Cleric Won't Heal?

[NotAYakk]

You can buy common items. Mostly that means 2d4+2 healing potions.

2d4+2, so average of 7 HP healed per action.

Except doesn't dropping wipe out the Fighter's action for the round? If yes, how is this any more 'efficient' in terms of winning the battle?

(a) Casting a heal spell wipes out the cleric's action for the round. But happens preemptively; so you burn earlier actions for later ones. Healing word is a bonus action; it it also small enough it isn't going to keep the tank up without burning a ridiculously inefficient spell slot on it.

If all that happens is cleric healing words, does something, enemy knocks out fighter, fighter rolls a death save... that is a better situation than cleric burns high level slot healing fighter, enemy hits fighter, fighter attacks.

In each case, you get 1 PC action per Monster action. But you are trading high level slots for level 1 slots as well.

Is this less fun for the fighter? Sure; their action is roll a death save. Is it more fun for the cleric? Sure. Their action is to do something instead of inefficiently spam cure wounds with their high level spell slots. There is symmetry here, one that is broken if you consider the cleric obligated to be a heal-bot.

(b) If the heal goes off between the attacker and the fighter, the heal brings the fighter back up, and the fighter gets to act (just 15' slower because standing up).

So you get cleric does something, fighter acts, enemy knocks out fighter, cleric healing word's fighter, fighter acts, enemy knocks out fighter.

This is 2 actions per monster action, and the cleric is burning level 1 spell slots.

(c) If the attack that could drop the fighter misses, not healing means you get 2 actions, and burning an action on healing means you got 1.

Each action moved before enemy actions shortens the fight by that much.

---

And regardless the point is that "healing when allies go down" is a tactically valid position to take. The counter position, of "keep the meat shields up" could also be tactically valid, but now it becomes a disagreement over two tactical options. In which case, the player playing the PC should be given the leeway to pick their own tactical philosophy, and play in a way that is less boring for that PC, when the best tactic is in question.

That is an extremely low bar of player autonomy, don't you think?

back before the 2020. We gamed at a store if a stranger sat at the table to play 2 weeks in a row and said they were hungry but broke we would all feed that person.

Sure, charity is great!

Now, if that person starts getting upset -- "SCREW YOU GUYS" -- because one week they showed up peckish and someone didn't feed them?

That is what I'm seeing. People demanding someone else (the cleric) use their choice of tactics (and not the cleric's) that maximize their fun (the fighter's) and feel the cleric is obligated to cater to the fighter.

 

[Zardnaar]

2d4+2, so average of 7 HP healed per action.

(a) Casting a heal spell wipes out the cleric's action for the round. But happens preemptively; so you burn earlier actions for later ones. Healing word is a bonus action; it it also small enough it isn't going to keep the tank up without burning a ridiculously inefficient spell slot on it.

If all that happens is cleric healing words, does something, enemy knocks out fighter, fighter rolls a death save... that is a better situation than cleric burns high level slot healing fighter, enemy hits fighter, fighter attacks.

In each case, you get 1 PC action per Monster action. But you are trading high level slots for level 1 slots as well.

Is this less fun for the fighter? Sure; their action is roll a death save. Is it more fun for the cleric? Sure. Their action is to do something instead of inefficiently spam cure wounds with their high level spell slots. There is symmetry here, one that is broken if you consider the cleric obligated to be a heal-bot.

(b) If the heal goes off between the attacker and the fighter, the heal brings the fighter back up, and the fighter gets to act (just 15' slower because standing up).

So you get cleric does something, fighter acts, enemy knocks out fighter, cleric healing word's fighter, fighter acts, enemy knocks out fighter.

This is 2 actions per monster action, and the cleric is burning level 1 spell slots.

(c) If the attack that could drop the fighter misses, not healing means you get 2 actions, and burning an action on healing means you got 1.

Each action moved before enemy actions shortens the fight by that much.

---

And regardless the point is that "healing when allies go down" is a tactically valid position to take. The counter position, of "keep the meat shields up" could also be tactically valid, but now it becomes a disagreement over two tactical options. In which case, the player playing the PC should be given the leeway to pick their own tactical philosophy, and play in a way that is less boring for that PC, when the best tactic is in question.

That is an extremely low bar of player autonomy, don't you think?


Sure, charity is great!

Now, if that person starts getting upset -- "SCREW YOU GUYS" -- because one week they showed up peckish and someone didn't feed them?

That is what I'm seeing. People demanding someone else (the cleric) use their choice of tactics (and not the cleric's) that maximize their fun (the fighter's) and feel the cleric is obligated to cater to the fighter.

Pretty good explanation of the logic.

Very rarely do I see any cleric upcast a healing word.

Paladin granting the fighter 1hp after the fight then the fighter drinks healing potions is also somewhat efficient.

Falling over beside a flaming sphere spell can suck.

 

[Lanefan]

2d4+2, so average of 7 HP healed per action.

(a) Casting a heal spell wipes out the cleric's action for the round. But happens preemptively; so you burn earlier actions for later ones. Healing word is a bonus action; it it also small enough it isn't going to keep the tank up without burning a ridiculously inefficient spell slot on it.

