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

[Numion]

I can forgive arcane casters who don't blast, fighters who don't shield or rogues who don't disarm traps, but clerics who won't heal are something else entirely. I end up playing the cleric a lot and when I do, I heal. It's what I'm there for. Clerics who don't heal, or who charge party members for healing, do not understand the niche they're filling and have no business holding all the healing cards.

I don't think roleplaying reasons, using the paladin and the thief as an example, are a valid excuse most of the time. By inaction the healer is willing the other character to die. By your character's inaction you, as the player with the healing monopoly, are willing the other player's character to die. This paladin didn't want to risk a friendship with the thief by coming out and accusing them, but was okay with leaving the character to die? That's pretty messed up.

Well, either I play a cleric that kicks ass and burns healing wands (i.e. no spells for healing), or if that is an anathema to the group, I'll just play a fighter or a wizard.

Either way, there won't be healing spells*.

* Actually I do sometimes heal with my cleric using spells, but almost never in middle of combat and mostly the spells are spent on offensive / buffs.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

We once had a Lawful Neutral Dwarven Cleric that channeled negative energy. Healing was usually reserved to after-combat, since he rarely prepared high level healing spells.

But instead of healing, he buffed the party and himself, thus ensuring we could make short work of our enemies and taking little damage.

Still, outisde of combat, healing was never an issue (unless we had no CLW wands )

 

[Numion]

But instead of healing, he buffed the party and himself, thus ensuring we could make short work of our enemies and taking little damage.

I've noticed this myself too. Offense really is the best defense. Usually in D&D the oppositions damage dealing capability far outstrips the clerics healing capability, round-for-round. There are exceptions, like (at least 3.0) Heal and Mass Heals.

That's the basis for my clerics tactics. Kick ass as much and as fast as possible, and heal afterwards with no hurry, using wands.

 

[green slime]

I too, see no problem with a cleric withholding healing. It really is just a matter of player expectation, rather than acting in character.

It might be an idea to make that clear before the party gets itself into a tight corner, though.

 

[MarkB]

I can forgive arcane casters who don't blast, fighters who don't shield or rogues who don't disarm traps, but clerics who won't heal are something else entirely. I end up playing the cleric a lot and when I do, I heal. It's what I'm there for. Clerics who don't heal, or who charge party members for healing, do not understand the niche they're filling and have no business holding all the healing cards.

That's a very broad generalisation. Any class can be played in a variety of ways, so it's perfectly legitimate for a player to choose to play a cleric who doesn't do much (or any) healing. What he does have an obligation to do is make this perfectly clear from the outset, so that the other players know his character will be unconventional, and can compensate.

I don't think roleplaying reasons, using the paladin and the thief as an example, are a valid excuse most of the time. By inaction the healer is willing the other character to die. By your character's inaction you, as the player with the healing monopoly, are willing the other player's character to die. This paladin didn't want to risk a friendship with the thief by coming out and accusing them, but was okay with leaving the character to die? That's pretty messed up.

Inaction? That suggests an assumption that the cleric's choice is between "heal" and "do nothing". A lot of the time, the cleric will be able to be equally (or more) effective at helping the party succeed by casting buffing or direct-offense spells than by healing injured party members, and a player who wants to play a combat-oriented cleric should not be hamstrung by having an obligation to expend his spells upon healing.

 

[EyeontheMountain]

The problem with this is that a sane party would put up with it for one adventure, and then give the cleric the boot, big time. Tehre are lots of gods that seem to like supporting fighters against evil, so if I were in the aprty, I would start looking for one the first chance I got.

Then I would probably mutilate the first priest. But that is just me.

To me playing a priestthat will not ever heal the party is the same as playing a theif that only lives to steal from the party, or most evil characters in otherwise all-good parties.

i.e.

my enjoyment > everyone else's enjoyment.

 

[Barak]

I once played a cleric of St-Cuthbert who was quite twinked for combat. In fact, he was the party main tank/ass-kicker, the other characters being an fighter (but built as an archer), a rogue and a wizzie.

The player of the archer kept trying to tell me not to use my spells for buffs/combat purposes, as it "wasted" healing spells. That I shrugged off. Then his -character- started telling my character the same things. That led to the following exchange:

Me: "I'll tell you this once. Try once more to tell me how to use my God's blessings, and you'll never receive one again. Try twice, and I'll punish you."
Him: (probably having read such threads as this before) :"Fine! See if I save your butt in combat again!"
Me: "..."
Him: "Don't think I won't do it!"
Me: "You do realize I come to your rescue much more often than you ever come to mine, yes?"

You do also need to know that I always had quite a few spells left over after combat, and was pretty free with my healing. Apparently just not enough to suit him.

 

[Numion]

The problem with this is that a sane party would put up with it for one adventure, and then give the cleric the boot, big time. Tehre are lots of gods that seem to like supporting fighters against evil, so if I were in the aprty, I would start looking for one the first chance I got.

Then I would probably mutilate the first priest. But that is just me.

I want to play a martial cleric in your game. I make a cleric that acts mostly like a fighter, kicking ass, and also blasts the enemy with his spells. He uses spells for that, and not healing. So you boot that character. Okay, now I make a fighter instead and kick ass just as with the cleric. That should be ok, right, I'm just playing a fighter?

You're still out of healing spells. How's that make sense?

 

[Barak]

And if the fighter in my party is a lightly armored fighter/rogue archer, I make sure I kick his butt to the curb if he refuses to act as the meat shield, even though my cleric is in Full plate and is much better at the role, because, really, it's easy to find fighters who will act as the meatshield.

 

[green slime]

never mind....