Healers: When is it okay to let the stupid person's character die?

[Mercurias]

I'm entering my third session of Curse of Strahd. My party's running a Light Cleric, Moon druid, Conjuration Wizard, Berserker Barbarian, and the dumbest Bard I have ever played with. Ever.

I'll be honest and admit that I'm not super-fond of the Bard's player in general terms, but my main problem is from a resource management standpoint: The guy managed to require every spell slot both the Druid and I had in order to stay alive, and even then he dropped to 0 hit points three times.

The party is about to walk into the Chamber of the Big Bad Scary Thing, and the party agreed to take a long rest before going in. Given that I'm still level 2, with a whopping total of three spell slots to burn, I'm not inclined to waste them all on the Bard when he's putting himself needlessly at risk.

A good friend of mine, when he was teaching me how to play a healer in MMO's, taught me, "Healing stupid bleeds you dry, and then you'll let the party die." D'you think it's worth the backlash to let his character reap what he sows if it saves the campaign?

[Keeganwilson]

When they are being stupid

[Pelle]

D'you think it's worth the backlash to let his character reap what he sows if it saves the campaign?

What do you mean by saving the campaign? It is not more important to kill the BBEG than for everyone at the table to have fun, if that's what you mean. However, if you and the other healers don't have fun with his behaviour, you need to do something to save the game. Let him know you don't have fun, and maybe agree on a certain amount of healing you can spare him? It's a social issue, talk with the group about it.

[Dungeon-noob]

I'm entering my third session of Curse of Strahd. My party's running a Light Cleric, Moon druid, Conjuration Wizard, Berserker Barbarian, and the dumbest Bard I have ever played with. Ever.

I'll be honest and admit that I'm not super-fond of the Bard's player in general terms, but my main problem is from a resource management standpoint: The guy managed to require every spell slot both the Druid and I had in order to stay alive, and even then he dropped to 0 hit points three times.

The party is about to walk into the Chamber of the Big Bad Scary Thing, and the party agreed to take a long rest before going in. Given that I'm still level 2, with a whopping total of three spell slots to burn, I'm not inclined to waste them all on the Bard when he's putting himself needlessly at risk.

A good friend of mine, when he was teaching me how to play a healer in MMO's, taught me, "Healing stupid bleeds you dry, and then you'll let the party die." D'you think it's worth the backlash to let his character reap what he sows if it saves the campaign?
Start with step one: bring it up OOC. Depending on the group frame the talk differently, either as a general party discussion about healing resources "we seem to be running short, both our casters are spending every single slot to keep people from dying, and can't actually be casters", or being direct "i noticed last session you needed like 4 (more?) spell slots for heal from both the casters just not to die, do you know how to cut that back?" If it's incompetence rather then malice, you can spend some time explaining survival 101 (don't run ahead of the party, don't try to be a frontliner as a bard, not even valor, don't pick fights we can't win, this is CoS after all, etc). If he's just being a jerk, warn him that you're not here to be his healbot, and aren't willing to spend more then 25% of spell slots on healing (for example), and if he needs more, he can short rest for hp or disengage, the action exists for a reason.

[Mercurias]

When they are being stupid

The Bard has a strange compulsion to split the party in order to one-on-one roleplay with the Wizard in an unexplored part of Death House. He does it constantly, and he's been ambushed four times. He also has an apparent need to be on the front line at all times, even though he has 13 AC.


What do you mean by saving the campaign? It is not more important to kill the BBEG than for everyone at the table to have fun, if that's what you mean. However, if you and the other healers don't have fun with his behaviour, you need to do something to save the game. Let him know you don't have fun, and maybe agree on a certain amount of healing you can spare him? It's a social issue, talk with the group about it.

I've talked to him about it twice, and he's told me that if I didn't like using my spell slots on him then he'd have the Druid heal him. I've also offered to have the Bard go behind me in our marching order because his AC is actually lower than the Wizard's when the Wizard is using Mage Armor. He told me he didn't want to because he didn't bring along a ranged weapon and didn't want to sit and use Vicious Mockery from the back.

Also, the Druid is about to start doing what Moon Druids often do, which is use a concentration spell and Wild Shape into a bear, where she won't be able to heal him.

[Edenbeast]

It's not a MMO though. I understand the reasoning, but I can't really agree with it. Coming from heavy roleplaying myself, in my experience, role-play should be the most important factor here. What is your alignment? Who is your character? And what would he do? Not what you or your MMO friend would do. If you are anything good aligned, but maybe especially lawful/neutral good, then you are wilfully letting someone die who can be saved. Try to do the minimal, like stabilising the guy, if you know it's a tough fight and you have just a few spells.
If you are a ruthless light cleric of some neutral or evil deity that promotes the burning of the impure and the foolish "you had it coming, now pay the price," or neutral in the sense of "I'm not going to spend all my resources on one person, we have to think about the greater purpose," then that would work... I guess.

Also, talk to the guy. Why does his character get into trouble so often?

[Quoz]

Is it stupidity or just ignorance? With a moon druid and barbarian your party has definitely got the ability to tank the front lines and defend the casters. So what tactics are going wrong that he is drawing so much aggro?

If you think you're not having fun spending all your time healing, he's probably having less fun bleeding out. Coach him a little - a low level bard should be inspiring, buffing, and mocking his opponents. He should not be trying to shank the boss in close combat. And the only healing anyone should get with so few spells to go around is a healing word when they are already at 0 HP. Your spells are better spent on things like bless, and a backup bless for if you lose concentration.

[DarkKnightJin]

There's no cure for (terminal) stupidity. No matter how many spell slots you throw at it.

My advice: He wants to run off and get himself killed so badly? Let him.
Perhaps he'll learn that you're not there to keep him from getting himself dead.