If all that happens is cleric healing words, does something, enemy knocks out fighter, fighter rolls a death save... that is a better situation than cleric burns high level slot healing fighter, enemy hits fighter, fighter attacks.

In each case, you get 1 PC action per Monster action. But you are trading high level slots for level 1 slots as well.

Is this less fun for the fighter? Sure; their action is roll a death save. Is it more fun for the cleric? Sure. Their action is to do something instead of inefficiently spam cure wounds with their high level spell slots. There is symmetry here, one that is broken if you consider the cleric obligated to be a heal-bot.

(b) If the heal goes off between the attacker and the fighter, the heal brings the fighter back up, and the fighter gets to act (just 15' slower because standing up).

So you get cleric does something, fighter acts, enemy knocks out fighter, cleric healing word's fighter, fighter acts, enemy knocks out fighter.

This is 2 actions per monster action, and the cleric is burning level 1 spell slots.

(c) If the attack that could drop the fighter misses, not healing means you get 2 actions, and burning an action on healing means you got 1.

Each action moved before enemy actions shortens the fight by that much.

The goal is to put as much damage into the enemy as quickly as possible, right? Let's take fleeing off the table for these purposes.

So, the Fighter only has one real option: attack.
The Cleric has two options: attack, or heal.

The Fighter on average is going to do somewhat more damage-per-hit than the Cleric, and is also a bit more likely to hit in the first place.

So, every round that the Cleric can keep the Fighter going is one more round of better and more reliable damage into the foe; never mind that if the Fighter drops the Cleric then either has to attack (at lower reliability and damage output than the Fighter) or get creamed while healing the Fighter.

And regardless the point is that "healing when allies go down" is a tactically valid position to take. The counter position, of "keep the meat shields up" could also be tactically valid, but now it becomes a disagreement over two tactical options. In which case, the player playing the PC should be given the leeway to pick their own tactical philosophy, and play in a way that is less boring for that PC, when the best tactic is in question.

That is an extremely low bar of player autonomy, don't you think?

Of course. As long as the other PC's player also retains the autonomy to complain about what the first one did, all is well.

 

[Zardnaar]

The goal is to put as much damage into the enemy as quickly as possible, right? Let's take fleeing off the table for these purposes.

So, the Fighter only has one real option: attack.
The Cleric has two options: attack, or heal.

The Fighter on average is going to do somewhat more damage-per-hit than the Cleric, and is also a bit more likely to hit in the first place.

So, every round that the Cleric can keep the Fighter going is one more round of better and more reliable damage into the foe; never mind that if the Fighter drops the Cleric then either has to attack (at lower reliability and damage output than the Fighter) or get creamed while healing the Fighter.

Of course. As long as the other PC's player also retains the autonomy to complain about what the first one did, all is well.

Depends on the cleric. This one hits just as reliably as the fighter, difference in damage is 2 points. In a few levels probably be better than the fighter overall.

Well we'll have two fighters. Elf polearm master, I'll probably go great weapon.

 

[DnD Warlord]

You are espousing a very selfish viewpoint that clerics - and friends - must prioritize your needs first, and find them at fault when they choose not to do so and take care of what they want to do.

I am not the one espousing a selfish mind set... quite the opposite

 

[DnD Warlord]

Now, if that person starts getting upset -- "SCREW YOU GUYS" -- because one week they showed up peckish and someone didn't feed them?

That is what I'm seeing. People demanding someone else (the cleric) use their choice of tactics (and not the cleric's) that maximize their fun (the fighter's) and feel the cleric is obligated to cater to the fighter.

I can’t even understand the straw man you are attacking anymore

 

[aco175]

So, do you get upset/angry with your friends who don't move your stuff for you? If they have money, and you don't, and they don't give you money? If you keep on showing up hungry and without cash and state "I'm hungry" and they don't keep feeding you?

Kind of like when you are in a firefight and you run out of magazines shooting at bad guys. You yell to your ally that you need a mag and he says no, he only has a few to spread around. Buddy is only half the word.

 

[CleverNickName]

Kind of like when you are in a firefight and you run out of magazines shooting at bad guys. You yell to your ally that you need a mag and he says no, he only has a few to spread around. Buddy is only half the word.

It's more like you're in a firefight and you run out of magazines. You yell to your ally that you need a mag and he says "why are you asking me? I'm communications, not infantry! I don't even carry that kind of rifle!"

 

[DnD Warlord]

It's more like you're in a firefight and you run out of magazines. You yell to your ally that you need a mag and he says "why are you asking me? I'm communications, not infantry! I don't even carry that kind of rifle!"

Except in this example they not only have spells they CAN prep as healing they HAVE preped them as healing... so they have the magazines but don’t want YOU to be able to ask for them.

 

[Zardnaar]

Except in this example they not only have spells they CAN prep as healing they HAVE preped them as healing... so they have the magazines but don’t want YOU to be able to ask for them.

You can ask, just don't demand.

If you don't want to fall over what have you done to avoid that?