D&D 5E Refusing To Heal Party Members?

[dmnqwk]

I would expect you to play a Paladin.

If you have healing magic available, heal by all means. But don't save a spell slot "because you think someone will go down" imagine how your paladin would act... if he is naive he'll probably be charging in wielding his one handed melee weapon that he has because shields are awesome in 5th edition and smite something, or divine favour.

I feel for you because there are so many classes who can heal and half of your party is doing "1 job" as warlock, wizard and sorc. If only 1 of them realised how good Bards are in 5th they could heal too!

 

[Gimul]

You keep saying that as if it were a universal answer. It's not.

1) As the DM it's not my job to shore up weaknesses that the players have willingly chosen.

2) DO I feel like playing (another) NPC?

3) I haven't met that many players over the years actually able to run two + separate characters. Usually how it goes is that they concentrate on one & the other becomes nothing more than a list of stats/equipment.
That's OK in a mass battle scene where nameless red shirts are involved. But not so well when it's a specialist on long-term assignment.... So if I were to give control of a NPC cleric/healer to most players I might as well have just given them a walking CLW wand as they won't invest any effort into the RP part. This will not add anything to the story.

3) So it then comes back to "Do I feel like playing another NPC"? And since in this case the whole reason for the NPC'S existance is to shore up a party weakness the players have intentionally chosen? That answer is NO.

You are correct, there is no need to shore up the party's weaknesses. If they refuse to expend resources on healing, or have no such resources, that's fine. They might have to camp more often, utilize tactics that minimize incoming damage, or characters might die; all of which is also fine. The characters don't have to survive, or succeed; in order to tell a good story or have a good time.

 

[jgsugden]

ROLE playing game. You're writing a character's story. Your goal is to create the story that you and your friends will enjoy the most. The actions of your character should be dictated by the role they are playing.

If a paladin's code, personality, or other facet prevents him from healing an ally - great! As long as it tells a good story that people enjoy. If, however, you're trying to dictate story choices to other players and force them to play the game how you want to play it and against the way they enjoy... not so great.

The game works best when: 1.) You design a PC so that it can contribute to stories that everyone in the group enjoys, and 2.) Once you start playing the game the mechanics of the game become an afterthought, not a motivator, for character actions.

 

[Satyrn]

I gave my party a squire, at least in part because one of the players is an Earl and thus it seems appropriate. Her whole job in the game is to ask panicky questions about Drow, to watch over the horses while the PCs go into dungeons, provide another window into noble politics by being a link to her mother, who is also an Earl, and generally add to the vaguely noble tone of one character's status. I've never rolled a dice for this squire, nor do I intend to; she doesn't even have any stats. In general, I wouldn't allow my players to recruit some kind of minor adventuring NPC to accompany them. It wouldn't fit my conception of the game (heroic adventures going boldly alone into danger) and would also be a total annoyance to manage.

I'm kind of lazy though.

I'm lazy, too. I had an ogre NPC adventuring with a (I think) 4th level party. He was with them for story reasons of some sort I can't remember. What I do remember if that through all the fights he was involved in he did nothing except when a player wanted to use him as a springboard for a stunt, or ride him into battle like a warhorse. He contributed to the story without contributing to the party, and I didn't have to roll anything for him.

. . . though later I played him as a PC when one of my players took over DMing for an adventure.

 

[Dausuul]

This can be a new thread if anyone thinks it's really worth a full-fledged discussion, but I just have to say... I hate "adventuring NPCs." Hate 'em. Obviously the worst is the "DMPC," but even with a good DM who doesn't do that, I just dislike it when an NPC adventurer travels with the party for more than a very short term. If it's to "guard the wagon" or whatever while the PCs are off adventuring, that's fine, but if they're basically functioning to fill a PC "slot"? No thanks.

PREACH IT. I can't stand 'em either.

As a player, I don't have much interest in playing a character I didn't create. I can do it - when another player can't make it to the session, I'm usually the one who takes over that character, since I'm the only player who knows the rules well enough to run an unfamiliar PC effectively - but I don't like it, and I certainly don't want to do it on an ongoing basis.

As a DM, I have plenty to do running the bad guys in combat without running half the good guys as well. Constantly switching my black hat with my white hat is a major distraction. I'd rather focus on making the bad guys as exciting and dramatic and challenging as I can. If one of the players wants to take the NPC on as a permanent thing, that's fine - but only if the NPC doesn't suddenly turn into a minionbot, and the player is up to the task of running two characters. This is seldom the case.

