Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LGMoses 12-24-06, 08:17 PM	:rant: I see/hear/read a lot of stuff about people being mad about others saying, "well thats what my character would do" as they do something really really stupid or annoying. I'm sure everyone can understand what I'm talking about. How some people make characters that **** everybody off. Do you know the solution to this? Tell them to stop. Don't let anyone continously make characters that are *******s! :rant:
Lupo 12-25-06, 05:31 AM	:rant: I see/hear/read a lot of stuff about people being mad about others saying, "well thats what my character would do" as they do something really really stupid or annoying. I'm sure everyone can understand what I'm talking about. How some people make characters that **** everybody off. Do you know the solution to this? Tell them to stop. Don't let anyone continously make characters that are *******s! :rant: it depends ;): first, if the player just has a very elaborated/strange/scary/nerdy character, but himself is fun and a good player, just live with it :) second, if the player is spoiling fun at the table, just avoid him/her. the problem is, such characters tend to cause problems, even deaths, at the table but rarely their own :mad: as usual, when a lot of people don't want to sit at a table with said character the problem solves itself somehow . . . . . yea, lately i had a table with TWO lost seats, a dropout nerdy arcanist and a somehow ineffective monk. i am not sure what was the greater pest :D ciao martin m. ps: if you try to talk to such players (second case), they often say: "but i think it is a funny character". they also tend to be not-team-players and will be more or less common-sense-resistant.
UMiskatonic 12-25-06, 10:31 AM	Well, one of the things a lot of these people do not see is that this is a cooperative game. The goal should be for everyone to have fun. Sometimes, you have to remind people that they are making the game less fun for the entire table. And if you can't convince them, you can avoid them. There's nothing that says that you have to play with these people, LG has thousands of players.
LGMoses 12-25-06, 10:35 AM	true, but only about 8 of them live in my area and I'm the one who inducted them all. No, this player doesn't make a habit of it too often. Just made this crazy gnome bard that was sure everyone in town was racist against gnomes.
Morgen 12-25-06, 12:53 PM	You know if someone is annoying you because of their character be annoying, feel free to role-play your own character as they would react to said annoyance. A lot of LG tables it seems end up with like 2 people out of 6 at any given time interacting as thier characters might actually interact. Clock the damn bard upside the head or something if it's pestering you. ;)
budleiser 12-25-06, 03:09 PM	You know if someone is annoying you because of their character be annoying, feel free to role-play your own character as they would react to said annoyance. A lot of LG tables it seems end up with like 2 people out of 6 at any given time interacting as thier characters might actually interact. Clock the damn bard upside the head or something if it's pestering you. ;) Sadly attacking a player is automatically an evil act and gets your CS torn up. You can try to get away with: Entering a mansion with the bad guys, find the boss, entering combat then withdraw from combat and shut the doors behind you leaving said player behind. Use ranged attacks while they are in a grapple with a bad guy. Explain to the DM you don't want to stand close because when the bad guy lets go it could try and grab you next. Cast glitterdust, sleep, and color spray catching atleast 1 bad guy and the gnome. You probably cant get away with: Healing the monster while it attacks the player. Casting bull strength, magic fang on the monster, then invisibility on yourself. Choosing to fail the reflex save to catch them from falling. (Tell the DM your character is worried he might fall down with him) Rogue Craft Trap on the Inn room door while resting, but not telling the gnome about it. Rogue skills to disguise the gnome as the bad guy youve been chasing the entire mod, then trying to roll bluff check to shout for help and fall unconscious. WARNING KIDS DO NOT TRY THIS IN YOUR LG CAMPAIGN.:evillaugh
pedr 12-25-06, 07:06 PM	Just be aware that some DMs would consider some of the above to be sufficiently close to 'attacking' to immediately remove your PC from the campaign. And believe that they have that authority, and that you have no right of appeal. I'm not commenting on whether they are right or not, but that some people who judge you might have that point of view and you'd get into significant trouble - to the extent that they might write 'removed from campaign' across all of your ARs.
LGMoses 12-25-06, 08:45 PM	I'd use my stamp :D
budleiser 12-25-06, 09:37 PM	Just be aware that some DMs would consider some of the above to be sufficiently close to 'attacking' to immediately remove your PC from the campaign. And believe that they have that authority, and that you have no right of appeal. I'm not commenting on whether they are right or not, but that some people who judge you might have that point of view and you'd get into significant trouble - to the extent that they might write 'removed from campaign' across all of your ARs. ...Duh. ;)
CrystalBlue 12-27-06, 09:01 AM	Yes, this is a major problem. We've got a paladin of Pholtus in our group. Yeah. Uh huh. That's bad enough. But here's the thing. He'll never use Lay On Hands until the battle's over. Yeah, great. My wizard was down and bleeding in a mod, and I had to make my stabalize roll, because the only one up that could heal me was the paladin...and even though his Lay On Hands is not an AoO, he felt it was more important to kill the monsters then to save my life. In his words, "How should I know if you're only bleeding or if you're dead? I'm not going to make a Heal check to see what you're at. As far as I'm concerned, if you go down, you're dead. I might heal you afterwards, but that's only when I'm safe myself." That should be grounds for paladin termination right then and there, but he BS's it by saying that he's a paladin of Pholtus and that's how he'd act. Also, he smites everything he sees, evil or not, and adds the smite evil damage even if it's not evil. Because, again, he thinks that smite evil should work as long as the paladin believe's someone is evil. All he has to do is believe that they're evil, and he thinks the smite should work. ..........jerk.
