D&D 5E Playing non-healer clerics

[ECMO3]

There is a slight difference in the case of the Wizard and the Cleric in this scenario I just wanted to point out. The Cleric always has the option to prepare a healing spell, because they have access to their entire spell list. The Wizard has a limited pool of spells to choose from, unless they are given opportunities to spend time and gold to add spells to their book. If a Wizard takes, as in your example, fireball and hypnotic pattern, and the party would rather have them able to cast different spells, there's an opportunity cost there that doesn't exist with the Cleric.

This is a difference yes, but it actually works against the Wizard.

If the Wizard refuses to take LTH, SWD or Fly then he not cast them at all, ever, so he can't do his "primary job", as I chose to define it, and is not able to do it in the future either, even if the story progresses such that he has to cast Speak With Dead or Fly for us to move forward.

There is an opportunity cost in a Cleric preparing healing as well although it is a far lower cost than for a Wizard choosing spells for his book. This means I can build a "non-healing" cleric and then get healing spells in the future for a single day if/when the plot or story demands it. Like say we come apon an Army battle and need to pitch in and help out in the field hospital. I can say ok I will get some healing for the few days we are here ....

 

[James Gasik]

This is a difference yes, but it actually works against the Wizard.

If the Wizard refuses to take LTH, SWD or Fly then he not cast them at all, ever, so he can't do his "primary job", as I chose to define it, and is not able to do it in the future either, even if the story progresses such that he has to cast Speak With Dead or Fly for us to move forward.

There is an opportunity cost in a Cleric preparing healing as well although it is a far lower cost than for a Wizard choosing spells for his book. This means I can build a "non-healing" cleric and then get healing spells in the future for a single day if/when the plot or story demands it. Like say we come apon an Army battle and need to pitch in and help out in the field hospital. I can say ok I will get some healing for the few days we are here ....

Interesting. I wonder about this line of logic though. I mean, obviously, this is supposed to be absurd, lol, but if you extend it, it gets silly. "Oh you can't Wild Shape, your Druid won't be able to heal!" "You need to take the Sorcerer origin that lets you take Cleric spells!" And poor Bards, forever stuck between being forced to heal and take utility spells, lol.

 

[DMZ2112]

So you are a wizard, you just made level 5 and you want to get Fireball and Hypnotic Pattern and I say no you can't. A wizard has utility available so you have to take Lemund's Hut and Speak With Dead, and when you make 6th level you need to pick up Fly and catnap. It doesn't matteer that you want to take Fireball or that HP is more useful to the party than those will be. You chose a class that has utility available so you have to take it. That is your role because that is what I want your role to be.

I mean, sure, keep intentionally misconstruing my point, it's not like the thread isn't an archive of what was actually said.

Once more for the cheap seats:
A cleric who refuses to heal in favor of combat spells is not playing the game properly, just as a cleric who refuses to use combat spells in favor of healing is not playing the game properly. A wizard who refuses to use utility spells in favor of direct damage is not playing the game properly, and neither is a wizard who uses utility spells exclusively to the exclusion of direct damage spells.

There's nothing wrong with roleplaying a preference, but if the party needs a PC to do something only their class can do and they refuse on principle, the refusing PC is the bad guy. That's called putting your fun before the group's fun, and it is discouraged. This is a game, not open mic night.

To use the exact quote from above, if the Wizard won't take LTH and SWD then he should "Find a different game, where [Wizards] don't get [Utility Spells]." You should not be allowed to take Fireball or Hypnotic Pattern if you play a wizard

This is the exact same thing as having my Cleric get Spirit Guardians and Spirit Shroud instead of Aura of Vitality and Mass Healing Word.

Yes. It absolutely is the same. And a properly played D&D character accepts that there may be cases where any one of these four spells in the set associated with their class may be useful and necessary.

The reality that you are doubling down on not acknowledging is that the wizard has to make a major portion of this decision about moment-to-moment functionality based on campaign design and guesswork at level-up, or seek out a source during play or downtime from which they can learn a new spell independently of leveling, neither of which permits them much flexibility in preparation.

All the cleric has to do is wake up, scratch their ass, and decide to pick a different spell.

It is selfish to tell or expect another player to play a certain way based on how you want the class should be played. It is reasonable to expect all players to contribute, it is selfish and unreasonable to expect them to contribute in a specific fashion that suits you.

Okay, I'll bite.

What is playing a cleric who refuses to heal but telling or expecting the other players in the campaign to play in a way that does not require healing?

Does expecting all players to contribute not require encouraging individual players to contribute those resources only their character can provide?

