D&D 5E On the healing options in the 5e DMG

[Gimul]

Sorry, did you just call the collective wish of my players to not have to fill the healer role "socially inappropriate"? Isn't that a tad hyperbolic?

And what on earth ddid they do to "engage in general douchebaggery"?

Since I have a hard time believing what my eyes are seeing, I'm just gonna ask you to step aside. Thank you

No, I did not ascribe any judgments about the collective wishes of your players. You ascribed such judgment in the establishment of basic premise and susequently proposed that it was the DMG's responsibility to fix it for you.

I decline your request to "step aside" and furthermore, must insist that you refrain from ascribing judgments and/or opinions in my proxy.

 

[Gimul]

Yeah, that was fairly odd...there's plenty of examples of socially inappropriate behaviours on the forums but not wanting to play a healer surely can't be one of them.

I remember during the playtest the discussion re: healing and how it looked like the cleric was going to be a must in the party again. I hated that idea for a few reasons, but one of them was that it necessitated the existence of religion and/or gods/some kind of spirituality. I was hoping to play a different kind of setting, and the demand for healing in the form of the cleric made that virtually impossible.

Playing D&D since 1e, I can attest to the "short straw plays the cleric" idea...with an NPC thrown in. Same in 2e, though at least then people could specialize with spheres. Similar idea in 3e, though at a certain level, the cleric turned into such an ass-kicker that the demand for healing dropped significantly.

IMO, 4e did it right in 2 ways: One, firmly embracing the nature of hit points, allowing for the existence of the warlord class. Two, healing was a minor action, which meant that the healer was never forced to choose between healing and another type of heroic action. They got to do both. Even their buff spells often triggered of other such actions. Not coincidentally, we had more pc clerics in 4e than we did in all the other editions combined, no exaggeration.

Having said that, I am not sure the burden is as great in 5e as it is in 3e and before. In those editions, you had to prepare specific spells (3x cure light wounds, 2x cure critical wounds, etc.) In 5e, you use one slot out of 13+ to prepare a healing spell, and that's about it. Maybe you use slots on it and maybe you don't, but you aren't nearly as "locked in" as you were in 3e and before. So while I suppose technically you are playing a healer, it's only when direly necessary. And 5e did include healing word as a bonus action so the cleric doesn't have to make that tough choice anymore.

The socially inappropriate behavior in question is not the lack of desire to play a healer; it is the act of pressuring another player (socially) into breaking character (in this case, by healing against the character's nature).

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I always played clerics as warriors as much as priests. I mean they are wearing heavy plate and wielding killing weapons for a reason. Do people these days expect the cleric to stand behind the line ready to dish out healing spells vs getting on the front line and braining some foes? Sure I"ll heal if I can but I'm not going to stand there waiting for you to get hit.

 

[Sailor Moon]

I always played clerics as warriors as much as priests. I mean they are wearing heavy plate and wielding killing weapons for a reason. Do people these days expect the cleric to stand behind the line ready to dish out healing spells vs getting on the front line and braining some foes? Sure I"ll heal if I can but I'm not going to stand there waiting for you to get hit.

This!

Not sure about you but my clerics didn't stand around waiting on you to get hit.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Which is certainly a valid way to play, but far from the only one, or the only "right" one.

What you're describing is a sandbox campaign. That's great for those who want it. Some of us prefer campaigns that do have a specific story, in which the PCs are the protagonist. If that's not to your tastes, hey, great! But declaring it as the only way the DM is "supposed" to run things is both inaccurate and not conducive to further discussion.

To add to that, campaigns with stories aren't necessarily customized for the characters. Whether the DM takes the PCs into account when creating his campaign is a different issue than how sandboxy vs. story-driven it is.

I personally have little to no interest playing a campaign that has been customized around a character concept, but I can understand why some people might. I just don't run or play the game from that direction. As the DM I talk to the players about the campaign's identity, and ask them to make characters appropriate to it. As a player, I ask the DM about his campaign, and do my best to make a character that feels like it fits in his campaign. I don't expect that the presence or absence of Turn Undead in the party's repertoire is going to have any effect on the number of undead that the PC encounters. I do expect it to have an effect on the number of undead that survive such encounters.

 

[Gimul]

While this is true, it is also true that the game encourages a high degree of overlap between those roles. If clerics are by far the game's best healer, it's not unreasonable of other players to assume that someone playing a cleric is also playing a healer--especially since that's been the assumption through half a dozen different forms of the game, now. You're absolutely right that the other players should support the cleric-player's stated goal of not being a healer, but failure to respect that doesn't make them douchebags, it simply represents a conflict of expectation.

Asking for mechanics that shift that expectation is not an unreasonable request, and is certainly not reason to dismiss the behavior or social contract of a gaming group.

A lack of respect in and of itself perhaps; but once they combine that lack of respect with bullying, they are (IMO) behaving like douchebags (assuming of course the target does not wish to be bullied).

It is simply not reasonable to hold the game's mechanics responsible for the player's out of character behavior; which, by its very definition, is outside the purview of the game.

The remainder of your post is quite reasonable.

 

[mouselim]

so you think that further the ends of his deity. To win more converts and glorify the powers and good-will of his patron has to equal healing? what if your god is a god of war, or god of knowledge, or god of death?


so no not all adventures...
that is the worst straw man ever...

A god of war glorifies itself in war, the gory, violence and destruction it brings out. Its the same for god of knowledge and god of death. Remember a cleric prays to its deity for the power and it is granted when the deity believes that it is going to further its ends. If healing a fighter means that the fighter will live to fight more, the god of war will grant the healing. So it is kinda shoe-boxing the idea that healing is only for the gods of life/healing.


Worst straw man? Haha...that was sarcasm directed at those who argued that it is stereotyping the cleric class and thus boring...

 

[Mouseferatu]

A lack of respect in and of itself perhaps; but once they combine that lack of respect with bullying, they are (IMO) behaving like douchebags (assuming of course the target does not wish to be bullied).

It is simply not reasonable to hold the game's mechanics responsible for the player's out of character behavior; which, by its very definition, is outside the purview of the game.

All true, but also, I'd argue, incomplete.

If the game has heavily implied for multiple editions that the cleric is "supposed to be" the healer, and many groups have long held that belief... Then it's understandable how one of those players might object to a player portraying a cleric who's not a healer, even to the extent of feeling they're doing it "wrong."

I'm not saying they're justified in poor behavior toward that player. They're not. But I do understand how/why it happens, and I think calling it bullying--at least until/unless it goes beyond a certain point--is perhaps a touch excessive.

 

[Gimul]

All true, but also, I'd argue, incomplete.

If the game has heavily implied for multiple editions that the cleric is "supposed to be" the healer, and many groups have long held that belief... Then it's understandable how one of those players might object to a player portraying a cleric who's not a healer, even to the extent of feeling they're doing it "wrong."

I'm not saying they're justified in poor behavior toward that player. They're not. But I do understand how/why it happens, and I think calling it bullying--at least until/unless it goes beyond a certain point--is perhaps a touch excessive.

An implication exists for some clerics, of certain deities. There also have existed, for multiple editions, clerics of certain deities for which no such implication exists; or even, indeed, the opposite implication. There are other classes for which similar implications exist for specific builds. It is for this reason I stress the difference between a "cleric" and a "healer".

If enough pressure exists that the player in question feels the need to spark a public debate about whether it is the DMG's responsibility to address his plight; I am comfortable quantifying it as bullying.

 

[RotGrub]

You mean the short rest/long rest rules? Do you want them more stringent or more lenient?

My fun just includes more blood and guts in my narrative and for that reason I want to dial down the speed of natural healing.