due to there not being room on the ship for them to get out of the way.
All that being said, my comment was about the realities of the game. It made no suggestion about obligations to be a healbot. If you don't have a character that can heal, you either factor that into your play strategy or you have character deaths.
And your druid/monk has taken all the feats he/she possibly could to provide better healing, I understand? If someone demanded you change your character because they want more healing, would you change?
Please, it would be good to hear your answers on how far I need to change my character because the class is named "cleric", when other characters don't need to change.
It's hard to argue that shifting some spell prep around to allow for healing isn't one of the most efficient ways to provide for emergency healing. If that's truly the case given the party composition, you may just have to learn to suck it up, buttercup.
Again, it comes down to what's efficient and effective for the party as a whole and the cleric's already got an inside track compared to most barbarians in meeting that need - even the one you describe.
No. I am asking you if a) your monk/druid has taken all applicable feats to maximize healing, and b) if someone demanded that you do, because your character sheet says "druid", would you be okay with that?
Please, it would be good to hear your answers on how far I need to change my character because the class is named "cleric", when other characters don't need to change.It's hard to argue that shifting some spell prep around to allow for healing isn't one of the most efficient ways to provide for emergency healing. If that's truly the case given the party composition, you may just have to learn to suck it up, buttercup.
Again, it comes down to what's efficient and effective for the party as a whole and the cleric's already got an inside track compared to most barbarians in meeting that need - even the one you describe.
Suck it up. Indeed. And that, friends, is why I wouldn't put myself in the shoes of playing a cleric with people I don't know well.
By the by, any character with a good UMD can heal pretty well. There is no reason someone should have to do it just because the sheet says "cleric".
Why would you ask that, specifically in response to my post?
Because this is a discussion about how far the obligation to the party goes, specifically regarding what cleric players should have to "suck up".
Whether you considered your druid/monk to have an obligation to shift his/her feats/whatever around to provide more healing for a hypothetical party that felt he/she should. After all, your sheet says "druid", so you're better at healing than the others.
My suggested course of action to solve all this is simply to let the one screaming the most about the need for a healer to take on the job. I personally have never had much of a problem with PC death, either mine or someone else's, and I am quite prepared to play without a healer. Some, however, don't think that way, and they are quite free to take the healbot mantle.
By the by, any character with a good UMD can heal pretty well. There is no reason someone should have to do it just because the sheet says "cleric".
For out of combat healing, it works pretty well. As long as you don't fail while rolling a 1 and are unable to use that wand again for 24 hours - something even evil clerics don't have to worry about. So if you are relying on a charismatic character with UMD for out of combat healing, you need to prepare for extra contingencies compared to having a paladin, oracle, ranger, druid, or, yes, a neutral battle cleric use the wand.
For in-combat emergency healing, a character with a good UMD is probably a more expensive option than having a cleric hold a higher level healing spell in reserve. The cure wounds spells scale poorly in wands costs.
|
|
Whether you considered your druid/monk to have an obligation to shift his/her feats/whatever around to provide more healing for a hypothetical party that felt he/she should.
So qhat do yu guys think? Are you obligated to break from your theme or build or whatever to give someone else something?No. But sometimes it might be the better option.
And what is the "cost" of keeping an entire character, potentially 25% or so of the party's actions and power, in a healer role? We have not been talking about "holding a high-level healing spell in reserve", we have been discussing things like channeling with the proper feats. It's a rebuild you're discussing, not keeping one spell in reserve. And if the cleric in question can't even cast high level spells due to a low wisdom build, that also requires a rebuild.
And what is the "cost" of keeping an entire character, potentially 25% or so of the party's actions and power, in a healer role? We have not been talking about "holding a high-level healing spell in reserve", we have been discussing things like channeling with the proper feats. It's a rebuild you're discussing, not keeping one spell in reserve. And if the cleric in question can't even cast high level spells due to a low wisdom build, that also requires a rebuild.
I think we've been talking about all of these as possible options - including keeping an emergency higher level healing spell in reserve. I think you've been the only one assuming some kind of rebuild is necessary in any circumstance.
That said, you look at the whole picture and figure out what you need and what works to accomplish it in an effective and reasonably efficient manner. If nobody is coordinated at game start, you should probably all rebuild and coordinate. If several levels on you're short of healing, other tactics may be necessary. Someone may have to give up a planned feat from their concept to get leadership for a healing cohort. Someone may need to multiclass or revise some skill choices. If the need crops up between levels, maybe some changes in spell prep or equipment are in order to make it to a more agreeable, long-term solution.
|
|
I find Oracles to be the most efficient character in having something in reserve thanks to spontaneous casting. In our most recent fight my Winter Oracle had 4 of his 5th level slots remaining and 1 slot for each of his next highest levels. He proceeded to spend them on buffs for his allies, while keeping a 5th level slot available in case someone needed Breath of Life. Not being locked into prepared spells let me choose on the fly how to spend my resources.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is why I like 5E's healing: everybody gets a daily pool of out-of-combat healing, healing spells are actually powerful enough (relative to the rest of the system's math) to be worth using in combat semi-regularly, everybody casts spontaneously from their list of spells known/prepared (so a prepped cure doesn't guarantee one less daily slot for other things) and there's even a verbal-only, 30-foot-range, bonus-action healing spell so that the guy who has it doesn't have to lose his turn to help out a struggling teammate. Oh, and there's no AoOs for casting spells or drinking potions, and the potions are worthwhile.
