Our party of 5 was attacking a wizard and 3 fire elementals. I have high defenses but low HP, and each ellemental did an unavoidable 10 to all party members, then 1 recharged round 2 and did it again, leaving me at 10/50 HP, lowest along with one other player about the same. I was going to double move out of the room until I could safely return, 2 of the fire elementals were mortally wounded so soon there'd be less risk of the auto- 10 dmg and knockout from the fire elementals.
However, the cleric said I'd be healed after I was KOd, so I stayed in the room and did an attack. I was staying out of melee and burst range since I was low on HP and the wizard was chucking stuff for damage, so distance was still safer.
Well anyways, I got KOed, Cleric comes up before me in turn order. I ask if I'm going to be healed like he said, he asked where I was, I said 3 squares away in the corner, hence I wasn't being healed 14 per turn by the aura he had set up with a daily (I didn't know specifics on it yet, how much it healed, etc.)
Anyways, he says "but I have to sustain minor the aura, so I can't use a healing word on you". I told him that he could replace use his movement or attack as a minor, he said he couldn't waste either. He wanted to minor to sustain, move action to move the aura to a better position for next turn, and then do one of his attacks. Hence he was now going to leave me unconscious.
Then for 2 more turns, I was left unconscious, I asked why in those turns he couldn't use healing word, he said he only had 1 left and he didn't want to use it(he used one on the other severely dmged player). Despite him saying 3 turns ago I'd be healed :p finally, the Paladin player had to leave, I convinced the person who took over to run over and give me lay on hands, so I could have 20 HP (I was unconcious with 8 temporary HP).
Anyways, I got irritated because the Cleric afterwards stated by his actions the only way I was to expect a heal was to go to melee range in his aura, potentially risking even more area attacks. My typical strategy with my warlock/psion is to stay at range. It semed like he was more interested in glory, doing his 'ideal turn' of minor sustain, move aura, and attack (he missed with his attack), even though by resurrecting an ally that would be several extra attacks over rounds, thus much more effective damage wise.
I dunno, it's sorta like a hyprocratic oath-lite, you expect the cleric to heal you the one time you need it during battle (first time in 5 encounters I asked for healing). Especially when they say they would. Then he and 1 other party member went after me for 'endangering' the party by not going into melee range and getting ko'd 3 squares away, when no such strategy was discussed.
Anyways, I guess this was more a complaint than anything. If it was a minor encounter where it didn't especially matter whether I was alive or dead that'd be fine, but we sorta came close to losing this one. So it wasn't just about lying unconscious, but the cleric straying from his most effective, and self-proclaimed strategy to heal allies.
What do you do to stop yourself from getting irritated? It was getting late and I was hungry, so that may have been the tipping thing. Should you just ignore it when people don't really play as a team to maximize the chance of party success, but as individual players micro-maximizing turns, and not rely on party members by expecting assistance when it is needed?
Not even in this supposedly coopertive game.
To you doing x was the best choice of actions. So the other guy disagreed.
In the end though? You beat the encounter, got the loot, & everyone survived.
(BTW, in the groups I play in; If you went down & were pitching a fit/B****** about not getting healed? We'd intentionally let you lay there unconsious.)
The solution? You want to see a cleric (or some other class) run, or run in a particular way? Then YOU play it.
It sounds like nothing more than a miscommunication between you and the cleric. He may have assumed that you knew to stay in the aura which would have healed you in the event of a KO. Seems like you assumed he meant he'd actually spend his last Healing Word on you. I'll call that a wash and not point fingers.
What's my advice? Learn every last power your teammates posess, how they work, and how you as a group intend to take advantage of them so this kind of issue doesn't repeat. That, and if your cleric sets up a zone of healing keep your spongy butt in it (because the healer is always right).
Personally I would take it as meaning that hanging back and keeping your character safe from harm is of greater importance than achieving maximum combat effectiveness. If the "medic" get's in a bind, you also needn't be in a rush to bail him out. Let him see how effective burning his powers to keep himself going in the fight is over you helping to keep him clear of agressive foes. The lack of a helping hand can certainly be a two way street.
In the current game I'm playing, our party's "medic" is frequently on the front lines and bloodied. In response I sit back with ranged as a medium distance striker, and keep all the spare party healing potions (in addition to the potions I personally buy for my character) ready to bring his dropped behind back into the fight again. It's how he wants to play, he does keep our tank and DPS up as a first priority, so I let him drop, and run to his rescue with the healing potion as needed. The dynamic is a touch strange perhaps, but our group is making it work since I'm less worried about providing the "optimal" damage output than being seen as the overall "useful guy" in the party.
In this circumstance my advice is don't fret about the lack of optimal party performance, but instead look at it as a situational challenge for your character and the group. If your group is doing interparty "role playing" interactions feel free in character to jump their character's behind about it, but as a player you really should be prepared to just let it go.
I hope this helps.
You've no right to complain about how someone else runs their character.
Not even in this supposedly coopertive game.
To you doing x was the best choice of actions. So the other guy disagreed.
In the end though? You beat the encounter, got the loot, & everyone survived.
(BTW, in the groups I play in; If you went down & were pitching a fit/B****** about not getting healed? We'd intentionally let you lay there unconsious.)
The solution? You want to see a cleric (or some other class) run, or run in a particular way? Then YOU play it.
What if the OP's character died? So sorry, so sad, tough luck? Sure, a cleric is not everyone's healing slave and is entitled to do thing besides healing, but you don't abandon a party member which is what this cleric did. Healing is not the cleric's only job, but it is still part of his job.
This is precisely why I started playing clerics almost all the time since 2E. Whenever I didn't play the cleric the player who did was always a jerk and refused to heal anyone but himself. I was sick of it and took up the class itself to show how a cleric should be played, including not being a healing robot. I was fortunate to finally find my current playing group where we stick together through thick and thin that I can finally not have to play a cleric. We don't let anyone drop, and when someone does, we make sure they get back up as soon as possible even if we have to shove our own last healing potion down their throat.
You've no right to complain about how someone else runs their character.
Not even in this supposedly coopertive game.
Uh you kind of do. Lets reverse it. Say you're playing the healer. And the party fighter runs around in nonmagic cloth. I think you (And the party in general) would be well within your rights to call him out on doing a terrible job of being a defender.
To you doing x was the best choice of actions. So the other guy disagreed.
I dunno, unless we're talking about the fighter in my last example, I think getting an ally back in the fight is always the best solution. As they say, an ounce of murder is worth a pound of healing, and even if they just go down again, you effectively "healed" the rest of the party for that much damage.
(BTW, in the groups I play in; If you went down & were pitching a fit/B****** about not getting healed? We'd intentionally let you lay there unconsious.)
In my groups, healers are antsy enough about it as is. Chill out guys, I'm a motha****in defender. I can take another 500 damage before I need your help. 510 once we hit level 2 :33.
DnD as a player is team effort. If someone isn't a team player then treat him in a similar way untill he learns to play along.
The healer was helping the team, and in his mind the best way to do that was to help the majority of the party, and not worry about a single person. The good of the many vs the good of one.
The mentality of the cleric is just there to heal made me steer every cleric I played away from healer. I'd heal myself, heal others minor, but I'd never focus on heals, more on buffs and debuffs and be closer to a battlepriest. If I'd been that healer, I would have told you in character to walk it off and that I didn't heal whiners.
@ navar: the cleric doing his own thing got me killed once. It happens. The fighter doing their thing can let you die. The mage doing there thing can let you die.
I rerolled and took it in stride, didn't make an anticleric. Its a game, and making new personalities and characters can be fun on its own.
Just be sure to keep it completely and totally in character!
If I'd been that healer, I would have told you in character to walk it off and that I didn't heal whiners.
So you'd tell someone you healed them if they got knocked unconscious, then leave them unconscious and told them to "walk it off"?
Nice to know you are rude like that. He mostly just made a mistake in communicating, he's not rude like you.... so I didn't run out of the room(my first plan was to NOT rely on his healing), but then he wouldn't go out of his way a little bit to not reneg on his promise/assurance.
And also, his character is a cleric strongly focused on healing. He's not a battlepriest or anything, he's said repeatedly before that whenever you need a heal, he'll be able to, because of all his healing powers.
It is not whining to ask for help. Absolute refusal to help for the audacity of being asked is being a donkey-cavity. I have shunned players like that. I had quit a gaming group of players like that. A player like that had quit my current gaming group years ago because we didn't accept that behavior.
After having just told him NOT to walk it off (which was his original plan - to get out of the room), you then tell him to do so now that he's unconscious?
I'm usually the DM in our games, and if you did that in mine, I'd be telling you that your character and his had just traded places - and conditions.
But the expression is 'what goes around comes around'.
If the healer was genuinely guilty of seeking glory more so than service to the groups needs, it's simple, eventually the healer will find himself in need and you simply explain it the same way he explained it.
This usually results in hurt feelings though. And I have more than once seen players seek greener pastures when it is clear the players themselves simply don't co exist well in the game.
A good group seeks concensus on how to resolve a round as a group. And sometimes one's PC simply won't enjoy a situation for no other reason than occasionally fate craps out on you.
Since healing begins at 0hp and not your negative value he was trying to minimize the amount of healing words he had to throw out by keeping you guys in the aura. Even if you did drop, the likelyhood of you getting to negative bloodied before you recieved another tick from the aura is unlikely.
This was most likely his plan, and when he said, "don't worry I'll heal you" you took it as, "don't worry, I'll use divine word on you," and he heard, "don't worry my aura will take care of you."