[Pelle]

I've talked to him about it twice, and he's told me that if I didn't like using my spell slots on him then he'd have the Druid heal him. I've also offered to have the Bard go behind me in our marching order because his AC is actually lower than the Wizard's when the Wizard is using Mage Armor. He told me he didn't want to because he didn't bring along a ranged weapon and didn't want to sit and use Vicious Mockery from the back.

Also, the Druid is about to start doing what Moon Druids often do, which is use a concentration spell and Wild Shape into a bear, where she won't be able to heal him.

Allright, if the druid heals him, then no problem. It's up to both of them to decide. Sounds like the player enjoys playing a reckless character. That's fine. He can't feel entitled to you spending all your slots on healing him if that's not fun for you, though. If he don't think it's fun to spend all his actions casting Vicious Mockery from the back, he will surely understand that it is not fun for you to spend all your spells on healing him. Just let him know how much healing you are willing to spend on him, and let him make his own decisions. If he's complaining and asking for more, you need to decide on whether you are compatible playing together or not.

[Oerlaf]

In D&D healing is unlike that in MMO. Direct healing spells are mostly used to bring someone from 0 hit points and only then. Otherwise, any healing you make to a character that is not dying is going to fade sooner or later.

You should use some kinds of damage mitigation. Temporary hit points, buffs and so that reduce incoming damage.

Also ask the bard if he knows the heroism spell.

For you, bless spell gives +1d4 bonus on saving throws. That includes death saving throws.

And don't underestimate healer's kits.

[Dungeon-noob]

The Bard has a strange compulsion to split the party in order to one-on-one roleplay with the Wizard in an unexplored part of Death House. He does it constantly, and he's been ambushed four times. He also has an apparent need to be on the front line at all times, even though he has 13 AC.



I've talked to him about it twice, and he's told me that if I didn't like using my spell slots on him then he'd have the Druid heal him. I've also offered to have the Bard go behind me in our marching order because his AC is actually lower than the Wizard's when the Wizard is using Mage Armor. He told me he didn't want to because he didn't bring along a ranged weapon and didn't want to sit and use Vicious Mockery from the back.

Also, the Druid is about to start doing what Moon Druids often do, which is use a concentration spell and Wild Shape into a bear, where she won't be able to heal him.
So incompetence, and he won't listen&is a jerk about. Let him die, don't waste another slot on him. Druid can do what they want, but advise them that no amount of magic can save this fool from his imminent demise. This is low level play in a deadly module, and he's being about as suicidal as can be without trying to solo Strahd at lvl1. also "i don't have a ranged weapon"? YOU'RE a BARD. you shouldn't be in melee, especially with this party, especially with that AC, and if you were melee capable (swords or valor, good AC&build) you still need a ranged option for when you're too hurt or the enemy isn't that close. I'd almost suspect this guy is being stupid on purpose.

[some guy]

You've already talked to him. So in that case, next time the bard goes down, stabilise him instead of using a spell slot. He undergoes the consequence for dumb choices (and splitting up in a module called "death house", going melee with low ac, bringing no ranged weapons and not willing to use vicious mockery are all dumb choices), but doesn't lose his character. But, also communicate this to him so he can act accordingly.

[BreaktheStatue]

You're not there to simply enable this guy's dumb decisions. If you've already explained to him what the issue is and he insists on being reckless, let him deal with the consequences.

EDIT: And MMO philosophy aside, in real life (and for RP purposes), when someone is obviously incapable of performing at a satisfactory level in dangerous situations, one of five things can happen:

1. They die
2. They get other people killed
3. They die AND get other people killed
4. They get removed from the group before they die or get other people killed (IDEAL)
5. A combination of luck and of long-suffering comrades pull the sandbag through

4 is always the best, and 5 should only happen when 4 isn't an option. 5 can easily be interrupted by 1-3, though, and of 1-3, 1 is probably the most just outcome. I'd probably tell the Player and the PC that if he doesn't stop acting like a moron, the group is either going to tell his character (or the player, or both), to take a hike.

[Edenbeast]

So incompetence, and he won't listen&is a jerk about. Let him die, don't waste another slot on him. Druid can do what they want, but advise them that no amount of magic can save this fool from his imminent demise.

Since you're Dutch, you must know "dood door schuld en nalatigheid," in English, negligent homicide...


You're not there to simply enable this guy's dumb decisions. If you've already explained to him what the issue is and he insists on being reckless, let him deal with the consequences.

Again, you're not roleplaying your own character if it suddenly decides to let someone bleed to death because he deserves it, when that's not what your character would do. I think this is all wrong advice. This is a roleplaying game, if your character (or the druid) are good characters, then they should not make malicious decisions the lead to the death of another. One solution is to talk about this out of game together with the player in question and the DM. Vent your frustration, but not through bad roleplaying. Another option is, through roleplaying, by letting your characters vent their frustration, tell the bard he's a liability and should no longer travel along for his own safety. Set an ultimatum. You will not let him die, but the next time his actions jeopardise the safety of the party, he's out (Allow the player to roll up a new character, and hopefully he learned from this). In case it's not just an issue of how he plays his role, but there is friction between him and the other players, then consider setting the same ultimatum for him as player as well.


You've already talked to him. So in that case, next time the bard goes down, stabilise him instead of using a spell slot.

Also good advise. Stabilise him, but let him lay there. If he isn't annoyed by going down so easily, then at least it should be frustrating for him that when he goes down, he's basically sitting at the sideline waiting for the fight to be over..

[Laserlight]

Why is he playing a bard when he doesn't want to use bard tactics? Sounds like he wants to be a paldin or barbarian.

In a similar situation, I didn't let the archer die, but when he went down, we finished the fight and I waited until he failed two death saves. Then I explained to him that archer tactics are "stay back, take cover, attack from range" and that the next time he ran ahead into melee, I would let nature take its course. He started behaving more reasonably after that. Mostly.

