The party's cleric *won't* heal your character?!

[Elf Witch]

I no longer play clerics because of the assumation that the cleric's only role is to heal no matter what.

I have played two clerics in 3e and I ended up quiting both of them. The first was cleric/paladin of Hieroneous. I played her as very devout and very honorable. She was more into show by example that the honorable path was the right path. For example our rogue was always stealing from every burg we went into. Most of the time my cleric didn't know this but when she found out she used her gold to pay back the shopkeepers.

We got into a battle with some bandits and two of them surrendered to my character. I detected evil on them they were not evil. I took their surrender and tied them up. I was planning on putting a mark of justice on them. While I was busy healing other members of the party the rogue slit the men's throats. I was furious and got into an argument with the rest of the party that I was going to get them raised at my church and that the rogue was going to help pay the cost. The rouge refused.

On the way back into town were attacked by bugbears and the rogue was badly injured he was at minus hit points. My cleric stablized him using the heal skill but refused to heal him using her magic. I offered to read a healing scroll to heal him but I would not ask my god to heal him after what he had done.

The rest of the players got angry and stated my JOB was to heal and that role playing was all fine everything but as party cleric I had an obligation to the party to heal. So after getting back to town my character left the party and I brought in a straight fighter.


The second cleric I played was a healer. She followed a god of healing. My character took an oath not to kill. She wore leather armor and carried a staff and only did subdual damage. I used most of my buff spells on other party members and in combat I mainly cast defensive and buffing spells and a lot of heals. After combat my character would heal the party and then check the the battlefield to see what shape our opponents were in. I would render aid to anyone one suffering. Usually this was in the form of a sleeping drought to ease their pain while the rest of the party made the decision what to do with them. If they were to be killed then they were killed while still asleep and drugged and unaware. If they were to be let go then I healed them.

The rest of the party had no issue with any of this what they took issue with was the fact that I would not wear heavy armor and carry a more effective weapon and would not cast spells like flame strike. Because in e clerics can do all that. My character was in their opinion not being used in the most optimal manner.

I quit this character because I did not enjoy having to listen to being told how to play my character.

I have never had anyone tell me how to play any other class what spells to take when I played a sorcerer what feats to take as afighter but it seems a lpt of people have a very narrow view of how to play a cleric nas because of that I won't play one any longer.

 

[Mercule]

The problem is, all clerics are good at healing (admittedly assuming postive energy channelling cleric). If someone dies and the cleric could have saved him with a well placed cure spell, but opted not to because he doesn't like healing, then that cleric is putting his own fun ahead of the others.

My solution to this: Clerics swap for domain spells, not healing. Actually, I use spontaneous divine casters from UA -- pick spells that serve your deity's purpose and that's all you can cast.

Personally, I've hated the "cleric as medic" paradigm since I started playing. Over the course of almost 25 years and several editions of the game, I've put several house rules into place that pretty much ensure that the only clerics that'll be healing much (if at all) are those who really, really want to. Under the 2E rules, there were only three or for sects, IMC, that had major access to healing, and about twice that many that had minor access.

 

[Desdichado]

Ditto to Elf Witch (don't be shocked that I agreed with you on something! ) I've been very skittish around playing clerics for exactly the same reason, and it's one of the main reasons that I feel as strongly as I do about it being one of the DM's main jobs to provide adventures for the PCs he gets, not punish the group because someone didn't want to play a cleric (or any other role, for that matter.)

 

[Lanefan]

Whatever happened to the DM allowing the players to play whatever they want and designing adventures that are challenging to them without exploiting obvious weaknesses to the point where it's no fun?

I'm of the other camp here, for the most part: just because the players don't bring the optimal party along for a given adventure, that is no reason for the DM to alter or scrap said adventure. Players are resourceful animals; they'll figure a way around any obstacle, and if not then...well, the PC's get hammered. Sometimes it just works out badly...for example, a PC in my game just gained psyonics (by its own choice, via wish) an adventure or two ago; the player had no way of knowing that after not having faced a significant psyonic opponent for ages, the next two adventures that were already in the works involved powerful psyonics as enemies. So far, the PC being psyonic has proven a bane (killed by psyonics last adventure) and a blessing (used psyonics in current adventure to gain all sorts of info the party otherwise never would have had). Should I be changing these adventures on the fly to account for changes to the PC's? For the most part, I say no. Others may disagree...

Lanefan

 

[Driddle]

The problem is, all clerics are good at healing (admittedly assuming postive energy channelling cleric). If someone dies and the cleric could have saved him with a well placed cure spell, but opted not to because he doesn't like healing, then that cleric is putting his own fun ahead of the others.

Perhaps too many people have come to rely on their religious leaders to sacrifice and do the Right Thing(tm) for them -- and throwing blame when those individuals fail -- instead of taking up the responsibility to do it themselves and be more forgiving of others.

... (Hmmm.) Is this a game we're still talking about, or real life?

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

Geez...you didn't go to Arkansas State University in the mid 80's, did you? The first campaign I ever played in was an evil game where the players worshipped Set. An NPC would charge us exorbitant favors for healing and the like.