Both of you have valid interpretations of what was said, so in the future, specificity is key.
Also, while healing is a decent portion of a leaders job, it is not the sole function. This fallacy occurs with other classes all the time. Strikers continue to deal damage instead of rolling a heal check to force a downed ally to second wind. Just because something is part of your role does not inherantly mean that you do that, and that alone. I know in my group people are always reluctant to play leaders, and it is largely for this reason. I feel that you may be placing too large of an expectation on the PC in question. He is allowed to do attacks, and position himself independantly.
After all, I think we can safely assume that his failure to heal you was not from neglect, it wasn't as if he had no concern for the damage you had taken. He just did a poor job of communicating to you how he was going to deal with that, and you did a poor job of getting clarification.
Strikers continue to deal damage instead of rolling a heal check to force a downed ally to second wind.
...
He is allowed to do attacks, and position himself independantly.
Uh...
(Also, had the cleric used the aura to heal him, that would prolly be fine, but he mentions in the OP that he was unconscious for two more turns until the pally's new player got **** done).
Miscommunication, I honestly don't think that their was any malice or foul intentions.
Since healing begins at 0hp and not your negative value he was trying to minimize the amount of healing words he had to throw out by keeping you guys in the aura. Even if you did drop, the likelyhood of you getting to negative bloodied before you recieved another tick from the aura is unlikely.
This was most likely his plan, and when he said, "don't worry I'll heal you" you took it as, "don't worry, I'll use divine word on you," and he heard, "don't worry my aura will take care of you."
Both of you have valid interpretations of what was said, so in the future, specificity is key.
Also, while healing is a decent portion of a leaders job, it is not the sole function. This fallacy occurs with other classes all the time. Strikers continue to deal damage instead of rolling a heal check to force a downed ally to second wind. Just because something is part of your role does not inherantly mean that you do that, and that alone. I know in my group people are always reluctant to play leaders, and it is largely for this reason. I feel that you may be placing too large of an expectation on the PC in question. He is allowed to do attacks, and position himself independantly.
After all, I think we can safely assume that his failure to heal you was not from neglect, it wasn't as if he had no concern for the damage you had taken. He just did a poor job of communicating to you how he was going to deal with that, and you did a poor job of getting clarification.
Meh, you are quite off on this in my opinion. I was told I'd be healed. It wasn't my job to get him to clarify which as healing cleric spells he had that he'd be willing to use, and which he would not be willing to use.
It's not my job to examine and ask about every aspect of other players plans, as it's not really player-friendly to do so (I'd be annoyed if you were in my party and grilled me on all the actions I was going to take, which you seem to be implying I should've done). If a player has important/relevant information, typically they give it. I and the other 3 non-cleric party members have never played a cleric so it's not like we all expect to have every ability of all the other classes memorized.
I wasn't expect him to specifically use a healing word, he just said I'd be healed and he said nothing about me needing to be in a specific zone to be healed. If there was an asteriks next to that "you'll be healed" it was his job to say it, instead of my responsibility to take his character sheet to see what abilities he had and to look them up in the PHBs if I needed more clarification. I know if I was a healer, and I told someone I'd heal them, I'd make sure to tell them I'll only do so if they go into a certain burst 1 aura.
But after the fact, regardless of what he omitted before, he could've still healed me instead of leaving me unconscious several turns. And his first excuse was he didn't want to use a move/standard as a minor action. He was just shifting excuses from that to healing word, the implication being "you are not worth healing if you are unconscious".
Nor is anyone in this thread saying that a healer's sole function is healing. Note that my first inclination was to run out of the room, I don't expect a healer to always support me by default.
1 you get low on hp and state that you are going to leave the room
2 the healer says, "you will get healed, don't worry"
3 you move 1 instead of double move and then drop
4 healer says, "you weren't in the aura" argument ensues
This is the order of events according to your first post, so if this is wrong, again, please clarify. The disconnect comes between 2 and 3. The healer tells you that you are going to get healed, but he assumes that everything is going to be as it is at the time you asked. That is, your position will be within the aura. You then step out, and expect healing, which he believed to have been implied.
Also, if another party member joined the argument claiming that you were "endangering the party" then it suggested to me that the healers insinuation was not lost on everyone. Not saying it was clear as day, quite the opposite. Hence my statement that there is blame on both sides.
That being said, the healer's intent might not have been as malicious as it seems. Sometimes agendas change mid-combat. Sometimes players have to choose. Sometimes players don't make the best of choices.
I usually give a player a strike or two before I make a judgment on them. No use getting too worked up over a single incident. If I were a player in the group, and he did something similar to this again, it would be another strike against him. I think two strikes warrants a chat.
- - -
Anyways, he says "but I have to sustain minor the aura, so I can't use a healing word on you". I told him that he could replace use his movement or attack as a minor, he said he couldn't waste either. He wanted to minor to sustain, move action to move the aura to a better position for next turn, and then do one of his attacks. Hence he was now going to leave me unconscious.
Then for 2 more turns, I was left unconscious, I asked why in those turns he couldn't use healing word, he said he only had 1 left and he didn't want to use it(he used one on the other severely dmged player). Despite him saying 3 turns ago I'd be healed :p finally, the Paladin player had to leave, I convinced the person who took over to run over and give me lay on hands, so I could have 20 HP (I was unconcious with 8 temporary HP).
It sounds to me like the cleric made the correct tactical decisions. Being a leader is hard: they often have to decide who lives and who dies, and when an encounter is as close as you say it is, then giving the Healing Word to a character with a wizard's surge value might be inappropriate. Did he have a reasonable expecation you would even remain standing long enough to take a turn after he healed you? Did you have any daily/encounter powers left to contribute to the fight?
Further, the fact that you were willing to take a defender away from a tough battle to spend one of his own healing surges to get you off the floor says something to me about your view of teamwork: the team is there to benefit you.
Further, the fact that you were willing to take a defender away from a tough battle to spend one of his own healing surges to get you off the floor says something to me about your view of teamwork: the team is there to benefit you.
Indeed. How rude of him to spend 3 turns unconscious. Some people can be so inconsiderate. Lord knows I always have the good sense to play an oblivomancer, who gets better when unconscious.
Further, the fact that you were willing to take a defender away from a tough battle to spend one of his own healing surges to get you off the floor says something to me about your view of teamwork: the team is there to benefit you.
Indeed. How rude of him to spend 3 turns unconscious. Some people can be so inconsiderate. Lord knows I always have the good sense to play an oblivomancer, who gets better when unconscious.
Like I said, being 3 squares away, I did not take the Paladin out of the fight, he could still move, minor to heal, then charge back into battle. Plus I hadn't asked the actual Paladin player to move away while he was still there, that replacement player never used a paladin, . So obviously, in waiting several turns, AND like said, my first plan being to run out of the room and not rely on other's healing, shows that I don't expect my team to just benefit me.
Healing surge value is pretty neglible for healing word, you are comparing like 2d6+10 + my surge value (12) to a more resiliient character who may be 2d6 + 10 + 16. But the lay on hands was more than enough to keep me up, with the 8 Temporary HP. My defense values are amongst the highest in the party, the only danger really was the fire elemental's special attack recharging, but they they were dying (I could've made 2 of them die a turn earlier by expending one of my dailies, so the party took some more dmg from them).
If the healers die, its the defenders' fault.
If the strikers die, its their own damn fault.
And controllers never die, they just make you think they did.
> I would have told you in character to walk it off and that I didn't heal whiners. After having just told him NOT to walk it off (which was his original plan - to get out of the room), you then tell him to do so now that he's unconscious? I'm usually the DM in our games, and if you did that in mine, I'd be telling you that your character and his had just traded places - and conditions.
There is the problem. I wouldn't have said wait and I'll heal you. My priests are all hardened survivalists and raging battlepriests - pretty self sufficient and rarely asking for aid. He would have said walk it off because thats what the personality would say to do.
And if I had said to wait and I'd heal him, I would go along with the swap. If I survived- Id have held the character responsible for returning the favor of health and roleplayed having given my life for his in a moment of stupidity. If I'd died- I would shrug, and reroll.
I played in 4e at a game shop last weekend, and made a barbarian with some pretty flashy attacks. Cant remember the names(still prefer 3.x and it was one shot, group just needed a fill in for a night- I was a barbarian guide across a tundra, a guest star so to speak), but none really helped the party as a whole. The character was made for the character. If I'd made a tactical soldier who preferred operating in groups- I'd have done otherwise. We also has a team stack of those new cards. I didn't even use one.
As a whole the players had laughs- I called him 'Flufe' after his tribes old language word for hunter- pronounced fluu fee. But it was in no way pleasing to one of the players that wanted a guide that would work in tactical unison as if he was part of an oilled machine.
The OP to me sounds more upset that the healer changed his mind about the best tactical situation, or misunderstood the healer in the first place..or worst case: wanted to be waite don hand and foot.
In all the parties I've played in or DM'd for, the healer who decides to not heal a teammate and make an attack instead (unless he pulls out a ssj4 spirit bomb or something like that and ends the fight immediately) does not live very long. Without the big boys up front, you're going to get hit...really...REALLY hard...and we're going to giggle as you gurgle.
Except the healer did heal, he used the heal on another PC, just not the downed wizard, and he was using his minor for a healing aura, one that effected more than one character. The story didn't real like "the healer doesn't heal, he just attacks" it read like "the healer gave the heal to someone else but I wanted to have it." The leader was clearly doing his job, just not the way the controller wanted him too.
