D&D 5E Playing non-healer clerics

[JiffyPopTart]

Absolutely no one has proposed doing this.

Since a few posts ago you agreed that certain cleric character concepts are acceptable to be played without the expectation of casting healing spells then I'm not sure there is any disagreement on this thread.

That's exactly what myself as well as several other posters have been trying to point out when we say that not healing isn't necessarily uncooperative if that is how you envisioned your character acting narratively.

 

[DMZ2112]

Since a few posts ago you agreed that certain cleric character concepts are acceptable to be played without the expectation of casting healing spells then I'm not sure there is any disagreement on this thread.

That's exactly what myself as well as several other posters have been trying to point out when we say that not healing isn't necessarily uncooperative if that is how you envisioned your character acting narratively.

And you remain incorrect.

Refusing to use a class ability out of preference when that class ability would be useful to the group is uncooperative. It's a question of principle. If a player approaches D&D from the perspective that their character concept is more important than the enjoyment of the group, they've missed the point of the entire game.

It doesn't matter if the dungeon master allows it, it doesn't matter if the rest of the group is accommodating, and it doesn't matter if their choice of subclass means that helping the group would result in them losing their powers. The player is still acting in bad faith.

Frankly, the act of choosing a subclass that would interfere in this way is itself uncooperative, not an approved methodology to circumvent the need to be cooperative.

 

[aco175]

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.

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.

Is it always the player's choice though. If someone is playing a PC that acts against the rest of the party, is the party in their right to ask that PC to leave and replace them with another PC? Would I be a jerk player if I wanted to play my character to not like others stealing from the party and your Pc was stealing from the party. When both out characters, our choices come into conflict, what happens?

There seems to be two angles here, where a player can come to the game with any PC they want and other players want to have a group that works together. If we sat down to play and you someone said, "I'm going to play the cleric, you play the rogue." Why would I be the jerk when I find out they are not playing that part of the team? There should be ways to play your character the way one wants and still be part of the team in the role you chose. Others said that means casting a few healing words when needed and maybe a raise dead. That likely works fine in 5e. Actively going against that part of being a team maybe makes that player a jerk instead of me.

 

[Oofta]

Is it always the player's choice though. If someone is playing a PC that acts against the rest of the party, is the party in their right to ask that PC to leave and replace them with another PC? Would I be a jerk player if I wanted to play my character to not like others stealing from the party and your Pc was stealing from the party. When both out characters, our choices come into conflict, what happens?

There seems to be two angles here, where a player can come to the game with any PC they want and other players want to have a group that works together. If we sat down to play and you someone said, "I'm going to play the cleric, you play the rogue." Why would I be the jerk when I find out they are not playing that part of the team? There should be ways to play your character the way one wants and still be part of the team in the role you chose. Others said that means casting a few healing words when needed and maybe a raise dead. That likely works fine in 5e. Actively going against that part of being a team maybe makes that player a jerk instead of me.

You're justifying your decision to tell someone else how to play their character by saying that they're a "jerk" if they don't play the way you would play that character. But one thing does not follow the other. If "the group" tells me that my cleric must cast animate dead because it's best for the group, my answer is going to be "no" with any cleric I've run and I'll likely start looking for a new group because obviously we have different goals and standards. Fortunately that's never happened.

Different groups operate differently. Some sit down and figure out optimal configurations, others are "play what you want". I'm firmly on the "play what you want side of the spectrum. It's fine if you're on the other end, but you don't get to call me, or anyone, a jerk simply because we have a different approach. When I play or when I DM I want each individual to have fun, part of that is playing a PC they enjoy.

If you feel so strongly that the group needs a dedicated healer, play one yourself. If you choose not to play a dedicated healer when you personally feel that the group needs one, perhaps you need to reconsider who the jerk is. Is it the person that decided to play what they want or the one who's trying to dictate other people's choices and decisions?

 

[Irlo]

Refusing to use a class ability out of preference when that class ability would be useful to the group is uncooperative. It's a question of principle. If a player approaches D&D from the perspective that their character concept is more important than the enjoyment of the group, they've missed the point of the entire game.

I agree with this.

But it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game at all if a particular PC doesn't cast particular spells. Why would it? That PC will contribute in other ways.

 

[TwoSix]

Refusing to use a class ability out of preference when that class ability would be useful to the group is uncooperative. It's a question of principle. If a player approaches D&D from the perspective that their character concept is more important than the enjoyment of the group, they've missed the point of the entire game.

But what if the enjoyment of the group is predicated on each player playing their chosen concept to the hilt? My groups would rather have a TPK and start over than have a player play their character in a manner the player didn't think fit their concept.

 

[aco175]

You're justifying your decision to tell someone else how to play their character by saying that they're a "jerk" if they don't play the way you would play that character. But one thing does not follow the other. If "the group" tells me that my cleric must cast animate dead because it's best for the group, my answer is going to be "no" with any cleric I've run and I'll likely start looking for a new group because obviously we have different goals and standards. Fortunately that's never happened.

Different groups operate differently. Some sit down and figure out optimal configurations, others are "play what you want". I'm firmly on the "play what you want side of the spectrum. It's fine if you're on the other end, but you don't get to call me, or anyone, a jerk simply because we have a different approach. When I play or when I DM I want each individual to have fun, part of that is playing a PC they enjoy.

If you feel so strongly that the group needs a dedicated healer, play one yourself. If you choose not to play a dedicated healer when you personally feel that the group needs one, perhaps you need to reconsider who the jerk is. Is it the person that decided to play what they want or the one who's trying to dictate other people's choices and decisions?

