Cleric Won't Heal?

[Bacon Bits]

As a DM, I don't have a problem with how my PCs play. Even if I think it's a suboptimal or poor choice, I don't really care. That isn't my job. The PCs manage how they fight together, not me. If those choices get them killed then those choices get them killed. I can't remotely imagine one of the PCs asking me to get involved in their tactical disagreements, and it's even less likely that I would actually do so.

As a player, I've played in parties that don't have magical healing in 5e at all. They work fine, and it's really not difficult. You just short rest and spend hit dice and pay for healing potions. You learn that you don't continue adventuring when you're out of hit dice. If you're about to go down in combat, you disengage and run away because the alternative is death. This is what you do in TTRPGs that don't have combat healing -- which is most TTRPGs. In both campaigns we've run way we did issue magic items that recovered all hit dice each long rest instead of half, but that's solely because we wanted to eliminate empty downtime and maintain the pace of play that we enjoy.

If a cleric has told the party they're planning to spend their spells on things other than healing, then that's fine. You just play as though you didn't have magical healing. If you happen to be healed magically, then it's an unexpected benefit.

This is the reason that 4e made healing be mostly a target fueled resource and only require a minor action from the leader. It's also why PCs got Second Wind (to heal themselves) and why many non-leader classes had Second-Wind-like powers (especially defenders). But then 4e is a role-based game, and 5e is a class-based game. Classes may imply certain roles, but they do not demand or require them.

 

[Ace]

This is the reason that 4e made healing be mostly a target fueled resource and only require a minor action from the leader. It's also why PCs got Second Wind (to heal themselves) and why many non-leader classes had Second-Wind-like powers (especially defenders). But then 4e is a role-based game, and 5e is a class-based game. Classes may imply certain roles, but they do not demand or require them.

That is a great description of 4E. I think its why my group never played it too.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I am saying you are wrong.

You can play 5e without a front-line fighter. A fighter is capable of being a front-line fighter. But, honestly, so is a rogue or a ranger or a wizard or a cleric or a bard.

Healing in combat is usually a bad plan. If enemies are so tough that you are at risk of dropping regularly, healing will slow down your death worse than helping drop the foe who is doing damage.

If enemies deal 18 damage per swing, on average you go to 0 with about 8 HP left. A 4 point heal brings you back up to 4; you can now take 1 more swing. This heal is far, far more effective after you are at 0 than it was when you where at 8; at 8, it would do next to nothing, at 4 it soaked a full blow.

There are some efficient heals, like a light cleric casting mass cure wounds or healing word. A mass healing word on a 20 cha cleric is 12 HP to 6 allies and 5 HP to themselves, 77 HP healed for a bonus action and a 3rd level slot. A mass cure wounds is 25.5 HP to 6 allies and 7 to themselves, 160 HP healed for a bonus action and a 5th level slot. Their channel divinity is also a huge amount of HP healed, Paladin LoH used as a massive heal is decent (using it in smaller amounts is action-inefficient, but you do need to save some for an action-stand-up), order cleric leaking out a healing word most rounds for a few HP plus a free attack is good.

But a 16 wisdom cleric casting mass healing word is 33 total HP, half that of the optimized healbot above. (and mass healing word is a good heal spell!) A mass cure wounds, similarly, is 99 HP for a 5th level slot and an action. A cure wounds on one creature at 3rd level? 16.5 HP at the cost of an action and a 3rd level slot.

Actions are currency, spending them on healing is expensive.

---

I understand that a greatweapon fighter is more effective with a cleric burning spell slots on heals to keep them up.

But that same fighter with a cleric laying the smackdown on things as well is even more effective in 5e D&D.

And for in-between fight healing, rangers rival clerics at downtime healing in this game.

You didn't mention either of the two healing spells I get the most milage from in our game.

1. Warding Bond (PHB lvl 2) gives the front line guy +1 AC and gives you half their damage. While not healing per se, this allows the front line guy to stick around twice as long in battle which is usually enough to get the job done. Afterwards it also helps to even out HD usage in short rests.

2. Life Transference (XGtE lvl 3) Let's you do a whole bunch of healing to a single target at the expense of taking half that yourself. At base casting you can convert 4d8 damage to you into 8d8 healing for a party member. Similar to 1, this isnt healing in the traditional sense but more like spreading the damage around better to get the party through a tough battle.

I do agree that traditional healing is difficult to use without building for it. I mostly save my Healing Words for when I want to use my Spell Breaker ability on a party member to end a spell affecting them. At that point the healing is just a bonus.