It is often much more tactically sound to heal a wounded party member who you expect to go down without the heal than to heal the party member who is already down. Depending on initiative order, preventing a fall over standing someone back up can be the difference of an entire turn worth of actions, not to mention the likelihood that a fallen character is in a bad tactical position (which is how he got KOed to begin with) and is prone, and will either need to remain in a poor position and possibly fall again after his turn is up, or spend his standard action to move, which wastes a turn of actions.
Tactically, it's almost always the right choice to leave the guy on the ground.
I wasn't there, so I can't really judge, but even by the way you tell the story, you come off as wanting the heal because you were bored being unconscious the whole fight, not because it was what was best for the party, while the leader was thinking about preventing a team wipe, not making sure you personally are having a good time.
Personal story: I'm a warlord. I'm out of Inspiring Words, and and the seeker keeps taking damage. "Fall back to cover and use your second wind." I tell her, but she doesn't, preferring to use her standard actions to attack. She gets knocked out, of course, and then she asks me to use a heal check on her to trigger her healing surge: after refusing to spend her standard action to heal herself, she wants me to spend my standard action to get her up off the ground. See above: that would have taken me out of formation, would have left her in her crappy position out in the open without blowing her standard to move, and she probably would have gotten knocked out again before she could get a second shot off. Since my standard would most only go towards her making one single (crappy) attack before she falls again, I opted to stay in formation and instead use my standard action to grant the avenger an (excellent) attack.
So that's where I'm coming from. I wasn't at your table, but in my experience, there are many situations where a healer shouldn't drop everything to pick up the KOed guy, despite what the KOed guy thinks should happen.
In all the parties I've played in or DM'd for, the healer who decides to not heal a teammate and make an attack instead (unless he pulls out a ssj4 spirit bomb or something like that and ends the fight immediately) does not live very long. Without the big boys up front, you're going to get hit...really...REALLY hard...and we're going to giggle as you gurgle.
It is often much more tactically sound to heal a wounded party member who you expect to go down without the heal than to heal the party member who is already down. Depending on initiative order, preventing a fall over standing someone back up can be the difference of an entire turn worth of actions, not to mention the likelihood that a fallen character is in a bad tactical position (which is how he got KOed to begin with) and is prone, and will either need to remain in a poor position and possibly fall again after his turn is up, or spend his standard action to move, which wastes a turn of actions.
Tactically, it's almost always the right choice to leave the guy on the ground.
None of this applied to this situation. Sure you can think up situations where it is best to leave a player KO'd(although I vehemently disagree that it is 'almost always' the right choice, maybe you have some specific party makeup that dictates that, but most of the time your claim rings false and it makes me doubt your tactical reasoning).
but there would have been no loss of a turn of action, I wasn't in a bad tactical position, the only risk being 10 dmg spurts that hit everywhere in the room by the fire elementals. So the only way I was going down is if 3 6's were rolled between 2 fire elementals in the next 2 turns or so, since I would have assisted in finishing off the wounded Elementals. If I was healed I was completely set the rest of the encounter. All my attacks are ranged so I would not have wasted any actions moving. So sure I agree with you that tactics sometimes dictate that you leave a player unconscious, but none of your musings apply in this situation.
Nor do I equivocate using a minor action and using a healing word with 'dropping everything' to assist a downed player. That is hyperbole on your part.
Although I am done debating, thanks for the advice, those who gave advice. On a forum I guess you should expect opinions of all sort, some of them showing a lack of insight, perhaps projecting their own individual experiences into a different scenario which does not fit.
however, i would ideally like to have leaders heal because having an unconsious guy is kinda what you are saving those healing words for, why he dident use it on you i have no idea but it does kinda suck to be on your ass through a whole encounter.
i would say let it go for now and tailor your play stratgey to keep yourself alive and not have to rely on him.
There is the problem. I wouldn't have said wait and I'll heal you. My priests are all hardened survivalists and raging battlepriests - pretty self sufficient and rarely asking for aid. He would have said walk it off because thats what the personality would say to do.
And if I had said to wait and I'd heal him, I would go along with the swap. If I survived- Id have held the character responsible for returning the favor of health and roleplayed having given my life for his in a moment of stupidity. If I'd died- I would shrug, and reroll.
I played in 4e at a game shop last weekend, and made a barbarian with some pretty flashy attacks. Cant remember the names(still prefer 3.x and it was one shot, group just needed a fill in for a night- I was a barbarian guide across a tundra, a guest star so to speak), but none really helped the party as a whole. The character was made for the character. If I'd made a tactical soldier who preferred operating in groups- I'd have done otherwise. We also has a team stack of those new cards. I didn't even use one.
As a whole the players had laughs- I called him 'Flufe' after his tribes old language word for hunter- pronounced fluu fee. But it was in no way pleasing to one of the players that wanted a guide that would work in tactical unison as if he was part of an oilled machine.
The OP to me sounds more upset that the healer changed his mind about the best tactical situation, or misunderstood the healer in the first place..or worst case: wanted to be waite don hand and foot.
You are a party, not a group of individuals who happen to be traveling in the same direction and coincidentally attacking the same monster. If you can't behave like a party member then I wouldn't want you traveling with us "group of individuals".
You don't have to have synergy between two players powers to be effective as a party. Would you be more effective if you were? Sure. But I'll leave that to minmaxxers and pick powers based on fun, and the character. I focus on the roleplay, not the rollplay. Its not a miniature tactics game to me - if I wanted that I'd go play one.
Just because my characters powers cause a field of conflict with your characters, doesn't mean I don't get them. If I put cold on the field and you heat, and we'd counteract- you take the left and I take the right. Noone has to be part of a machine- we are an adventuring party of individuals, not cogs in an adventuring monster killing machine.
If you want to play a tactical minis game with some rp thrown in- have fun. I'll play the roleplaying game with some cool powers in combat.
Apparently you missed the important detail: it's one thing to change plans if the situation calls for it, but saying "walk it off" to an unconscious character (or you to the player of the unconscious character) after your change of plans put them that way is about as middle finger as you can get.
If you'd do that then I revise my statement above: your character would have traded places and you'd have been looking for a new game afterward.
Also, why couldn't the paladin get over there and lay hands on you earlier? Teamwork is flexibility.
Miscommunication happens. I am fairly good tactical player in an older group of players, and we had a minor issue. My swordmage teleports into a bunch of baddies and the dragonborn points out that I am preventing him from using his dragonbreath on five opponents. I didn't like it much. My attitude was, if you want me to delay why didn't ask me before I take action. I felt like he was sitting on his hands and telling me I was doing it wrong, essentially loading the responsibility for his characters success on me while ignoring the fact that I was CB attacking 4 opponents and marking 10 with an aegis blade. I want him to use his dragonbreath first to maximum effect. I really do. It is the better tactic. But I want his contribution to come in a more timely manner. Once I am there, I'm there. If he's asleep at the switch, and wants to use a party unfriendly blast perhaps he should announce it and ask me to delay. I felt like the error was tranferred entirely to me, rather split evenly between us. I wanted to hear something form him like, "gee we both need to do a better job communicating about this. We have to touch base in target rich environments." Instead I heard you are doing it wrong, which I didn't much care for, and said so.
So problems happen. Just make sure you get everything smoothed out. I think of myself as a mild mannered person who loves teamwork. The player approached me after the game and checked into make sure things were good. I apologized because the group in general thought my behavior was inappropriate. I recommend that you do the same. Don't allow something like this to ruin a good game.
If you want to tell someone to "Walk it off" then have your healing word be telling someone to "Walk it off". Don't have it be "Suck and Die".
This sounds a lot more like the guy who played the cleric had a problem with you.
Behaving like a party member doesn't mean 'coordinate all your special attacks so the team plays off of them' or 'a healer only heals.'
You don't have to have synergy between two players powers to be effective as a party. Would you be more effective if you were? Sure. But I'll leave that to minmaxxers and pick powers based on fun, and the character. I focus on the roleplay, not the rollplay. Its not a miniature tactics game to me - if I wanted that I'd go play one.
Just because my characters powers cause a field of conflict with your characters, doesn't mean I don't get them. If I put cold on the field and you heat, and we'd counteract- you take the left and I take the right. Noone has to be part of a machine- we are an adventuring party of individuals, not cogs in an adventuring monster killing machine.
If you want to play a tactical minis game with some rp thrown in- have fun. I'll play the roleplaying game with some cool powers in combat.
Way to miss the point.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever game mechanics a particular character has and all to do with how you as a player regard your fellow party member. By calling someone a whiner because his character is down and asks for help proves you care nothing for your party member. If by whatever game mechanics your character has you really, absolutely, honestly cannot help the downed character, that still does not absolve you dismissing the player as a whiner.
As someone who frequently plays a "medic" class in various games this is a touchy issue. Sure I agree with you that an optimal "medic" priortizes keeping the party up first and looks to provide damage second. However, not all players play this way. Obviously the guy playing the "medic" in your group is more concerned with personal glory than overall party effectiveness. This is the default condition for your party, so your best option is to plan accordingly to not require their services to the best of your ability.
Without knowing more, I'd like to point out that it may not be the cleric being more concerned with glory than overall effectiveness. It might simply be roleplay. When I play a cleric of a war god, healing is secondary to combat. When I'm following a god of healing, healing becomes primary. It all depends on the character for me. It might be the same for the player of the OP's party cleric.
