|
And then we add in intelligent opponents who see that someone is doing in-combat healing.
True but not all enemies are intelligent. Or willing to risk a AOO to get into position to do a coup de grace.
Presumption: That person is too weak and ineffective to fight us, so they're trying to do the next best thing and get other people back up to fight us. Well, hell, we'd better make sure that the folks we take down *STAY DOWN* then, shouldn't we?
It's very rare for either side pc or npc to be able to simply stride over and do a coup de grace. Most group I have played in wait until all opponents have fled or are dead. If your down to 30 hp and the creature your fighting seems to do damage of 40+ risking a coup de grace is imo a waste. When the conditions are right sure go for it.
You can bet if the enemy sees you cutting the throats of opponents that are knocked out. He is going to be dropping fireball or flamestrikes. It takes a full round action and provokes a AOO. At least with channeling you do not provoke a AOO. Casting a spell even one that heals a opponent while also provoking a AOO. Means you can at least move. It's easier and safer to simply cast spells and hack away at a opponent until they are at 0 hp then you make sure to coup de grace them.
As noted earlier, in-combat healing isn't all that great, and if it becomes obvious that the party is trying to do it in a fight, some NPCs WILL shift to coup de grace or simply applying more damage to the downed and unconscious to ensure that they don't get back up.
I agree that Channeling is not that great. I don't know why people keep saying healing is not that great. Why because low level healing spells don't heal hp as quickly higher level spells. Them don't bother ever inflicting such spells then either as inflict light wounds is going to suck compared to inflict serious. Unless a npc is going to die it's a waste of action to do a coup de grace. My npc or pcs final action is not going to waste a full round action that might not even succeed as it provokes a AOO. Doing more damage from the usual sources is usually the way to go.
In such a circumstance, the healing party would have probably been better suited to get a ranged weapon out or provide the services of a flanking buddy, imo.
All viable tactics to use other than healing. All i'm saying is if your going to not share a class feature that could heal or help another pc. Make it count. Don't risk the lives of player(s) simply to only have fun.
|
|
For the last 2 years I've been playing a healer-buffer-summoner based priest (AKA, 1/2 bab- 1d6HD -non medium armor prof clerics) in a lost land campaign.
My Low AC, Low Hp character have gone to the extremes of putting himself in great danger just to heal another party member or even put himself in front of the enemy and use full defense action to protect someone else.
And I did it gladly because that was the character I wanted to play when I made him, but If the rest of the party suddenly have some of the attitude I have seen in this thread then screw it all, I better play a charging barbarian instead.
You would be welcome at our tables that's for sure. If a player is willing to do what you would do. We would go out of our way to protect your character. Not simply for being the healer. For going out of your way to protect the other members of the group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every player chooses what to play. Every player can choose to make a healer. Why is it okay when the guy who chose to play a barbarian did not make a healer, but if someone made a cleric then suddenly every PC death is on him? I call bullshit, and reiterate, everyone who is not happy with how much healing they have access to is more than utterly welcome to play a healing-focused cleric or oracle. If they do not, nobody else has a responsibility to provide them with healing. As was stated, claiming a cleric is "responsible", "should apologize", or whatever else because of a PC death just makes nobody want to play clerics.
Memorax: Try playing a negative energy reach build cleric. Play a few scenarios of PFS with it, preferably with people you don't know. Then come back and say you still maintain the attitude that clerics should be held responsible/apologize/whatever for not healing.
|
|
Every player chooses what to play. Every player can choose to make a healer. Why is it okay when the guy who chose to play a barbarian did not make a healer, but if someone made a cleric then suddenly every PC death is on him? I call b#@!%%~%, and reiterate, everyone who is not happy with how much healing they have access to is more than utterly welcome to play a healing-focused cleric or oracle. If they do not, nobody else has a responsibility to provide them with healing. As was stated, claiming a cleric is "responsible", "should apologize", or whatever else because of a PC death just makes nobody want to play clerics.
I did change my position. Play what you want how you want. Just make sure not to risk the lives of other player characters. You don't want to be forced to use a class feature to help them fine. Whether it be fighter, cleric whatever. Don't expect players to have a smile on their face when their characters die. It works both ways. If I'm playing a Cleric I may decide not to buff you either. Before you say it's revenge remember you acting the same way. You want to do your own thing at the table and then expect not to be held accountable. Good luck.