 

[Zardnaar]

And this looks crazy annoying. “Throw away how”. Who does that, who thinks like that. We took hop damage helping the party, if we ask for healing and you have it but won’t do it you are going to be asked to leave after a while.

You'll get healed if you need it not when you want it.

If you're trying to force her to heal you're gonna have 2-3 players leave game.

Si you still have no healer and are now 2-3 players down.

She doesn't mind healing but doesn't want to do 100% of it.

We might be getting a 6th person playing idk what they want to play.

Otherwise see thread about hanging around a game you don't fit in. I was the last to pick my character, if there was no cleric I would have picked it, death or order though.

Generally I'll play whatever the party needs.

Context the cleric player usually gets stuck with the healer role.

Basically she doesn't want to do 100% of it and be expected to do it on demand.

With two fighters I think we're going to want to short rest a lot and I suppose we'll buy healing potions.

Personally if I was the 5th player joining probably would have played a Paladin or a melee cleric. Spread the healing around and get another frontliner since the rogue prefers to be a crap archer.

 

[Blue]

Sounds like there was no communication during Session 0. Assuming another player is going to dedicate their character to buffing or healing without talking to them is not a reasonable assumption, just because they have a class that can do healing.

5e doesn't need a healer, but if you wanted one it was up to you to say so when characters were being discussed. If there was no discussion, then there shouldn't be any assumption.

"You need to play your character in a particular way because my character needs you to do that."

 

[Zardnaar]

Sounds like there was no communication during Session 0. Assuming another player is going to dedicate their character to buffing or healing without talking to them is not a reasonable assumption, just because they have a class that can do healing.

5e doesn't need a healer, but if you wanted one it was up to you to say so when characters were being discussed. If there was no discussion, then there shouldn't be any assumption.

"You need to play your character in a particular way because my character needs you to do that."

Up to a point yeah. I have the following rule.

"Don't deliberately make a bad PC".

It's basically trolling if you do. I would say something if the cleric was deliberately letting people die (exception they're doing stupid crap/stealing from the party etc).

 

[Blue]

Cleric won’t heal, Fighter won’t fight.

And this is why class isn't an in-character thing. Just like one wouldn't be expecting a paladin to be a healbot even though they are divine, saying that the fighter is going to strike because someone who can conjure miracles and is holding up their end of the encounter but not doing it in the specific way the player of the fighter wants to force them to play their character is ... well, garbage.

Sorry, you don't get to dicate how other people play their character, especially if they are playing an effective character.

 

[Blue]

This.

"Oops! You mean that I should have somehow stopped that opponent from breaking through the lines? My bad."

So if I'm playing an effective character, but not in the way you want, you are going to intentionally try to hurt my character in game?

Players like that are not welcome at a table I'm at.

 

[Zardnaar]

So if I'm playing an effective character, but not in the way you want, you are going to intentionally try to hurt my character in game?

Players like that are not welcome at a table I'm at.

Withholding healing isn't intentionally hurting your character.

Inflicting the damage yes or intentionally doing it if you're about to die is a maybe.

Even then saving you vs tpk is a thing and you're dead anyway.

Intentionally fireballing someone is one thing, if that fireball saves the party and you're dead anyway is a bit different.

Someone earlier in the thread indicated it's the clerics job to heal and double down on it via healer feat.

Why doesn't fighter take healer feat and cleric take warcaster which let's the cleric tank as well and from level 6 is kinda better than the fighters efforts anyway?

Why is the wizard not taking healer feat?

5E has spread the healing burden out. If no one dies it because they want to do other stuff the cleric can just heal itself they can make their own arrangements.

 

[Blue]

I see a lot of people talking about the idea of roles and if a cleric should hear or a fighter should fight. I know that 5e has less dependence on class role, but I always looked at classes as having roles and players mostly needing to play those roles. If I have 4 friends and one wants to play a fighter that is an archer. That just means that someone else needs to front-line fight. A cleric that refuses to heal would be just as bad in the group. Saving the in combat heal is ok to a point, but at some point the front-line fighter may feel like he needs to pull back and shoot since he is low on HP, leaving the others in the party to now be in the front line.

So a fighter has several valid character paths, but a cleric doesn't?

If a fighter player can say "I don't want to play a front liner" and it's accepted and someone else plays a front liner, then a cleric should be able to say "I don't want to play a healer" and it should accepted and someone else plays the healer. Or even "I'm going to be be doing very little healing, mostly when you drop. We need someone to share the role."