What if the OP's character died? So sorry, so sad, tough luck? Sure, a cleric is not everyone's healing slave and is entitled to do thing besides healing, but you don't abandon a party member which is what this cleric did. Healing is not the cleric's only job, but it is still part of his job.
If he dies, they use a low level raising ritual and he gets slap on the wrist penalty for a bit.
Further, the fact that you were willing to take a defender away from a tough battle to spend one of his own healing surges to get you off the floor says something to me about your view of teamwork: the team is there to benefit you.
Indeed. How rude of him to spend 3 turns unconscious. Some people can be so inconsiderate. Lord knows I always have the good sense to play an oblivomancer, who gets better when unconscious.
Stuff happens. Sometimes someone makes a mistake and can't back up what they say. Sometimes more stuff happens and it takes a while for the mistake to be rectified, if it even can be. If someone can't hack being unconscious for 3 turns, then that person probably shouldn't be playing a roleplaying game where it's possible to be knocked out.
If you want to tell someone to "Walk it off" then have your healing word be telling someone to "Walk it off".
That's basically how I always play Inspiring Word when I play a warlord.
"DIE SLOWER!"
Further, the fact that you were willing to take a defender away from a tough battle to spend one of his own healing surges to get you off the floor says something to me about your view of teamwork: the team is there to benefit you.
Indeed. How rude of him to spend 3 turns unconscious. Some people can be so inconsiderate. Lord knows I always have the good sense to play an oblivomancer, who gets better when unconscious.
Stuff happens. Sometimes someone makes a mistake and can't back up what they say. Sometimes more stuff happens and it takes a while for the mistake to be rectified, if it even can be. If someone can't hack being unconscious for 3 turns, then that person probably shouldn't be playing a roleplaying game where it's possible to be knocked out.
Indeed, which is why I used sarcasm to point out that one can't really bitch about him not being a "team player" while he's unconscious.
Example:
Next time the healer says "stick around, I can heal you," don't believe him. Do whatever you need to do to take care of your own survival in the situation. OR stick around, and just decide for yourself that you'll just accept whatever happens. Try to devise tactics for your character where you don't have to rely on heals from this guy--as they have already shown they consider your character a low priority.
In the end, you can only control your own behavior, regardless of what you feel someone else should do. Stop giving them control over your enjoyment of the game.
Behaving like a party member doesn't mean 'coordinate all your special attacks so the team plays off of them' or 'a healer only heals.'
You don't have to have synergy between two players powers to be effective as a party. Would you be more effective if you were? Sure. But I'll leave that to minmaxxers and pick powers based on fun, and the character. I focus on the roleplay, not the rollplay. Its not a miniature tactics game to me - if I wanted that I'd go play one.
Just because my characters powers cause a field of conflict with your characters, doesn't mean I don't get them. If I put cold on the field and you heat, and we'd counteract- you take the left and I take the right. Noone has to be part of a machine- we are an adventuring party of individuals, not cogs in an adventuring monster killing machine.
If you want to play a tactical minis game with some rp thrown in- have fun. I'll play the roleplaying game with some cool powers in combat.
Way to miss the point.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever game mechanics a particular character has and all to do with how you as a player regard your fellow party member. By calling someone a whiner because his character is down and asks for help proves you care nothing for your party member. If by whatever game mechanics your character has you really, absolutely, honestly cannot help the downed character, that still does not absolve you dismissing the player as a whiner.
The OP comes across as a whiner to me with 'why didn't he heal me'. Way to miss my point originally. If I'd known thats what you were discussing then I would have been more blunt.
And neutronium: I would have said 'sorry cant do it, busy with this' ooc- the in character would come while the other player was -conscious.- Now if I had the opportunity and wasn't busy as the ops healer apparently was- 'walk it off' would be ic as a healing word. I would get him to his feet if it didn't impede my current plan of action. But he wouldnt expect a full heal because 'walk it off' was used.
This is exactly why I don't play massive healers. People expect too much. I would be rich if I had a dime for everytime one of my former party players said 'you're the cleric, heal us, don't get attack spells' like as a player I don't have the right to play my own character. Its made me bitter about it all- my last cleric followed a god of death. Refused to even heal himself since he saw death as the natural cycle not to be impeded by magic.
In short: I would never play a healer in any fashion for a game you were in. I would probably play a rogue, and stay within a standard move of the party if scouting in a dangerous environment. I've had a similiar argument with a player over dividing up loot after I scouted hallways and rooms ahead for the party leader alone. I was attacked several times that session, alone, out of reach of support (one of the fights I won- alone and noone even heard it ic). And he wanted to say I'd earned nothing more than a standard allotment of the loot (he got twice..for giving orders apparently) and was miffed that the dm gave me the entire xp for the solo fight I had, rather than give it to the party. He was even more upset when I refused to scout out of support range in dangerous areas after that unless I got more than a single share of the loot.
Whether in healing or sneaking some players just go 'its your job' like you don't have a choice in it. If I wanted to be told what to do, I'd find a job other than the one I have (where I have a degree of independence in dealing with customers, and won't get slammed for giving a customer 10% off for an item if theres reason without managers approval).
Whether in healing or sneaking some players just go 'its your job' like you don't have a choice in it. If I wanted to be told what to do, I'd find a job other than the one I have (where I have a degree of independence in dealing with customers, and won't get slammed for giving a customer 10% off for an item if theres reason without managers approval).
Well, that's kind of the point. I mean yeah, people have some say in how they play their character, but it's like those people who are all "I want to be a cleric who doesn't heal things and doesn't cast spells and just power attack-cleaves every turn." who refuse to just play a fighter.
Or, to use a real world analogy, if I'm a mechanic, people expect me to fix their car. While I might have some leeway in scheduling and such, I'm still expected to do my job. If I want to grow corn, I should probably be a farmer instead.
Or, to use a real world analogy, if I'm a mechanic, people expect me to fix their car. While I might have some leeway in scheduling and such, I'm still expected to do my job. If I want to grow corn, I should probably be a farmer instead.
You presume that a cleric's primary job is always to heal. It doesn't have to be.
Or, to use a real world analogy, if I'm a mechanic, people expect me to fix their car. While I might have some leeway in scheduling and such, I'm still expected to do my job. If I want to grow corn, I should probably be a farmer instead.
You presume that a cleric's primary job is always to heal. It doesn't have to be.
It's a ****ing class feature. Granted it doesn't have to be their focus, but claiming that a cleric shouldn't be expected to provide some healing, is ludicrous. The bare minimum is two healing words, and given that the cleric in this scenario also has a zone of regen, one can reasonably assume he has some healing focus.
Whether in healing or sneaking some players just go 'its your job' like you don't have a choice in it. If I wanted to be told what to do, I'd find a job other than the one I have (where I have a degree of independence in dealing with customers, and won't get slammed for giving a customer 10% off for an item if theres reason without managers approval).
Well, that's kind of the point. I mean yeah, people have some say in how they play their character, but it's like those people who are all "I want to be a cleric who doesn't heal things and doesn't cast spells and just power attack-cleaves every turn." who refuse to just play a fighter.
Or, to use a real world analogy, if I'm a mechanic, people expect me to fix their car. While I might have some leeway in scheduling and such, I'm still expected to do my job. If I want to grow corn, I should probably be a farmer instead.
A mechanic doesn't have to fix cars. Sometimes they fix machines in factories. Other times small engine and yard equipment. Some large equipment like ships. Sometimes none of the above.
The not casting spells could be annoying, but power cleaving would work. The bare minimum for a cleric to heal is nothing. Nada. Zip. A cleric is just a religious figure- some are actively anti-healing.
Or, to use a real world analogy, if I'm a mechanic, people expect me to fix their car. While I might have some leeway in scheduling and such, I'm still expected to do my job. If I want to grow corn, I should probably be a farmer instead.
You presume that a cleric's primary job is always to heal. It doesn't have to be.
It's a ****ing class feature. Granted it doesn't have to be their focus, but claiming that a cleric shouldn't be expected to provide some healing, is ludicrous. The bare minimum is two healing words, and given that the cleric in this scenario also has a zone of regen, one can reasonably assume he has some healing focus.
If healing isn't the primary focus, then the cleric cannot be expected to heal at every drop of the hat. Healing from such a cleric is a bonus that the cleric decides to do and anyone expecting more than that is being unreasonable.
It is not really about if the clerics decisions were right or wrong.
There ARE situations where healing the downed character isnt the best course of action.
But you also have to consider that just letting the character lie around unconcious excludes its PLAYER from the game.
And getting excluded from the game sucks, especially if it is taking a long time.
I know this situation from one of my groups gamers, who always needs to do that 30 minute speech talking to npcs instead of just saying "i try to convince him by..". The only one playing the game during those 30 minutes is him. And its infuriating.
Even if the in-character decision is making sense, its pretty unfair to the player to not try to get him involved again.
Suppose I want to roleplay a cleric with absolutely zero healing ability. Why should I be unable to do so simply because the ability to heal is given to me? Who are you to tell me that since the rules give me the ability, I must use it?
If you're such a dedicated roleplayer, make it work. I already pre-emptively addressed the "REAL Roleplayers *Arrogant chuckle*" "argument" with a workable suggestion that took like 15 seconds to think up. One can only imagine what you could think of when doing an entire character background.
I don't remember much of your suggestion other than remembering that I didn't think much of it.
You don't take a minor action, and the person who isn't getting healed by you finds a hidden reserve (What with there being like a hundred powers that do that anyway). There are probably better solutions, but that one works, as well as demonstrating the wonder of HP as an abstraction. Unless you're a filthy rollplayer who can't get past the fact that you're still healing them mechanically >_>.