[DeTess]

@Edenbeast, do you hold the Bard to the same standards? After all, playing suicidal can't exactly be considered good roleplaying, either, unless the character actually has a deathwish.

Personally, I'd just stabilize him manually the next time. That'll leave him knocked out for 1d4 hours, letting him bear the cost of his actions and recovery, rather than the healers.

[Edenbeast]

@Edenbeast, do you hold the Bard to the same standards? After all, playing suicidal can't exactly be considered good roleplaying, either, unless the character actually has a deathwish.

Personally, I'd just stabilize him manually the next time. That'll leave him knocked out for 1d4 hours, letting him bear the cost of his actions and recovery, rather than the healers.

Yes, that's also a great way to deal with it. I agree, it's probably/definitely bad roleplaying from the bard's side. I'd hold all players to the same standards, and therefor really appreciate when one player's bad acting doesn't drag the others into doing so as well. I like creative solutions that still make sense from the character's perspective.

Instead of 1d4 hours, just stabilise the bard and then carry him along on a stretcher. Tell him that he's as much, or I mean, less of a liability as he is when he can walk by himself.

[BreaktheStatue]

Again, you're not roleplaying your own character if it suddenly decides to let someone bleed to death because he deserves it, when that's not what your character would do. I think this is all wrong advice. This is a roleplaying game, if your character (or the druid) are good characters, then they should not make malicious decisions the lead to the death of another. One solution is to talk about this out of game together with the player in question and the DM. Vent your frustration, but not through bad roleplaying.

I can think of plenty of scenarios in which a good character would let the Bard die, or at least not try very hard to save him. He routinely puts himself at risk, and by continuing to enable his stupidity and waste your resources you're putting everyone else at risk. And I mean, what about your competing interests? "I've got a wife and kids that count on my support, but Captain Jackass is at it again, and my character sheet says GOOD, so I guess I have to go help this guy again."

But yeah, the best scenario, as I tried explaining, is to just get rid of him before he hurts himself or others.

[Orc_Lord]

Hmm, you got me thinking.

I used to DM for a player that actually had low wisdom in real life. In a campaign 1-11 he had 17 permanent deaths. My total kill count was 19, so it wasn't my campaign, it was the player.

So I understand what you mean when you say making stupid decisions. The problem is, even if the Bard dies, the next character will have the same problem. It's the player not the PC.

The player I am referencing from my game killed himself in some amazing ways. As a wizard deciding to sneak ahead in drow territory. As a druid deciding to pull a lever in an empty room full of dead bodies with puncture wounds. Even though my personal favorite was seeing a suspicious carpet, waiting for everyone to leave the room and then poking it, it was animated and it ate him.

Here is what I would do, since you have already talked to him.

See if the rest of the players mind his shenanigans. If they do ask the GM if he can be let go.

Now if he is a close friend of some of the other players, or the DM it can be impossible to even bring it up.

The alternative is to not heal him. There can be plenty of in character reasons why you stop. But even for out of character reasons, healing during battle wastes a turn, and you almost always can't outheal the incoming damage. So let him go down, throw a healing word after a couple of failed death saves.

Regardless the player won't change.

[Crgaston]

Cure Wounds is on the Bard list. Just sayin'.

[Maelynn]

It's hard to keep the balance between having fun and playing the game well when one of the players is being an arsecandle. The fact that you talked about it with him and he refuses to adjust implies he's not acting out of ignorance or roleplaying his character, he is uncooperative as a player. The fact that he plays his character recklessly and isn't open to tactics implies he's very selfish in his playstyle.

I agree with the suggestion to just stabilise him and save your spell slots. It means he won't die, but he doesn't get to rejoin the fight either. If he complains about it, you can counter that by saying he should just stop fishing for blows if he wants to stand on his feet long enough to make it to the end of the fight.

As for the Druid's part, well you said that he manages to get to 0 hp even after the both of you wasted all your spell slots on him. I have no doubt he'll reach that stage again even with the Druid's healing. Perhaps you could ask the Druid's player to just go into Wildshape a tad sooner, if you really want to teach the guy a lesson... :smallamused:

[Corran]

These are the sort of characters that make me, or at the very least seriously tempt me to forget everything I was aiming for my own character roleplaying wise, and instead shape a new personality from scratch for my character, and that personality would be that of a very pragmatic person.

The campaign itself, though I have never played it, but from what I have gathered, has a horror theme to it, because it is hard and difficult for the pc's to survive I guess. So it has the survival element to it. A character like your bard plays very contrary to that survival-horror theme. So I would have my pragmatic character play very close to these themes. So, I play then a character that finds himself in a strange and very dangerous land, that does his best to survive with the tools he has in his possession (ie the other PC's). This way I don't have to stop the game and argue tactics ooc (which is even worse than any rp the bard can manage), this way I just have my character do what he thinks is his best chance to survive. If healing the bard is the best option, then he heals the bard. If dropping the unconscious bard behind while being chased by werewolves so he can escape, he does that. This way, I stick with an rp that IMO does honor to the campaign's theme, fits the campaign theme, and again IMO is an interesting antithesis with the bard's rp, while also giving it credit, cause now there is actually a chance for the bard's rp to be presented with its consequences, so that gives it some more credit. And of course, your own rp will have consequences, as it is not easy to figure out what your best course of action will be, and you might be easily sidetracted by ''teaching the bard a lesson'', which has actually nothing to do with your goal, ie ''stay alive''.

Long story short, don't argue tactics, bring the disagreement into rp and away from anything metagame-y.
That is probably ''bad'' advice, but that's what I would do, at least if I was irked by another player and the issue was that I was finding their rp contradictory to the vibe I was expecting from the campaign setting.

