D&D 5E My group wants to access the cleric spells whenever the healer is absent from the session...

Klaudius Rex · Jan 16, 2017

I'm DMing Out of the Abyss, and my players are at 13th-14th level, and almost done with the game, but I still want to hear a discussion about this.

normally when a player is absent in my game, we (as a group) have decided that the character of the absent player still tags along for the adventure, but is sick or has temporary madness and therefore not able to participate in combat or social interactions. if they're serious players, I don't let them fall too far behind the level curve, but for the most part, everyone understands that attendance is a strict priority, and they all love to come and play anyways.

but from time to time, stuff comes up for whatever reason, and a player can't make it. That's fine. No real penalty. I think it's important to take care of the priorities in real life over going on "Realms shattering" quests in a fictional game.

today, the cleric couldn't make it. I had 4 players (which is the minimum amount of players I want to run a session). They were on the ropes real bad. And without a cleric, the paladin was struggling to pick up the slack. Luckily, they escaped a small horde of black puddings in the Underdark, and yearned for some auxiliary healing from the cleric as an NPC.

I felt bad bad for them.

but I stuck to my guns and decided against allowing healing from an absent player. So, they fled from battle, which left a sour taste in thier mouth. the cleric isn't absent all the time. But should I allow my group a bit of relief from the cleric as an NPC?

anyone have this problem? What do you do?

i worry that they may want access to the rogues disarm traps skill when the rogue player isn't there. A Rangers tracking? A wizards magic missile?

Where does this end?

Horwath · Jan 16, 2017

IMO, if you see that they can't handle it, best way is Deus ex machina.

Make them find NPC life cleric somewhere as a prisoner or what not.

It's prectical to have few premade NPC "red shirts" on standby for an absent party member.

But focus them on utility not on damage, leave that to the PC. It's theirs to shine.

AaronOfBarbaria · Jan 16, 2017

Klaudius Rex said:
anyone have this problem? What do you do?

i worry that they may want access to the rogues disarm traps skill when the rogue player isn't there. A Rangers tracking? A wizards magic missile?

Where does this end?

I don't have the problem (anymore) because what I did to remove the question is make a clear and agreed upon ruling (all my rulings as DM have to, because I say so, be approved by group deliberation) that each player shall be able to choose for their own character between two handlings of the scenario, with the assumed default should no mention be made being the first of the two.

So either A) anything on that character's sheet is inaccessible by the players present for the session and the character is only subject to harm/death if the entire present party falls victim (i.e. the character is assumed to be taken prison if all the rest of the characters are taken prisoner, but would not be subject to an area attack spell thrown at the party during a combat), with the narrative being that the character is present but is "off-screen" handling their own off-screen threats, or B) the character is run by a player appointed by the character's owner, so all their resources are fully at the party's disposal and all normal risks are present.

Though really, people usually choose A.

Klaudius Rex · Jan 16, 2017

Horwath said:
IMO, if you see that they can't handle it, best way is Deus ex machina.

Make them find NPC life cleric somewhere as a prisoner or what not.

It's prectical to have few premade NPC "red shirts" on standby for an absent party member.

But focus them on utility not on damage, leave that to the PC. It's theirs to shine.

Thanks for the help, but I'm not gonna let some random "red shirts" heal my players in the middle of the Underdark either. Might as well just allow the cleric in thier group to heal, even if the player is absent.

I'm just wondering how much help should come from absent players, or as you suggested earlier, from NPCs and such chiming in. My battles aren't always this tough, but without a cleric, sometimes, even a mild encounter could turn out deadly in 5e. And I think thier asking for a semi-permanent guarantee that they can access the cleric's healing from here on out if It turns out that the player can't make it.

