PCs using their abilities - a favor to the party?

[Zurai]

In addition, Clerics now have the ability to basically heal and damage as a free action. They aren't forced to kill their rounds healing their companions. Instead, they get to join in the front-line action and fling their Inflict Spells while keep their companions alive.

---

That took a while, and is a bit of a tangent...but since it addresses my thoughts on disgruntled Cleric players, what do you think?

It's not bad mechanically (although thoroughly unfufilling, IMO), but it has plot holes big enough to drive a planet through. If the current health of the world is static, then:

Is hp damage permanent without magical healing? In other words, how do you account for natural healing?
What about non-inflict spells that deal damage? Do they siphon health off too, or does the damage just contribute to the entropy of the universe?
What about children? Are they born with zero hit points?
How about when people die of non-hp related causes (old age, for instance)? How is that handled?

Etc...

 

[Satori]

It's not bad mechanically (although thoroughly unfufilling, IMO), but it has plot holes big enough to drive a planet through. If the current health of the world is static, then:

Is hp damage permanent without magical healing? In other words, how do you account for natural healing?
What about non-inflict spells that deal damage? Do they siphon health off too, or does the damage just contribute to the entropy of the universe?
What about children? Are they born with zero hit points?
How about when people die of non-hp related causes (old age, for instance)? How is that handled?

Etc...

You know, I didn't think the idea through past the initial concept...but these are all issues I'd have to face if I ever actually ran this concept as a campaign.

In my mind, though, there is a clear distinction between "Divine Life Force/Healing" and "Natural Healing", with Divine Life Force/Healing being crippled.

i.e. A Troll can still regenerate, an apothecary can still mend wounds naturally, the Heal skill becomes very important, etc...

The idea here is that Evil wants to subtract, while Good wants to add. Evil adds Negative Energy to the world (in the form of Inflict), while Good adds Positive Energy to the world (in the form of healing).

We've removed the potential to add positive energy, and we're only left with the ability to "even out" the damage we do.

As you can see, the political and moral implications are astounding, and we're essentially faced with an accelerated, apocalyptic "Global Warming". In a world where Good balances Evil, Positive balances Negative...what happens when Good/Positive is removed, and the best the forces of Good can do is mitigate Negative Energy...but not counter it?

This also creates all sorts of potential for RP rich encounters.

-A wounded priest is faced with a dying child...and the only way to save the child is to potentially kill himself by draining his own life force.

-The party Barbarian races into battle (like most Barbarians do), and gets severely injured while destroying all enemies. In an act of self-sacrifice, the cleric gives his HP to the Barbarian...but now must spend several days nearly incapacitated as he heals naturally. Will the Barbarian act more cautiously now, knowing that his actions cause his friend suffering?

-An evil empire fuels its military by sending along a priest with each soldier unit...but also keeps several innocent civilians as prisoner "Life Batteries" for the troops.

-Unable to cope with the necessity to drain life in order to heal, hundreds of Exalted Good Clerics leave their faith en masse. What does this do to the power of the Good Deities?

-Many Neutral Clerics are drawn further and further to the "Dark Side" as they grow accustomed to siphoning life from others to strengthen themselves. What are the implications?

---

Of course, you're very correct in stating that there are a lot of gaps in this, and I would have to work through these before starting a game in this world.

Still, though, what are your thoughts on the concept?

 

[Zurai]

My thought is that the world would very quickly become a barren wasteland By removing access to any true healing magic, but not in any way restricting damage, you completely demolish a fragile balance that was, frankly, already unbalanced towards damage.

Just to be clear - I'm not knocking you for the idea. I don't think the idea is workable, but at least you gave it a very good try that has some true merits. That's more than a lot of people can say for themselves (myself included).

 

[Voadam]

I've found reserve points a useful variant to reduce the need for clerical healing in a dungeon crawl adventure.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

It can be done, but it takes the right kind of players, not always something easy to come by.

This also requires the DM to shift expectations as well. If it becomes a slow attrition of HP over the course of an adventure, by the time the PCs reach the climactic battle, the DM can no longer run the encounter with the same expectations as they would for a full HP party.

I agree that it takes a different sort of expectations at the table, but IMHO its a better expectation. One that allows those players who want to play a Cleric, play something other than a heal-bot.

Reserve Points are an excellent rule to use.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My thought is that the world would very quickly become a barren wasteland By removing access to any true healing magic, but not in any way restricting damage, you completely demolish a fragile balance that was, frankly, already unbalanced towards damage.

Just to be clear - I'm not knocking you for the idea. I don't think the idea is workable, but at least you gave it a very good try that has some true merits. That's more than a lot of people can say for themselves (myself included).

Our world doesn't have positive energy to heal people. But we have weapons that can kill people (indidividuals, groups, masses, even populations) people easily.

We have very advanced medical technology, but it's abilities don't come close to the effect of healing magic in D&D, and cannot compare with our potential for destruction.