I am sorry if I missed it somewhere but did the OP use Second Wind or have any potions of healing?
While our group counts on the Cleric for healing, and whoever plays a Cleric knows that, I can agree with Maxperson. As long as you are upfront there should be no problem. We once had a Cleric that played a pacifist - never hit anything. Told us upfront and we all agreed, that was that.
Much to everyones chagrin, this thread is no longer about the op, and the OP has since declared that they are done with this thread, long before it was derailed even.
You bring up valid points, which only further illustrates what has been said. Which is, this isn't a black and white issue of "that person was totally wrong, and you are free of any blame and they should beg of you your sweet sweet forgiveness."
But if it were still about the OP, I would probably want your question answered as well.
You certainly have a way with words. I wonder if you enjoy being insulting, it comes naturally, or you are blissfully unaware of how abusive you are.
I have never played a game with a leader that does not enjoy helping his companions.
Aynn Rand meets D&D I suppose.
Objectivism does allow for helping others if you freely choose to do so. It doesn't even preclude asking for help. It is the demanding and forcing the help that's the problem. However, it does allow for choosing not to help at all. Still, as a member of a party, it is in my Objectivism self-interest to help a party member when he's down and not just say "walk it off". If I say I will help you, then Objectivism encourages I help instead of saying "walk it off" because it values your word.
I've swapped out healing powers in 4e for harming ones at the same rate. That death cleric was 4e. And he wasnt evil- he would be termed lawful neutral in 3.x terms, upholding the cyce of life and death.
I also let people know at the outset. The typical conversation in a new group:
player: Who's the cleric?
VB: I'm a cleric
player: so we stick near VB since he's the healer
VB (interupting): I'm not the healer
player: But you're the cleric
VB: cleric isn't another word for healbot
Also even if I hadn't be allowed to swap them out- they would have been empty powers. I would never have used them for that character. For a normal battlepriest, the party would have occasionally got first aid, but it wouldn't even be a secondary role to me.
Yes, and as I have said, I agree healing is not the cleric's only job, and I have not said the cleric must be a healing robot.
What happened here is the cleric said he would help. The OP's character dropped. The cleric refused to help afterward, telling him to "walk it off".
What I disagree with is the concept of someone being a whiner because he asked for help.
You certainly have a way with words. I wonder if you enjoy being insulting, it comes naturally, or you are blissfully unaware of how abusive you are.
I have never played a game with a leader that does not enjoy helping his companions.
Aynn Rand meets D&D I suppose.
Objectivism does allow for helping others if you freely choose to do so. It doesn't even preclude asking for help. It is the demanding and forcing the help that's the problem. However, it does allow for choosing not to help at all. Still, as a member of a party, it is in my Objectivism self-interest to help a party member when he's down and not just say "walk it off". If I say I will help you, then Objectivism encourages I help instead of saying "walk it off" because it values your word.
Objectivity really has no place with OPs post, though. You are completely discounting the fact that there are a great many valid reasons to change what you said you were going to do in between when you said it and when your turn comes up. We have no way of knowing the exact circumstances or what the cleric was thinking, so we can only come up with subjective opinion based on assumptions. Even if we did know every detail and what the cleric was thinking, we all give subjective weight to things differently, so we may or may not have come up with the same decision he did.
Read the quote I quoted. He insulted me first, so I gave him back what he tossed my way.
For the record, I was not put off personally.
Read the quote I quoted. He insulted me first, so I gave him back what he tossed my way.
For the record, I was not put off personally.
No worries. I much prefer civil discourse, but if someone gets rude with me, I'll often get rude right back. I'm a fairly confrontational guy like that
What I disagree with is the concept of someone being a whiner because he asked for help.
Do you disagree with him being called a whiner, or do you disagree with him actually being a whiner?
He came across as whiny to me. I come across as scrubby to some in m:tg when I talk about how one type of cards are egyptian god cards. Everyone reads different things in words and phrases. Applies in rl too- a co worker was complaining that he has yet to get more than 20 hours a week to me. I started the same way- the reason he hasn't got the hours (my manager was chewed out by corporate because I was getting full time hours actually) is because he is slow, and while he has potential to work out as a good employee is always looking for the easy way out. He came across as whiny too (partially because Ive been working the last 3 days with a bad cough and running nose, feeling dead on my feet from meds, and he calls out at least once a week).
I've debated the subject, but never once whined. Secondly, I don't give a rat's ass about the PHB or Heroes of whatever books. I will do as I've always done and roleplay my character as I envision, not as some rollplaying suggestion offers up to me.
I have already stated that I tell everyone up front what my character is like, so there is no expectation of my role other than what I stated it was, or at least not a valid one.
The game you are sitting down to play has inherent expectations of different players based on the role of the character class they choose. To tell everyone that you're going to be intentionally going against those expectations is basically a dick move.
4E is the wrong system for you if you want to not have to work within a framework based on class roles and the resulting tactical expectations during combat.
We know OP said this, but we don't know them as facts.
Right, but this is "What's a Player to do?" and in this forum, it just wastes everyone's time if the first thing you do is consider their information to be suspect so you can be justified about some other abstract "right way" to roleplay.
Seriously, MaxPerson, you may want to reconsider enter threads with the sole purpose of demonstrating how correct you are. "What's a Player to do?" is about people getting help with issues at their table. And you simply don't help. At all. It might be time for a little self examination. Maybe let go of the constant need to be in the right all the time?
The game you are sitting down to play has inherent expectations of different players based on the role of the character class they choose. To tell everyone that you're going to be intentionally going against those expectations is basically a dick move.
4E is the wrong system for you if you want to not have to work within a framework based on class roles and the resulting tactical expectations during combat.
No, the players have expectations that a cleric will heal every time, and to say someone can't use a different characterization is basically a dick move. I've made a barbarian who used ranged weapons. Is that against the rules of the tactical mini game you ar eplaying? Thats odd- the celts would be classed as barbarians yet very much enjoyed ranged weapons.
4e is a great system for roleplay -or- rollplay depending on the players wishes. Combat is not the majority of d&d when I play.
You can have your tactical mini game, he can rp his character.
I'm all for campaigns where we all agree to drift the ship in a new direction and toss those expectations out. However, that's something the group needs to do rather than one person playing outside of type while the rest of the table wonders what the **** they're doing. And when they call them on it, the person responding "you have no right to tell me how to play my character!" is mind boggling.
The default playing of 4E assumes that the PCs work together and that PCs of a class that has the leader role will heal other PCs. You can play it differently than that of course, but if the rest of the table isn't cool with that, then you would be indulging in some douchebaggery for disrupting the game by playing against the default approach.
People need to talk to one another. And I mean a real conversation. Not a unilateral "Don't tell me how to play my character! I don't have to heal anyone if I don't want to!" diatribe.
The game you are sitting down to play has inherent expectations of different players based on the role of the character class they choose. To tell everyone that you're going to be intentionally going against those expectations is basically a dick move.
It's absolutely no different from me saying that I'm going to be playing a striker. You have zero right to dictate how my character behaves. Skince you couldn't handle someone playing a leader who doesn't heal, I would not play with you. I play with people who can understand that D&D is a game that is what you make of it, not what it makes of you.
4E is the wrong system for you if you want to not have to work within a framework based on class roles and the resulting tactical expectations during combat.
It's a good thing that this is 100% false.
"What's a Player to do?" is about people getting help with issues at their table. And you simply don't help. At all. It might be time for a little self examination. Maybe let go of the constant need to be in the right all the time?
Then maybe OP should have given us enough information to actually form an opinion not based on assumption. Instead, he gave us a few sparse "facts" and then whined about what happened.
If me going "Hey guys, how about we all play this game that we all agreed to play rather than playing in ways contrary to the expectations found in the rules" is a dick move, then guilty as charged.
At least you admit it.
I'm all for campaigns where we all agree to drift the ship in a new direction and toss those expectations out. However, that's something the group needs to do rather than one person playing outside of type while the rest of the table wonders what the **** they're doing. And when they call them on it, the person responding "you have no right to tell me how to play my character!" is mind boggling.
Again, this is 100% false. There is absolutely nothing wrong with one player altering his role and telling people to treat him as if he is another role. Especially if he is up front about it at the beginning of the game.
D&D is and always has been more than just a bunch of rules. It has always been what you choose to make of it and it does not expect you to be a slave to the rules it provides.
It's cool that you choose to be a slave to the rules and are happy that way, but it's wrong of you to slam me for playing the game with the spirit it was intended to be played.
The default playing of 4E assumes that the PCs work together and that PCs of a class that has the leader role will heal other PCs.
The default is that the rules and everything in them are mutable if people so choose.
You can play it differently than that of course, but if the rest of the table isn't cool with that, then you would be indulging in some douchebaggery for disrupting the game by playing against the default approach.
I wouldn't play D&D with immature fools who can't handle me playing game in the spirit that it was intended to be played, so there is no worry there at all.
You certainly have a way with words. I wonder if you enjoy being insulting, it comes naturally, or you are blissfully unaware of how abusive you are.
I have never played a game with a leader that does not enjoy helping his companions.
Aynn Rand meets D&D I suppose.
Objectivism does allow for helping others if you freely choose to do so. It doesn't even preclude asking for help. It is the demanding and forcing the help that's the problem. However, it does allow for choosing not to help at all. Still, as a member of a party, it is in my Objectivism self-interest to help a party member when he's down and not just say "walk it off". If I say I will help you, then Objectivism encourages I help instead of saying "walk it off" because it values your word.
