D&D 5E Why Has D&D, and 5e in Particular, Gone Down the Road of Ubiquitous Magic?

[Ancalagon]

No, I find it reprehensible to play the game because I want to teach lessons to the other players, because i want to control and improve their behavior, because I feel I play better than they do.

Read my post above. In brief, would it not be just as reprehensible to deny other players limited healing resources because one reckless one is demanding massive amounts of healing?

 

[DMCF]

...basic question... why?

...basic answer... millennials.

 

[S'mon]

You don't like teamwork, and you think everyone should be self-sufficient?

Or you think that saying "Hey, I'm going to heal the paladin instead of your barbarian because if I heal you then you're just going to immediately get yourself hurt again," is somehow a dread insult, and nobody should have any consequences for their actions?

It comes across as you using the healer role to set yourself up as the boss of the party. Rather than supporting the other PCs so they can do their job, you apparently seek to control their
behaviour by selectively withholding healing. Maybe it doesn't feel that way to them in play, but that's how it sounds.

I know if I were playing the Fighter or Barbarian I wouldn't like the Cleric telling me "You
were too reckless/cautious in that last fight, no healing for you."

 

[S'mon]

About the cleric "denying" healing... I think we are talking a situation where the cleric has limited healing magic in him (and there always is a limit) and choosing to distribute his healing "juice" wisely.

Say cleric has 150 points of healing to distribute/day.

Fight 1:
Fighter: I took 20 points of damage
Wizard: I took 5
Rogue: I took 15
Barbarian: I took 50
Cleric: dang, that was rough! Ok line up everyone. I only have 60 hp of healing left folks, be careful ok?

Fight 2:
Fighter: I took 16 points of damage
Wizard: I took 15 this time, sorry
Rogue: I wasn't hit at all ha!
Barbarian: I took 57, it was glorious!
Cleric....

DM: you can hear the orcs coming, better hurry up!

That crazy barbarian is sucking out all the healing of the party. You guys are saying the cleric is a jerk for deciding to limit healing the reckless player's PC to the max. But wouldn't he be a jerk to deny the other players' PCs healing because the reckless one needed all of it? If the cleric has massive amount of healing power, then it doesn't matter so much. But if healing resources are limited, I think healing less the one who's being reckless needlessly is *not* being a jerk.

P.S. of course, if one character took more damage because he was protecting the party from the big bad monster or guarding the rear whatever, that's not the same!

If the Barbarian is inflicting more damage than the Fighter as well as taking more damage, then he should still be healed (the moreso in 5e with Rage doubling effective healing).
If the Barbarian is somehow taking more, inflicting less, and not acting as a meat shield, then there is a party-wide problem with the Barb not filling a useful role; it's not one for the Cleric alone to address.

In the examples the Cleric has plenty of healing to heal everyone anyway so I don't see
an issue. If the Cleric does not have enough healing for everyone it might make sense to leave the Barbarian below full hp, though IME it would be unusual not to heal the high-DPR striker
as a priority. Maybe if the Fighter is acting as a 4e Defender meat shield keeping enemies away from the Wizard (who is doing the damage) the Fighter might be more important.

 

[CapnZapp]

Read my post above. In brief, would it not be just as reprehensible to deny other players limited healing resources because one reckless one is demanding massive amounts of healing?

Sorry, but I wasn't talking to you.

Regards,

 

[Tony Vargas]

would it not be just as reprehensible to deny other players limited healing resources because one reckless one is demanding massive amounts of healing?

Hardly reprehensible, but likely inefficient - at worst irresponsible.

It comes across as you using the healer role to set yourself up as the boss of the party.

That can happen. If you have a critical role to play, you can try to leverage it. A cleric might use his support abilities to win converts to his religion or to wield greater influence when the party makes decisions.

Rather than supporting the other PCs so they can do their job, you apparently seek to control their behaviour by selectively withholding healing. Maybe it doesn't feel that way to them in play, but that's how it sounds.

Sounded like triage with tactical considerations, to me. You have a reckless ally. Healing him gets him back up for one round, maybe, before he gets himself dropped again. Healing someone else is likely more efficient, most of the time.

 

[Sunseeker]

If you have a critical role to play, you can try to leverage it. A cleric might use his support abilities to win converts to his religion or to wield greater influence when the party makes decisions.

See, even I don't mind this. If a cleric uses your reckless to say "hey, my god feels that with how much healing you're using, you either need to cut back or convert, did you know that my god provides LOTS of healing to the faithful?" That'd be an annoying by well-roleplayed character. Healing allocated according to how faithful and pious you are. I ran a healer disrespectfully known as the "repair man" who could charge you based on how much healing he provided, or he wouldn't heal you. (think annoying car repair guy). Not the most fun person to be around, but he'd do his job...for a price.

Honestly having an in-game arrangement of contracts, money, etc could work well for a lot of parties. Then there's no hard feelings if you didn't get healing, you didn't pay your protection money!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It comes across as you using the healer role to set yourself up as the boss of the party. Rather than supporting the other PCs so they can do their job, you apparently seek to control their
behaviour by selectively withholding healing. Maybe it doesn't feel that way to them in play, but that's how it sounds.

They can't do their job while they're dead, but if they're going to die either way, then I'm not going to sacrifice the rest of the party because they feel entitled to our shared resources. I don't really care about their behavior, so much as I care about the ramifications of that behavior on the party as a whole, and the success of our quest.

No, I find it reprehensible to play the game because I want to teach lessons to the other players, because i want to control and improve their behavior, because I feel I play better than they do.

That's not why I want to play the game. I want to play the game so I can role-play as a competent adventurer, who teams up with other competent adventurers in order to save the world (or whatever). Maybe some of those characters start out incompetent, and need to undergo some character development as they learn to be less reckless. I'm willing to play my part in that story, and help them learn their lesson.

 

[Ancalagon]

Sorry, but I wasn't talking to you.

Regards,

It seems that you and I have different opinions on how forums work.

 

[CapnZapp]

They can't do their job while they're dead, but if they're going to die either way, then I'm not going to sacrifice the rest of the party because they feel entitled to our shared resources. I don't really care about their behavior, so much as I care about the ramifications of that behavior on the party as a whole, and the success of our quest.

That's not why I want to play the game. I want to play the game so I can role-play as a competent adventurer, who teams up with other competent adventurers in order to save the world (or whatever). Maybe some of those characters start out incompetent, and need to undergo some character development as they learn to be less reckless. I'm willing to play my part in that story, and help them learn their lesson.

Let me simply note that you use the pronouns "they" and "I".

Never "we" or "us".