budleiser 12-27-06, 09:15 AM	Yes, this is a major problem. We've got a paladin of Pholtus in our group. Yeah. Uh huh. That's bad enough. But here's the thing. He'll never use Lay On Hands until the battle's over. Yeah, great. My wizard was down and bleeding in a mod, and I had to make my stabalize roll, because the only one up that could heal me was the paladin...and even though his Lay On Hands is not an AoO, he felt it was more important to kill the monsters then to save my life. In his words, "How should I know if you're only bleeding or if you're dead? I'm not going to make a Heal check to see what you're at. As far as I'm concerned, if you go down, you're dead. I might heal you afterwards, but that's only when I'm safe myself." That should be grounds for paladin termination right then and there, but he BS's it by saying that he's a paladin of Pholtus and that's how he'd act. Also, he smites everything he sees, evil or not, and adds the smite evil damage even if it's not evil. Because, again, he thinks that smite evil should work as long as the paladin believe's someone is evil. All he has to do is believe that they're evil, and he thinks the smite should work. ..........jerk. I love that PRESTIGE class. I forget what it's called but the ability is just "smite" not smite evil. And it goes into the flavor that you can even smite someone who is good if you feel that their not "good enough". The lay on hands thing definately sucks, but it's not an evil act. "Or who grossly violates the code of conduct". But where is this code of conduct? What does it say. The smite part is just rampant cheating not even a obscuration of the rules. Both of which are why I avoid home games like the plague. If he has been made aware this is cheating but continues, turn him into the triad (or whatever were supposed to do in this situation). Thus at least doing your part instead of being an accomplice or bystander.
LachlarlanIII 12-27-06, 11:27 AM	I love that PRESTIGE class. I forget what it's called but the ability is just "smite" not smite evil. And it goes into the flavor that you can even smite someone who is good if you feel that their not "good enough". You're thinking of Shadowbane Inquisitor, and I believe it's called Smite the Wicked. Whoever the Shadowbane Inquisitor believes to be wicked can be smote by him. To the above poster, next time the Paladin falls in battle fireball the area. Give him the same excuse "If you fall, you're already dead as far as I'm concerned..." Then refuse to take him to get raised. That'll shut him up real fast.
Mattastrophic 12-27-06, 11:56 AM	Careful now. What if this guy was a Fighter? If he didn't have Lay on Hands, you wouldn't be calling him a jerk then, would you? What if he was a ranger? Would you call him a jerk for not choosing to use a Cure Light wand on you? Just because he'd rather take the guy out and let you chill for a round doesn't mean it's a bad thing. I will agree that he's probably a jerk because of his chosen method of communicating his battlefield tactics, but I will not agree with him being a jerk because of that particular tactical decision. This sort of thinking is probably why there are so few healing-based clerics in the campaign. They're mostly taken for granted when they do heal, and they're chastized when people ask the impossible and they can't deliver. Personally, I get annoyed when people look at the cleric and then get reckless because they believe they'll immediately get healed. So I would suggest putting a little more effort into not getting dropped. ..........jerk.
LachlarlanIII 12-27-06, 12:12 PM	He wasn't a jerk because he wouldn't heal, he was a jerk because of his attitude towards healing. The whole "If you go down, you're already dead as far as I'm concerned" thing.
CrystalBlue 12-27-06, 12:14 PM	Yeah...when the maniticore centers on the wizard cause he's only got one spell and it does 20 points of damage to him...yeah...that was avoidable. I'm lucky I did any damage at all. And, for your information, I was at -7. The paladin could have taken five seconds out of his day to stop wiffing at the same guy he had been and try to make himself useful. >.< But he didn't! He ignored a downed teammate because his PLAYER is too stupid and ignorant to understand the difference between down and cleaved in half. And, for your information, yes. I do expect the ranger with the CLW wand to come over and heal me because that's his ******* job! HE bought the CLW wand, HE chose to be a ranger, so HE should be expected to save my ass when HE doesn't do HIS job. I tell everyone that I'm a soft squishy. I bleed very well. That means they have to keep things away from me. When they don't, the whole group should do something about it.