If expecting a single player to contribute in a particular fashion is selfish and unreasonable, what then is expecting the remainder of the players at the table to adjust their contributions in a way that suits the single player?

isn't the debated issue here not that of 'a cleric that doesn't focus on healing' but 'a cleric that actively refuses to engage in a central part of their class's design, at all, the bit of their class design oriented on supporting the other players', seeing as your players are meant to be part of a TEAM this may rub the rest of your co-players the wrong way.

That's certainly the point I've been making all along.

 

[MichaelSomething]

This is why we need the Warlord class and healing surges.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, sure, keep intentionally misconstruing my point, it's not like the thread isn't an archive of what was actually said.

Once more for the cheap seats:
A cleric who refuses to heal in favor of combat spells is not playing the game properly, just as a cleric who refuses to use combat spells in favor of healing is not playing the game properly. A wizard who refuses to use utility spells in favor of direct damage is not playing the game properly, and neither is a wizard who uses utility spells exclusively to the exclusion of direct damage spells.

There's nothing wrong with roleplaying a preference, but if the party needs a PC to do something only their class can do and they refuse on principle, the refusing PC is the bad guy. That's called putting your fun before the group's fun, and it is discouraged. This is a game, not open mic night.


Yes. It absolutely is the same. And a properly played D&D character accepts that there may be cases where any one of these four spells in the set associated with their class may be useful and necessary.

The reality that you are doubling down on not acknowledging is that the wizard has to make a major portion of this decision about moment-to-moment functionality based on campaign design and guesswork at level-up, or seek out a source during play or downtime from which they can learn a new spell independently of leveling, neither of which permits them much flexibility in preparation.

All the cleric has to do is wake up, scratch their ass, and decide to pick a different spell.

Okay, I'll bite.

What is playing a cleric who refuses to heal but telling or expecting the other players in the campaign to play in a way that does not require healing?

Does expecting all players to contribute not require encouraging individual players to contribute those resources only their character can provide?

If expecting a single player to contribute in a particular fashion is selfish and unreasonable, what then is expecting the remainder of the players at the table to adjust their contributions in a way that suits the single player?


That's certainly the point I've been making all along.

This is such a strange hill to die on. I try to run PCs I'll have fun playing that can contribute to the team.

If I'm running a cleric with minimal healing, I'll let people know. I'll stop people from dying, but until higher levels? Buy some potions.

You don't get to tell me how to run my character, or that I'm running it "wrong" because they don't work according to your expectations.

 

[Irlo]

I have absolutely no objection to a fellow player running a character that focuses on damage and control but doesn't use resources for healing, whether they use the cleric chassis to model that concept or if they're a fighter battle master or a hexblade, or whatever they chose to play. That choice doesn't detract from my fun and it doesn't indicate selfishness or lack of teamwork. It's just the character they want to play. They're not doing it wrong.

If I need to have a healing cleric in the party to have fun, and if no one else is interested, I'll play one myself.

 

[Clint_L]

Someone who doesn't tolerate selfish behavior at my table, mostly.

Selfish behaviour? Hmmm...so now they are playing the class wrong and being selfish because they don't play the way you like? They are the ones being selfish in this scenario?

Let people play their characters the way they want. It's one thing to have an objection to player who isn't taking the game seriously, or who is being disruptive or whatever. But otherwise, it's their character, their choice.

 

[ECMO3]

Once more for the cheap seats:
A cleric who refuses to heal in favor of combat spells is not playing the game properly, just as a cleric who refuses to use combat spells in favor of healing is not playing the game properly. A wizard who refuses to use utility spells in favor of direct damage is not playing the game properly, and neither is a wizard who uses utility spells exclusively to the exclusion of direct damage spells.

Based on what part of the rules are any of these "not playing the game properly"? Can you point to anything that would even imply this is true?

There's nothing wrong with roleplaying a preference, but if the party needs a PC to do something only their class can do and they refuse on principle, the refusing PC is the bad guy. That's called putting your fun before the group's fun, and it is discouraged. This is a game, not open mic night.

the term "need" is important here. In 8 years of playing 5E I can not think of a single time as a player or DM that a party "needed" a cleric to heal someone and well over half of those parties did not even have a Cleric.

Yes. It absolutely is the same. And a properly played D&D character accepts that there may be cases where any one of these four spells in the set associated with their class may be useful and necessary.

To the exclusion of spells within his or her school? Are you really saying I can play at a table with you playing an Evocation Wizard and expect that you never take an evocation spell?

The reality that you are doubling down on not acknowledging is that the wizard has to make a major portion of this decision about moment-to-moment functionality based on campaign design and guesswork at level-up, or seek out a source during play or downtime from which they can learn a new spell independently of leveling, neither of which permits them much flexibility in preparation.

But why the Cleric? Any character can get healing through a feat. If players are expected to heal then this should not be unique to the cleric simply because healing spells are on her list.

If it is "necessary"

All the cleric has to do is wake up, scratch their ass, and decide to pick a different spell.

