Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 8123836" data-attributes="member: 72555">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.</blockquote>

Verification