D&D 5E Why Has D&D, and 5e in Particular, Gone Down the Road of Ubiquitous Magic?

[CapnZapp]

It seems that you and I have different opinions on how forums work.

If you had not changed the subject, I might have been more amicable towards you.

Best regards,
Zapp

 

[Ancalagon]

If the Barbarian is somehow taking more, inflicting less, and not acting as a meat shield, then there is a party-wide problem with the Barb not filling a useful role; it's not one for the Cleric alone to address.

To be clear, this isn't a situation where the barbarian is being effectively aggressive, but recklessly so. I've seen players who enjoy acting recklessly and get almost killed in every fight - it's a form of showboating. These players are often drawn to barbarians, but they aren't restricted to them.

And yes, the cleric shouldn't be the only one to address it. The fighter could say something like "could we *try* to form a shield line?!" But the barbarian is free to ignore it. The cleric is the only one who really has an argument with teeth.

In the examples the Cleric has plenty of healing to heal everyone anyway so I don't see
an issue.

If you do the math, you will see that the cleric does not have sufficient resources. After the first fight he has about 60 hp of healing left. This isn't enough to heal everyone.

Maybe the cleric is being a jerk. But maybe it's the other guy.

 

[Ancalagon]

If you had not changed the subject, I might have been more amicable towards you.

Best regards,
Zapp

When I changed the subject... Do you mean when I tried to get the thread back on topic, or when I replied to you when you returned to the cleric limiting healing discussion (thus changing the topic again).

Just trying to be clear here.

 

[S'mon]

To be clear, this isn't a situation where the barbarian is being effectively aggressive, but recklessly so. I've seen players who enjoy acting recklessly and get almost killed in every fight - it's a form of showboating. These players are often drawn to barbarians, but they aren't restricted to them.

And yes, the cleric shouldn't be the only one to address it. The fighter could say something like "could we *try* to form a shield line?!" But the barbarian is free to ignore it. The cleric is the only one who really has an argument with teeth.

If you do the math, you will see that the cleric does not have sufficient resources. After the first fight he has about 60 hp of healing left. This isn't enough to heal everyone.

Maybe the cleric is being a jerk. But maybe it's the other guy.

If the Fighter is down 20, the Barbarian down 57, and the Cleric has only 40 healing left, it
may be reasonable for the Cleric to split the 40 evenly between the other 2 PCs.
I can't imagine a case where it would be reasonable to withhold healing from the Barbarian
entirely (short of him attacking PCs or friendly NPCs).

 

[Tony Vargas]

I can't imagine a case where it would be reasonable to withhold healing from the Barbarian
entirely (short of him attacking PCs or friendly NPCs).

This may be overly technical and 'gamist,' but with a heal-from-0 rule, it can make a lot of sense to withhold healing until someone actually drops... and, possibly, merely to stabilize them even then (for a very hypothetical instance, if they're not critically needed in the current combat, you're low on spells, and they have plenty of HD).

 

[S'mon]

This may be overly technical and 'gamist,' but with a heal-from-0 rule, it can make a lot of sense to withhold healing until someone actually drops... and, possibly, merely to stabilize them even then (for a very hypothetical instance, if they're not critically needed in the current combat, you're low on spells, and they have plenty of HD).

I guess if you know the GM won't target downed PCs...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I guess if you know the GM won't target downed PCs...

Yep, know your enemy, know yourself, but above all know your DM. ;P

And/or depending upon where you are in the initiative order (if you go right after the enemy, healing a just-dropped PC is ideal, if an ally goes after the enemy but before you, pro-active healing might preserve one of his actions). There's a lot of interesting factors and possibilities that go into such 'triage.'

 

[Hussar]

I'll jump in on this tangent.

My fighter in our Dragonlance campaign is probably the one who eats the most damage. Heck, I took the Toughness feat specifically because I WAS eating so much damage.

But, then, my fighter is the front line brick. His reason for being there is soaking up the damage and freeing up the other characters. So, am I recklessly eating up damage and showboating? Or am I contributing to the overall success of the game?

And in either case, who the hell is another player at the table to judge that?

 

[KahlessNestor]

I'll jump in on this tangent.

My fighter in our Dragonlance campaign is probably the one who eats the most damage. Heck, I took the Toughness feat specifically because I WAS eating so much damage.

But, then, my fighter is the front line brick. His reason for being there is soaking up the damage and freeing up the other characters. So, am I recklessly eating up damage and showboating? Or am I contributing to the overall success of the game?

And in either case, who the hell is another player at the table to judge that?

That sounds like you are doing your job. That's not what we're discussing. We're talking about PCs that go full Leroy Jenkins. And, frankly, as the healer, it's the cleric that ultimately gets to decide, because you're not getting that healing spell unless they cast it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And in either case, who the hell is another player at the table to judge that?

The other player is explicitly the one in the party whose role is to determine the distribution of healing in order to ensure the success and long life of everyone in the party.

Just as it is explicitly the tank's job to decide who (and how) to tank in order to ensure the success and long life of everyone in the party, and it is the striker's job to decide who (and how) to strike in order to ensure the success and long life of everyone in the party.

And you can offer suggestions to each other, of course, but it is ultimately up to that individual as to what they are going to do. And if one party member makes a bad decision, then the other party members may have to alter their choices to compensate for that failing, but they only have so many tools with which to do so.