The druid is not fighting!!! LONG!

[mmu1]

Re: stuff

1) ok, a guy called sword dancer made a comment earlier regarding a frontline fighter (he was subsequently ridiculed and slapped down, but thats another story) and i not only understood his post, but also agreed with it,as i've stated earlier: its the psywarriors fault, plain and simple, the guy decides to whine for a medic when he's down to what i assume to be single digit, or low end at least hitpoints. I'm sorry, but its tough, if he's facing a superior opponent then he knows damn well that hes gonna need healing earlier than when he's on deaths doorstep.

Firts of all, you repeatedly keep on talking about the tank "waiting to whine for a medic till he was down to his last hit points" - which is something completely unsupported by any of the statements from the DM or any of the players. It's purely your own invention. There's no evidence to indicate that was what happened. We don't know how sudden the damage was, or whether retreat was actually an option.
What we know is that one of the characters took a lot of damage during the adventure, the Druid refused to heal, and he died.

Second, what "Sword Dancer" was writing (for lack of a better word) about was someone whining because they thought it wasn't fair the DM didn't pull punches and actually killed characters in his game. It was a personal attack (He was going to kill and EAT my character? What?) completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and it's very telling that you were able to relate to it so well...

 

[National Acrobat]

This whole expectation of healing thing is a real problem for me personally. I have had entire campaigns without divine casters because no one wants to be pegged as the medic. As a cleric from a players point of view, I play a cleric to spread a faith and the points of the God's dogma to the world, intent on gaining converts. Clerics are divine agents who pursue agenda's for their church and diety.

Over the years I have redefined clerics as servants of the gods who promote the faith, dogma and doctrine of their God and their Church. It has changed the way people play clerics, and inspired great characters and gaming sessions. It has also provided clerics who have gods who do not espouse healing or the handing out of divine gifts without consequences. Simply put, in my pantheon there are gods who are not concerned with those aspects of life. Their are gods who require those who wish to receive the benefits of their powers to potentially convert to the faith.

It certainly has made them less the cardboard cut out and more a distinct entity.

I've yet to have someone play a druid however.

 

[mmu1]

As far as the expectation of healing goes... If you enjoy playing clerics that don't heal because of roleplaying reasons, and the other players accept that, fine... It's your game.

But think about the reaction people would have, in real life, to a doctor that refused to help the injured in the aftermath of an accident or a battle (for whatever personal reasons, with nothing tangible stopping him from helping) and then scale it up to consider how they'd react to someone who they know for a fact could make the hurt and dying not just survive, but make them as good as new, and was choosing not to. Chances are, he'd be finding out if he can heal with a knife at his throat. That's reasonable roleplaying too, in a life and death situation.

 

[National Acrobat]

I think the biggest problem that the players have had in my groups with the expectations of healing is that they get too used to it and they started ordering the clerics around like they were lackeys. They would honestly expect the cleric to withdraw whatever he was doing (even if it was fighting or aiding someone else) and immediately take action for them. It was like the others were of no consequence. It got so bad in our old 2e games that people would play clerics without access to the healing or necromantic spheres, so that they wouldn't be bothered about it. In short, I guess the main issue that my players had was they felt like second class citizens and that even if the Warrior had a problem with the ideals of the God whose patron was the cleric, he still wanted the healing.

One thing that the DM in the group that I play in has done to take this further is assign a particular 'feeling' or 'sensation' that clerics have accompanying their healing spells. Clerics that channel negative energy give the player being healed a 'pins and needles' or 'cold and empty' feeling while being healed that freaks them out, and those that channel positive give you that rosy feeling.

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by mmu1:

But think about the reaction people would have, in real life, to a doctor that refused to help the injured in the aftermath of an accident or a battle (for whatever personal reasons, with nothing tangible stopping him from helping) and then scale it up to consider how they'd react to someone who they know for a fact could make the hurt and dying not just survive, but make them as good as new, and was choosing not to. Chances are, he'd be finding out if he can heal with a knife at his throat. That's reasonable roleplaying too, in a life and death situation.