Memorax: Try playing a negative energy reach build cleric. Play a few scenarios of PFS with it, preferably with people you don't know. Then come back and say you still maintain the attitude that clerics should be held responsible/apologize/whatever for not healing.
First off I would never play a negative energy cleric. Bad enough I would have to take selective channeling not to injure my own teammates. If it's a campaign where undead play a huge part it's counterproductive as well. Mind you I would have to do take the same feat if I channeled positive energy as well as to not heal enemies. I have played with different group. I once played a Cleric who main focus was not healing but buffing himself and going into combat. But when asked and I had done my own thing. I healed people as well. I never resented being asked or was forced to. Most groups though not all never assumed I was there to heal them. I would be upfront I'm not playing a cleric simply to be a healbot. Those that accepted we worked well together. I left those who wanted a healbot.
It not just a party of one at the table. Too many in the hobby want to run their character whatever way they want. No matter what happens to the other players at the table. I want to have fun yes. I also want everyone else to have fun at the table. It 's a weird argument though "I'm withholding this class feature because of reasons but don't you dare do the same to me because revenge".
If your playing a sport like soccer and never pass because you think that it's fun for you and only you to score. Even when the coach asks you to pass more often. Then don't expect your teammates to pass the ball to you or help you out. If you want to choose to withhold a class feature then expect similar treatment from other members in the group. What suddenly makes you so special that you can't be treated the same way.
When I play a cleric who does not heal, I am doing EXACTLY NOTHING that the barbarian who doesn't heal isn't also doing. He could have played a dedicated healer cleric aswell, but chose not to. If a PC dies, both of us are "withholding a class ability" we could have had and optimized for. Both of us are just as guilty of not healing. Once you believe that "clerics should heal", or "at least apologize for withholding a class ability", you are treating them as healbots. The same thing you left groups for doing to you. So give that idea up. Clerics, just like all other classes, get to choose how they contribute. There is nothing at all wrong with a cleric dealing damage, any more than a barbarian dealing damage and not healing. Deal with it.
|
|
I can deal with a character class not using a class feature. Characters die I make new one. You want to do whatever the hell you want at the table. Everyone enjoyment and character deaths be dammed. Then get extremely offended when you get called on it. Or be treated the same way. You can't have it both ways. Deal with it
Why should the cleric take "responsibility for someone's death" when the barbarian could have played a dedicated healer but did not?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Play what you want how you want. Just make sure not to risk the lives of other player characters.
Pretty much everyone agrees with this sentiment of "play what you want as long as you don't risk the other PCs".
So why is there an argument?
Because knowing HOW to best avoid risking the other PCs is a matter of player skill, and not every player has the same skill level. So when you've got a highly-skilled cleric running around doing all the things that make a cleric one of the most powerful classes in the game, a less-skilled teammate with an erroneously high valuation of cure spells will think that the cleric is risking his teammates by not doing more healing.
So both players agree to "play what you want as long as you don't risk your teammates", but only one of them is skilled enough to know what that actually looks like for a cleric, while the other stubbornly refuses to learn and then concludes that the more-skilled player is being selfish.
You're always going to keep thinking people are being selfish until you're willing to learn that the things they're doing are actually better at giving you what you want than the things you thought they should be doing.
Side note:
Before you say it's revenge remember you acting the same way.
That is what revenge means.
|
|
Why should the cleric take "responsibility for someone's death" when the barbarian could have played a dedicated healer but did not?
At least take a class that can actually heal in your example. As the Barbarian unless he multiclasses or wastes his time being a mediocre healer is going to be nowhere near as effective as a cleric. Now if your talking witch or oracle that's another story.
It comes down to those who share and those who won't share. I see no reason to share with someone who does not. I have to run the risk of my character dying. Do it with a smile on my face. To be told to bad suck it because "reasons".
I prefer a group that shares and shares alike with spells and class abilites. I can respect but will never agree with someone who will not.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It comes down to those who share and those who won't share. I see no reason to share with someone who does not.
That is not at all what it comes down to. It comes down to someone absolutely sharing something, and the thing they're sharing is just plain better than what you're asking for, but since you can't tell the difference, you don't see the value in what they're sharing, and so you label them as not sharing.