Simpi 12-27-06, 12:35 PM	And, for your information, yes. I do expect the ranger with the CLW wand to come over and heal me because that's his ******* job! HE bought the CLW wand, HE chose to be a ranger, so HE should be expected to save my ass when HE doesn't do HIS job. I tell everyone that I'm a soft squishy. I bleed very well. That means they have to keep things away from me. When they don't, the whole group should do something about it. Why does ranger = healer? Isn't ranger something that shoots people to death with bow or uses two weapons to kill things in melee. Also, one thing I have noticed is that moaning about your imminent death and demanding others to do something about, despite them possibly being pre-occupied with something more urgent, is is a pretty sure way to get yourself ignored. Sampo Haarlaa Naerie Triad
Howie23 12-27-06, 01:12 PM	And, for your information, I was at -7. The paladin could have taken five seconds out of his day to stop wiffing at the same guy he had been and try to make himself useful. >.< But he didn't! He ignored a downed teammate because his PLAYER is too stupid and ignorant to understand the difference between down and cleaved in half. There are play style cultural differences regarding what PCs know about HP status of others. Some prefer to play it with everyone having a metaphorical hp status marker ("I have 2 hp!"), others will give a fractional/descriptive phrase ("I'm at about half..." or "I'm about to go down..."), others give nothing except by a skill check. I make a point of telling people that I won't call out my hit points..I expect them to be paying attention to what's happening to me, like I'm paying attention to them. However, the communication about expectation is key. I prefer to keep the metagaming to a minimum. We have a fun, thoughful player around here who has contributed the statement that leaving a party member on the ground for more than two rounds is negligence. Partly due to avoidable death, partly due to area effect or other death dealing activities. People have different styles. It's part of the LG fun. :) David
LGMoses 12-27-06, 01:17 PM	Yeah...when the maniticore centers on the wizard cause he's only got one spell and it does 20 points of damage to him...yeah...that was avoidable. I'm lucky I did any damage at all. And, for your information, I was at -7. The paladin could have taken five seconds out of his day to stop wiffing at the same guy he had been and try to make himself useful. >.< But he didn't! He ignored a downed teammate because his PLAYER is too stupid and ignorant to understand the difference between down and cleaved in half. And, for your information, yes. I do expect the ranger with the CLW wand to come over and heal me because that's his ******* job! HE bought the CLW wand, HE chose to be a ranger, so HE should be expected to save my ass when HE doesn't do HIS job. I tell everyone that I'm a soft squishy. I bleed very well. That means they have to keep things away from me. When they don't, the whole group should do something about it. Actually, I agree with your teammate. Atleast from scene description so far. If it was one bad guy left and just the paladin up I wouldn't stop fighting to heal you. I have no idea what ur at. I can't look at you and go "he's at -8, I had better get over there!" In fact, I don't think you're suppossed to know what someone is at. That makes spells like deathwatch useless. So if you go unconscious shut ur mouth. If there was someone else nearby I would expect a party member standing around to help me out for the love of god but if I'm the only one up I'm goign to keep fighting cuz its looking grim. BTW, did ur character survive?
CrystalBlue 12-27-06, 01:38 PM	I never said a ranger was a healer. Rangers should never be the healer. That's why there should always be a cleric in the party. However, if the ranger takes a CLW wand and pretends that he can heal, then he better get to my fallen body the second it drops to negitives. Because he has then made himself the combat medic. If you're going to take a cure stick, then you better act like stabalizer. And just so you know, to put your mind at ease, I wasn't moaning or complaining about being down. I was complaining about the ineptedtude of my party and why we were in such a position that went down. That's all I was worried about. I wasn't concerned about my HP or death. So, I hope that makes you feel a tiny bit better.
CrystalBlue 12-27-06, 01:42 PM	*grumbles* Obviously, no one here knows what I'm talking about, so I'll semi-kindly be quiet. You obviously haven't been the victims of stupid parties like I have, and you haven't had to sit through a 2-hour battle, watching the other PC's completely ignore your advice to them...esspecially when they don't know what they're doing. Plus, I'd tell you what really happened, but because it's part of Red Hand, I can't. *shuts up and shakes his head*
Japangirl 12-27-06, 10:16 PM	Having played a bard, who has a lot less to do in combat than a ranger but does still have the ability to use a CLW stick, I can say that if the wizard goes down the first thing on my mind is not necessarily going to be GET HIM UP RIGHT NOW OMFG THE WIZARD IS DOWN!! I will try, and I will see if it can be done. But if I can, say, silence the (bad guy) wizard or glitterdust the BBEG, I will probably do that first and hope the PC isn't at -9. As a bard, I'm not much hardier or better armored than a wizard, so if the wizard managed to fall down under the monster's feet I probably won't take AoOs for him/her either. An effective ranger does a lot of damage, and may very well have more important things to do than run across the battlefield, into danger, to give you 1d8+1 hp back. If s/he can kill the BBEG in 2-3 rounds and no one else is having much effect, the ranger had better save the whole party instead of wasting a round healing the downed wizard. Having the ability to use a CLW wand makes someone an out of combat healer, not an in combat healer. From your description, the paladin does sound like someone I would not want to play with very much. But his battlefield actions could be tactical, I just don't have enough information to decide. However, to claim that an ability to do minor healing automatically makes that person responsible for YOUR life is very selfish and completely constrains the other person's abilities.
