Cleric Won't Heal?

[Retreater]

In the system I'm running, clerics don't even get spells at 1st level. So there's that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Playing a healer in 5E is deeply unsatisfying, when you know that nothing you do can possibly be as effective having the injured party take a nap. I can't blame the cleric for feeling frustrated with the situation.

If it was any other edition, I would be right on board with their decision, not wanting to waste healing on an idiot fighter who took unnecessary damage. Since it's not, though, I'd probably jump at the chance to actually use my healing magic for once. Anything's better than letting the spell slots go to waste, or - perish the thought - spending a spell slot on some sort of utility/damage effect. Like a common wizard.

 

[Seramus]

Just strikethrough Cleric on your character sheet and write Sorcerer in real big comical letters.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm with the cleric player on this one, they can heal, they don't have to spend all their time healing and the player has said they will drop a heal if needed. Too many people are too caught up with previous editions where you needed a dedicated healer.

 

[NotAYakk]

"I disagree" is probably a better way to put that. Especially if you're going to back it up with opinions.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but opinions can actually be wrong.

"someone else needs to front-line fight", "a cleric that refuses to heal ... would be bad for the group" are claims (emphasis mine). They aren't the same words or meaning as "I don't like clerics that refuse to heal", "I enjoy fights where there is a front-line fighter". The second set of statements are "my opinion"; someone's personal preferences. The first set of statements are worded as "this is how reality works".

If someone is allowed to make claims about how reality works, others can say "no, that isn't how reality works". Anything else is madness.

I described actual, concrete, in-play experiences backed up with game mechanics about why a cleric rarely healing is wise - the opposite of "would be bad", if (say) your goal is to defeat monsters. Because killing a monster (or shutting it down) leads to better survival and victory than partially slowing down its damage output in many situations.

This is backed by many, many other player's experiences, in this very thread. I even described some situations where it is wise to heal as a cleric, some of which are build-dependent.

This is not "my opinion", it is a reasoned argument. One where I included nuance and detailed where my reasoning could very well be wrong, including in my premises.

Is it perfect? no. But it sure isn't "a cleric not healing would be bad", which is what I'm saying is wrong.

 

[NotAYakk]

Just strikethrough Cleric on your character sheet and write Sorcerer in real big comical letters.

Laugh.

I was playing a Halloween one shot. I made the most dead character I could; a Renevant Reborn Rogue (5) Grave Cleric (2). You know, because graves make the PC more dead. (also, if another PC dropped, I was going to say "arise" and healing word them back to a mockery of life)

At the end of the night, after Chucky faded away and saying "friends ... to the end", and I told people the build, they where like "you where a cleric? Why didn't you heal anyone?!" (with my 3 level 1 spell slots)

Cleric Rogue

 

[Lanefan]

We had a big blow up a few years ago back in 3e about this. We since the end of that edition have had a house rule that anyone can veto another players concept and things like this get discussed at character creation night (session 0).

That sounds like a recipe for one hellacious round of arguments, to the point where the game would quite likely collapse before it began.

It's also ripe for one player in effect being able to determine what everyone else plays, by (without actually saying it) vetoing everything that doesn't fit with his vision of what those other players should play. For example, if this player thinks Mary always plays Wizards well he might decide to veto everything Mary puts forward until and unless it's a Wizard; ditto Bob and support-style Clerics and Joanne and Bards/Rogues.

playing in a party means agreeing to work together. I will say that if I were planing a fighter or paliden and found out our team cleric or bard wanted to just be an upfront fighter and not heal I would either veto it or choose to play something every different. The game has roles you play, and yes a cleric CAN be the front line tank, but I would hate to make a front line tank just to have another player choose to be one

Why?

To be blunt about it, this sounds a little on the selfish side: just because you've decided to play a front-line tank doesn't (and IMO shouldn't) give you a monopoly on front-line tanking, yet that seems to be what you're asking for here.

That, and from what I can tell the 'role' aspect in 5e isn't nearly as front-and-center as in 4e; in 5e parties where roles are over- or under-represented are much more viable.

 

[Ace]

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

I have to disagree with our host Morrus here. Clerics weren't healers in the very early editions and only had 1 healing spell if that in 0E and only that at second level

In 5E they aren't aren't heal bots and so long as he keeps dishing the damage as well as everyone else, its fine. The fighter even gets a daily heal of his own.

Just use smarter tactics and potions and the like. Its not different than no one taking any healing classes.

 

[Lanefan]

Agreed. Play the character how you want. My character would likely react with, "let me get this straight. You can use magic that will prevent me from being wounded, but you'd rather see me be wounded and almost die before you'll use it?"

And likely followed by, "excuse me while I find a less sadistic cleric. Morale is a thing, you know."

Where mine would likely react with something closer to "Thanks for the warning; better that we learn this now rather than in the field when it's too late. I'll be back in an hour or two, I'm going to recruit a full-time healer whose main job will be to keep us upright."

Then I go find us an NPC Healing Cleric.

 

[prabe]

Why?

To be blunt about it, this sounds a little on the selfish side: just because you've decided to play a front-line tank doesn't (and IMO shouldn't) give you a monopoly on front-line tanking, yet that seems to be what you're asking for here.

That, and from what I can tell the 'role' aspect in 5e isn't nearly as front-and-center as in 4e; in 5e parties where roles are over- or under-represented are much more viable.

I'm not @DnD Warlord (they can answer for themselves) but there's an admittedly-selfish concern about whether there will be magic items (or other resources) to support to of a given character type/role. Depending on the party size, that doesn't necessarily mean anyone needs a monopoly on, e.g., front-line-tank, but I can see the concern. Doesn't mean I'd be willing to give another player a veto over my entire character concept, but I haven't had their play experiences.

While in 5E a party can thrive with one or more roles missing, I do think that having a variety of characters in the party is more interesting (and @Lanefan you and I have gone around about stepping on other players' toes by playing nearly the same character; you're less bashful about dong so than I am, and I presume you're less likely to be irritated if someone does it to you than I am if someone does it to me). For that matter, while "healer" is a role a 5E party can do without (for reasons others have described well) "support caster" can be a very important gig, even if that doesn't mean anything other than last-resort healing.