All the Wizard has to do is take the right feat at level 4 and then he never even needs to prepare a spell! He does not even have to use a slot to prepare it!

Certainly if the class I choose at level 1 dictates that I engage in healing then we should expect players to take a feat at level 4 (or at level 1) to be able to heal some, since it is required.

This is especially true if the party does not have a Cleric, since healing is necessary and all!

Okay, I'll bite.

What is playing a cleric who refuses to heal but telling or expecting the other players in the campaign to play in a way that does not require healing?

But why the Cleric? Any character can get healing through a feat. If players are expected to heal then this should not be unique to the cleric simply because healing spells are on her list.

If the campaign "requires" healing spells (and I have never seen such a campaign), then it is appropriate to expect every casting class to take feats enabling healing.

As a point of fact a Wizard can get Cure Wounds. What is playing a Wizard who refuses to heal but telling other players in the campaign to play in a way that does not require healing?

Does expecting all players to contribute not require encouraging individual players to contribute those resources only their character can provide?

Every Character can get healing spells and Wizards and Sorcerers get more slots to spend on those than Clerics do.

If expecting a single player to contribute in a particular fashion is selfish and unreasonable, what then is expecting the remainder of the players at the table to adjust their contributions in a way that suits the single player?

Yes, absolutely it is VERY selfish. If you feel a certain particular type of contribution is required then YOU should build YOUR character to meet that requirement.

If YOU feel healing is necessary for the party to get by then YOU should build a character that can heal - A Cleric or a Wizard with feats or whatever. If YOU don't build a character that can heal and YOU think healing is necessary then YOU are the one to blame for there being no healing.

I will build a character to contribute in the ways I feel are necessary and as long as I am contributing in some fashion, it should be ok with you.

 

[DMZ2112]

Based on what part of the rules are any of these "not playing the game properly"? Can you point to anything that would even imply this is true?

Of course not.

Most players do not require a rule mandating cooperation in order to engage in it.

the term "need" is important here. In 8 years of playing 5E I can not think of a single time as a player or DM that a party "needed" a cleric to heal someone and well over half of those parties did not even have a Cleric.

So we've established that there is a degree of requirement by the other players at the table at which my position is sound. Good.

I won't insult you by suggesting that my own anecdotal experience to the contrary somehow negates your point.

To the exclusion of spells within his or her school? Are you really saying I can play at a table with you playing an Evocation Wizard and expect that you never take an evocation spell?

No, that conclusion does not logically follow from what I wrote at all. To reiterate, I said:

"...a properly played D&D character accepts that there may be cases where any one of these four spells in the set associated with their class may be useful and necessary."

The 'set of spells' you defined for the wizard were Leomund's Tiny Hut, Speak With Dead, Fireball, and Hypnotic Pattern.

Of these, Fireball is an Evocation spell.

But why the Cleric? Any character can get healing through a feat. If players are expected to heal then this should not be unique to the cleric simply because healing spells are on her list.

I have addressed this adequately, as have other posters in the thread. What you are describing is a build design choice for any character class that does not have healing spells on its spell list. By contrast, no matter what build design choices a cleric makes, they cannot divest themselves of the ability to cast healing spells.

Kindly stop repeating this argument.

Yes, absolutely it is VERY selfish.

Well, at least we agree on that.

Selfish behaviour? Hmmm...so now they are playing the class wrong and being selfish because they don't play the way you like? They are the ones being selfish in this scenario?

Yes.

It's your privilege. Don't expect me to be impressed.

...

It's your prerogative to play a non-combatant utility wizard just like it is your prerogative to play a non-healer battle cleric. But leaving a chunk of your toolbox at home because "it's not what you do" smacks of the same sort of player entitlement as the "but it's what my character would do" phenomenon.

...

No, no one else at the table should define your role for you. You should define your own role so that it benefits the party, and doesn't arbitrarily rob them of their access to part of the ruleset.

...

All players should strive to be as useful to the party as they can be. That is a reasonable expectation.

...

There's nothing wrong with roleplaying a preference, but if the party needs a PC to do something only their class can do and they refuse on principle, the refusing PC is the bad guy. That's called putting your fun before the group's fun, and it is discouraged. This is a game, not open mic night.

Yes.

If expecting a single player to contribute in a particular fashion is selfish and unreasonable, what then is expecting the remainder of the players at the table to adjust their contributions in a way that suits the single player?

Still yes.

 

[Clint_L]

Of course not.

Most players do not require a rule mandating cooperation in order to engage in it.

You keep defining cooperation as "playing the game the way you want it played." How are you being cooperative?

I would define cooperative as "allowing people to play their own characters their own way." If I am so desperate that we have healer, it is on me to play it, not make someone else serve my needs.