Objectivity really has no place with OPs post, though. You are completely discounting the fact that there are a great many valid reasons to change what you said you were going to do in between when you said it and when your turn comes up. We have no way of knowing the exact circumstances or what the cleric was thinking, so we can only come up with subjective opinion based on assumptions. Even if we did know every detail and what the cleric was thinking, we all give subjective weight to things differently, so we may or may not have come up with the same decision he did.
I agree with you that the OP has not provided enough details to judge the situation. I have repeatedly asked him for more info. Without that info, as I said before, we are talking about hypothetics, our preferences and/or game experiences.
Part of my reaction was to your attitude about healing and RP. I don't want to return to that topic, I'm just explaining my reaction. Personally I would not want to play in a group where with that sort of dynamic. Which is not to say that in our campaign we all sit around the the fire and sing kumbayah. We fight, argue, and insult each other incessantly. But when the battle starts, we are a team. One could claim that is poor RP, but in our campaign without teamwork we're dead.
The game you are sitting down to play has inherent expectations of different players based on the role of the character class they choose. To tell everyone that you're going to be intentionally going against those expectations is basically a dick move.
It's absolutely no different from me saying that I'm going to be playing a striker. You have zero right to dictate how my character behaves. Skince you couldn't handle someone playing a leader who doesn't heal, I would not play with you. I play with people who can understand that D&D is a game that is what you make of it, not what it makes of you.
4E is the wrong system for you if you want to not have to work within a framework based on class roles and the resulting tactical expectations during combat.
It's a good thing that this is 100% false.
"What's a Player to do?" is about people getting help with issues at their table. And you simply don't help. At all. It might be time for a little self examination. Maybe let go of the constant need to be in the right all the time?
Then maybe OP should have given us enough information to actually form an opinion not based on assumption. Instead, he gave us a few sparse "facts" and then whined about what happened.
I gave plenty of information in the OP, then I gave even more in a follow-up post. I tried to provide all the information, directly after the session, to summarize the play situation. This was my first time posting on this sub-forum so maybe I didn't give specificities equal to your expectations (which seem about equal to giving as much testimony as you'd give during a court proceeding). You sound like a troll honestly, either you believe what I said or you don't, if you think I am lying why do you even bother posting? Waste of time, in my view.
Part of my reaction was to your attitude about healing and RP. I don't want to return to that topic, I'm just explaining my reaction. Personally I would not want to play in a group where with that sort of dynamic. Which is not to say that in our campaign we all sit around the the fire and sing kumbayah. We fight, argue, and insult each other incessantly. But when the battle starts, we are a team. One could claim that is poor RP, but in our campaign without teamwork we're dead.
I'm not going to claim that it is poor RP. There are many types of groups and character types to play. I'll also point out that I usually don't play someone unwilling to heal. My beef was with people expecting all leaders to always heal, regardless of RP, so I decided to play devil's advocate. I have yet to make such a character, but I do see these characters as possible, viable and okay to play if they are stated as such ahead of time. There may come a time when I do come up with a concept that both requires that I play a leader and involves me not healing at all. Depends on my mood. That said, I play with a group of people that are like minded, so it won't be an issue. Ultimately, groups are best when the consist of people who are similar enough in play style that they can do what they wish without causing disruption.
D&D is and always has been more than just a bunch of rules. It has always been what you choose to make of it and it does not expect you to be a slave to the rules it provides.
It's cool that you choose to be a slave to the rules and are happy that way, but it's wrong of you to slam me for playing the game with the spirit it was intended to be played.
It is absolutely hilarious that you claim your approach is "with the spirit it was intended to be played." It is, infact, quite the opposite. It's pretty much foundational to RPG play that all the participants get on the same page and play the same game. You, on the other hand, advocate that you can toss that all aside unilaterally and play out of type and against the purposes of the other participants and it'll be them who has the problem if they object.
Just stop and think about that. Don't rush to post to prove how you're right. Just stop and think. For once.
The default playing of 4E assumes that the PCs work together and that PCs of a class that has the leader role will heal other PCs.
The default is that the rules and everything in them are mutable if people so choose.
And who decides which rules and everything in them are to be changed? Who choses that? Each individual player as he/she sees fit regardless of the desires of the other people at the table? Is that really what you're advocating?
I wouldn't play D&D with immature fools who can't handle me playing game in the spirit that it was intended to be played, so there is no worry there at all.
Except, ofcourse, that your approach is actually contrary to the spirity in which 4E is intended to be played. It's inherently selfish while 4E is a cooperative game.
It is absolutely hilarious that you claim your approach is "with the spirit it was intended to be played." It is, infact, quite the opposite.
Are you seriously claiming that D&D's inclusion of rule 0 in every edition means nothing? That house rules and game changes are not a part of D&D's spirit? That's an amazingly ingorant position to take.
It's pretty much foundational to RPG play that all the participants get on the same page and play the same game. You, on the other hand, advocate that you can toss that all aside unilaterally and play out of type and against the purposes of the other participants and it'll be them who has the problem if they object.
Where is it foundational to an RPG not to be able to roleplay a concept? Show me. Prove your subjective claim.
And who decides which rules and everything in them are to be changed?
The DM decides which rules are changed. However, since there is no rule that says leaders have to heal, a player can decide that for himself without changing a single rule.
My beef was with people expecting all leaders to always heal, regardless of RP, so I decided to play devil's advocate.
People expect all leaders to heal because they all can. And because the game text itself says that it's the job of the player playing a leader. You can play against type if you want to, but don't pretend that doing so is against the spirit of 4E and that it would be the other people at the table who are wrong if they object when you violate the social contract of the game (implicit or explicit).
I have yet to make such a character, but I do see these characters as possible, viable and okay to play if they are stated as such ahead of time. There may come a time when I do come up with a concept that both requires that I play a leader and involves me not healing at all. Depends on my mood.
Such a character concept would be innappropriate in 4E. Make sure to have a discussion with the entire table in advance. You'll especially want to get the DM's approval. Your right to play any concept you want end at the point where it impacts another participant's enjoyment of the game.
That said, I play with a group of people that are like minded, so it won't be an issue. Ultimately, groups are best when the consist of people who are similar enough in play style that they can do what they wish without causing disruption.
Exactly. So stop advocating that playing against the default assumptions of the game is some sort of universal right of all players as long as they simply state it beforehand. It's not. It's a product of your very unique table's social contract.
Actually, I doubt you actually have other people to play with. You said that you know what the OP said, but you don't know what the facts are. As if the OP was lying or something. Maybe we should apply the same douchebag standard to your posts and assume you're a lying troll who's making crap up?
People expect all leaders to heal because they all can. And because the game text itself says that it's the job of the player playing a leader.
It then goes on to talk about not having a leader in the group. Playing a leader and saying, I'm not actually a leader is perfectly fine. All you do is treat the situation as not having a leader. Bam! Done! Simple as hell and no one reasonable gets bent out of shape.
You can play against type if you want to, but don't pretend that doing so is against the spirit of 4E and that it would be the other people at the table who are wrong if they object when you violate the social contract of the game (implicit or explicit).
It absolutely is not against the spirit of 4ed. There is nothing in the spirit of 4ed that requires a leader to be present.
Such a character concept would be innappropriate in 4E.
There is no concept that is innapropriate for 4ed. You don't get to make that decision.
Make sure to have a discussion with the entire table in advance.
Have I not said this like 8 times?
You'll especially want to get the DM's approval.
I don't need approval for such a simple thing.
Your right to play any concept you want end at the point where it impacts another participant's enjoyment of the game.
Agreed. Fortunately, not having a leader doesn't impact a reasonable person's enjoyment.
So stop advocating that playing against the default assumptions of the game is some sort of universal right of all players as long as they simply state it beforehand. It's not. It's a product of your very unique table's social contract.
Show me where the default assumption of the game includes a leader in every group.
Actually, I doubt you actually have other people to play with. You said that you know what the OP said, but you don't know what the facts are. As if the OP was lying or something. Maybe we should apply the same douchebag standard to your posts and assume you're a lying troll who's making crap up?
Feel free. I've had enough of your crap assumptions about what the default of the game is. More crap assumptions from you won't be anything new.
Are you seriously claiming that D&D's inclusion of rule 0 in every edition means nothing?
No, it just doesn't mean what you think it does.
That house rules and game changes are not a part of D&D's spirit?
House rules have nothing to do with what we're talking about here. You even say so yourself below when you state there's not a rule mandating a cleric heals.
That's an amazingly ingorant position to take.
Too bad it's not my position. Nice try though. Why don't you stop trolling?
Where is it foundational to an RPG not to be able to roleplay a concept? Show me. Prove your subjective claim.
That's not my claim. Go reread my post and respond again. I'll reply to your questions when you demonstrate you understand what I wrote rather than trying to twist it to win some internet game you keep playing.
The DM decides which rules are changed. However, since there is no rule that says leaders have to heal, a player can decide that for himself without changing a single rule.
Over and above even the rules, even the DM, are the expectations of the participants of the game. There may be different social weight given to different participants (the DM as organizer often has an opinion of greater weight than other participants for example). But at the end of the day, it's a group of people sitting down together to play a game. A single individual to throw out the expectations of the game so they can play some sort of mastabatory concept like a leader who doesn't heal is putting their own wants and desires ahead of the rest of the table. Just the same as if they played a striker who doesn't ever attack an enemy. The group sat down to play 4E D&D. One individual then violating the assumptions that come with sitting down to play 4E and telling everyone it's their right to do so isnt' being a participant, but a disruption.
