Post/Author/DateTime	Post
11d7 01-10-05, 07:57 AM	Have you ever been with a group of players (or characters for in character reasons) that would be kick your character out of the party if you didnt have a build that was usful to them or if you didnt act the way they wanted you to? Like Cleric = Healing Battery or Kick out?
Thoronmir 01-10-05, 12:05 PM	The first question to ask is whether my character would want to associate with the PC in question. That requires each player to understand his/her own PC well enough to identify their PC’s motivations. However, that analysis almost always turns on a single point … does the PC in question fill some need that furthers my PC’s goals? In other words, does the PC bring something to the table that I want? For most of my PCs, that means that I expect every PC to bring some skills, abilities, etc., that the party needs. We must each fill some role. Hector the leatherworker might be a really nice guy with a great sense of humor, but if we don’t need a leatherworker to accomplish our goals, I’m not inviting Hector along on our picnic. The metagaming issue arises when the PCs seem to believe that the party can only consist of a number of members equal to the number of players. It is the Mother of all Coincidences that the number of players so often determines the number of characters in the party. After all, if it’s a good idea for a group of five players to send a Paladin, a Ranger, a Cleric, a Wizard, and a Rogue into the Cursed Ruins to recover the Sacred Relic, why not recruit twice as many heroes and make the job a little easier? So, we come to your question about the Cleric serving as the “Healing Battery.” If the party needs someone to perform that function, the PCs will be more interested in adventuring with a Cleric who meets their needs. However, why reject one Cleric in favor of another when the party can have both? Surely a “Non-Healing Battery” Cleric has something to offer to help the party. Why not welcome that Cleric and continue seeking a healer? Well, we all know why that rarely happens. As a player, I prefer that the PCs fill their needed roles and complement each other. My characters generally feel the same way. So, yes, I need a better excuse to welcome a PC into the party than the fact that they’re a PC. I need a roleplaying reason to want to adventure with a character.
Stuntman 01-10-05, 01:46 PM	Usually, my experience is that there are groups that want to ensure that all bases are covered. The last person who picks a class usually ends up being the walking healing stick. This person usually ends up not having fun because he is forced into a role that he does not want. I have played with groups that do not have all bases covered. The longest campaign I've been in consisted of a group that had no cleric. You just have to adjust to the situation and alter your tactics accordingly. The most important thing for the best interest of the group is to be able to get along with the other players. Filling the steriotypical roles is not as important, but I find that many players are more comfortable if their party consists of a typical cleric, fighter, wizard and rogue. The strategy is more well known and obvious with such a group. You will find fewer players who can effectively play a party consisting of two rogues, a ranger and wizard. Such a party must heavily rely on stealth to hit hard and to avoid damage. The standard kick down the door technique will not be effective.
Bane 01-10-05, 02:23 PM	On one occasion, I happened to be the first character to choose what I wanted to be, so I chose to be the Healing Battery. I played a Cleric of Pelor that later went into Radiant Servant of Pelor, and was as zealous a hunter of the undead as anyone. In the end, I was the only player who never died, because I was so integral to the group that everyone had the firm belief that to lose me would be to risk TPK, both because we were hunting for a Necropolis filled with some of the most powerful undead in the campaign world, and because I let it be known from day 1 that I was strictly Do Not Ressurect, because I won't come back anyway. I started out just being a test character, and I was the last person to have a fully functional back story. The point is, you should probably try making the healing battery, or whatever the party needs. Then, bring something special to the character, so that you have fun with the campaign. And let it be known that if this campaign ends, you have dibs on making the first character for the next campaign :D
Board_Rider 01-10-05, 02:27 PM	I have never had this problem with characters before in game. However there were some Players...... Everyone should bring something to the table. If, as a player, you want some exotic mix of classes that can do all sorts of good things but as an adventurer sucks, well you got to do some self realization. How would you as a player like to be a fighter, killing things, and protecting a rogue who doesn't "do" combat but can tell you the Family Crest of some long dead family and know the names of flowers. The Player who makes that Rogue needs to understand that, after awhile, other PC's are going to tire of that style.