This whole issue isn't even a thing in 5E. Soooo refreshing. :)
|
|
Well why can't a well made cleric be part of the discussion. I keep getting told that a cleric does not have to be a healbot Which is true. But a cleric with the right channel feats. Can get into position. Not have to worry whether he heals the wrong people. Not wasting a standard action to channel. It's not even being optimized for healing. I usually do that so I don't have to be just a healer.
That being said while I did not want to mention it. When it comes to healing the first person most people in s group for better or worse your turn to a cleric. I'm certainly not going to turn to a Fighter or Rogue. I can respect not wanting to be the Healbot. i don't see anything wrong with asking for healing when the situation warrants it. The player can refuse. As I can refuse to give the player a healing potion. Fair is fair.
And what is the "cost" of keeping an entire character, potentially 25% or so of the party's actions and power, in a healer role? We have not been talking about "holding a high-level healing spell in reserve", we have been discussing things like channeling with the proper feats. It's a rebuild you're discussing, not keeping one spell in reserve. And if the cleric in question can't even cast high level spells due to a low wisdom build, that also requires a rebuild.I think we've been talking about all of these as possible options - including keeping an emergency higher level healing spell in reserve. I think you've been the only one assuming some kind of rebuild is necessary in any circumstance.
That said, you look at the whole picture and figure out what you need and what works to accomplish it in an effective and reasonably efficient manner. If nobody is coordinated at game start, you should probably all rebuild and coordinate. If several levels on you're short of healing, other tactics may be necessary. Someone may have to give up a planned feat from their concept to get leadership for a healing cohort. Someone may need to multiclass or revise some skill choices. If the need crops up between levels, maybe some changes in spell prep or equipment are in order to make it to a more agreeable, long-term solution.
Okay, so, rebuilds are out, as I interpret you. That is at least a relief. And of course, nothing says the cleric has to be the one to make sacrifices to get more healing, right?
Let's just say rebuilds aren't the only thing on the table. I'm not keen on them once play has started - though, as GM, I may require one when first bringing in a character to a campaign. I'm looking mainly at "where do we go from here to make things better" and that generally means what can we do as we progress (not retrofit). That may very well mean revising a concept or delaying its ultimate expression if that's best for the group.
What is the difference, to you, between "what is best for the group" and "what is best for the frontliner"? And how do you determine who has to change their concept "for the good of the group"?
When it comes to healing the first person most people in s group for better or worse your turn to a cleric. I'm certainly not going to turn to a Fighter or Rogue. I can respect not wanting to be the Healbot. i don't see anything wrong with asking for healing when the situation warrants it. The player can refuse. As I can refuse to give the player a healing potion. Fair is fair.
So, when you ask for healing from a character who can't give you any, despite his sheet saying "cleric", you will revenge yourself on him, while you wouldn't do so against another character who couldn't heal you, but his sheet didn't say "cleric". Interesting.
Fair is fair. He does that to me. I withhold healing when he needs it. Fair is fair.
|
|
Fair is fair. He does that to me. I withhold healing when he needs it. Fair is fair.
So if you take a cleric or someone who can heal you don't want to play the healbot. Rather not heal. Probably do something else when the need to heal someone arises. Yet you expect to be healed. Everyone should heal you. You can't have it both ways. Tell other players not to expect healing. Even when they lose more than half their hit points. Then expect it to sit well with the other players. It's just reinforces what I said before. Play how you want but assume the consequences of your playing style. You don't get to withhold some of your class abilities and expect everyone else to simply ignore that.
Some players are very strange. Want to have their cake and eat it too. No group I know is going to share resources equally with someone who withholds them. It's one thing to not want to heal all the time. Another when a player never wants to do it. Then expects to be treated as a equal at the table. Do you honestly expect a player whose character died because a player refused to heal him and save him. Be happy about it. Again people hear are very strange with some double standards. They can have their characters act a certain way towards other players. But watch out when it happens to them it's "revenge".
its like a child who withholds his toys from the other kids. Then starts to cry when others do the same to him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your right about potions and cure spells. Still a cleric if he has the right feats can Channel without a AOO and still do something else.