[Lyracian]

So I understand what you mean when you say making stupid decisions. The problem is, even if the Bard dies, the next character will have the same problem. It's the player not the PC.
If the next character is a Barbarian or heavy armour fighter charging ahead is not as likely to be quite so devastating.
If the Player only has one "Character" that he can role-play then at least try and make sure he has the best Class for that role.

[PeteNutButter]

Going off alone and doing reckless things is a common problem among newer and less experienced players. They tend to not take the game world seriously and don't recognize that by separating from everyone else they inhibit fun as the other players have to watch their interaction with the DM.

Now at this point you have a behavior problem that can be addressed out of character, or in game. The reality is it needs to be addressed one way or another. I've found that addressing it OoC has limited success, but should be tried first. Most people have to learn the hard way, in game, by seeing real consequences for their actions. I'm talking character death, or similar unfun things including lost combat rounds, lost game time due to character being unconscious.

So, if that means that your character has to do something that doesn't fit with their alignment and let the poor bard die, it's worth it. You might not just be playing the one session, the one campaign. You could be playing a whole slew of campaigns with this player. Best to just get it over with and let the player learn. Once they realize the game isn't fun when played that way they'll either adjust their play style to conform with the group or move on. Either way you win.

If it sounds like I'm dissing new players, I should make it clear I'm pretty sure we all do this same tactic with any game. Say you're playing a new video game. Who hasn't tested the game's difficulty by running into a room with way too many enemies? The trick is with most video games you quickly die and reload. In that process you learn how much of a beating your character can take. You don't keep doing it, as it's a waste of time.

In D&D, the player will continue to do this--likely across all campaigns--because they have never learned. But people don't like to let them learn, because there is no "reloading" in D&D. You have to roll up a new character usually. I'm all for doing something your character wouldn't do (such as not healing), in order to solve a meta-problem. It's like the opposite of meta-gaming. Instead of using real life knowledge to solve a D&D problem, you are using D&D to solve a real life problem.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Bard has a strange compulsion to split the party in order to one-on-one roleplay with the Wizard in an unexplored part of Death House. He does it constantly, and he's been ambushed four times. He also has an apparent need to be on the front line at all times, even though he has 13 AC.

Also, the Druid is about to start doing what Moon Druids often do, which is use a concentration spell and Wild Shape into a bear, where she won't be able to heal him.
1. Let him drop to 0 HP and have the chance to roll death saves two or three times. After the next fight is over, ask him "would you rather roll death saves, or Vicious Mockery, during the next fight?" Rinse and repeat until the light comes on.

2. Get him a range weapon. Find one, loan one, buy one, whatever it takes. Get him a ranged weapon.

That he was too naive to get one at start up might be a case of not appreciating how handy light crossbows are for low level casters. My first warlock relied on light crossbow until second level, since my 16 Dex had as good a to hit, and 1d8 + 3 was better damage than EB without agonizing blast, and the lowest possible damage I could do was 4, rather than 1.

[Sigreid]

I would say in character that healing the low AC, relatively low HP character who is taking needless damage is putting the group at risk and we need to talk tactics.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Do you have Healing Word? It burns a slot but its a bonus action so at least you can cast Cantrips or make melee attacks with your Action.

That said, I'm nostly lawful good maybe with a touch of chaotic good in real life. No telling what I'd do after a dozen life & death group fights in a Navy Seal like unit if one guy was more harm then help. Maybe tie him up and leave him someplace not as deadly? That said, you can always let him be a meat shield....

[JakOfAllTirades]

I'm in the "let him drop to zero hit points" camp, but I think it would be a good idea to put the Bard's player on notice. At the beginning of the next session, tell him that you're not going to enable his antics any longer by healing him when he foolishly gets himself taken out.

[OverLordOcelot]

The fact that you have healing spells doesn't mean that other players get to do whatever they want and you're obligated to play healbot for them. That fails both at a metagame and in-character level - metagame it's not effective to waste your class enabling one person to survive lots of bad decisions, in-character the fact that you can heal doesn't somehow give you a compulsion to just keep casting cure wounds until you're out of spells. If someone is consistently being dumb and gets dropped to 0hp, just leave them there until they've got 2 failed death saves, then use a healing kit or Spare the Dying and stabilize them if you can, and move on. If they end up dying from a crit fail or because something knocks you out before you can get to them or because you were busy with something else, it's their own fault for doing dumb stuff in the first place.


If you are anything good aligned, but maybe especially lawful/neutral good, then you are wilfully letting someone die who can be saved... If you are a ruthless light cleric of some neutral or evil deity that promotes the burning of the impure and the foolish "you had it coming, now pay the price," or neutral in the sense of "I'm not going to spend all my resources on one person, we have to think about the greater purpose," then that would work... I guess.

"Good" and "Lawful" don't, and have never, meant "stupid and spineless". They have never included a kind of compulsion to try to save a person from foolishness at the expense of being able to fight evil, and in fact some characters oriented towards lawful and good are specifically forbidden from doing that (Vengeance Paladins, for example, break their oath in that case). Good and lawful can certainly be ruthless and can certainly place 'defeating the big evil villain who is going to kill a lot of innocent people' as a higher priority than 'enabling the guy who keeps doing stupid things instead of trying to defeat the big evil villain to keep doing stupid things'.

[Jophiel]

Again, you're not roleplaying your own character if it suddenly decides to let someone bleed to death because he deserves it, when that's not what your character would do.
I have good aligned characters who would see the long term value in eliminating the Great Evil versus draining all their resources on a (very) short-term save and then the Great Evil eliminating them all before going on to do more evil stuff unimpeded.

I might shed a couple tears for "I wish I could have saved him" but good doesn't mean stupid and blowing all your slots mid-BBEG-fight on one guy who can't stay off the floor is stupid. Stabilize him if it's practical (I wouldn't run 70' across a room provoking opportunity attacks for it) and that's what he gets.