Mattastrophic 12-27-06, 10:49 PM	Oh, I sure as hell know what you're talking about, 'cept I played it properly and sat quietly while the TPK happened. I've been the victim of many stupid parties, and I've died multiple times because of it, but I'm not about to expect what you're expecting. "Dead Men Tell No Tales" is how I roll, especially when I'm running. I'd have been ignoring your advice, too, because you weren't in a position to give it! -Matt *grumbles* Obviously, no one here knows what I'm talking about, so I'll semi-kindly be quiet. You obviously haven't been the victims of stupid parties like I have, and you haven't had to sit through a 2-hour battle, watching the other PC's completely ignore your advice to them...esspecially when they don't know what they're doing. Plus, I'd tell you what really happened, but because it's part of Red Hand, I can't. *shuts up and shakes his head*
Sieylianna 12-28-06, 08:15 AM	I never said a ranger was a healer. Rangers should never be the healer. That's why there should always be a cleric in the party. However, if the ranger takes a CLW wand and pretends that he can heal, then he better get to my fallen body the second it drops to negitives. Because he has then made himself the combat medic. If you're going to take a cure stick, then you better act like stabalizer. This is idiotic. Almost all of my PCs have wands of CLW and about half can actually use them, but I'm not going to drop everything because a party member went down. I'm going to try to get to you before you bleed out, but if the party doesn't win the fight, it doesn't matter whether I stabilize you, so my priority is to win the battle. The paladin is definitely cheating and I would bring this up to all your judges, since he sounds like a jerk. Both DMs and players are inconsistent on identifying damage on another PC. Some DMs want a heal check, but a lot don't care (it makes it easier to prevent a death without pulling punches). I've also seen players who won't say how badly they are hurt (even to the DM), so the DM doesn't pull any punches. Personally, if my PC goes unconscious, I'll generally state that he's at negative X and hope the party will get to me before time runs out. We have all played with stupid parties and even with smart parties who do dumb things. You do the best you can and lead by example. Ed
gomeztoo 12-28-06, 08:49 AM	It depends a bit on the PC I run, and the one that goes down, but I would generally try to aid/heal fellow party members if I think they may be in danger. Even my waste druidess heals (and she is of a harsh bent). I'll add though that some of my PCs can a bit difficult to play with. Not because they don't participate/aid in combat, but because they can be argumentative or single-minded when certain specific issues come up. In general, players know how to deal with that, but I notice some people have trouble with it. I try to take that into account and play those issues down on occasion, but I sometimes get carried away. But not all of my PCs are like that. Perhaps I should start playing Fat Dwarf a bit more. He's not argumentative at all and the only thing that really upsets him is an empty stomach...
CrystalBlue 12-28-06, 09:04 AM	Look...I don't want to rant about this. But I don't see why you people can't understand this? I don't mind if my character dies. And in that situation, I didn't care if I was up or not. But stabalizing a PC that's down has always been the first thing that was taught to me. I'm generally a cleric player. I play clerics very, very well. And the first thing that I was ever taught was how to keep a party alive. And that means stabalizing a character that's down. You shouldn't even need to ask them if they want it or not. Your job and duty as a cleric is to heal and keep people safe. So when I see the trend that there are almost no clerics around, or people that just don't want to play their cleric, it then means that someone else has to pick up the slack and do something about it. If that's the ranger with the CLW, fine. If it's a druid that happens to have a spell memmed, great. And if it's a paladin with a Cha of 12, fantastic. But SOMEONE has to be it. Because it's a needed part of a party. More needed then arcane, damage, tanks, or anything else. So when I see it being done incorrectly, or people just tossing care to the wind, I get mad. I'm sorry. And I don't mean to get mad at anyone here and I appologise. But please...understand why I'm angry. This situation should never, ever happen...and no one should be silent about it.
Iswald 12-28-06, 10:31 AM	Look...I don't want to rant about this. But I don't see why you people can't understand this? I don't mind if my character dies. And in that situation, I didn't care if I was up or not. But stabalizing a PC that's down has always been the first thing that was taught to me. I'm generally a cleric player. I play clerics very, very well. And the first thing that I was ever taught was how to keep a party alive. And that means stabalizing a character that's down. You shouldn't even need to ask them if they want it or not. Your job and duty as a cleric is to heal and keep people safe. Given who the other player must be, I'm certain he's just trying to get under your skin, and doing so very well! Keeping the party alive is important. Sometimes you need to take steps to stabilize fallen party members. Sometimes, though, you need to take out the BBEG first.
budleiser 12-28-06, 10:41 AM	Obviously if a player goes down next to the bad guy you should just fireball them both. Hopefully this will carterize the wounds and take out the bad guy.
LGMoses 12-28-06, 10:51 AM	Obviously if a player goes down next to the bad guy you should just fireball them both. Hopefully this will carterize the wounds and take out the bad guy. Thats right :mage:
LachlarlanIII 12-28-06, 10:51 AM	Obviously if a player goes down next to the bad guy you should just fireball them both. Hopefully this will carterize the wounds and take out the bad guy. That's what I said! ;)
Britt 12-28-06, 10:59 AM	You shouldn't even need to ask them if they want it or not. Not only should you not need to, you shouldn't do it! The person is either unconscious or dead; they can't answer you. Without a Heal check or obvious indication from the GM, you have no idea which it is. I know this is harsh, but I hate it when people say "don't worry, I'm stable", or "I'm at -9, hurry up!"
CrystalBlue 12-28-06, 11:17 AM	*whimpers* I understand that it shouldn't be done, Britt...but I'd feel REALLY bad if I was the Cleric and I couldn't make my Heal check to see if someone is stable, bleeding, or otherwise. It takes away from the game and makes it much less fun...cause now I have to go through red tape just to heal someone. I'd much rather just hit them with a cure minor if I couldn't figure it out...but that's a waste of a valuable spell, and with the magic system in D&D, you can't be random and hectic with your spell casting.
Britt 12-28-06, 11:21 AM	I always save two cure minor wounds or two points of Lay on Hands for that exact reason. I'm not going to take time in the middle of a battle to find out if someone is stable; I'm just going to drop one point into them and move on. Usually, having them get up at a couple of hit points is a bad idea anyway, as it just makes them a very weak target. There have been times where I have delayed stabilizing someone, but only when a careful analysis indicated that stabilizing might result in more people dropping, rather than taking an offensive action or something.
