D&D 5E (2014) My group wants to access the cleric spells whenever the healer is absent from the session...

[Uchawi]

Let the players use the cleric as they see fit and if the returning player has a problem with it then let them right down how the cleric behaves in the future. As a DM, try to stay neutral.

 

[Shiroiken]

How to handle missing players should be discussed at session 0 of a campaign (or included in the campaign handout). Once this is established, it shouldn't be changed except under duress (when it will become the new standard). In your case, they should have prepared better, taken more short rests, and possibly an extra long rest. This might mess up the story (if it's time sensitive), but either you adjust the time-frame or determine the results of time-based failure.

My current group uses Google docs to keep character sheets. If a player can't make it, the PC is then run by another player (or by the DM). Everyone agrees that the character may die while they are away from the session, but it allows the group full use of everyone, every time.

 

[iserith]

I'm DMing Out of the Abyss, and my players are at 13th-14th level, and almost done with the game, but I still want to hear a discussion about this.

normally when a player is absent in my game, we (as a group) have decided that the character of the absent player still tags along for the adventure, but is sick or has temporary madness and therefore not able to participate in combat or social interactions. if they're serious players, I don't let them fall too far behind the level curve, but for the most part, everyone understands that attendance is a strict priority, and they all love to come and play anyways.

but from time to time, stuff comes up for whatever reason, and a player can't make it. That's fine. No real penalty. I think it's important to take care of the priorities in real life over going on "Realms shattering" quests in a fictional game.

today, the cleric couldn't make it. I had 4 players (which is the minimum amount of players I want to run a session). They were on the ropes real bad. And without a cleric, the paladin was struggling to pick up the slack. Luckily, they escaped a small horde of black puddings in the Underdark, and yearned for some auxiliary healing from the cleric as an NPC.

I felt bad bad for them.

but I stuck to my guns and decided against allowing healing from an absent player. So, they fled from battle, which left a sour taste in thier mouth. the cleric isn't absent all the time. But should I allow my group a bit of relief from the cleric as an NPC?

anyone have this problem? What do you do?

i worry that they may want access to the rogues disarm traps skill when the rogue player isn't there. A Rangers tracking? A wizards magic missile?

Where does this end?

My preference in this kind of situation is that the absent player's character fades to the background and is there and helping, but not in any way that interacts with the game mechanics. As with a party that lacks a particular role or resource, it's then on the players to adapt their approach knowing that they might not have easy access to healing (or someone to deal handily with traps or whatever).

So I would put this back on the players: Don't boldly charge in and waste your hit points as if you have access to the cleric's spells because, this session, you don't!

 

[Oofta]

If the cleric player is absent then I would sort of expect from a player perspective that healing options like potions would be made available to pick up the slack to some degree, since 5e has definitely slid back more towards the classic playstyle of having at least 1 heal-bot. If that wasn't an option then as a player I'd probably move to just cancel that week's session since, as your example shows, they lost to a group of foes that the otherwise would not had their healing not been gimped.

That's what I've done in the past. I make an exception to what magic is available for healing potions - all levels are available at the beginning of a session if the cleric is absent.

I've also run NPC clerics that join the group temporarily. They come in two flavors - either a full fledged cleric someone in the group runs or are a simplified lower level cleric of non-aggression that only heals and goes full defensive.

It really depends how much warning I have and whether I have an NPC cleric of the appropriate level written up.

 

[Iry]

The punishment for not getting to play D&D is... not getting to play D&D. So I would not punish that player or everyone else at the table because of unavoidable real life issues. So the storyteller or a trusted player (usually chosen beforehand) runs the character in the meantime.

Now a chronic attendance issue is another thing.

 

[mrpopstar]

I felt bad badbut I stuck to my guns and decided against allowing healing from an absent player. So, they fled from battle, which left a sour taste in thier mouth. the cleric isn't absent all the time. But should I allow my group a bit of relief from the cleric as an NPC?

anyone have this problem? What do you do?

It's important to our group that the characters and their narrative remain constant despite life happening outside of the game. If a player is misses a session, their character remains present within the narrative, but they become a DMPC that only has agency or initiative in situations where it threatens the integrity of the narrative for them to be missing. The DM usually describes their contribution to a scene or combat as descriptive flavor.