[Skylivedk]

Never played a healer. Was the "Batman" of one group though. Paladin let an inglorious death after a few weeks of in-game bullying and style-cramping, including drawing attention to my character when my character was well-positioned for Sneak Attacks (because he thought I also ought to tank... In my robes. With a bow). He also meta-gamed, picking up my private DM-notes about the morally grey stuff my character did.

No, I didn't kill him. Gravity (and his greed) did. And the lack of my Feather Fall spell. He had had plenty of warnings in game and out of character. When he proposed to reroll the Paladin's twin, he was barred re-entry until he could think of a less obnoxious character. He never rejoined.

[Jophiel]

Since this guy is going to waste all your slots on healing his dumb self anyway, just don't prepare any healing spells.

"You're bleeding out? I have just the thing -- Create Water! Now the floor won't get stupider from all your stupid blood soaking into it." :smallbiggrin:

[Mjolnirbear]

The Bard has a strange compulsion to split the party in order to one-on-one roleplay with the Wizard in an unexplored part of Death House. He does it constantly, and he's been ambushed four times. He also has an apparent need to be on the front line at all times, even though he has 13 AC.



I've talked to him about it twice, and he's told me that if I didn't like using my spell slots on him then he'd have the Druid heal him. I've also offered to have the Bard go behind me in our marching order because his AC is actually lower than the Wizard's when the Wizard is using Mage Armor. He told me he didn't want to because he didn't bring along a ranged weapon and didn't want to sit and use Vicious Mockery from the back.

Also, the Druid is about to start doing what Moon Druids often do, which is use a concentration spell and Wild Shape into a bear, where she won't be able to heal him.

"We're not here to serve you. You're a bard with healing spells. Keep your own self alive for once."

Let him die. It's not an MMO, and you are also no servant. If he doesn't want to contribute to survival efforts it's not your job to pick up the slack.

It's not an MMO. There's no obligation for anyone to play a cleric even in Curse of Strahd; the druid is Moon and will heal herself and the bard has bloody heal spells.

Tell him bluntly before game.

[Willie the Duck]

Healers: When is it okay to let the stupid person's character die?

I am going to focus on the "When" part. The "When" of what you should do is between sessions or at a long rest or the like. The other player should be told at the point of heading out into danger exactly what you are prepared to do for them, and what you are prepared to do if they do not live up to your expectations. Thereafter, they can decide if they still want to keep pushing the reckless behavior button or not, and you can feel good about the outcome. If you decide to make this change mid-battle, they may very well accuse you of a sucker-punch, and all your responses regarding how you'd all talked about this, etc. probably will fall on deaf ears. Plus, it means that they can change their behavior (or not) as they so choose.

The 'what' you should do is tell the player some variations of, "look, we all have to play our own characters as we want them to be, but that means that I want to play my character as he should be, and that does not start and end with being a hit point battery for your character. You are playing your character as someone with a death wish. You are an exceedingly low AC character who keeps jumping into melee and also for some reason you keep trying to split the party. This is tactically foolhardy. Again, I recognize that you might want to play a character who is rash and impulsive, but then you're going to have to prepare to lose the character. During this long rest, my character is going to tell your character that they aren't going to be casting cures on them anymore. If it works in combat, he'll stabilize him if he drops below 0, but his perspective is that your character 'best serves the party goals when they are unconscious.' If the druid (who is about to spend most combats in bear form) wants to heal you, fine. Otherwise, if you want a character who is going to last (and spend most of the adventure conscious), I suggest you hang in back and cast vicious mockery until you can get yourself a ranged weapon. In the end, it is your call, but I've told you what my character is going to do, make your decisions with that knowledge in mind."

[Keravath]

It sounds like a conflict between a newer player who doesn’t really understand the mechanics and how the mechanics can support or harm their character idea vs more experienced players who understand how the pieces fit together.

Though it could also be someone who just wants to role play a character not suited to their desired role. However, if that was the case the player would understand when the party decides not to support the role playing extreme in order to avoid a TPK. CoS can be very unforgiving.

Anyway, it sounds like the OP and likely DM needs to have a chat with the player and explain the difference between melee and caster classes and how the pieces like AC fit together.

A melee valor bard can work fine .. they can use medium armor and a shield, they are a full spellcaster but they do get extra attack at 6th level. However, the character has to grow into that. At second level they are just a bard with low AC, low HPs, some spells and a single attack. They need to understand that they should be attacking from range. If they didn’t bring a ranged weapon then maybe the DM can arrange for the party to find a light crossbow and some bolts.

Vicious mockery does feel underpowered but the disadvantage imposed can turn around some fights. My bard took a couple of levels in warlock for agonizing-eldritch blast as a ranged option.

Finally, the DM should take a look at the character stats to make sure they support the concept the player wants. A melee bard with 12 decent for example would always be at a bit of a disadvantage. If they are wearing light armor they should aim to start at least at 16 and medium should be 14. In addition, if they plan on using melee or ranged weapon attacks they should really aim for the 16+ dex.

In any case, it is hard to tell from a paragraph on a forum
What the real issues are so the best approach is to communicate/talk/explain how the mechanics works and then allow the player to change up the character a bit to achieve the concept they are looking for ...

[OverLordOcelot]

It sounds like a conflict between a newer player who doesn’t really understand the mechanics and how the mechanics can support or harm their character idea vs more experienced players who understand how the pieces fit together.

Character death can be a great learning experience for a player. If he constantly finds himself on the floor hoping to make death saves instead of actively doing fun things while other players give up there fun to keep him going, he's much more likely to pay attention when people explain how to avoid that situation.

[ChildofLuthic]

So I would talk to him OOC and tell him to play his character smarter, or you'll let him die. Come up with an IC reason to let it happen.

In general, if a character is taking a lot of risks, it's not really on you to mitigate that risk for them. A character getting stuck on the frontline is one thing - that happens on occasion, and you have to help them out. But if a squishy character is consistently treating their bard like a barbarian, they want that risk, and it's not your job to fix it for them.