CrystalBlue 12-28-06, 11:34 AM	And that's all I'm saying. If it hurts the party to go and heal someone, fine. But stabalizing should be top priority for anyone with any type of healing.
Britt 12-28-06, 12:07 PM	And that's all I'm saying. If it hurts the party to go and heal someone, fine. But stabalizing should be top priority for anyone with any type of healing. In most cases, I agree.
Iswald 12-28-06, 12:25 PM	And that's all I'm saying. If it hurts the party to go and heal someone, fine. But stabalizing should be top priority for anyone with any type of healing. In most cases. But, when the healer is the only person who can stop the bad guy? Or, the healer is propping up the only person who can stop the bad guy? Probably, it's best not to worry about PCs who are down in these or similar cases. That or make sure you can cast delay death, close wounds, insignia of healing or have some other way to help everyone all at once.
UMiskatonic 12-28-06, 12:33 PM	In most cases, I disagree. Everyone at the table has an obligation to contribute to the group. Try to be as effective as you can, naturally. However, you won't always have a perfectly balanced party. In fact, I hardly ever do. You need someone up front fighting, and you need a rescue healer. I think it's a terrible idea to have the same person do both jobs. You are right, this guy is not polite about communicating that he's an up-front melee type of guy, but that's what he's going to do, sounds like. It doesn't sound like the players at the table discussed who would handle the healing job ahead of time. Perhaps it would have helped. You only need one person on this job, but you do NEED that one person. Crystal Blue, your base assumption is that when someone drops, everyone should drop what they are doing to rescue that person. I can only urge you not to play at my table unless I'm playing my Pelorite, none of my other characters are healers. There is a substantial cost involved to rescuing someone. Usually, it costs two turns to move there, heal check, cast a spell, get out a potion, etc. Sometimes you'll have two turns to spare, usually you won't. If two turns of having the bad guys pound on you means that you'll end up unconscious next to the wizard, then healing the wizard is a BAD choice, and should be avoided. Sometimes you won't have anyone who's any good at that job. In that case, you have to adjust the way you play. If you are a wizard, you'll need a higher percentage of defensive spells, like false life, invisibility, mage armor, displacement, etc. If you're a fighter, you might have to throw javelins and await the enemy coming to you, or fight defensively. If I were the judge, I'd put a stop to that smite whatever BS immediately, and then I'd enforce the 'No digital countdown on your forehead rule'.
Mattastrophic 12-28-06, 12:33 PM	Virtuoso Stabilizing Song, the catch-all. And you can put it up before combat starts, even. Sacred Healing is another really good one. Or Mass Lesser Vigor/Vigorous Circle, to give an auto-stabilize before combat begins. -Matt
CrystalBlue 12-28-06, 12:47 PM	There is a substantial cost involved to rescuing someone. Usually, it costs two turns to move there, heal check, cast a spell, get out a potion, etc. Sometimes you'll have two turns to spare, usually you won't. If two turns of having the bad guys pound on you means that you'll end up unconscious next to the wizard, then healing the wizard is a BAD choice, and should be avoided. Sometimes you won't have anyone who's any good at that job. In that case, you have to adjust the way you play. If you are a wizard, you'll need a higher percentage of defensive spells, like false life, invisibility, mage armor, displacement, etc. If you're a fighter, you might have to throw javelins and await the enemy coming to you, or fight defensively. If I were the judge, I'd put a stop to that smite whatever BS immediately, and then I'd enforce the 'No digital countdown on your forehead rule'. So...*sighs and rubs his head* Let's see...if I'm a wizard and I let everyone know that...then we get into a battle and no one stands between me and the enemies...even though I do everything in my power to keep myself alive AND help the party...I go down. In your theory, you're telling me that it's my fault that I went down, and I'm the only one to blame? No help at all, even when I asked for it when I was at 1 HP. It's my fault I went down. It's my fault I'm bleeding and can't stabalize. I should never expect any help from my party and do everything by myself? Is that what I'm hearing you say?
Mommy was an Orc 12-28-06, 01:12 PM	So...*sighs and rubs his head* Let's see...if I'm a wizard and I let everyone know that...then we get into a battle and no one stands between me and the enemies...even though I do everything in my power to keep myself alive AND help the party...I go down. In your theory, you're telling me that it's my fault that I went down, and I'm the only one to blame? No help at all, even when I asked for it when I was at 1 HP. It's my fault I went down. It's my fault I'm bleeding and can't stabalize. I should never expect any help from my party and do everything by myself? Is that what I'm hearing you say? No. That's not what he's saying at all - you did your job. The problem is that healing you isn't going to win the fight. In fact, it very well may mean that the party loses the fight, at which point you die anyway. The Ranger is not a powerful cleric, he's a guy getting out of position, maybe taking an AoO in the process, maybe dropping a weapon, to come back to save you when he could be the person dealing the death blow to the BBEG - at which point, he can save you without risking worse things to happen. A Cleric on the other hand, likely has the healing capacity to not only stabilize you, but put you back into the fight. By healing you, he's not dropping the offensive firepower of the party(likely), but increasing it. You have to think about these things tactically - it may not be fun when your character is the one bleeding on the ground and the other players seem like idiots, but...I've seen more than one near-TPK or TPK start when someone who shouldn't be stabilizing goes and does that.