Ze_Mighty_Vegetable 01-10-05, 07:39 PM	Personaly, I find non-stereotypical (is that a word?) parties to be the most interesting. Not having a healing machine nearby force you to play smart. no more can you charge headlong in the room knowing that even if you get dropped, the cleric's gonna heal you in the blink of an eye. You'll find yourself actually running away (yes, I know it's a novel concept) from encounters are not going your way or are going to leave you in a sorry shape. Sure, healing potions and wands can be bought, but having a set number of use means you'll be more carefull. Contrary to a lot of PC I've seen, our group doesn't expect a MagicMartTM at each city. If your group's forcing you to play one way or go, well, time to leave these immature kids and find another group.
11d7 01-10-05, 08:14 PM	At the moment my group is not forcing me to do anything but it used to be the case all of the time. I personaly build my character so that if they were one their own they could function not needing a group becuase if I were a Wizard in training I would not always count on having a Cleric or Fighter around all the time so I have Offencive spells and Personal spells that would get me out of trouble if I'm in it, not ones to help a theoretical group. If I have the chance to learn a new spell that could benfit them once in a group I will but not at the expence of own safty since in most cast the groups I play in, the PCs are only together becuase either they are PCs or are members of the same Merc company rarly is something greater conecting them and If I see no reason for my character to contiune with them no matter how much I like that character I have them retire becuase its what they would do, no reason to stick with them when we arn't getting along or I am in danger for it. I have retired 9 characters to date becuase they would have not reason to be with the group they are in past the first adventure they are together for and have been playing for less than 2 years, my characters rarely want to be adventurers or at least do the things the group does. Partly the DMs fault, not that its 'fault' but in some cases the DMs dont take imput from players as to where the campaigns going and forget our backgrounds which he or she had use write when it would conflict with their story. One example was when I had a Cleric who as formerly the High Prestess of a Temple of Pelor in some city and had joined the party for a quest they were on. Well one adventure has us investigating the temple in that city becuase of some curruption that had been there for years (like decades) that everyone in town knew about! Hello moron, if I follow this correctly I'm the BBEG!!!!! That ended the campaign becuase me and the other players got fed up with the DM for ignoring what we wanted but it was them in the first place who approved that back ground!
PhaedrusXY 01-10-05, 09:11 PM	No. I've never played in a group like that. We might try to influence someone to play a character that can heal, or help them optimize their character a bit, but I have never seen a group outright refuse to play with someone unless they'd build their character to meet the groups' standards. That's just absurd. I've also played in many games that had no healer at all, other than a ranger or palladin. And let me tell you, after years of that, in my opinion it SUCKS! So usually, if I'm joining a group and noone else is going to play a cleric, I will. Clerics are one of the most powerful classes in the game, and due to the huge diversity in deities to choose from, they vary greatly in how they should be roleplayed. They can certainly be alot of fun, if you work on making them interesting and the party doesn't try to pigeon-hole you into being a big giant wand of Cure X Wounds. Yeah, it's doable to play in a group with no primary healing class, but it is a bit more tricky and dangerous for the characters. In one long running campaign, the regular characters were a ranger, a wizard, a rogue, and a fighter/ranger NPC. We tried to be sneaky, dish out huge damage and kill them first, and if that failed, we'd run away. Even then, the death toll was kind of high and our down-time was huge. If we were starting over a group like that, I'd make an elven cleric who wore light armor and acted like a ranger, instead of a real ranger. ;) With the right domain and Prestige Classes, you can do a pretty good job of it.