I find the clearest sign of a bad roleplayer is when they cling to their character concept at the expense of the enjoyment of all the participants. Invariably, such clinging is done to avoid fully engaging in the game. In the case of the position you're advocating, it's poor roleplaying because you are refusing to engage in the game by playing your character's role. It's basicaly turtling while claiming moral supremacy as some sort of artiste.
A good actor can play any role and any concept and knows they may have to give a little in terms of how they see their character to make the whole production work. Similarly, a good roleplayer can play any role and any concept and knows they may have to give a litle in terms of how they see their character to make the whole game work.
To sum up:
- Intentionally choosing to make and play characters that are innappropriate to the game is bad roleplaying.
- Insisting that it's your right and if anyone objects they're automatically wrong is selfish.
- Any play out of the default assumptions of the rules (or the expectations of the participants) set you have chosen should be agreed upon beforehand.
- Individual players do not have the right to unilaterally declare that they will be playing against the basic assumptions of the game.
Basically, playing a leader who refuses to heal isn't something you can tell the rest of the group you are going to do, and they have to just suck it up. It's something you need to ask the rest of the group if it's okay. And if they say no, they haven't violated your precious, precious rights as an individual.
It then goes on to talk about not having a leader in the group. Playing a leader and saying, I'm not actually a leader is perfectly fine. All you do is treat the situation as not having a leader. Bam! Done! Simple as hell and no one reasonable gets bent out of shape.
You'd like that to be the case so you can declare yourself right, but a leader who doesn't heal doesn't exactly excel at the other things a character needs to contribute. Treating the situation as the same as not having a leader isn't accurate because the character can't fulfill the full capabilities of another role either.
It absolutely is not against the spirit of 4ed. There is nothing in the spirit of 4ed that requires a leader to be present.
What's the moving goal posts? I didn't say anything about not having a leader, you did. Why did you redefine the argument like that? To try to make it look ridiculous if I disagree? Why would you be so obvious about it?
Such a character concept would be innappropriate in 4E.
There is no concept that is innapropriate for 4ed. You don't get to make that decision.
There are many, many concepts that are innappropriate for 4E. And I don't have to make any decision. The game has some behaviours and decision making processes that make up the actual play of the game. Characters that mean their players don't do those behaviours or make those decisions are inappropriate character concepts. Because by playing them, you're avoiding engaging in the game.
Make sure to have a discussion with the entire table in advance.
Have I not said this like 8 times?
You've not said it a single time. You said you just have to tell everyone and they have to accept it or they're being unresonable. That's not a discussion.
You'll especially want to get the DM's approval.
I don't need approval for such a simple thing.
You most certainly do. If there was one person at the table that needs to approve of your intentional disregard for the basic function of the class you have chosen, it's the DM.
Your right to play any concept you want end at the point where it impacts another participant's enjoyment of the game.
Agreed. Fortunately, not having a leader doesn't impact a reasonable person's enjoyment.
LOL. First of all you have the idea that a leader that doesn't heal is the same as playing a character of another role and not having a leader. Which is just not true. A leader that doesn't heal is a poor substitute for a controller, defender or striker. Secondly, you've now just unilaterally claimed that being "reasonable" means one agrees with your position.
Why are you arguing from such a position of weakness that you need to redefine the argument and claim the standard of reasonableness is how much someone agrees with your position?
Has your position really unraveled to the point where that's all you have left?
Show me where the default assumption of the game includes a leader in every group.
Why would I do that? I never said any such thing. It's your attempt to win an internet game that has brought up this whole "leader that doesn't heal = no leader" thing. Why would I show you something I never said, but you said?
To sum up:Intentionally choosing to make and play characters that are innappropriate to the game is bad roleplaying.
Prove this claim.
Insisting that it's your right and if anyone objects they're automatically wrong is selfish.
No more selfish than people who insiste someone has to heal them.
Any play out of the default assumptions of the rules (or the expectations of the participants) set you have chosen should be agreed upon beforehand.
This is why I inform people ahead of time. That way I can find out if they are immature and/or unreasonable people and opt out of the game if they are.
Individual players do not have the right to unilaterally declare that they will be playing against the basic assumptions of the game.
One of the basic assumptions of D&D is that it is a mutable game, so I am not playing against it by making a leader who does not heal. Or more accurately, I'm playing both with and against portions of the game and what I do actually offends nobody who is mature and reasonable.
Basically, playing a leader who refuses to heal isn't something you can tell the rest of the group you are going to do, and they have to just suck it up.
Yes I can. It's no different than my choosing to play a striker. I contribute and I don't heal. No reasonable person will have an issue with it.
To sum up:Intentionally choosing to make and play characters that are innappropriate to the game is bad roleplaying.
Prove this claim.
Prove that choosing an inappropriate character is bad roleplaying? Really? I need to prove that? If you insist...
It's bad roleplaying because:
- It's a refusal to engage fully with the game
- It's selfish
- It goes against what the DM has set as appropriate for the game
- It's prioritizing one's enjoyment over that of the other participants
- An inappropriate character can break the versimilitude of the setting
Any play out of the default assumptions of the rules (or the expectations of the participants) set you have chosen should be agreed upon beforehand.
This is why I inform people ahead of time. That way I can find out if they are immature and/or unreasonable people and opt out of the game if they are.
A sign of maturity is the willingness to set aside one's own agenda for the sake of working together toward greater enjoyment. In the case of D&D, that means playing cooperatively rather than selfishly.
And you said it again. You *inform* people. As if you have all the rights to decide what the game will be like, the other participants and the DM be damned. A mature and reasonable person discusses and forms concensus. An immature person informs people of their demands. An immature person takes their ball and goes home when they don't get their way.
By all means, don't play in any game you won't enjoy. But perhaps it's time to stop pretending you're the prophet of the one true way? Especially when your selfish approach is at odds with the cooperative nature of 4E?
One of the basic assumptions of D&D is that it is a mutable game, so I am not playing against it by making a leader who does not heal. Or more accurately, I'm playing both with and against portions of the game and what I do actually offends nobody who is mature and reasonable.
Again, who decides how it's mutability is applied at the table? Each player individually regardless of whether or not is meshes with the other participants?
A sign of maturity is the willingness to set aside one's own agenda for the sake of working together toward greater enjoyment. In the case of D&D, that means playing cooperatively rather than selfishly.
What I disagree with is the concept of someone being a whiner because he asked for help.
Do you disagree with him being called a whiner, or do you disagree with him actually being a whiner?
Yes.
Now heres a question: what happened to the idea that any character type could be the party 'leader?' Not necessarily one that could heal. Sometimes a wizard would be the brain trust, sometimes a rogue- othertimes a fighter, and sometimes a cleric. It seems as soon as 4e introduced a 'leader' type and the bit about 'a party without a leader' that was all out the window. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ed parties were all run without a 'leader' class.
Now we're getting into Abbott and Costello. You're confusing "leaders" and "faces"
Prove that choosing an inappropriate character is bad roleplaying? Really? I need to prove that? If you insist...
Now prove what I asked for. How are they inappropriate.
And you said it again. You *inform* people. As if you have all the rights to decide what the game will be like, the other participants and the DM be damned.
I have every right to decide what my character is like.
By all means, don't play in any game you won't enjoy. But perhaps it's time to stop pretending you're the prophet of the one true way?
Quote me saying my way is the one true way. I'd like to see you try it.
I'm so grateful for my group who's mantra is,"What are we lacking? Ok, I'll play that." Benefit of playing with people you like, I suppose.
One page of helpfulness....eleven pages of "Don't tell me what to do/Do your job" bickering. Stunning.
I'm so grateful for my group who's mantra is,"What are we lacking? Ok, I'll play that." Benefit of playing with people you like, I suppose.
There's nothing wrong with that and I think most groups do that, mine included. It's when people EXPECT you to do what they think you should do that the problems begin. That fact got lost on the people arguing with me.
One page of helpfulness....eleven pages of "Don't tell me what to do/Do your job" bickering. Stunning.
I'm so grateful for my group who's mantra is,"What are we lacking? Ok, I'll play that." Benefit of playing with people you like, I suppose.
There's nothing wrong with that and I think most groups do that, mine included. It's when people EXPECT you to do thing that the problems begin. That fact got lost on the people arguing with me.
Are you sure the problems didn't begin when you elevated your own enjoyment above those of the other participants in the game?
One page of helpfulness....eleven pages of "Don't tell me what to do/Do your job" bickering. Stunning.
I'm so grateful for my group who's mantra is,"What are we lacking? Ok, I'll play that." Benefit of playing with people you like, I suppose.
There's nothing wrong with that and I think most groups do that, mine included. It's when people EXPECT you to do thing that the problems begin. That fact got lost on the people arguing with me.
Are you sure the problems didn't begin when you elevated your own enjoyment above those of the other participants in the game?
Since I never did that, yep.
Now heres a question: what happened to the idea that any character type could be the party 'leader?' Not necessarily one that could heal. Sometimes a wizard would be the brain trust, sometimes a rogue- othertimes a fighter, and sometimes a cleric. It seems as soon as 4e introduced a 'leader' type and the bit about 'a party without a leader' that was all out the window. 1st, 2nd, and 3rd ed parties were all run without a 'leader' class.
That is a face character not a leader. Being a "leader" in 4.0 is not being a face.