Point of clarification, slightly off-topic here. Clerics do NOT have to take the Hippocratic Oath, and a cleric who healed anybody willy-nilly likely would be violating the tenants of his god. Healing from a cleric or druid would be dependant on the other party members behaving in a manner that the divine caster finds acceptable. I have seen a priestess of a mercy and healing goddess refuse healing to a warrior who slaughtered defenseless noncombatants until such time as he takes a Geas from her temple and repents for his actions. Likewise, I have seen a druid in play refuse to heal a wizard who fireballed with abandon in pristine woodland until he repented. These conditions are perfectly acceptable, and I'd argue that a cleric or druid who healed these characters under those circumstances isn't venerating their deity, but only being a divine caster for the powers, and should have their powers revoked if it continues.

 

[RigaMortus]

That is a fair point, but I somewhat disagree.

A game is "owned" by every participant at the table. That is true in Monopoly -- where it is an unwritten rule that you do not throw the game just because you are losing; you would play your best until that inevitable bankruptcy out of a sense of loyalty and fairness to those still in the running.

An RPG campaign is owned by every participant at the table, although some are more equal than others. We defer to the DM as final arbiter out of respect and gratitude for his greater knowledge and personal time investment in the game. The key point is all the players own the game. As a cooperative, social game, it is the responsibility of every player to make reasonable efforts to be accomodating to other players' wishes (though not necessarily their PCs' wishes) and help them have fun as well. So while the 3 other players at the table should not order around the 4th player, there is a mutual duty to try and negotiate out such that all will be happy with the end result.

Extremes do not work. Saying "I am a roleplayer, so my character does what he wants and I don't care about your characters," would be an example of playing a roleplaying game poorly. So would be bullying another player about their PC's actions that are in character.

If players do not accommodate each other, in character logic will demand that most adventuring groups break apart. IME, most adventuring parties are bizarre, motley crews who couldn't organize themselves out of a paper bag. Players DO accommodate each other, all the time. That's why the game actually works.

Well I somewhat disagree as well.

The game isn't "owned" by anyone. It is played by everyone. You only NEED 2 people to play DnD, a DM and a player. If the three other players don't like the way their friend is playing the Druid, they can quit. Then the DM and Druid can play DnD. OR if the Druid feels compelled to, he can quit the game and let the DM play with the three other people. I would not recommend either scenario, because none of them are the "ideal" situation. Now if the DM quits, EVERYONE is screwed out of playing. The DM has the power here, he has the control. So would it not be up to the DM to "fix" things?

I also find it strange that these characters have been adventuring with each other for so many levels and suddenly they bring this "problem" up now, like it never existed. You would think that if it was such a big issue, they would have brought it up at level 1, or 3 at the latest.

 

[likuidice]

purely my own invention huh? read the board, you might learn something.

originally posted by the player of the psywarrior
"The DM asked for a condition check (which means how do we look because we don't reveal our number of hp left). I said barely standing (I was more injured than everyone else because I took a risk and walked through a room with a swirling mass of bones and found the path to our enemies). "

and since my replies have been met with hostility by a bunch of incredibly narrow minded people who seem to get their rocks off on belittling people, i won't bother with replying to their posts.

 

[tonym]

Barkskin will be useless against my Deep Impact feat.

I don't know anything about that Feat...but just the title of it sent a chill down my spine.

BTW, my Fighter/Paladin's coolest feat is Whirlwind Attack...but he seldom gets to use it because every monster we run into is so frikkin BIG that no more than 'one' of them can fit into a room at the same time. Whoa! *



Tony M

* I'm exaggerating a little...

 

[mmu1]

purely my own invention huh? read the board, you might learn something.

originally posted by the player of the psywarrior
"The DM asked for a condition check (which means how do we look because we don't reveal our number of hp left). I said barely standing (I was more injured than everyone else because I took a risk and walked through a room with a swirling mass of bones and found the path to our enemies). "

and since my replies have been met with hostility by a bunch of incredibly narrow minded people who seem to get their rocks off on belittling people, i won't bother with replying to their posts.

Right - your own invention. As in, not supported directly by the facts. I challenge you to find anything in this whole discussion that shows that the Psi-Warrior has a history of this sort of behavior, or even that in this particular case, hadn't actually tried to get healing as soon as it was possible. Which are all things you'd have seen me talk about if you actually bothered to read the posts you reply to...

As for not replying anymore... What, you actually think that's going to make anyone around here unhappy? Cheers.

 

[Rel]

and since my replies have been met with hostility by a bunch of incredibly narrow minded people who seem to get their rocks off on belittling people, i won't bother with replying to their posts.

"Don't let the door hitcha' where the good lord splitcha'!"