TheUnknownZombie 01-10-05, 10:05 PM	I'm currently in a group with no cleric, and we do just fine. What? That bloke in rags over in the corner? He's a druid. And what are those things in his pockets? Wands. In my opinion, druids are a lot more interesting to play - not as healing centric, but still useful enough to make a difference.
the dmg 01-10-05, 10:06 PM	Usually, my experience is that there are groups that want to ensure that all bases are covered. The last person who picks a class usually ends up being the walking healing stick. This person usually ends up not having fun because he is forced into a role that he does not want. More often than not, this becomes true. I know that it has happened to me, but generally we play with what characters that we like and not what we need. Sooner or later we have a new player join in or someone multi-classes; usually it is out of preference and not necessecity because it is all about fun anyway.
ck2001wendt 01-10-05, 10:24 PM	When we advertise for new players as an established party and we're only looking to fill one slot, often there will be a "we are playing these characters as part of the party." The first cut is generally to get rid of the psychos or marginally interested. The second cut is generally the guy or gal who wanted to play what we needed. This is realy only an issue when we're missing a Rogue. In the case of Cleric=Healing Battery, come to the session with a Bard, Favored Soul, Paladin, or Ranger and offer to go in dutch for Wands and Scrolls of Cure X Wounds, Restoration, Remove Curse and so forth. In our party, the Bard does all the healing in combat because the Dwarven Cleric is busy being our tank. We've come to the understanding that he's more useful in that role. On the other hand, don't come to the party with a 15th level character with one level in each base class and expect them to let you adventure with them.
Ogre Mage 01-10-05, 11:28 PM	It is important that the character contribute to the group in a meaningful way. The easiest way to do this is the class stereotypical role, such as cleric = healer. But others are possible. I guess the question is -- is the character filling a useful role (even if it is not the expected one) or is the PC useless period? The latter was the case with a cleric in our group. He rarely healed anyone other than himself, he couldn't/didn't fight (STR 12) and did a poor job of supporting the party with non-cure spells. The main resentment of this character was not the lack of healing (though that was part of it). It was that he did very little that was useful for the party. Basically an XP leech. But I can see the other side of the coin, too. This is a bit off topic, but the rogue I play is not a combat intensive character. She specializes in hide/move silently/open lock/search/disable device. She has disarmed many traps, provided valuable information while scouting and discovered hidden treasure and secret doors. But because her combat contribution is limited, some group members feel she is useless. I think this may be partly because of the subtle nature of the threats that she overcomes. When the party fighter kills a troll, everyone sees the danger that was put down. But when the gas trap on the door is quietly disarmed, who knows what it might have done? It is easy to dismiss it, even though it could have represented a danger as deadly as the troll. Some groups are willing to play without a primary divine caster. I hate it. It slows the game down to a crawl and makes certain things, such as ability damage/drain, incredibly debilitating. But that doesn't mean the healer has to be stuck healing all the time and never doing anything else. We supplement with items and a secondary healer if possible.
Aeromus 01-11-05, 01:43 AM	When I play I always choose last, and almost never play cleric. But, sometimes I do and the last time I was a Lawful Nuetral Cleric of Wee Jas, that sacrificed for inflicting spells, and controled the undead. I rarely had a single healing spell in tow, and I let the players know my cleric is a worshipper of the Goddess of Death and Magic... I can save lives but my Goddess frowns on using it to much. They straightened up when I left the Dwarven suicide Fighter die.
Juan Moore 01-11-05, 02:12 AM	There are so many ways to be the healing battery for the party that it's not right to expect someone to go Cleric when the party has no healer. Rogue with Use Magic Device and wands. Druid with wands (and maybe brew potion). Ranger with wands. Psychic Warrior with Empathic Transfer (takes damage from party member) and Body Adjustment (heals himself). Some days it's nice to be relied upon or reliant on another, but more often than not it's way better to be the swiss army knife... able to handle yourself and the party adequately. The other players should get into the "swiss army" mode themselves. Our existing "swiss army" party is a group of 3 that has 3 others pop in from time to time. A 20th level rogue, a 20th level psychic warrior, a 20th level psion, and the irregular party members are a 19th level wizard/archmage, an 18th level barbarian, and a 17th level ranger/order of the bow initiate/peerless archer. As you can tell, we've all had these characters for a long time and had no need for a cleric. But don't let the levels scare you, we get really beat up (credit the DM, he's good at challenging fights). I guess the moral of the story is that any character created should be able to have the capability of self-reliance as well as team-reliance.