[Rukelnikov]

From an in-game, "heroic good" character perspective, casting Spare the Dying is not only advisable, it is the best option too. The bard, when concious, is clearly a danger to himself and others, since as good heroes you are, you are not gonna look the other way while he's dying.

The one thing I don't agree with is waiting till deaths door to cast this on him, for two reasons, Its complete metagame and also in that situation a single point of damage will kill him, lots of things can happen, an alchemists flask aimed at someone nearby, some enviromental hazzard, a particularly pernicious enemy going for the kill(never played/read CoS, but from what I read in the forums it sounds like easy mode is off).

[Edenbeast]

"Good" and "Lawful" don't, and have never, meant "stupid and spineless". They have never included a kind of compulsion to try to save a person from foolishness at the expense of being able to fight evil, and in fact some characters oriented towards lawful and good are specifically forbidden from doing that (Vengeance Paladins, for example, break their oath in that case). Good and lawful can certainly be ruthless and can certainly place 'defeating the big evil villain who is going to kill a lot of innocent people' as a higher priority than 'enabling the guy who keeps doing stupid things instead of trying to defeat the big evil villain to keep doing stupid things'.

I think you missed my point. I was not implying stupid and spineless. A good person would not out spitefulness let someone die when he had the chance to intervene, as in, there is not a big bear about to bite his head off, or when logically it's wiser to throw a buff on those still capable of fighting. Second, a lawful person may be aware that when wilfully neglecting someone who gravely wounded and dying, with the sole purpose of neglecting him (again, excluding that he really has something better to do), is basically committing negligent homicide.
Again, the point is: a) seeking out and purposefully taking those actions that lead to the bard's death vs. b) in the string of events the most reasonable action was to e.g. dispel hold person on the fighter.

The OP is not playing a Vengeance Paladin. I don't know his alignment. I just came up with an example where a good person who would normally try to keep others alive, would not suddenly change this unless he can't help it. It's a roleplaying game and depending on your character, it should not be that you change your character's personality in order to teach another player a lesson.


I have good aligned characters who would see the long term value in eliminating the Great Evil versus draining all their resources on a (very) short-term save and then the Great Evil eliminating them all before going on to do more evil stuff unimpeded.

I might shed a couple tears for "I wish I could have saved him" but good doesn't mean stupid and blowing all your slots mid-BBEG-fight on one guy who can't stay off the floor is stupid. Stabilize him if it's practical (I wouldn't run 70' across a room provoking opportunity attacks for it) and that's what he gets.

Of course, and as I said I was just giving an example. I don't know the guy's character, just his class. There are plenty of examples in literature and cinema where a benevolent character does go out of his way to help the, no matter how stupid, comrade. It's definitely not smart to use all your spells on one person during one encounter, but stabilising is the least you can do.

The thing is, maybe this player is new, and indeed needs to learn a few things, then of course being reckless can kill you when your friends can't help you, is a good lesson. What's not a good lesson is that when your party members find your behaviour silly, they will purposefully let you die until you get the message. I think that's unnecessarily mean and could created unwanted enmity among the players.

[Throne12]

Take the spare the dying cantrip when he drop use it on him and call it a day. Your spell slots are need more else where. Hes a bard so he has healing spells two if he really needs healing he can do it himself. Or just use a med check to stabilize him.

You wont be letting him die but he wont be able to fight and have to sit there maybe he will learn then.

[OverLordOcelot]

The one thing I don't agree with is waiting till deaths door to cast this on him, for two reasons, Its complete metagame and also in that situation a single point of damage will kill him, lots of things can happen, an alchemists flask aimed at someone nearby, some enviromental hazzard, a particularly pernicious enemy going for the kill(never played/read CoS, but from what I read in the forums it sounds like easy mode is off).

Characters know that they don't die instantly when they go unconscious. Trying to down the enemy knowing your friend can hold out for some time and you can save him once there's no danger is a perfectly reasonable in-character decision. If deciding to wait until death's door to stabilize the character is bad metagaming, then so is deliberately not waiting until death's door, as both decisions rely on the same game information.

Also the fact that in that situation a single point of damage will kill him is part of the point of waiting, it means he actually has to suffer the risk of risky actions instead of other players. Him sitting there hoping he doesn't roll a 1 and hoping no enemy goes in for the kill is way more reasonable than the stuck in a bitter fight with no spells to cast because he kept wasting them on this guy.

[MilkmanDanimal]

On top of the other advice (particularly the "warn him, then let him die" advice), it sounds like the player wants to play a dashing, reckless, charismatic character who gets into melee a lot. They should be playing a Swashbuckler Rogue, not a Bard. Letting them know they can still play a similar concept, but more realistically not get themselves killed all the time could be useful.

[KorvinStarmast]

"You're bleeding out? I have just the thing -- Create Water! Now the floor won't get stupider from all your stupid blood soaking into it." :smallbiggrin: Giggled, I did.

{snip example of how to} Applause.

On top of the other advice (particularly the "warn him, then let him die" advice), it sounds like the player wants to play a dashing, reckless, charismatic character who gets into melee a lot. They should be playing a Swashbuckler Rogue, not a Bard. Letting them know they can still play a similar concept, but more realistically not get themselves killed all the time could be useful. Changing class usually takes a discussion with a DM and a player wanting to change.

The first step is to get them to lie down on a couch ...

[Corpsecandle717]

Like the others have said. I'm all for stabilizing the character and letting the player complain over the course a of battle. Preferably a boss fight. Just keep repeating this behavior. I don't think it would be fun or fair to allow him to die though, at least not yet, but I don't think you should go out your way to make sure he can participate.