I can see that. I just had to ask as in most game I've played 'faces' were 'leaders.' Usually a warrior type, only one a bard who had 'hired' the adventurers as inspiration for his art (and bodyguards).
One page of helpfulness....eleven pages of "Don't tell me what to do/Do your job" bickering. Stunning.
I'm so grateful for my group who's mantra is,"What are we lacking? Ok, I'll play that." Benefit of playing with people you like, I suppose.
+1
Our groups are founded on a solid teamwork, and solid RP dissension if that makes any sense.
There seems to be an insatiable appetitie for this sort of tomfoolery.
You've no right to complain about how someone else runs their character.
Not even in this supposedly coopertive game.
To you doing x was the best choice of actions. So the other guy disagreed.
In the end though? You beat the encounter, got the loot, & everyone survived.
(BTW, in the groups I play in; If you went down & were pitching a fit/B****** about not getting healed? We'd intentionally let you lay there unconsious.)
The solution? You want to see a cleric (or some other class) run, or run in a particular way? Then YOU play it.
As stated above, you do not have the right to complain about not healing your character, even if you're near death. If he wanted to play a Warpriest (AKA Offense-based Cleric), it is highly unlikely that he would give up the chance of getting a powerful attack just to be able to heal a few HP.
If he was, however, playing a Medic-like cleric, his first priority should always be healing his allies, especially those whose HP is less likely to drop fast (AKA Defenders or some Strikers), so they can keep the enemy occupied while the Medic heals the rest.
In either case, he probably did what he deemed best for the party in general, and as long as you survived, everything is just fine.
As stated above, you do not have the right to complain about not healing your character, even if you're near death. If he wanted to play a Warpriest (AKA Offense-based Cleric), it is highly unlikely that he would give up the chance of getting a powerful attack just to be able to heal a few HP.
If he was, however, playing a Medic-like cleric, his first priority should always be healing his allies, especially those whose HP is less likely to drop fast (AKA Defenders or some Strikers), so they can keep the enemy occupied while the Medic heals the rest.
In either case, he probably did what he deemed best for the party in general, and as long as you survived, everything is just fine.
D-bag cleric said he'd get healed if he satyed, he didn't. Sorry that is not being a team member that is being a D-bag. OP should have said go frack yourself and continued to run.
Really? So you'd rather have a TPK and be healed, than to have the healer change his mind and do something better to save the group......just because he told you that you would be healed? That's you being a D-bag, not him.
D-bag cleric said he'd get healed if he satyed, he didn't. Sorry that is not being a team member that is being a D-bag. OP should have said go frack yourself and continued to run.
As I mentioned several pages back, him stating, "don't worry I'll heal you" probably should have been, "don't worry your standing in my heal aura you will get health from it." So, when the player moved and was out of the aura, the player doesn't feel obligated to get him up right away because that isn't what he said, and the OP got angry because that is exactly what he thought he said.
The fact that another player joined the mix on the side of the healer further leads me to believe that it was a poorly communicated plan.
Lessons to take from it
-Pay attention to other party members powers
-When in doubt, ask
If anything, the guy should have notified the OP when he went to take his move action, "woah, what you doing there, you are running out of the heal aura, I thought you wanted a heal?" Still, enough blame to go around.
Guys he died because he was outside the healing aura of the priest. As someone who plays a healer character with very powerful healing words... I would surely keep the last HW to the defender!
This.
I can understand getting irritated at the guy when he promised you a heal, but in the end he has to consider the party as a whole--which overrides any assurances he gave you.
Chalk it up to bad communication and move on.
Guys he died because he was outside the healing aura of the priest. As someone who plays a healer character with very powerful healing words... I would surely keep the last HW to the defender!
This.
I can understand getting irritated at the guy when he promised you a heal, but in the end he has to consider the party as a whole--which overrides any assurances he gave you.
Chalk it up to bad communication and move on.
I very much disagree that it overrides any assurance he gave within the same turn, although I see how you may arrive at your opinion. No one else was bloodied, there was no need to save a healing word for a healthy defender, when the only attacks are blast attacks from fire elementals and a wizard.
Going into the healing aura would expose me to 3 more attacks per turn. From my perspective staying out of that was the correct thing to do because I could be knocked down to a high negative even if I was being healed by his aura. Perhaps, in retrospect, the positive would have outweighed the negative, but in a situation with lots of unknowns it definitely wasn't clear that going into close blast/burst/melee range would make me safer.
I very much disagree that it overrides any assurance he gave within the same turn, although I see how you may arrive at your opinion. No one else was bloodied, there was no need to save a healing word for a healthy defender, when the only attacks are blast attacks from fire elementals and a wizard.
Going into the healing aura would expose me to 3 more attacks per turn. From my perspective staying out of that was the correct thing to do because I could be knocked down to a high negative even if I was being healed by his aura. Perhaps, in retrospect, the positive would have outweighed the negative, but in a situation with lots of unknowns it definitely wasn't clear that going into close blast/burst/melee range would make me safer.
Have you even asked him what he was thinking? If I see a better way for the group to survive, I will do that action regardless of assurances that I gave prior. Circumstances change.
I very much disagree that it overrides any assurance he gave within the same turn, although I see how you may arrive at your opinion. No one else was bloodied, there was no need to save a healing word for a healthy defender, when the only attacks are blast attacks from fire elementals and a wizard.
Going into the healing aura would expose me to 3 more attacks per turn. From my perspective staying out of that was the correct thing to do because I could be knocked down to a high negative even if I was being healed by his aura. Perhaps, in retrospect, the positive would have outweighed the negative, but in a situation with lots of unknowns it definitely wasn't clear that going into close blast/burst/melee range would make me safer.
I can certainly understand your reasoning for staying out of range, and I can understand that based on what he said, you had every expectation to be healed when you were dropped. The thing is, I can also understand tactical reasons for withholding a heal, especially if the healer doesn't have many heals left available. As a controller, you are likely to be low on the priority list for heals, based on an overall look at party survivability. And when you think about it that way, it's not a personal grief, but an objective look at tactics for the encounter, which motivates the healer's behavior.
I wasn't there. I can't pretend to know the true dynamics of what went on at the game table. I just happen to feel that there are plenty of justifiable reasons for a healer not to heal you in a given situation.
You are obviously upset by the incedent. The best way to resolve your feelings about the matter is to address it, diplomatically, with the player in question, preferably in a one-on-one talk. Ask him what his reasoning was. Explain why you were frustrated by his behavior.
What do you do to stop yourself from getting irritated?
With practice, learn the physiological changes that signal an imminent rise in anger, such as an increase in body temperature, increased focus and decreased peripheral vision, or hair standing on end (all of which are extremely subtle and not at all as cartoony as they sound), before you reach the point where it impairs your ability to think rationally.
The act of recognizing the symptoms alone is usually enough to reverse the process, but if not, you can simply take that moment to step away for a minute, clear your mind (as opposed to reviewing the items that triggered the episode in the first place, which is likely if you aren't actively controlling it), and take a moment to relax in silence.
Once you pass the fight-or-flight barrier, you become entrenched in a mindset that not only prevents you from passing below the barrier for quite some time (usually the duration of the evening, if you're an average human male), but also typically keeps you from seeing the other party's point even after the event. Since you're already past that point, you will need to work actively to remove the barriers you've constructed and truly understand the opposing viewpoint.
Any attempt to discuss this with the other player before you've made an effort to stop defending your own position to people on this forum will likely result in the exact same situation, unless the other guy is an exceptional communicator, which seems unlikely since the issue wasn't resolved the first time.
What do you do to stop yourself from getting irritated?
With practice, learn the physiological changes that signal an imminent rise in anger, such as an increase in body temperature, increased focus and decreased peripheral vision, or hair standing on end (all of which are extremely subtle and not at all as cartoony as they sound), before you reach the point where it impairs your ability to think rationally.
The act of recognizing the symptoms alone is usually enough to reverse the process, but if not, you can simply take that moment to step away for a minute, clear your mind (as opposed to reviewing the items that triggered the episode in the first place, which is likely if you aren't actively controlling it), and take a moment to relax in silence.
Once you pass the fight-or-flight barrier, you become entrenched in a mindset that not only prevents you from passing below the barrier for quite some time (usually the duration of the evening, if you're an average human male), but also typically keeps you from seeing the other party's point even after the event. Since you're already past that point, you will need to work actively to remove the barriers you've constructed and truly understand the opposing viewpoint.
Any attempt to discuss this with the other player before you've made an effort to stop defending your own position to people on this forum will likely result in the exact same situation, unless the other guy is an exceptional communicator, which seems unlikely since the issue wasn't resolved the first time.
This is good advice. Anyone can get irritated. Another way to handle things is to just say hey lets talk about it afterwards. In the heat of battle, when people are excited is a particularly hard time to sort things out. I play with a group of older like aged players and they seemed to think I lost my cool when another player wanted me to retcon my turn. I'd didn't much like it, and did use the word "please" in mild tones, but my as Flashback John said, apparently my displeasure was obvious from my stone faced expression and the fact that I brought it up twice. They told me to take it down a notch. I still don't agree that I was out of line, but apologized anyways. You have to weigh the fun of the game and group dynamics versus personal conflict. Personal conflict can ruin the game for everyone. And that is why I apologized.
Just remember you are always asking for help, or making a suggestion. Keep that in mind and restrain your expectations of other's behavior. This thread has demonstrated there are a constellation of reasons that influence PC choices. We may not all agree on the validity of those choices, but that is part of the game, and can be difficult at times.