Cleric Won't Heal?

[DnD Warlord]

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.

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.

Well in the 15 ish years since our games have gotten better and more fun not worse and I have never seen anyone do what you said it is a recipe for...

As for why it goes back to the 3e days. We had some power gamers who ruined the game for us. The one in question this time played a cleric who would throw buffs on himself then run into combat... then when the fighter died (since no healing and he had both less buffed AC and HP then the cleric) it caused hard feelings.

I see nothing wrong with 2 characters working togather to fulfil a role. But only if both agree to it. If I am sitting down to a table (well a virtual one right now) and there are 5 or less players I expect us to each bring DIFFERENT things to the table not the same.

 

[MichaelSomething]

If you wanted a person's choice in class to come with a built in obligation or "role", go play 4th Edition!

This is 5th Edition. Here people do what they want and let the DM sort it out!

 

[DnD Warlord]

If you wanted a person's choice in class to come with a built in obligation or "role", go play 4th Edition!

This is 5th Edition. Here people do what they want and let the DM sort it out!

I wish I could but the group moved on... I still hold out hope 6e will be more like 4e with some improvements.

 

[DnD Warlord]

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.

1st yup we have had a lot of fun playing “down a role”. Heck my saterday game only has 3 players half the time since 5e started.

mad for not likeing other people to be able to veto your character. Do you not build them togather on a character creation night?

 

[Lanefan]

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

I agree with this - variety is almost invariably more interesting; but keep in mind that this desired variety can come from sources other than just class/race mechanics.

(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).

"Does it to [you/me]" makes it sound like something bad.

You see it as stepping on another player's toes; I see it as having a potential partner in crime.

Long ago I had my namesake character Lanefan - a full-on front-liner - in a party, and someone else brought in a character of very similar class, level, and personality/temperament/alignment. And we had a blast with it! We could riff off each other; as the two front-liners we could plan* tactics; and as we were both gonzo as hell our 'planning' often happened while - not before - we kicked in the next door.

* - this planning usually consisted of no more than "You go left!" "Got it, right's yours!"

To this day I mourn that before long this other character sold his soul to a demon simply in order to win a bet. But I did end up with his Sword of Healing...

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.

Support caster can mean way more than healing. Buffing before combat, traffic direction and control during it, divinations at other times - there's no end to what a full-on support caster can do.

 

[CleverNickName]

Sadly, I can relate to this. A couple years ago, I was playing a Fighter and every time I tried to do something other than "move adjacent to the enemy and attack," everyone yelled at me.

I had rolled up a skirmisher-type fighter who would attack with spears at range, using the Mobile feat to duck in and out of cover. But the rest of the players decided that since I was "the fighter," my job was to stand in melee taking beatings every round. My character wasn't built for this (light armor and low strength), so I usually spent most of combat unconscious. I'd protest, I'd try to call different actions, but everyone just got angry with me. It got to the point where they were calling my actions and moving my mini around on the battle mat for me, yelling about flanking and sneak attack and how I was ruining their fun.

I spoke to my DM about it after a particularly frustrating game. He was already aware; he had already heard from other members of the group about my "stubbornness." His advice was for me to roll up a different character, preferably something that didn't have FIGHTER written on it. So together we cooked up a Hexblade: it was close enough to my first character concept to let me play the way I wanted to, but different enough to avoid any preconceived notions.

I know that people further up in the thread have joked about "just cross out the word Cleric and write Sorcerer instead," but that's valid advice. If you want to play a cleric but you don't want to be relegated to the party's Nurse, you might have to find something close enough and live with it (maybe a celestial pact warlock, or a homebrew divine sorcerer). Some folks can't let it go.

 

[prabe]

"Does it to [you/me]" makes it sound like something bad.

Well, I'm more likely to see it as something bad than you are ...

Support caster can mean way more than healing. Buffing before combat, traffic direction and control during it, divinations at other times - there's no end to what a full-on support caster can do.

Yeah. I meant healing other than as a last resort, not nothing other than healing, and that as a last resort. It's pretty much how I run the cleric I'm playing now.

 

[prabe]

mad for not likeing other people to be able to veto your character. Do you not build them togather on a character creation night?

A player's character belongs to that player, not the rest of the table. The groups I'm in tend to do "session zero" over email or chat, and people pick what they want--the people with the strongest wants usually jump on those first, and everyone else fills in gaps. In my experience, most players find their own niches, without any conflict: the only kind of "veto" I've seen exercised was when as a DM I asked a player to rewrite his backstory so he didn't have a murder-hate on for a PC race--as written, his character would have killed them on sight.

 

[cbwjm]

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

I do that when I play a wizard without a spellbook who just has a natural grasp of magic. I only use prepared spells as spells known and completely ignore the spellbook feature.

 

[aco175]

I wonder how parties would form if the players were the ones walking into a bar to look for people to risk life with themselves. An adventuring party comes together from the players group agreeing to play the game, but wouldn't people looking to form a party seek out others that can work together and do the roles that they cannot?

Hi, I'm Bob the fighter and I see you three are clerics. I choose you- healing cleric. But, since we let a group form with whatever the players want we have all sorts of ideas. This is not bad fun and the same could be said for the cleric necromancer not chosen by Bob for wanting to adventure with an archer fighter instead of Bob.