UMiskatonic 12-28-06, 01:21 PM	No, that's not what I'm saying at all. You should know, before the first encounter ever shows up, which of your companions is doing what. This includes: 1) Who talks to people 2) Who is the scout, if you actually have one 3) Who are the melee combatants (pref. two) 4) Who is the healer 5) Who needs to remain mobile and away from bad guys After you have done that, you're in much better tactical shape. If someone drops, there is one, and only one designated person who is supposed to go and help them. Everyone else should continue to fight/shoot arrows, etc. My concern with the example you gave is that the paladin is clearly busy with job #3. Expecting him to heal you is a bad idea, and I think he was right to continue fighting. You should have been healed/stabilized by whomever was already responsible for that job. The REAL problem is that you didn't have anyone to do that. That said, I wish that you had. I agree with you that clerics are in scarce supply. I played Weekend in Veluna last year (Archclericy of Veluna, that is), and the only not-me cleric I saw all weekend was a warmage who had one cleric level.
CrystalBlue 12-28-06, 02:01 PM	But that's the thing. Because the paladin had been carrying the CLW wand, because we already had a tank taking all of the other orcs, and because the ranger was busy trying to shoot down the flying creatures, the paladin SHOULD have done something. He already burned his smite evils that day and he wasn't doing any good damage. He's a cavilier build. In that situation, the paladin should have been the medic. But he refused to be and continued to swing at something he wasn't even touching, let alone hitting. His horse was hitting more then he was. >.<
UMiskatonic 12-28-06, 02:18 PM	Ah, then this sounds like another case of someone not doing their job. Sorry. Those are the special kind of people that I avoid with all my power. I've lost three characters to that, one removed from LG entirely. Here's a trick: If you see these people at a con, ask them what APL they are looking to play. Then tell them you're playing any other APL. Muster elsewhere.
CrystalBlue 12-28-06, 02:24 PM	Yeah, I'd do that...but he's a personal friend that I got into LG. :P I guess I didn't do a very good service to the community, did I?
gomeztoo 12-29-06, 04:52 AM	Meh. We have a player who turns up with hugely ineffective characters, no idea how to play them, and no inclination to listen to advice (which is what makes it bad - making ). I am seriously wondering why he plays at all - he doesn't really roleplay and he is entirely ineffective. His rogues refuse to sneak attack because melee (with a creature that is grappled!) is too dangerous, and he doesn't open locks or disable traps. He left in a huff when I told him I didn't like to play with such PCs. Last time he turned up with a cleric with no armor (or Dex), carrying a sickle and no ranged weapon because 'it was too expensive'. As a DM, I pointed out he could take a sling as they are for free, and I would allow him to have one anwyay, but he insisted he had no ranged weapon. His first action in combat was to cast shield of faith. No use pointing out that raising a sucky AC of 10 to a sucky AC of 12 is much use at all... He went down twice. The party eventually botched the scenario. This wasn't really his fault - the party had no fighter, and I rolled too good and they rolled too lousy - but a better supportive character could have made a difference. He probably has certain ideas about his PCs, but I can't fathom what those are. If at all possible I won't play with him. And as said - iut is not just making ineffective chars. My PCs aren't always brilliant. It is also the lacking of party spirit and willingness to listen to advice or criticism.
Lupo 12-29-06, 08:27 AM	Meh. We have a player who turns up with hugely ineffective characters, no idea how to play them, and no inclination to listen to advice (which is what makes it bad - making ). I am seriously wondering why he plays at all - he doesn't really roleplay and he is entirely ineffective. His rogues refuse to sneak attack because melee (with a creature that is grappled!) is too dangerous, and he doesn't open locks or disable traps. He left in a huff when I told him I didn't like to play with such PCs. Last time he turned up with a cleric with no armor (or Dex), carrying a sickle and no ranged weapon because 'it was too expensive'. As a DM, I pointed out he could take a sling as they are for free, and I would allow him to have one anwyay, but he insisted he had no ranged weapon. His first action in combat was to cast shield of faith. No use pointing out that raising a sucky AC of 10 to a sucky AC of 12 is much use at all... He went down twice. The party eventually botched the scenario. This wasn't really his fault - the party had no fighter, and I rolled too good and they rolled too lousy - but a better supportive character could have made a difference. He probably has certain ideas about his PCs, but I can't fathom what those are. If at all possible I won't play with him. And as said - iut is not just making ineffective chars. My PCs aren't always brilliant. It is also the lacking of party spirit and willingness to listen to advice or criticism. he only had your wonderful characters as models??? :D the difference might be that you know how to "play" such freaks/lunatics/dropouts (no offense meant, just a plain description ;)) and still survive and be effective (ok, more or less), i admit i wouldn't sit at a table with "greaser" or "nessy" too happy with all of my characters, but some of my characters actually get along with them quite well. ciao martin m.
gomeztoo 12-29-06, 08:44 AM	You'll be happy to learn that Greaser is all decent and NG now (and follows AL Akbar)... not that that changes him much... as stealing everything that isn't bolted down isn't evil* :) And he's pretty useful: at the end of the adventure, you shake him out and voila, the treasure! *) Greaser's interpretation of the four feet of the dragon are rather... unorthodox.
