"He's beyond my healing ability..."

[wingsandsword]

BUT your Cleric's magical powers are based on the will of a deity. It is not innate, and can be revolved by the will of the deities and the whims of fate since he is but a lowly mortal playing with forces that he doesn't understand without the intercession of the holy. His powers can fail. He knows this, since he may have seen the powers of other clerics fail them if theirdeity or the NPC's deity deems him/her worthy enough to enter the afterlife unabated or if they decided that the NPC doesn't deserve to be healed or remain in the realms of the living for one of countless reasons.

Like it or not, when you try to use magic and powers as a justification of why you can do X, you need to remember that their are larger forces outside of your character's control who can put an end to their desires.... That is unless they want to wage war against the deities and Ascend to Godhood.

That depends entirely on the flavor of the setting, and between different editions of D&D these assumptions were even written into the rules.

In AD&D 1e and 2e, 1st and 2nd level Cleric spells came from internal faith and training and would work even if the patron deity was dead, 3rd and 4th level spells were granted by various intermediaries (what we now would call Outsiders), and 5th level and up were granted directly by deities. Of official settings, I think only Dragonlance challenged this, with Clerics losing all spells once the Gods of Krynn left. Even then, once the spells were granted at rememorization, the were the Clerics to do with as they chose, the deity couldn't just veto each casting, but they could cut the Cleric off from more spells when they would otherwise rememorize.

In 3.x, Clerics could be clerics of a philosophy or ideology, and thus could be unaccountable to a specific deity.

Yes, it's whatever the DM wants, but the assumptions written into the background material have left lots of loopholes and contradictions to the the idea that a deity can just instantly refuse to have a Cleric's spells work if they don't like what they are doing.

 

[Haltherrion]

I never do that (single exception below) because I hate it. It feels like a clumsy plot device. The rules are the rules. If a PC could be healed in such circumstances, than the NPC should be heal-able. If I want to convey information and drama, I will find another way that does not crowbar the rules.

Furthermore, in most FRPGs, it isn't like the healer is the uber character in the group. They are usually bottom of the stack in terms of neat things to do. To take healing away for the service a plot when there are other ways you can accomplish the same goal is just cruel.

As a side note, Dragon Age CRPG, which I generally love, makes use of that trope and it is just plain annoying. IIRC they do it in both DA:Origins and in DA:2.

My one exception: the players once found a trail of vile goo seeping out from under a slab. It was the blood, rotting and worm-ridden from an NPC that was wearing a ring of regen, crushed under a slab of stone. The ring had him in a state where he was conscious but in pain and crushed flat. The players could communicate with him telepathically but could not heal him; he had been like that too long. But that was a very special case ...

 

[Hussar]

In another recent thread, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that if the DM starts changing the way mechanics work, I, as the player, should take that as meaning that something is going on. That I should start actively investigating exactly why this is happening. It's a challenge

Now, I'm being told that when the DM changes the rules to facilitate something he wants to happen, I should just accept it and move on, after all, it's just a one time thing and it's all in service of a good story.

Isn't the player kinda screwed either way? How do you tell the difference? If I guess wrong, then I'm a bad player for not biting the obvious plot hook dangling in front of me, or, I'm a bad player for poking holes in the tissue thin veneer of plausibility surrounding the DM's pet story.

 

[Nagol]

In another recent thread, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that if the DM starts changing the way mechanics work, I, as the player, should take that as meaning that something is going on. That I should start actively investigating exactly why this is happening. It's a challenge

Now, I'm being told that when the DM changes the rules to facilitate something he wants to happen, I should just accept it and move on, after all, it's just a one time thing and it's all in service of a good story.

Isn't the player kinda screwed either way? How do you tell the difference? If I guess wrong, then I'm a bad player for not biting the obvious plot hook dangling in front of me, or, I'm a bad player for poking holes in the tissue thin veneer of plausibility surrounding the DM's pet story.

Probably the easiest way to tell is to look towards the head of the table and note who is running. These are pretty much mutually exclusive styles for exactly the reason you note. If in doubt (i.e. the first time playing under a particular DM and you didn't have a discussion on style/expectations ahead of time), ask.

 

[pemerton]

In another recent thread, I was told, in pretty strong terms, that if the DM starts changing the way mechanics work, I, as the player, should take that as meaning that something is going on. That I should start actively investigating exactly why this is happening. It's a challenge

Now, I'm being told that when the DM changes the rules to facilitate something he wants to happen, I should just accept it and move on, after all, it's just a one time thing and it's all in service of a good story.

Like I said upthread, to do the dying NPC thing in D&D without causing the sorts of problems you're talking about, the GM has to impose a state that is outside the scope of the action resolution rules (or, at least, the action resolution rules to which the PCs have access).

Which means it has to be done as part of scene framing, because scene resolution takes place according to the action resolution rules (unless the GM cheats, which I'm personally not a big fan of).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Nagol]

Also, as noted, if the damage is not hit point damage (say, it is ongoing Con damage caused by a creature's special ability), that is a clue as to the nature of the creature to be faced.

Of course, as I said earlier, if the GM is upfront that injuries other than hit point injuries can occur, then the GM is not breaking the rules (or changing the mechanics!) when injuries other than hit point injuries occur!

I almost completely agree. I see a difficulty for the player sorting out if an NPC is dying from 'an injury other than hit points that exists because the DM wants it to' or a more subtle effect like ongoing Con damage that offers the chance of PC response (like casting Bear's Endurance followed by Restoration). The player gets little enough information that adding another set of ambiguities can bury situational/environmental clues deep enough that the players are better off ignoring them than trying to tease them out.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Umbran]

Isn't the player kinda screwed either way? How do you tell the difference? If I guess wrong, then I'm a bad player for not biting the obvious plot hook dangling in front of me, or, I'm a bad player for poking holes in the tissue thin veneer of plausibility surrounding the DM's pet story.

The player is screwed if somehow the group has (intentionally or not) gotten into a mode where they don't communicate about such things. In my own game, players are free to ask me if something is intended to be a plot point or not. Life and gaming sessions are too short to have folks chasing down unintended red herrings for long.

Surely, a caster will know what is beyond her healing magic....

If they have appropriate healing skills and knowledge along with the spells, they can probably tell what is beyond the magic, if they stop to examine the victim. But not necessarily at a glance, and not if they don't have the skills*.

That even goes well for the scene - while the PC does triage to tell if healing magic will work, the NPC speaks the last words and expires.



*Of course, a character who doesn't have the skill to know if the magic would work, also doesn't have the skill to pursue the question of why the spell didn't work, or even the skill to know that the failure is strange.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed