Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bave 03-27-06, 02:14 PM	Ok, here is the scenario. Group conists of: 7 Fighter, 7 Wizard, 7 Rogue, 7 Bard, 5 Cleric/2 Stormlord (full caster/fighting cleric), 7 Rogue, 2 Rogue/5 Ranger, 5 Druid/2 Master of Many Forms While slogging through an undead infested dungeon we had taken some consistent damage and a few negative levels scattered throughout. In the three encounters prior to the incident the Bard (played by another player, real player didn't show) and Cleric were using spells heavily in all three encounters, frankly, overkill spells. Things like sound bursting, mass shield of faith, glitterdust repeatedly when there really wasn't a huge need. At the end of the third encounter we come to a room where we expect another encounter to loom, possibly with a mini-boss. At this point the cleric and the bard ask the druid to change shape to get a wand of lesser vigor so that can be used to heal the party, druid refuses. At that point the druid had used 4 lesser vigors (memorized) and both the cleric and bard had each cast maybe 1 heal per. Druid continued to refuse, basically the cleric and bard were trying to be offensive casters blowing their load on wasted spells and usage and did not want to consume an "emergency" use item as well as the wasted time from changing shape, re-equipping, waiting for the vigors to run etc. Thats where the play for the evening stopped. I understand both sides. The cleric and bard (not the real player again) did not want to use either of their spells for healing, the preferred to be casting action oriented spells (ie: soundburst, mass shield of faith, shield of faith) and in this case specifically cited not wanting to switch out higher level spells since they had direct damage spells in those slots and felt that they would be better using them as damage instead of healing. Druid on the flip side sees the primary healer, healing less than he, while only a partial caster and a primary melee, then expecting him to carry the load and extinguish an emergency use item, as well as waste time. I personally would rather see the cleric or bard memorize one or two less attack/buff spells and memorize a lesser circle of vigor or more lesser vigors instead of constantly trying to use the only means of durable healing. I guess it boils down to people understanding their primary role. IMO a full caster cleric is primarily the healer, secondary tank/buffer. Bard is a primary buffer/utility, secondary healer, druid (in this case) is a primary melee, secondary utility/healer. This is hard for the cleric, because who likes healing? But thats his job primarily, and its not like he has to cast in combat as he is quite capable additionally. Oh, it ended with the cleric telling the druid he would no longer heal or buff the druid and that the druid did not carry his weight in the group. So, it should be an interesting now that a line is drawn.
SaintSoldier 03-27-06, 06:09 PM	I think the druid is exactly right. It's obvious, from the party you've described, that it has a heavy offensive capability(1 fighter, 3 rogues, one of which augments with Ranger, a Bard and a Wizard) The cleric can definitely afford to give up a few artillery spells and buff party members, since he can also take his place on the front lines). I don't know much about Bards, I've not played on yet, but it seems like the ration of 1 party healer to 9 PC's (including the druid) is too much. 3 healers to 9 PC's (including the three healers) seems like a much better ration to me. Also, let me ask this, is the role-playing style of the bard in the encounter you described different from how that PC is normally played. If so, you may be better off with the Bard returning to his normal style of play when his user returns. After all, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
bave 03-27-06, 06:47 PM	The bard in this scenario was actually not being played by its owner, the owner was not available and was being played, poorly, by the fighter which resulted in alot of poor spell use.
OravennasBrother 03-27-06, 06:47 PM	Too many players see Clerics as part of CoDzilla - they want all the perks and none of the responsibilities. I say - Watch the cleric closely, if he violates his deities will, then take away his spellcasting until he gets an atonement. Even Cuthbert won't appreciate a glory hound priest who cannot be part of a team. Taking away a cleric's spells is part of what they sing on for when they agree to an ethos.
SilentOne 03-27-06, 06:53 PM	It's a mistake on the druid's part to be holding the wands in the first place. If he doesn't want to be a healer, hand over the wands to someone who can use them before shifting. Just common sense, particularly since it's on the cleric's list and the bard could UMD it. On the other hand, this should be a "Next time, don't do that" and then the cleric heals up. As the other poster said, he's trying to go CoDzilla and it's hurting the party. Tell the cleric to burn the freaking spell, then when the druid's wildshape runs out have him hand over the wands.
bave 03-27-06, 07:30 PM	It's a mistake on the druid's part to be holding the wands in the first place. If he doesn't want to be a healer, hand over the wands to someone who can use them before shifting. Just common sense, particularly since it's on the cleric's list and the bard could UMD it. Normally, I agree, however in this particular case the druid purchased that particular lone wand with starting gold when he joined the group, and that puts the group in an odd spot to try and demand it since they had no part in earning it, otherwise I agree completely, and generally items found by the party are handed out with the same ideals.