Lupo 12-29-06, 10:08 AM	You'll be happy to learn that Greaser is all decent and NG now (and follows AL Akbar)... not that that changes him much... as stealing everything that isn't bolted down isn't evil* :) And he's pretty useful: at the end of the adventure, you shake him out and voila, the treasure! *) Greaser's interpretation of the four feet of the dragon are rather... unorthodox. hm, i doubt his interpretation will bring him any merits in the established church of Al Akbar . . . at least when church authorities find out about him :D ciao martin m.
rockondon 12-29-06, 03:43 PM	Everyone I play with carries cure light potions, most carry wands of CLW. Everyone brings a Second Wind card. Everybody is the party healer. its small wonder why there are so few clerics around. The obvious reason is because they are under a lot of obligation to fulfill the high expectations of people around them. A bigger reason is they tend to be background characters. Warrior-types that dish out tons of damage and take tons of hits think they do the party a huge favor by being the tank and the least the cleric can do is keep up the healing. After the mod is over the warrior brags about his critical hits and how great he was in battle. That's great for the warrior but you know what, the cleric wants to be a hero too. Its not much fun being the sidekick who watches others get the glory. When the party talks about how they killed the dragon, nobody mentions the cleric’s healing. My favorite char is my lvl 6 cleric. She rarely casts cures in combat but everyone loves her anyway. She tanks with the best of them and heals up everyone after the fight's over. I'll back off from the fight to cast a cure to save someone's char but I won't cast in a threatened square to do it (knowing this, PCs will often draw an AoO from the bad guy just so I can cast one though – I’ll do anything for players that play like this). If you're repeatedly dropped because of your foolish play style - you deserve to die. The squishies know my primary focus is not healing so they play smart and safe…that’s perfect. Incidentally, if a char is down I just ask if he's bleeding. If the GM says yes, if its safe I'll try to throw a cure on him. If they're not bleeding, they're either dead or stabilized - either way: no cure.
CrystalBlue 12-29-06, 05:02 PM	I have a level 12 cleric of Heironeous. God, I love him. He's even got 4 levels of Church Inquisitor there, so he's even more yummy. And he's 16 years old. Go figure. O.O I was going to try and play him as a battle cleric...but I just started to really get into the whole party saving thing about then. And I'm totally with you. Cleric's get hosed on praise when they talk about battles. My cleric has, more then once, felt completely inferiour to this level 8 fighter mutt that dishes out around 40 points of damage...when not raging. It's silly, cause we cake walked an APL 12 mod because he was there. And APL 12 Iuz mod...yeah... But the way my cleric has always been played has been a mobile armored ambulance. I have enough AC to take a few hits. I have combat casting and a high consentration check. I have 8 extra turn undeads a day. And, I have metamagic Maximize and Divine Metamagic. When someone in the party goes down, I simply burn a Cure Serious Wounds, four turns, and a charge off of my Healer Sash, and watch them go back up to 53. I hate it when the dice decide how much HP my people get back. >.< But, yeah, I've always played my cleric as the combat medic and rescuer. That's his job. And that's why I've always thought that it's every 'medic's' job to heal or stabalize someone that's down.
jhorred 12-29-06, 07:33 PM	Not all clerics are built the same, some are built to tank (and heal later), some are built to heal (and everyone loves them) mines a skill based character who I more style a rogue. He'll stabilize and heal when he needs to but in combat he's usually looking for that sneak attack. One phrase that is oft said by/about him is "I'm not that kind of Cleric." You see he has no ranks in concentrate, they're in tumble instead. (Although in one mod he did successfully destroy a large number of low level undead. That rocked.) I agree that stabilizing down characters is an important task. Anyone who would intentionally let an LG character bleed out is reprehensible. At the same time there are situations that call for healing later and hoping that you have enough time to save the down guy. (But I'll agree that the Paladin's player sounds like an... , I mean a jerk. Kinda gives a bad name to Paladins and Pholtus.)
Japangirl 12-29-06, 10:38 PM	Pholtus has a good name? :D. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Pholtans and CN BK characters don't often get along very well. I must declare him 'evil' at every opportunity.
Iswald 12-30-06, 04:57 AM	But, yeah, I've always played my cleric as the combat medic and rescuer. That's his job. And that's why I've always thought that it's every 'medic's' job to heal or stabalize someone that's down. It always seemed to me that he was a blasty cleric. Unless I'm mistaken, in one mod when you ran out of offensive spells, you wanted to fall on your sword because you thought it was going to be a TPK. You may have been told, instead, to use the ceremonial dagger that was found earlier, since it was much more appropo. Glug, glug, glug, eh? :D
jstorrie 12-30-06, 03:25 PM	*whimpers* I understand that it shouldn't be done, Britt...but I'd feel REALLY bad if I was the Cleric and I couldn't make my Heal check to see if someone is stable, bleeding, or otherwise. It takes away from the game and makes it much less fun...cause now I have to go through red tape just to heal someone. I'd much rather just hit them with a cure minor if I couldn't figure it out...but that's a waste of a valuable spell, and with the magic system in D&D, you can't be random and hectic with your spell casting. Status is 1hr/level, and affects one creature per three levels - so while it's not a great help at the low levels (you're stuck with Heal checks or Deathwatch at that point) it's very effective later on. Not only will it tell you when people need stabilizing, it will also tell you any condition they're under. Charmed, dominated, you name it. Even if they're up around the corner scouting. The opportunity cost of this may be a little high at APL6, but by APL8 I don't see why you shouldn't have Status running at all times. Stabilize is a swift spell that can stabilize everything in a 50-ft. area. Great for those situations where you are stuck on the frontlines and don't want to take an AoO. And it's Paladin 2 as well as Cleric 2, so all of the Pious Templars can cast it. Stalwart Pact is generally worth the xp cost at the high levels, at least on tanks and light infantry who are likely to get below half at least once during the adventure. 250xp really isn't all that much, and by the time that you're casting fifth level spells, you sort of want to throttle back your xp gain a little, anyway. I mean. Whoops. I did not say that. And Sacred Healing is definitely great for anyone that can turn and isn't feat-starved. I'd honestly say that it's more useful than Divine Might, if you have to choose between the two, given the general dearth of clerics in most regions.