But they're definitely sharing, and sharing great things. The issue is your inability/unwillingness to see it.
|
|
But they're definitely sharing, and sharing great things. The issue is your inability/unwillingness to see it.
That's a great consolation when my character dies. Or someone else. But hey it's great roleplaying and that person had fun. I'm going to have such a great and fun time raising my character. I'm not or ever going to be happy to lose a character because someone refused to use a resource, class feature. It's one thing when they can't. It's another when they can but they choose to do something that while risky and fun for them is not for others.
I think Nicos is right. With like minded players like he and I game with play a Cleric that heals. With some in this thread play the opposite.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's a great consolation when my character dies.
This is what I'm talking about: you can't/won't wrap your head around the fact that the cleric who recognizes how bad healing you is will keep you alive better than the cleric who uses healing spells.
You won't NEED that consolation when your character dies, because your character will be in LESS DANGER in the presence of a non-healer cleric than a healer-cleric.
That's the whole point.
Are you even reading the posts you're replying to? I mean honestly, who replies to "X will keep you alive better than Y" with "that's a great consolation when my character dies"?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
True but not all enemies are intelligent. Or willing to risk a AOO to get into position to do a coup de grace.
And then we add in intelligent opponents who see that someone is doing in-combat healing.
They don't have to. My party was fighting a babau, and the summoner went to negative Con. My Life Oracle proceeded to cast Breath of Life to keep him alive. I made a comment in-character about 'no one enters the Boneyard without my permission'.
The GM proceeded to have the babau full attack the still unconscious summoner for full sneak attack and everything. While it yelled "AGAIN DO IT AGAIN".
No AoOs, no way to bring the character back. The GM was kind enough to retcon it afterwards since this was a PaizoCon PFS table and it would have been harsh to kill the other players character at the end of the slot. But it highlights the problem with trying to heal up your fallen allies around evil foes.
|
|
I'm still not seeing it. Your asking the group to risk their characters for a extra buffing spell. Or extra attack in the hopes it might kill the opposition. That might work if the party is uninjured or slightly. If the majority is hurt one either runs away. Which not every party will. Or accept the fact that some might die. I don't mind a character death that was my fault and could have been avoided. I refuse to risk such a death on the hopes of a character maybe doing something that has a chance of working 50-50%. I rather try and heal someone than risk losing a party member for a extra attack.
You want to play a non-standard version of a class. Risk your own character not mine. There is nothing that tells me with any certainty that having a non-healer cleric means any less danger. Just that odds are I'm going to die faster instead of later. All your telling me is that you have a extra fighter who won't hit as good or hard unless he casts his spells to do so. Or be at a reasonable high level to do so. It's okay risk it even it means a character death because it's fun for the guy willing to take the risk. The same could be said if healing as well. At least the odds of surviving are better imo.
You can forget about people who are going to risk their characters at the table simply so that you can try a experiment without 100% chance of success.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can forget about people who are going to risk their characters at the table simply so that you can try a experiment without 100% chance of success.
And what you fail to understand is that the 'experiment' WORKS. Jiggy has done it, plenty of other people have done it. Without character death.
|
|
They don't have to. My party was fighting a babau, and the summoner went to negative Con. My Life Oracle proceeded to cast Breath of Life to keep him alive. I made a comment in-character about 'no one enters the Boneyard without my permission'.The GM proceeded to have the babau full attack the still unconscious summoner for full sneak attack and everything. While it yelled "AGAIN DO IT AGAIN".
No AoOs, no way to bring the character back. The GM was kind enough to retcon it afterwards since this was a PaizoCon PFS table and it would have been harsh to kill the other players character at the end of the slot. But it highlights the problem with trying to heal up your fallen allies around evil foes.
I would certainly not have healed the character in that situation. Was there a obvious sign that the character was awake. That's the DM kind of metagaming. The character is unconcious yet somehow the Babau ignores live characters to attack one who is not a threat. It's one thing if your awake and aware. Even then unless the Babau has spellcraft their no way it would have assumed that it was a healing spell.
|
|
THE CHARACTER WAS DEAD. That's why Breath of Life was needed.
I know you were dead. But if your character is knocked out. I can't see why the Babau would suddenly assume a dead character is just unconcious. Now if you said something to alert okay. If a person looks dead but is just unconcious I can't tell just from a visual check espcially in combat.
|
|
The healing of mortal wounds isn't obvious? Further, did you even read the line about my in-character comment? Because your response does not lead me to believe that you did.