Except that getting those feats require, well, feats. Clerics don't get extra feats built into the class like Fighters, Wizards, etc. And expecting the Cleric's player to take feats that don't support the Cleric's theme/build/whatever simply for the convenience of others is even more 'selfish' than expecting the Cleric to give up some in-combat actions or spells, since feats are scarce, non-changeable resources. Regardless of people's varying opinions as to whether or not an individual PC's spells are 'disposable resources' that the entire group should have a claim on; feats belong entirely to the PC that took them.
All I'm saying is if the difference between a fellow PC dying and taking another swing.
And this is one of the few times another point has come up in this thread. What is the Cleric (or Wizard, or whatever) doing when he 'should' be healing or buffing or whatever? I think most people will agree that if a PC isn't doing anything effective, they should be helping the PCs who are currently effective. But if the PC is being effective, just not in the way another player wants, well, the other player shouldn't expect them to stop being useful in one way to come be useful your way.
I don't like PC death (mine or other people's) and will avoid it when I can. But sometimes other things are more important.
A few examples that I've either observed or participated in:
1. Fighter & Cleric are both in melee with a critter, Fighter is near dropping, Cleric is only hitting on a roll of 15+. The Cleric should probably drop back and heal. If he chooses not to, it's his choice. It wouldn't be unreasonable to have a brief discussion of tactics after the combat, regardless of how combat ends.
2. Fighter & Cleric are both in melee and hitting well. The monster looks near dropping, as is the Fighter. Whether the Cleric drops back to heal or continues to melee is entirely up to the Cleric's player. Both options were equally valid and the Cleric's player should not be criticized, even if the action is not what the Fighter's player thinks the Cleric's player should have done.
3. The Fighter is in melee with the critter and is near dropping. The room is filling with water and the party is in danger of drowning. The cleric is the PC best suited (or simply nearest) to being able to stop the water. The Cleric stops the water instead of healing the Fighter, who then dies. The Cleric made the tactically superior choice, saving the entire party except the Fighter, rather than saving the Fighter, who may have drowned anyway. While it isn't unreasonable for the Fighter's player to be unhappy about the death, expecting the Cleric to save the Fighter in this case is selfish of the Fighter's player.
Another issue with in-combat healing is that it doesn't scale with damage capabilities (outside of spells like heal). There have been dozens of threads detailing how in-combat healing is a tactically poor choice for that reason. Even if the Cleric commits himself to nothing but healing, he won't be able to keep up with the damage the party is taking beyond the lowest levels. Often, the Cleric is better off ending the threat rather than patching up the damage that results from the threat.
Even Breath of Life isn't the fabulous option that people make it out to be. Does it undo the death and provide some healing, without the expensive components of Raise Dead? Sure. But but if the Fighter just died, he was in negative hp. If the party is high enough level to have regular access to breath of life then the monsters the party is facing are usually capable of high damage output. The Fighter will never receive the full 5d8+ 1/lvl (max +25) from the spell. The Cleric will rarely roll max on the d8s, and the Fighter probably has a good Con score, which means he's even deeper into negative hp. Ultimately, while the Fighter probably will be healed enough to get back into the fight, he still doesn't have enough hp to prevent dropping to negative hp again (or dying again) the next time the monster hits.
So, often breath of life ends up going this way:
1. Fighter goes down.
2. Cleric casts [i]breath of life[/]
3. Fighter gets up, probably drawing an AoO. (AoO may be enough to drop the Fighter again by itself.)
4. (Assuming the Fighter didn't draw an AoO or happened to survive it) Fighter attacks. Unless the monster was already close to death, 1 more attack is probably not enough to drop the monster.
5. Monster attacks the Fighter again, almost certainly doing more damage than the Fighter received from BoL after coming back from negative hp.
The Cleric has pretty much wasted a fairly powerful spell, the Fighter is probably dead anyway, and the Cleric has probably drawn an AoO to cast, risked losing the spell to damage, etc.
This isn't a tactical use of either the Fighter or the Cleric's time.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't get to withhold some of your class abilities and expect everyone else to simply ignore that.
Funny, lots of folks (including you) seem very ready to ignore when the cleric "withholds" the following class abilities:
• Armor proficiency• Favored weapon proficiency
• 3/4 BAB
• Self-only combat buffs, ala divine favor
• Access to the entire cleric spell list on any given day
• Most domain powers
But gods forbid he "withhold" his two healing-oriented class features—if by "withhold" you mean "use the same spell slots/channels to make other contributions to the team".
its like a child who withholds his toys from the other kids. Then starts to cry when others do the same to him.
More like a girl who brings trucks to share, but the other kids say, "You're a girl, we know you have dolls at home, so you were supposed to bring the dolls. Since you're so selfish and won't bring toys to share, we're not gonna share what we brought."