copper_wyrmling 12-31-06, 02:52 AM	Stabilize is a swift spell that can stabilize everything in a 50-ft. area. Great for those situations where you are stuck on the frontlines and don't want to take an AoO. And it's Paladin 2 as well as Cleric 2, so all of the Pious Templars can cast it. Of course, it's also Limited :P Believe me, my cleric would take it if she could... And Sacred Healing is definitely great for anyone that can turn and isn't feat-starved. I'd honestly say that it's more useful than Divine Might, if you have to choose between the two, given the general dearth of clerics in most regions. You do need a fairly high Charisma to make it worthwhile, but that's true of Divine Might as well. Btw, Stalwart Pact is now a gp cost rather than xp.
Arinaad 12-31-06, 10:27 AM	I personally have no characters who are the front line damage dealers of the party. All of my characters are support or battlefield control. My primary is an archer/healer/grappler who stands near to the casters and if anything comes too close I take it on... preferably not for too long, generally with a caster near by it usually only takes a round or two before the creature is crispy... I let the people who like to deal 140 hp worth of damage a round do thier thing, I prefer making sure that everyone survives to see the BBEG. Arinaad
solbergb 01-03-07, 03:25 PM	So...*sighs and rubs his head* Let's see...if I'm a wizard and I let everyone know that...then we get into a battle and no one stands between me and the enemies...even though I do everything in my power to keep myself alive AND help the party...I go down. #1 - in some parties keeping yourself alive helps the party more than trying to do both at once. The usual low level solution is the withdraw move, placing yourself out of danger so nobody needs to rescue you and THEN contributing with spells. Related vs ranged attackers is getting behind low cover, and doing the "stand up, cast, drop prone" thing every round, which means you are under full cover at all times except when they ready actions against you. If the party has no primary healer, it is the duty of every party member to try to stay alive, and if they get into trouble, get themselves out. My sorcereress sometimes found herself in the situation you describe and usually it was her own damn fault "I go up and look at the pool and trigger the encounter, oops" but she found mobility was the best and most reliable defense. If you were dropped before you could act, that's just bad luck (consider some long duration passive defenses like False Life perhaps if it happens often). If you COULD act and left yourself in a position to be clobbered, you've done the party a disservice unless even more people would get clobbered if you had not taken the action you took. #2 - if there is a primary healer but he's incapable of getting to you or two busy keeping the primary hitter on his feet, you have to treat the situation as if it was #1. #3 - folks who are being ineffective should actually be doing the rescues. Folks being effective or who are keeping the effectives fighting should not. This is a hard lesson for many to learn, but really - the guy you want doing the rescue is the guy who can't hurt the enemy. This might or might not have been the Paladin in your example. It's impossible to be sure from just your description of events. #4 - rescues should be done by whomever it costs the fewest actions. In the baby levels, it means whoever is close to you and it will cost the party 1-3 rounds of their actions. Preventing deaths is really important but not at the cost of a TPK. #5 - Carry a scroll of obscuring mist at all times. This eliminates the main sources of low level deaths for everyone (bow crits, lance charges, lion pounces, ray spells, targeted spells, sneak attack and big grapplemonsters that you can't withdraw from because of reach), and remains good in that role even in high levels. If the encounter looks too dangerous mist up and get the party organized (and yourself out of line of sight)
CrystalBlue 01-03-07, 03:41 PM	It always seemed to me that he was a blasty cleric. Unless I'm mistaken, in one mod when you ran out of offensive spells, you wanted to fall on your sword because you thought it was going to be a TPK. You may have been told, instead, to use the ceremonial dagger that was found earlier, since it was much more appropo. Glug, glug, glug, eh? :D You know...I get so sick of this insult to my cleric and, well, every character I play. I never wanted to fall on my sword and if I ever ran out of offensive spells, I would have turned to melee combat. Someone, who will remain nameless, keeps perpetuating this idea that my characters are cowards. No, it's just that my judges seem to be ignorant of danger because they believe that they can never lose.
_m_ 01-08-07, 12:18 AM	i'm inclined to do everything in my power to save downed characters (unless it would blatantly cause a tpk) even if it means personal risk to my character. the only way i wouldn't try and save people is if they assumed that i HAD to, that it was i was MEANT to do. swearing would deffinately make it less likely to happen.