I do not think it is an all or nothing problem and go find another group suddenly. If we played 10 campaigns and everything was fine and we all had fun then I feel it is a different issue. If you want to play a PC that does not want to play in the group, the other PCs should get a say on whether they want to continue on the adventure with your character. As players we want to let anyone play what they want, but as PCs there should be some reason to play together. Some of this likely falls into the "It is what my character would do." problem in the game.

Kind of like if I have a new PC that makes fun of the other PCs and tells 'your mama' jokes about them. Might be ok for a couple levels, but if there is no growth and change it gets boring and when the rogue say he wants to backstab him because "I told him one more time." Now all the players are upset.

If in one game I play the caring cleric that cares for everyone and is motherly and cast heals, then in the next game I play a cleric that just kills and does not cast any healing- I am just playing my PC they way I want. The rest of the players may be a bit thrown back by the change.

This may also tie into other threads like the ones about the DM being allowed to make the campaign restrictive in terms of races and classes, or the threads about session 0 and playing evil alignments and PvP conflict.

 

[Clint_L]

And you remain incorrect.

Refusing to use a class ability out of preference when that class ability would be useful to the group is uncooperative.

No, it is not. If you prioritize story (which my groups do), you cooperate by playing your character as they would behave as a real person. If someone has the vision of, say a devotee of the gods who has devoted themselves entirely to a mission that requires them to become a warlike instrument of wrath (war cleric), they might see that as eschewing healing altogether.

I think you have a much more meta-gaming view of the table than I do, where the players are all optimizing their party composition or something. We do not approach the game that way. Everyone comes up with their character concept and tries to play it. Often they will take suboptimal abilities, spells, or actions because it makes sense for their character, and that makes the game, which is a game after all, more fun.

You seem stuck on this notion that there is one proper way to play a cleric and anyone not doing it the way you like is therefore being cooperative. At my table, meta-gaming is being uncooperative because we don't enjoy that. People get to choose what makes sense for their character.

Perhaps we can agree that "cooperative" looks different for different groups.

Edit: Also, healing is not a "class ability" for clerics. For most sub-classes, it is not automatically built into their chassis. They have healing magic available that they can choose to take. So do bards, paladins, monks, druids, wizards, sorcerers, and warlocks. So, actually, does every other class if your campaign uses feats.

 

[Oofta]

I do not think it is an all or nothing problem and go find another group suddenly. If we played 10 campaigns and everything was fine and we all had fun then I feel it is a different issue. If you want to play a PC that does not want to play in the group, the other PCs should get a say on whether they want to continue on the adventure with your character. As players we want to let anyone play what they want, but as PCs there should be some reason to play together. Some of this likely falls into the "It is what my character would do." problem in the game.

Kind of like if I have a new PC that makes fun of the other PCs and tells 'your mama' jokes about them. Might be ok for a couple levels, but if there is no growth and change it gets boring and when the rogue say he wants to backstab him because "I told him one more time." Now all the players are upset.

If in one game I play the caring cleric that cares for everyone and is motherly and cast heals, then in the next game I play a cleric that just kills and does not cast any healing- I am just playing my PC they way I want. The rest of the players may be a bit thrown back by the change.

This may also tie into other threads like the ones about the DM being allowed to make the campaign restrictive in terms of races and classes, or the threads about session 0 and playing evil alignments and PvP conflict.

There's a massive difference between the social contract of the group and character specific choices. We should discuss the social contract details of the group, and I have no problem saying you shouldn't play a disruptive or antagonistic player. That's significantly different from telling a character what spells they should cast or specifically what actions they should take in combat.

Let's say I play a fighter. I've decided they're going to be dex based and focus on ranged combat. You think I should be running a tank that holds the front line. What gives you the right to decide what type of character I should run? We can discuss it, but if you insist that the party needs a front line tank you can always run one yourself.

People should discuss what kind of PC they plan on running in a session 0, and hopefully people are reasonable. When I've run a war cleric, I'll be up front about it and what my goals are and what my thinking is. I'll cast Healing Word to keep you from dying but in most cases I think it's better use of my resources to cast Bless on the party because it makes them more effective and reduces the chance of them being taken out by a failed save. Even at higher levels when you get spells like Heal, depending on the situation Blade Barrier may make more sense to me.

To simplify the argument, D&D combat is generally a contest between two teams with each team trying to push the other side to 0. What's more effective? Helping the group push the other side to 0 or preventing your team from being pushed to 0? If I run a cleric that doesn't focus on healing, I'll be helping to push the other side to 0 because I believe that given the action economy and resource attrition it's the better option. It's also more fun for me.

There's a reason we have cleric subclasses other than the life domain.

 

[aco175]

There's a massive difference between the social contract of the group and character specific choices. We should discuss the social contract details of the group, and I have no problem saying you shouldn't play a disruptive or antagonistic player. That's significantly different from telling a character what spells they should cast or specifically what actions they should take in combat.

The whole comment is good advice and I think most people are fair about it. I remember this part above specifically from a convention I played in 30+ years ago when I was a middle-schooler. The table had one older person than us and he kept saying the tactical thing all of our PCs would do instead of asking us to do it or letting us play the way we wanted. He would tell the DM that the thief will sneak around back and the mage will cast such and such. Not sure if he was trying to make the convention game fit in the allotted time or if he felt the 'kids' could not play, but it always stuck with me. I remember telling the DM that my PC was not doing what he said and that I was going to do something else. The DM seemed to catch on and then asked everyone what they were doing and things went fine from what I remember.