Unless the Babau is specifically waiting for someone to cast a healing spell. It's attention completely on only your character. Your comment was said in a very loud voice. It's combat. It's nosiey and unpredicatable. No offence but "I took out one of the adventurers facing me. But i'm going to ignore the live ones to focus on the dead one in case he gets brought back to life." That's a little meta to me. Even with the healing magic your still going to be badly bruised and covered in blood if your character too enough damage to need such a spell. The character is not suddenly whole, clean and perfect.
|
|
Exactly, how is the cleric putting your character at risk?
It's not so much a risk so much that assuming everything will go there way. The injured characters won't die or get attacked. That extra attack is not going to be wasted. That the spell will go off. I'm also unimpressed with one player who is allowed to refuse to use a class feature. Someone else decides to do the same. But the second one is being selfish and for revenge. Yet the first one is not. If any character who is playing a loner and not caring about the overall health of the party. Its not going to have the rest of the party want to do help you out either.
Maybe it is revenge but if a group of people at work pool money to play a lottery one never does even when asked. The others win yet that person wants his share of the money. He will more than likely told to get lost.
|
|
He was directly across from the dead body from my character. Literally both of us were adjacent to the summoners square.
But this is fairly off topic.
After reading the spell I can see why. I thought it as a area of effect not touch. I'm surprised it choose not to do a AOO on the cleric instead as well. My mistake. A full round action one character when it's outnumbered is a waste to me at least.
|
I'm surprised it choose not to do a AOO on the cleric instead as well. My mistake. A full round action one character when it's outnumbered is a waste to me at least.
Though I serve my mistress well, I am no cleric. The vile creature seemed to know it was beaten and wished to inflict the maximum pain possible before we banished it back to the ether.
If players die under your watch assume that they ain't going to be happy. Even if you ran the character the way you wanted. Telling me "but I played the character the way I wanted" is not going to make it easy for anyone to be happy with a character death.
Characters die sometimes, even when there's a PC dedicated to being the best healer it can be. Very few people enjoy character death. But blaming the Cleric won't get you the results you want.
Several people in this thread have made similar statements, but I'll go ahead and add mine:
The insistence that players of Clerics devote themselves to buffing and healing, as well as criticism from other players on how they 'aren't doing Cleric right' are some of the main reason why many players have historically shied away from playing Clerics.
Pathfinder has done really well in making Clerics viable for all kinds of party rolls, rather than just buffing and healing. And yet, many players, often players who have spent years playing D&D in all it's variations, still try and force Clerics into the buff/heal mold.
At the same time one has to respect the wishes of the rest of the group if they don't want to invest in potions or wands.
Not exactly. If they choose not to invest, that's their choice- you're right about that. But if a Fighter chooses not to invest in decent weapons and armor, he has no one but himself to blame if he gets hit a lot and has trouble hitting more exotic or powerful monsters. If the party chooses not to invest in healing wands (or other items, though wands are generally considered the most cost effective), they have no one but themselves to blame.
It's the same with any other resource. If you're in a game where tracking food is important, everyone is expected to bring food. If something happens that one PC then loses their rations, the rest of the party will probably share with that PC. But if everyone knew they were supposed to bring food, and 1 PC refused to do so, it's not unreasonable for the party to refuse to share.
Example 1: A party of 5 (including a Cleric) agrees that each PC having a CLW potion is a good idea for emergencies, and that putting money together to buy a wand of CLW for the Cleric to use on the party after combat is also a good choice. Later on, the Barbarian has used his CLW potion and the Cleric isn't immediately available. It's reasonable, but by no means required, for the Fighter to offer the Barbarian his CLW potion. Huzzah for teamwork!
Example 2: A party of 5 (including a Cleric) agrees that each PC having a CLW potion is a good idea for emergencies, and that putting money together to buy a wand of CLW is also a good choice for the Cleric to use on the party after combat. Later on, the Cleric is unconscious (and thus can't use the wand). The Fighter chooses to pour his CLW potion into the Cleric, allowing the Cleric to resume wand use. Huzzah for teamwork!