 

[Mercule]

Geez...you didn't go to Arkansas State University in the mid 80's, did you? The first campaign I ever played in was an evil game where the players worshipped Set. An NPC would charge us exorbitant favors for healing and the like.

I think bizarre and evil gnomes are standard fare in college. We had one that buddied up with a necromancer and ...erm... modified his undead minions. Not to mention the sadistic halfling monk twins.

 

[Desdichado]

NOTE: to further clarify my position; the reason I have a problem with making someone either play a cleric, or play a cleric a certain way is because the role of being a medic is just plain boring to many players, myself included. Based on my experience amongst many groups, it's probably boring for most players; I've always had a really hard time finding someone who wanted to play a cleric in any gaming group I've ever been in. Basically, it just sucks to watch the rest of the party off doing all kinds of things while you're stuck with running around casting CMW over and over again in every combat. Making someone get stuck with that role, or complaining that they're not "doing their part for the group" is pretty hypocritical to me. You're playing the guy who has three attacks and can jump in and do crazy damage; you're playing the guy who can tumble and do crazy sneak attack damage not to mention starring whenever we get into any sneaking or scouting role, which happens a lot, and you get to do cool things like fry multiple enemies at once with a fireball spell, and what've I got? I get to cast Bull's STR on you before the combat, and CMW/CLW on you during and after it. Whoop-de-freaking-doo.

So I say give the guy a break. If the adventure demands that someone play a certain role then that sucks, then that's bad DMing. The adventure should be subtley modified to allow for it to be done differently. If the other players are demanding that the cleric be played a certain way, they can either do it themselves or shut the up.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

[Sarcasm] You know, I not only allow but really enjoy when my players notice I give them access to the BoED. I long for them to use it. There is an arcane spell in there called healing touch. Maybe as a DM I should start looking down upon those arcane casters who don't take that. Better yet, maybe I should grant all good arcanists the ability to spontaneously convert a spell into Healing Touch.

The question is ... would people then look down upon the arcanist who didn't? [/Sarcasm]

There are many means to heal. Some arcanist can heal normally - like the bard. If you allow BoED all arcanists can heal with Healing Touch (Granted, at a cost to the arcanist of course.) There are a few spells that grant Fast Healing. Heck - if we are going to force a cleric to heal, why not force another player to play a Dragon Shamon or other class that can raise an Aura that gives everyone Fast Healing? [Even if the Dragon Shaman ability is limited to 1/2 max HP]

There is no reason to force a cleric to heal. I have never met a good aligned character that has refused to heal a dying person EXCEPT in the instance where their deity specifically forbade it by nullifying the spell. [IE the cleric tried it and it fizzled because the DM ruled the deity didn't want it to work on account of the deity desiring the deal of the one being healed - and that's a whole different can of worms.] It isn't like people are saying "nope, I'd rather see you dead that heal you." That's only one extreme stance.

The majority of people are saying that maybe it is okay to tell a stupid fighter who drew his sword too quickly that he can learn his lesson by sitting in bed a few days now that we are safely home. What's the harm in that so long as the fighter isn't on death's door? Maybe the cleric says "I'll convert spells to heal in combat if someone is on death's door, but if we want healing outside of combat I need wands, people." Assuming of course that the cleric pays his share for the wand if the cleric intends on using the wand for himself. What's the harm in a cleric watching a buddy get struck and rather than taking an action to heal the person who can probably survive more than a few rounds he instead uses his buffed attack to get into a flanking position to give the fighter an edge and take the bad guy down before the fighter can get hit again?

There is no reason to force an opinion upon anyone, and there is certainly no reason to say that all "non-healing" clerics would rather see someone die than heal them. I've personally never met a player who let another die without at least trying to heal them.

Maybe I'll just play favored souls from now on. Now spontaneous casting (of cure spells, that is), no turning, and 3 good saves can't hurt! Plus, weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization. Only thing cheesey is that I'd never go full 20 levels because I hate the idea of a PC that permanently has wings.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Perhaps too many people have come to rely on their religious leaders to sacrifice and do the Right Thing(tm) for them -- and throwing blame when those individuals fail -- instead of taking up the responsibility to do it themselves and be more forgiving of others.

Lets change it and say that the enemy has summoned a bruiser who is beating on the ranger and will kill him in a couple of turns. The wizard could try to dispel the summoned creature and get rid of it now, or he could cast an offensive spell, say fireball, to try and kill the enemy who summoned it and the creature faster (but not this round).

I would hope that the wizard casts the dispel magic. He might prefer to cast offensive blasty spells. But, he could save the ranger's life if he choses not to. Same for the cleric. If the enemy is doing 30 damage a round and the tank only has 80 hp, the cleric refusing to heal him just because he doesn't feel like it isn't really playing nice.

"I could have save him, but I like rolling lots of d6s not d8s!"

Note that this is coming from someone who hates playing healers. I don't think they should be walking band-aids, but willingly just watch someone die in front of you because you didn't feel like dropping a spell for a cure? Man, that's rough.