Destruction is always easier then construction (or healing). Still, our world is not a wasteland.

 

[Li Shenron]

Reading a cleric related thread on the 4e subforum and I was struck by several comments along the lines of "my cleric heals those who deserve it" or "healing is for out of combat if you ask nicely".... I find it hard to envision this attitude from any other class - "I disarm traps when I feel like it." "If the others ask nicely I levitate them out of pits." "I cast entangle on enemies when I think the front liners are worthy of my help."

So I'm curious if this is a cleric thing, (possibly relating to the feeling that the player is doing the group a favor by being a cleric, so they should get some in character fawning out of it) or if some people play in groups where the PCs are stuck together but only help each other when convinced?

I just think that if someone doesn't spontaneously WANT to heal the wounded allies, or to disarm the traps, or to tank in the frontlines, or to buff the comrades, etcetera, then he's better off not playing the game at all.

Or do sport players usually require that the teammates politely ask before passing the ball?

 

[Numion]

I just think that if someone doesn't spontaneously WANT to heal the wounded allies, or to disarm the traps, or to tank in the frontlines, or to buff the comrades, etcetera, then he's better off not playing the game at all.

Well, I'd say playing a cleric who spends his spells on the offence and not on the defence is still doing his part, can be a valuable part of the team (much more valuable than a healer cleric) and be a team player.

To use the analogy "rogue who refuses to pick locks" or "fighter who doesn't want to tank the frontlines", I wouldn't automatically expect those things to happen automatically either. If the rogue is a former highway bandit who barely knows what a lock is and has no idea of picking one, I wouldn't expect him to do it, or expect the player to pump points in to it. Likewise, I wouldn't expect a fighter who's optimized for archery to tank in the frontlines.

In a similar way a cleric who's optimized for combat and not healing should be ok to kick ass in combat instead of healing. It's what the character is optimized to do, it's what it will do best, and it's not like he wasn't going to pull his weight in there. I mean, if the group had no problem letting me play a fighter who's always in the thick of combat, bashing in skulls, why wouldn't they allow me to make a cleric who's doing the same?

The group should make sure that each character concept is valid (no pacifists, no loners, no s, etc..) and leave the execution of the concept to the player. If a melee tank who can't heal in combat is a viable concept, it shouldn't matter if whether the player uses the fighter class or the cleric class to execute that concept.

 

[Voadam]

Well, I'd say playing a cleric who spends his spells on the offence and not on the defence is still doing his part, can be a valuable part of the team (much more valuable than a healer cleric) and be a team player.

To use the analogy "rogue who refuses to pick locks" or "fighter who doesn't want to tank the frontlines", I wouldn't automatically expect those things to happen automatically either. If the rogue is a former highway bandit who barely knows what a lock is and has no idea of picking one, I wouldn't expect him to do it, or expect the player to pump points in to it. Likewise, I wouldn't expect a fighter who's optimized for archery to tank in the frontlines.

In a similar way a cleric who's optimized for combat and not healing should be ok to kick ass in combat instead of healing. It's what the character is optimized to do, it's what it will do best, and it's not like he wasn't going to pull his weight in there. I mean, if the group had no problem letting me play a fighter who's always in the thick of combat, bashing in skulls, why wouldn't they allow me to make a cleric who's doing the same?

The group should make sure that each character concept is valid (no pacifists, no loners, no s, etc..) and leave the execution of the concept to the player. If a melee tank who can't heal in combat is a viable concept, it shouldn't matter if whether the player uses the fighter class or the cleric class to execute that concept.

Different issue than refusing to do what you can unless another PC conforms to your character's demands.

I play a 6 int 18 strength half-orc rogue in one game. He can sneak, climb, intimidate and sneak attack, but nobody expects him to pick locks, disarm traps, or schmooze NPCs. However if I demanded that other players pay him "protection money" or else he won't engage in combat in the adventures, I'd say the other players would have a legitimate complaint against me, even though I play him as an criminal thug who is a real jerk.

I consider "I'm a combat priest and most of my spells go to self buffing for combat." completely legitimate. I consider "I will heal your character if you tithe and make reverence to my character's god and won't if you don't" antagonistic in attempting to control how other players play their characters.

 

[Li Shenron]

Well, I'd say playing a cleric who spends his spells on the offence and not on the defence is still doing his part, can be a valuable part of the team (much more valuable than a healer cleric) and be a team player.

/*snip*/

Absolutely. In fact I don't like hearing stuff like "you're a Rogue, you're supposed to be good at lockpicking". Everyone has the right to make a non-standard character, if you just say it at character creation time, that you are not a healing-heavy cleric, that's totally fine for me. The party will just plan tactics with that in mind.

But I thought that the OP was concerned by something different... a player pretending to devoid some party members of his help because "they don't deserve it" or "they don't ask politely".