Naturally the in game friction is going to become an issue, just take the stance of an overbearing parent. "It's for your own good" should be your go to phrase and be as beatific as you can about it. Have your character frame it as if he genuinely has the other guy's best interests at heart, despite the players objections. I think a line that includes "maturity" and "when you prove" would be a great line to keep in your pocket as well. Say it often.

Not every good character has to be COMPLETELY good. This would also be hugely fun to RP I think, you'd just have to be careful to make sure the rest of the party doesn't run with it too much or it's going to force him out of the game and I don't think you're at that point yet.

[KorvinStarmast]

Unless the bard is able to get you to "hold his beer" before he runs off on yet another suicidal caper, don't heal him. If he tells you 'here, hold my beer' and you agree to do so, then OK cover for his death wish.

[Dungeon-noob]

Since you're Dutch, you must know "dood door schuld en nalatigheid," in English, negligent homicide...

Snip
I do, it just doesn't have anything to do with this situation. His character is an adult, the player is supposed to be mature as well. He makes his own decisions, and carries the consequences for them. No other player at the table is obligated to try and save him from his own stupid mistakes IC, especially when 1. they've tried to address it OOC and were rebuffed (happened here) 2. it would detract from their own fun to do so (it is here) 3. it would cost them resources to do so, reducing their ability to archieve goals, help the party or other people, or just play their own character (it would here) 4. when he is being this stupid (he might as well be trying to get himself killed, he seems to be going down a checklist of things you shouldn't do and ticking every box).

[Mad_Saulot]

I'm entering my third session of Curse of Strahd. My party's running a Light Cleric, Moon druid, Conjuration Wizard, Berserker Barbarian, and the dumbest Bard I have ever played with. Ever.

I'll be honest and admit that I'm not super-fond of the Bard's player in general terms, but my main problem is from a resource management standpoint: The guy managed to require every spell slot both the Druid and I had in order to stay alive, and even then he dropped to 0 hit points three times.

The party is about to walk into the Chamber of the Big Bad Scary Thing, and the party agreed to take a long rest before going in. Given that I'm still level 2, with a whopping total of three spell slots to burn, I'm not inclined to waste them all on the Bard when he's putting himself needlessly at risk.

A good friend of mine, when he was teaching me how to play a healer in MMO's, taught me, "Healing stupid bleeds you dry, and then you'll let the party die." D'you think it's worth the backlash to let his character reap what he sows if it saves the campaign?

Just exactly how stupid?

We need examples..

[Sigreid]

Could suggest he re-roll a character designed to scout and be in melee. Sounds like he wants to play a rogue, not a bard.

[MoiMagnus]

Since you're Dutch, you must know "dood door schuld en nalatigheid," in English, negligent homicide...

Though the "good" behavior in this situation is probably to prevent him to put himself in danger. Not to heal him (hence encouraging his stupid behavior that will cause it death). This could be confiscating his weapons, grabbing him to prevent him from going into a fight. Or just refusing to continue to advance while he didn't manage to convince him to be more prudent. (Or at least make everything possible to not have him in the next dangerous excursion the group will handle). Just think "how would you handle a teenager NPC who 'wanna be a hero', and apply it to him".

But while this would be the good RP solution, it isn't really fun to play: it is usually better to deal with problems you have with a player in OOC way.

[The Jack]

His AC is so low but he's trying to be melee?
What's his build like, what are his spells? What subclass is he going for?

What's your allignment?


Don't go out of the character's way to let the character die. You might want him dead, but what about the character you're playing?
Tie him up and leave him in the village, but don't let the character die when you can easily keep him alive.

[Nidgit]

I'd imagine that some of your other players have a problem with this behavior too. If I'm the Barbarian and I expect to be tanking, it makes me less effective when the enemy can turn and target this frail fop next to me. I've actually had the same problem (to a less-suicidal degree) with a Lore Bard that wouldn't stay out of melee, and the problem was resolved between the player learning roles/mechanics a bit more and me, in-character, turning to the Bard and saying, "stay back, I've got this. It's the whole point of my armor."

In other words, work with your whole party to help establish everyone's roles. And as part of that, make it clear that you're more than a healbot and have better things to do.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Could suggest he re-roll a character designed to scout and be in melee. Sounds like he wants to play a rogue, not a bard.

A good way to make this suggestion is to let the DM do it for you...after the bard dies.

I agree with what everyone else has said about talking OoC first. OP has done that already. Twice. Clearly didn't work.

I agree that you should probably make some minimal efforts to prevent the bard's death. But if you don't have Spare the Dying (which is a big waste of a cantrip IMHO), then stick to healer's kits and/or medicine checks to stabilize. Don't waste any spell slots on this character anymore.

The way I'd go about informing the bard (in character) of your decision ahead of time is to have your cleric make a general statement to the party that you've decided to explore some of the other aspects of your character's abilities and changed up today's spells. You're going all Guiding Bolt and Burning Hands today with your 3 spells slots (you could still keep HW or CW in the holster, but just not announce that), so you can get more of the "Light Cleric" feel of the character. That will put the Bard on notice that free healing ain't coming, while not overly emphasizing him or calling him out in-game.

If that doesn't get the message across to inspire some change, then it's only a matter of time until the Bard dies. Honestly, you might even be doing the player a favor. He clearly isn't interested in playing a bard the way they're meant to be played, and would probably be happier with a more melee/combat oriented DPR-type character anyhow.

[Mad_Saulot]

Next time he goes down, use medicine skill with healers kit to stabalise him, drag him behind a rock and leave him there til the end of the fight, if by that time you have healing spells left over then maybe heal him, but if theres time let him have a short rest to recover, this gives him time to think about why he sucks and to rethink his tactics, if he blames you or starts whining then withhold all future help. Its a team game after all and if he's a resource hog and entitled then screw him.

[BobZan]

Bards have access to healing spells. Stabilize him and let him waste his slots. In this case, it's better him knocked down stabilized than spending party resources.

