Cleric Won't Heal?

[Blue]

Cleric will heal fighter if required. Why did fighter take polearm master instead of healer feat though?

Cleric heals fighter for minimal healing fighter goes down no healing word available. Cleric just doesn't get that many spells in 5E. And they're not that good at healing except life cleric, druid beats them unless DM knows about healing spirit errata.

There's also 4 people potentially requiring healing. If no one else invested in it eg took a feat, levels in some class or played a Paladin instead of Fighter (5th person joined picked fighter)

Cleric was front liner because rogue wants to be a crap archer.

Even if she wanted to she can't heal anyway.

Also
Cure 1d8+4
Guiding bolt 4d6+rider.

I'm with this. Was playing with a big group, no cleric but we had a moon druid. None of this class-snobbery for the druid about "oh, you can't wild shape so you're available to heal me". My Paladin took Inspiring Leader at 4th instead of another feat or an ASI to help reduce the healing need all around - because I wanted to do that. Not that we forced the druid to be our healer.

 

[Blue]

I kind of look at the fighter taking a combat feat to kill better as doing his job better. I see each class as having a role and the clerics is to heal, maybe not all the time or each round, but his class needs to look out for the others..

This was true in earlier editions of D&D. Butg please get with D&D 5e when your outdated thoughts that the cleric's role is to heal are not just narrow and incorrect, but it seems actively harmful because you have assumptions that are not true which may make you feel annoyed at other players and reduce your fun.

 

[Blue]

Man, if only the classes with strong support capability were clearly labelled as such, so people who don't want to contribute primarily through supporting their allies wouldn't play them.

If only the people who see support as one option among many and think "because this is one thing they can do, so therefore they must do it for me" were clearly labelled so we could avoid them at the table.

 

[Blue]

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).

I not only can make a perfectly effective cleric who only heals occasionally, I've been playing one for a year and a half and we've gone from 1st to 10th. Will I stand people back up when they fall? Sure. And I have one 10 minute casting time out of combat healing spell that I use occasionally. I let people know upfront what type of character I play. We have a divine sorcerer who has some healing, but he tends towards the same "stand up up if they fall" sort of healing, and spores druid who doesn't even have a single healing spell prepared ever - unless you count Animate Dead.

 

[Blue]

Withholding healing isn't intentionally hurting your character.

You've swapped it, I'm arguing that side as well. I was responding to someone who said that if my cleric wasn't dedicated to healing his front line fighter, he'd intentionally let monsters get through to my cleric. Basically that he's play ineffective to get even for me not healing him.

 

[Zardnaar]

I not only can make a perfectly effective cleric who only heals occasionally, I've been playing one for a year and a half and we've gone from 1st to 10th. Will I stand people back up when they fall? Sure. And I have one 10 minute casting time out of combat healing spell that I use occasionally. I let people know upfront what type of character I play. We have a divine sorcerer who has some healing, but he tends towards the same "stand up up if they fall" sort of healing, and spores druid who doesn't even have a single healing spell prepared ever - unless you count Animate Dead.

At higher level you've got a bit more to go around.

 

[Lanefan]

You've swapped it, I'm arguing that side as well. I was responding to someone who said that if my cleric wasn't dedicated to healing his front line fighter, he'd intentionally let monsters get through to my cleric. Basically that he's play ineffective to get even for me not healing him.

Seems fair enough - you don't support me, why should I support you?

Though truth be told, I far more often have this argument with wizards (some I've run with just love messing up the front-liners) than clerics.

 

[Morrus]

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

It's a joke! Obviously nobody does that. Calm down!

 

[Ryujin]

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.

If someone specifically says that they're playing a Cleric as the party healer and then refuses to heal, is that sort of player welcome? I've been in TPKs that occurred precisely because of this. I'll welcome a player who wants to do a different take on any class and prepare for what that means. If you blindside me, I'm going to be ticked.

 

[DnD Warlord]

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."

Again this is why my group does “all on table and all agree” before we play... that way no misunderstandings