Example 3: A party of 5 (including a Cleric) agrees that each PC having a CLW potion is a good idea for emergencies, and that putting money together to buy a wand of CLW for the Cleric to use on the party after combat is also a good choice. The Barbarian refuses to buy a CLW potion and refuses to kick in his share of the wand. Later on, the Barbarian is injured and the Cleric isn't immediately available. The Barbarian expects one of the other PCs to give up their CLW potion? And when they don't, accuses them of not being a team player? Nope. The others are being team players. But the Barbarian, in refusing to do his share, hasn't signed up for the team. Huzzah for 4-person teamwork, with a non-team hanger on!
One can't force a group to invest in alternative methods of healing. Same thing with UMD.
That's true. No one can force the party to invest in the things that can save their lives. If they choose not to, how is that the Cleric's fault? It isn't.
Playing a Fighter forget about it.
Actually, almost every Fighter I've ever seen played drops a single rank into UMD in the early levels, just so they can attempt a UMD check if the situation gets desperate. But 'expect table variation'.
I'm still not seeing it. Your asking the group to risk their characters
You are seeing it. You just said it. RISK. The game is about risk. Every player tacitly accepts that by sitting down at the table.
That's a great consolation when my character dies. Or someone else.
But they're definitely sharing, and sharing great things. The issue is your inability/unwillingness to see it.
I get not liking your character to die. I don't like it either. But considering how much emphasis that you've been placing on character death throughout this thread, I have to wonder if maybe a game like Pathfinder (or D&D, or many of the 'crunchy' systems) isn't the best fit for you. There are plenty of games where character death is rare to nonexistent. Maybe you'd be happier playing one of them, if keeping your character alive is the thing that you're most concerned about.... Just a thought.
I think this has gone about as far as it's going to. Everyone has made their points; good, bad, or otherwise. People who are utterly convinced that they're right (on both sides of the argument) are sure of their points and unwilling to accept that there may be more to the issue. No one is going to change their mind at this point.
Thanks folks, but I'm out. It's been... enlightening.
|
|
I can concede most of the time when I'm wrong. I guess I am being too pig headed about the whole matter. I still don't like character death. Not so much for dying. Or even having to build one from scratch. I love Hero Lab for that. It's the backstory that can be annoying imo. When a DM sometimes insists on a 5+ page backstory. Which is easier said then done.
I still maintain that depending on the situation resources whether they be class abilites or stuff like potion or wounds be shared. Preferably out of battle. I don't see any major issues outside of combat.
Still it was a good debate. Even if it was heated at times.
The insistence that players of Clerics devote themselves to buffing and healing, as well as criticism from other players on how they 'aren't doing Cleric right' are some of the main reason why many players have historically shied away from playing Clerics.
To be fair though sometimes the wrong player is put in the role of a class. One player I know had trouble running a cleric at the table. Then a Barbarian. Now A fighter is giving him trouble. Sometimes it's the group other times it's like "how the hell is a Fighter giving a player trouble at the table" Besides feats their nothing much else to remember imo.
Mind you up until the release of Faith and Avatar for 2E I shied away from Clerics not because of what others wanted me to do. Because of how bland and dull as a class they were in the core 2E PHB. Complete Priest and Faith and Avatar gave them some flavor at least to me. Even then the quality of the specialty priests varied from book to book.
Though I serve my mistress well, I am no cleric. The vile creature seemed to know it was beaten and wished to inflict the maximum pain possible before we banished it back to the ether.
CBows at the waist) It is only fair to send such a vile creature to it's rightfully reward. Let not our mistress be befouled by such filth.
I'm in a game where I went from being a follower of Caydean Cailean to Phrasma. Seeing ones entire group die and come to as close to dying entering her realm then making it back in one piece let a mark on the character body, soul and mind. My character does not know why he was spared but he certainly is no longer the go lucky carefree gnome bard he usd to be.
|
|
Somewhat of topic. I just read the entry on thief backstab ability in the 2E PHB. Talk about the devs taking the literal meaning of a word. I get that you can't backstab a ooze. They don't have a solid structure. Somehow the back of a Beholder is difficult to find. Not to mention your required to be on a ledge or flying in the air to stab a giant in the back. What one can't backstab in the heel or the back of ankle. I thought Rogues had it bad in this system. Either I'm getting really old and don't remember that part of the rules. Or they changed it significantly.