Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DMZ2112" data-source="post: 8915416" data-attributes="member: 78752">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.</blockquote>

Verification