D&D 5E Refusing To Heal Party Members?

[Malovaan]

From reading this thread, it sounds like you aren't actually being expected to play "the healer", but you're annoyed that the party composition lacks healing except you - i.e. annoyed everyone else ignored healing.

It also sounds like your group has some other problems!

I roill my dice in fornt of the DM, the Barbarian does it between sessions to level up. Claims he rolled a 12,12,11 for hit points and has 15,18 and 19 for dex/con/str.

I was kind of figuring that but everyone just made PHB PCs.

Notr I do not mind being a heal bot but one of the arcane types needed to be a front liner or something like a light cleric with the healer feat. I was the only one who took aream based feat everyone else took moar damage type feats or at least make me better type feats.

I think this sort of stuff shows that its a great idea for either everyone to get together and discuss character creation before the game. Discuss what is allowed (in terms of races, etc), what would be useful for party composition, what backgrounds make sense for the characters all to be there together, etc. Failing that, just having the DM discuss individually with each player also is a good idea to nudge them in the right direction. Otherwise yeah, maybe you end up with everyone turning up to the game with a character they've conceived, and they totally don't fit together in either story or party composition. Maybe something to consider for the future. Maybe if you'd talked about it together, then some other players might have thought about getting some healing.

As to the barbarian dice rolls, there should just be a rule that everyone does their dice rolls together, at the end of the session or something - that's easy and I'm amazed it comes up as a problem in people's games!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

One of my least fun games in 2e involved a paladin as the only healer, at 1st-level. 2 hp of healing per day. The DM randomly salted healing potions all over the place, and putting aside the jarring suspension of disbelief, it still wasn't enough.

This is rarely a problem in 3e, as someone will just buy a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, and probably only use it between combats. With the slow healing, I don't think it's reasonable to play the game without magical healing. Unfortunately, the players shot themselves in the foot, collectively, by not having a single healer among them. (If the group pitched in and bought a Wand of CLW, a cleric could use that to heal and not be a healbot in combat. In fact, that cleric could have been a negative channeler, they could still use the wand.) The barbarian isn't the issue, the inability of the players to pick roles was. If there was a healer PC, the barbarian PC might have been required to buy a wand. So buy the cleric a wand!

Another 2e rant, but this came up quite a bit with my old group (two decades ago now). Many players didn't have email and so we couldn't effectively build parties between sessions. Someone would say they'd be a cleric, and we'd say "cool", and then naturally they'd turn out to be an evil cleric without healing spheres, or a cleric of love who could only heal by spending 15 minutes performing a tantric ritual... I actually saw this once in 3e, when we had a Book of Nine Swords PC who could use a healing strike-like ability that cost the PC in question no resources, and they simply refused to use it. That's why a session 0 is so important. Give the PCs RP reasons to work together and make sure no PC is being built really poorly or really brokenly, and make sure any combat and non-combat roles are being covered.

 

[Lanefan]

One of my least fun games in 2e involved a paladin as the only healer, at 1st-level. 2 hp of healing per day. The DM randomly salted healing potions all over the place, and putting aside the jarring suspension of disbelief, it still wasn't enough.

This is rarely a problem in 3e, as someone will just buy a Wand of Cure Light Wounds, and probably only use it between combats. With the slow healing, I don't think it's reasonable to play the game without magical healing. Unfortunately, the players shot themselves in the foot, collectively, by not having a single healer among them. (If the group pitched in and bought a Wand of CLW, a cleric could use that to heal and not be a healbot in combat. In fact, that cleric could have been a negative channeler, they could still use the wand.) The barbarian isn't the issue, the inability of the players to pick roles was. If there was a healer PC, the barbarian PC might have been required to buy a wand. So buy the cleric a wand!

Another 2e rant, but this came up quite a bit with my old group (two decades ago now). Many players didn't have email and so we couldn't effectively build parties between sessions. Someone would say they'd be a cleric, and we'd say "cool", and then naturally they'd turn out to be an evil cleric without healing spheres, or a cleric of love who could only heal by spending 15 minutes performing a tantric ritual... I actually saw this once in 3e, when we had a Book of Nine Swords PC who could use a healing strike-like ability that cost the PC in question no resources, and they simply refused to use it.

All three of these examples could have been fixed by the party simply recruiting a healing Cleric as an adventuring NPC before leaving town.

Lan-"there's always another adventurer"-efan

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

 

[Sunseeker]

All three of these examples could have been fixed by the party simply recruiting a healing Cleric as an adventuring NPC before leaving town.

Lan-"there's always another adventurer"-efan

Sure, but somebody still has to run it. Most folks don't want to double up on characters and speaking for myself as a DM: I don't want to run your minions.

 

[Jessica]

Also people have to learn that triage is a thing. I'm in a similar position in our level 2 party:

Human Bard
Gnome Warlock
Gnome Wizard
Dragonborn Sorcerer
Dragonborn Ranger
Half-Orc Barbarian

I can technically heal but I don't consider myself a healer. Although I tell people flat out "no" if they want out of combat healing, because (unless someone is at 0 hp) healing is one of the absolute worst things I can do with my spell slots.

Also who cares about a LG Paladin adventuring with Tieflings, Warlocks, Rogues, and Barbarians? When I was in the army, there was a Mormon in our group of friends and he would be our DD when we all went out to get wasted and have pre-marital sex because friendship>race and/or religious beliefs.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

We use 'em all the time, mostly to either fill roles that aren't being played by a PC at the time or to just beef up the front line as you can never have too much starch up front.

Sure, but somebody still has to run it. Most folks don't want to double up on characters and speaking for myself as a DM: I don't want to run your minions.

Give it to me, then; I'll run it and roll for it. It's an NPC, though; you-as-DM can overrule me if I have it do something outside its character/alignment/personality.

We very often run two PCs at once anyway; rolling for a third is no big deal.

Lan-"the other option is to hire adventuring henches, which all editions after 1e have woefully ignored other than 3e's Leadership-given cohort"-efan

 

[Charles Rampant]

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.

 

[ccs]

All three of these examples could have been fixed by the party simply recruiting a healing Cleric as an adventuring NPC before leaving town.

Lan-"there's always another adventurer"-efan

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.

 

[Sunseeker]

Give it to me, then; I'll run it and roll for it. It's an NPC, though; you-as-DM can overrule me if I have it do something outside its character/alignment/personality.

We very often run two PCs at once anyway; rolling for a third is no big deal.

Lan-"the other option is to hire adventuring henches, which all editions after 1e have woefully ignored other than 3e's Leadership-given cohort"-efan

If a player wants to roll up a second character to fill a needed gap in the party, that's fine with me. I just don't want to require them to do it.