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

[lukelightning]

As for the "my character concept isn't about healing" argument: That's fine to a point, but you have to adapt. A concept of a wizard that isn't a fireball tosser is ok, but once you have to save the village from a tribe of trolls you might want to adjust that a bit.

 

[Driddle]

As for the "my character concept isn't about healing" argument: That's fine to a point, but you have to adapt. A concept of a wizard that isn't a fireball tosser is ok, but once you have to save the village from a tribe of trolls you might want to adjust that a bit.

That's an overly reactive way to live a life (or play an RPG). You'll lie awake at night wondering how to patch up your weak spots for the next unforseen crisis -- after you memorize the fireball spell, for example, you'll be beating yourself up the next day for not having a divination handy; once you've redesigned your purpose into a "true" precognitive divining wizard, you'll find yourself lacking the subtle manipulations of an illusionist; then your friends will be teasing you because you never ever cast any defensive shielding spells...

Pick a path. Walk it. Stop trying to be everything for everyone.

 

[lukelightning]

Pick a path. Walk it. Stop trying to be everything for everyone.

What, you mean people shouldn't learn from their mistakes and try to overcome their shortcomings? That when faced with something your standard tactics can't handle, shouldn't you rethink it?

If you have access to a fireball spell and trolls are coming for you, shouldn't you use it?

 

[Driddle]

If you have access to a fireball spell and trolls are coming for you, shouldn't you use it?

Just because you say that's the only possible outcome in a hypothetical situation and I've got to do it your way or be wrong?

It's all about the attitude that a cleric is *expected* to cast healing spells for everyone, or, in your case (above), that a wizard is *expected* to have a fireball ready all the time. That's bogus.

 

[ThirdWizard]

PCs are expected to look ahead and prepare for the eventuallities that are likely. But, that doesn't matter. A cleric can drop spells to heal, pick up a wand to heal, or whatever. If a PC dies because the cleric didn't feel like casting a spell to help, that's gonna be quite annoying. It's sort of like a fighter who doesn't block the tunnel and lets the monster at the wizard. He dropped the ball, and he messed up.

 

[genshou]

Pick a path. Walk it. Stop trying to be everything for everyone.

Beg your pardon, but isn't that advice for a Sorcerer? A Wizard's strength is their ability to be everything the spell list allows.

 

[lukelightning]

It's all about the attitude that a cleric is *expected* to cast healing spells for everyone, or, in your case (above), that a wizard is *expected* to have a fireball ready all the time. That's bogus.

That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying this wizard had a concept ("non blaster") but encountered a situation in which "blasting" was a good option. A wise person changes tactics if he can. A fighter specializing in kukris may be better of picking up a hammer when fighting skeletons. A rogue who's concept is "I can do what I want" may want to rethink his "mugging old women" priorities if he wants to continue to associate with the party.

When a player says "my cleric concept is a war priest, not a healer, so I won't heal you end of story" then, in the "iconic" party, this is a disaster. In my opinion the player should either moderate his views or make a new character.

 

[MarkB]

That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying this wizard had a concept ("non blaster") but encountered a situation in which "blasting" was a good option. A wise person changes tactics if he can. A fighter specializing in kukris may be better of picking up a hammer when fighting skeletons. A rogue who's concept is "I can do what I want" may want to rethink his "mugging old women" priorities if he wants to continue to associate with the party.

When a player says "my cleric concept is a war priest, not a healer, so I won't heal you end of story" then, in the "iconic" party, this is a disaster. In my opinion the player should either moderate his views or make a new character.

Sure, but there's a massive continuum between "never wil cast healing spells ever ever ever, even if it kills me and my friends" and "I'll do all the party's healing." It should be possible to play a character who's far closer to the former than the latter.

And the fact is, a cleric who devotes himself to spellcasting for some other purpose, whether combat, buffing, or divination, should not be expected to expend his spells after combat on healing up party members just because he can, if there are other options available - because if he does, then those spells are lost by the time the next combat occurs, and he has to take a backseat instead of using his spells for what they were supposed to be used for.

I'm not saying that a cleric who has chosen to be the party's healer has any right to deny that healing, I'm just saying that "party healer" is not the only role the cleric can fill, and if he takes another role, he can't then use all his spells for healing and still be effective in that role.

Clerics have excellent numbers of spells per day, and one of the strongest spell lists in the game even setting asie healing spells. A cleric who specialises in spellcasting areas aside from healing is by no means a second-stringer compared to other primary spellcasters, and the fact that he can also hold his own in melee combat is just a bonus.

 

[Corinth]

Before all other concerns, your character must do his bloody job in the party. The cleric must heal, the fighter must hack in melee, the rogue must be stealthy on command, and the wizard/sorcerer must blast monsters to pieces. If your PC can't do his job, then he's worthless in actual play and he has no place at the table. You can be as unique and precious a snowflake as you like, so long as you still do what you're expected to do when you're expected to do it. Otherwise, get lost.

 

[Lanefan]

Before all other concerns, your character must do his bloody job in the party. The cleric must heal, the fighter must hack in melee, the rogue must be stealthy on command, and the wizard/sorcerer must blast monsters to pieces. If your PC can't do his job, then he's worthless in actual play and he has no place at the table. You can be as unique and precious a snowflake as you like, so long as you still do what you're expected to do when you're expected to do it. Otherwise, get lost.

Errr...why? It's entirely possible to have a party consisting of a combat-oriented Thief, a back-line archery-spec. Fighter, a Wizard focussed on detection and evasion spells, and a Cleric focussed on divinations and offense. Maybe not the most optimal, but possible. That said, the same idea of people filling their roles holds true.

However, not all groups are harsh enough to say that *any* PC is "worthless in actual play [and] has no place at the table". There's always a work-around. If the PC Cleric won't cure, hire a hench that will. If the PC Fighter wants to be an archer, hire some grunts to hold the line. And so on. There is nothing anywhere that says there can only be 4 members to a party, unless your DM does not allow henches, cohorts, or NPC adventurers (and that'd take some serious rationalization on the DM's part). So play what you want, and hire what you need! It's just that easy...

Lanefan