Using your example, it threatens the integrity of the narrative for the cleric to be missing, so healing would be accessible, but within reason considering that the cleric would have been contributing to combats all along.

 

[Helldritch]

The way I have always handle this. I have a copy of all characters with me that I update every two level (well players do it for me ).
If a player is absent, he becomes an npc and the "saved character" is played by an other player. That means that all characters are always there no matter what. The absent player just don't have a say on what the "NPC" character does.

 

[Dorian_Grey]

Hmm, yeah, I would have just DMPCed the cleric. In my personal opinion - and this is just my opinion - you've made your life a lot more complex then it has to be. Our group runs into this all the time. Last night, for example, we only had half our group there due to RL problems.

RL comes first. Period. This is a game, this isn't the end all be all of life. We're not surgeons delivering a baby on the side of the road in a blizzard while the other surgeon frantically works to reattach the mother's arm or something. If RL comes up, RL takes priority and there shouldn't be punishments for that. If someone consistently can't show up, then just say to them "Hey, obviously this isn't working out! We're going to see if someone else can join in your spot and when things clear up on your end I'm sure we can revisit!" It's a game, not the military - going AWOL is not in violation of the UCMJ!

If you want my opinion, and you are free to ignore it, I'd say take a step back, and have a chat with your group. Talk to them about just having a dedicated second for your character (i.e. "OH hey, I can't make it, so Bob's going to take over Dr. Healbot") or DMPCing characters. Suggest that maybe the current agreement you guys have in place isn't a solid idea... and rework it. I guarantee you that no cops are going to bust down your door and arrest you for changing how you manage your game. WotC doesn't have attack helicopters circling above your house either.

You're all good. Make the changes you need to make. And remember: This is a game to relax with and have fun.

 

[DEFCON 1]

They usually have a Cleric that heals them. That means they've established a formula on how they interact with enemies and how they perform in combat that takes that healing into account.

But apparently, they've become tactically complacent because of it and did not spend the proper amount of time working how just how they needed to now act without their constant stream of healing spells behind them. Thus, they played poorly this session and it didn't feel good. They had to run away, something that it sounds they were not used to doing (and which as you say, left a bad taste in their mouths.)

In my personal opinion as a DM... I think that's GOOD. And that you absolutely did the right thing by not letting the missing cleric's healing spells be available.

Too many times players become complacent, they expect the same things to happen each and every combat, and they complain when it doesn't. You know what I say? Too bad.

In my games, it's my players of Ranged PCs that are the biggest culprits... who bitch and moan when enemies occasionally actually get up in their grill and attack them in melee, then the players clutch their pearls and freak out when their PCs actually gets knocked out. An occurrence which their melee friends deal with all the fricking time and we never hear them complain about going to 0 HP. But my Ranged players are all throwing their pencils into the air moaning "Well, I'M DEAD!"... completely ignoring the little problem that they still need to fail 3 freaking saving throws first, and there are still two or three other party members with healing available to get them back on their feet. Just like they do for the tank almost every single fight.

Little bitches.

Okay... sorry for that tangent rant ... but the point is the same. If they're complaining because things happened that don't ordinarily happen because they didn't adjust how they played the game due to a missing player? That's on them. Suck it up. Learn from it. And next time, maybe they'll be a little more smart and a little less whiny about how they play.

Good luck!

 

[iserith]

They usually have a Cleric that heals them. That means they've established a formula on how they interact with enemies and how they perform in combat that takes that healing into account.

But apparently, they've become tactically complacent because of it and did not spend the proper amount of time working how just how they needed to now act without their constant stream of healing spells behind them. Thus, they played poorly this session and it didn't feel good. They had to run away, something that it sounds they were not used to doing (and which as you say, left a bad taste in their mouths.)

In my personal opinion as a DM... I think that's GOOD. And that you absolutely did the right thing by not letting the missing cleric's healing spells be available.

Yep. If the table expectation is that absent players' characters don't contribute, then this is their own fault. Don't act like you have access to healing spells when you don't. Change your tactics to mitigate hit point loss.