Harzel · Jan 16, 2017

Klaudius Rex said:
I'm DMing Out of the Abyss, and my players are at 13th-14th level, and almost done with the game, but I still want to hear a discussion about this.

normally when a player is absent in my game, we (as a group) have decided that the character of the absent player still tags along for the adventure, but is sick or has temporary madness and therefore not able to participate in combat or social interactions. if they're serious players, I don't let them fall too far behind the level curve, but for the most part, everyone understands that attendance is a strict priority, and they all love to come and play anyways.

but from time to time, stuff comes up for whatever reason, and a player can't make it. That's fine. No real penalty. I think it's important to take care of the priorities in real life over going on "Realms shattering" quests in a fictional game.

today, the cleric couldn't make it. I had 4 players (which is the minimum amount of players I want to run a session). They were on the ropes real bad. And without a cleric, the paladin was struggling to pick up the slack. Luckily, they escaped a small horde of black puddings in the Underdark, and yearned for some auxiliary healing from the cleric as an NPC.

I felt bad bad for them.

but I stuck to my guns and decided against allowing healing from an absent player. So, they fled from battle, which left a sour taste in thier mouth. the cleric isn't absent all the time. But should I allow my group a bit of relief from the cleric as an NPC?

anyone have this problem? What do you do?

i worry that they may want access to the rogues disarm traps skill when the rogue player isn't there. A Rangers tracking? A wizards magic missile?

Where does this end?

Where I think I would come down on this is that an RL issue for one player should not gimp everyone else's fun. You said that your current ruling is in-line with a decision that was made by the group. Presumably, the group made that decision because they thought that would be the most fun. If it is not turning out that way, then I would think revisiting the decision would be appropriate. And if you all decide to allow absent players' characters to participate as NPCs, I don't see anything wrong with disarming traps or tracking or firing off MM.

I do have an unusual version of the problem: one of my players died. But his wife is still playing and decided to have the deceased's character continue to participate until we can find a good situation for him to have a heroic death. It seemed appropriate to go with her decision.

Harzel · Jan 16, 2017

AaronOfBarbaria said:
I don't have the problem (anymore) because what I did to remove the question is make a clear and agreed upon ruling (all my rulings as DM have to, because I say so, be approved by group deliberation) that each player shall be able to choose for their own character between two handlings of the scenario, with the assumed default should no mention be made being the first of the two.

So either A) anything on that character's sheet is inaccessible by the players present for the session and the character is only subject to harm/death if the entire present party falls victim (i.e. the character is assumed to be taken prison if all the rest of the characters are taken prisoner, but would not be subject to an area attack spell thrown at the party during a combat), with the narrative being that the character is present but is "off-screen" handling their own off-screen threats, or B) the character is run by a player appointed by the character's owner, so all their resources are fully at the party's disposal and all normal risks are present.

Though really, people usually choose A.

That seems pretty good. And now that I think about it, there was once a potential player absence from my table (which was not realized) and the player essentially chose B. I'm just guessing, but I expect that most of my players would choose B.

Dualazi · Jan 16, 2017

If the cleric player is absent then I would sort of expect from a player perspective that healing options like potions would be made available to pick up the slack to some degree, since 5e has definitely slid back more towards the classic playstyle of having at least 1 heal-bot. If that wasn't an option then as a player I'd probably move to just cancel that week's session since, as your example shows, they lost to a group of foes that the otherwise would not had their healing not been gimped.

Storyteller Hero · Jan 16, 2017

If it's the group consensus to change a home-brew rule (or at least add an amendment) and even you want it to some extent, then just change it.

It's a game, not a college entrance exam.

So just relax and adapt as necessary because unexpected issues are unavoidable in life.

Edwin Suijkerbuijk · Jan 16, 2017

Klaudius Rex said:
but I stuck to my guns and decided against allowing healing from an absent player. So, they fled from battle, which left a sour taste in thier mouth. the cleric isn't absent all the time. But should I allow my group a bit of relief from the cleric as an NPC?

anyone have this problem? What do you do?

i worry that they may want access to the rogues disarm traps skill when the rogue player isn't there. A Rangers tracking? A wizards magic missile?

Where does this end?

As a rule of tumb we use that the caracter of a player that isen't there may bot be places in situations that might couse harm.
So they coulden't help out during a combat encounter, or tamper with things that might be trapped

Cap'n Kobold · Jan 16, 2017

Have you asked the player of the cleric character whether they would be OK with their character contributing and spending resources when they aren't present?
Was the fight in which they got beaten up started before they were aware they would be players down, or did they go into it in the knowledge that they didn't have backup?
Did you adjust the encounter to take into account the reduced capability of the party?