 

[Sunseeker]

PREACH IT. I can't stand 'em either.

As a player, I don't have much interest in playing a character I didn't create. I can do it - when another player can't make it to the session, I'm usually the one who takes over that character, since I'm the only player who knows the rules well enough to run an unfamiliar PC effectively - but I don't like it, and I certainly don't want to do it on an ongoing basis.

As a DM, I have plenty to do running the bad guys in combat without running half the good guys as well. Constantly switching my black hat with my white hat is a major distraction. I'd rather focus on making the bad guys as exciting and dramatic and challenging as I can. If one of the players wants to take the NPC on as a permanent thing, that's fine - but only if the NPC doesn't suddenly turn into a minionbot, and the player is up to the task of running two characters. This is seldom the case.

"Adventuring NPCs" and by extension, DMpcs are fine...to a degree and in the right places. DMPCs are fine when there's a more cooperatively created world, when there's not "hard DM" and everyone gets a turn at creating some part of the material and guiding the players through the world, because everyone is a player at the same time that everyone is a DM. I find hard DMPCs and lesser adventuring PCs are also acceptable when the party is small (~2 players) and when the DM plays that character either A: as a Gandalf, and B: to not personally outshine everyone else.

But otherwise I agree that anything NPC-wise should be in short lived events with the party and that long-term NPCs should be treated like full on characters. Just because you hired them doesn't mean they're you're slave. I find separate initiative helps with this, Bob the player may get two turns, but dividing up the actions of his primary and secondary NPC helps distinguish them as unique individuals.

But generally when there's a full table(4+ people), I have enough things to that I have no interest in playing (even if I REALLY like the game) a full-bodied PC.

Actually, this subject is one of my particular gripes with OoTA. The fact that the NPCs are supposed to last you through a long portion of the game annoys the doop out of me. As a DM, I am already not fond of published campaigns, the last thing I want to do is have to run a dozen big personalities at the same time. As a player, my experience was incredibly un-fun, since due to some bad rolls my own character died and I've been stuck playing one of the NPCs (the dwarf) who has all the personality of a rock. We're in the underdark, so it's not like a new, non-drow can just "show up" and join the party.

 

[Uchawi]

I dislike party NPCs as a DM, because unless I maintain them the chances increase for meta-gaming. The same can be stated for a second character.

 

[Lanefan]

But otherwise I agree that anything NPC-wise should be in short lived events with the party and that long-term NPCs should be treated like full on characters. Just because you hired them doesn't mean they're you're slave. I find separate initiative helps with this, Bob the player may get two turns, but dividing up the actions of his primary and secondary NPC helps distinguish them as unique individuals.

Absolutely - I thought it would go without saying that each character gets its own initiative no matter how many are being played by who.

Actually, this subject is one of my particular gripes with OoTA. The fact that the NPCs are supposed to last you through a long portion of the game annoys the doop out of me. As a DM, I am already not fond of published campaigns, the last thing I want to do is have to run a dozen big personalities at the same time. As a player, my experience was incredibly un-fun, since due to some bad rolls my own character died and I've been stuck playing one of the NPCs (the dwarf) who has all the personality of a rock. We're in the underdark, so it's not like a new, non-drow can just "show up" and join the party.

If the DM is cool with it (and IME most are) maybe inject the rock with just a little bit o' character; enough to keep you and the table entertained until you get to a point where you can revive or replace your own PC.

Lan-"entertainment is, after all, at the most basic level much of the reason why we do this"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

I dislike party NPCs as a DM, because unless I maintain them the chances increase for meta-gaming. The same can be stated for a second character.

We almost always double up on characters and if there's a good reason why a player's two characters would get along I'm cool with it; and if there's a good reason why they'd fight like cats (which sometimes happens when I play two) I excpet them to fight like cats. A lot of the time I try to play two that in general wouldn't have as much reason to interact with each other as they would with the rest of the party, or elements thereof.

I've found party NPCs aren't often abused like you seem to think they'd be; in part because they have their own personalities and feelings, it doesn't take much for a DM to bring those out and once the tone is set you don't have to worry much from then on.

Lanefan