[Motorskills]

There are three different (overlapping) elements in play here.


1. The OOC relationship between the people around the table, both during the game, and away from the table.

Clearly there is some dysfunction in this particular. None of the other solutions will be effective if this isn't resolved first.

I recommend going back to first principles, players should discuss:
Why are [you] at the table, what aspects of the game are fun for [you]?
Do you understand the concerns of your fellow players, are they legitimate? If yes, what are you going to do about it? If no, why have you been unable to convince them that they are wrong?


That all sounds accusatory / hostile, the important thing is make it not so - speak calmly and clearly about each others' expectations, work harder on the common ground, cut everyone slack on the differences.

Some people try to dump the responsibility for game management on the DM. It's understandable, but it's not really appropriate. Ultimately the DM defines the campaign and the play style, he can't dictate how people interact with other. A good DM will facilitate people being able to positively interact which each other, a bad DM will be the source of conflict.



2. Mechanics (OOC / in-game). Per Matt Colville, D&D is a monster-killing game - that's what 95% of the rules revolve around. There are multiple ways to employ mechanics to increase your party's chances of being successful at killing monsters. Those methods include preserving resources, and that includes healing, and maximising the number of living PCs.
If [you] are deliberately / continually to execute those mechanics in a sub-optimal way, you need to be able to justify that to your fellow players, and gain their acceptance. Note that there is a spectrum between deliberately under-performing (mechanically) and min-maxing everything, which can be equally annoying.



3. Roleplaying. Your character is not his stats. Your character is not his equipment.
What is the character's personality, why is he adventuring, why is he (still) welcome in this team?

If your character subverts the equanimity of the team (IC)...there needs to be a good reason he is still part of the team. Don't get me wrong, this can be brilliant entertainment (OOC), but again it reverts to needing to obtaining OOC buy-in for this kind of gaming approach.

[ad_hoc]

That adventure is designed to only have 1 opportunity for a long rest - on the top floor.

This is why people think 5e is easy.

At any rate, I have a feeling there is a resolution to your problem next session.

As far as the player being the problem, it is probably a matter of finding a class that suits them.

[Sigreid]

So, for a serious answer, when it looks like it's a choice between he dies now and everyone dies in a bit.

[Rusher]

Just stabilizing him is a great option, as others have mentioned.

A simple solution:
Ask the druid to cast Goodberrys the night before (24 hr duration). Give 1-2 berrys to every party member then the burden of getting him up is spread among the entire party. Then stay a double move away from the bard in combat.
Once other players are needed to spend their actions to bring up the Bard he will start getting pressure from other quarters. Plus, if he starts going into melee combat with one HP, the folly of his actions will start to be painfully obvious to everyone.(if they aren't already)

One key point - Are you being indispensable to the party as a whole? Or are you burning your spell slots to do damage?
As long as you are buffing/helping the actual tank(s) as a Bless/Prot Good&Evil-bot (or whatever) no one will mind you staying far from danger so you can maintain concentration.

Last thing:
If it were me, I would think if my antipathy toward the player was not weighing into my in game actions.
A good indicator might be - How do the other player's feel about the Bard's actions? Is he getting accolades for his bravado or mocked for being a pinata?
If he is an effective glass cannon ripping through enemies at great risk you might want to suck it up.

Either way good luck.

[Mercurias]

Thanks very much for the insight, you all. I hadn't considered throwing a Spare the Dying cantrip on the Bard and carrying on. My character's roleplay is that of a Cleric of Helm who is a strong believer in the "Good does not mean nice" school. He's there to root out evil and make the world safer for the innocent, not enable recklessness. Stabilizing the idiot and moving on is basically perfect.

So that's about it for me. I was looking for an alternative to being treated like a walking band-aid or callously letting someone die. I really appreciate the help!

[Merudo]

Stabilizing the idiot and moving on is basically perfect.


I wish I could be there when it happens :biggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

So that's about it for me. I was looking for an alternative to being treated like a walking band-aid or callously letting someone die. I really appreciate the help!
Hope it works out, and have fun storming the castle! (gratuitous Princess Bride reference)

[Vekon]

I'm entering my third session of Curse of Strahd. My party's running a Light Cleric, Moon druid, Conjuration Wizard, Berserker Barbarian, and the dumbest Bard I have ever played with. Ever.

I'll be honest and admit that I'm not super-fond of the Bard's player in general terms, but my main problem is from a resource management standpoint: The guy managed to require every spell slot both the Druid and I had in order to stay alive, and even then he dropped to 0 hit points three times.

The party is about to walk into the Chamber of the Big Bad Scary Thing, and the party agreed to take a long rest before going in. Given that I'm still level 2, with a whopping total of three spell slots to burn, I'm not inclined to waste them all on the Bard when he's putting himself needlessly at risk.

A good friend of mine, when he was teaching me how to play a healer in MMO's, taught me, "Healing stupid bleeds you dry, and then you'll let the party die." D'you think it's worth the backlash to let his character reap what he sows if it saves the campaign?

Oh, this one's easy. (and probably already been said)

Sacrifice him.

[opaopajr]

Actions have Consequences! Yay! :smallsmile:

Are you letting players 'enjoy' the consequences of their actions? Or are you a Helicopter/Lawnmower Parent enabling their bad behavior without letting them 'savor' their much desired consequences? Why are you blocking their desired experience, let alone the opportunity to learn? :smalltongue:

And remember, its 1d4 hours of Unconsciousness when merely Stabilized! :smallcool: Time outs are useful!

[Sigreid]

Actions have Consequences! Yay! :smallsmile:

Are you letting players 'enjoy' the consequences of their actions? Or are you a Helicopter/Lawnmower Parent enabling their bad behavior without letting them 'savor' their much desired consequences? Why are you blocking their desired experience, let alone the opportunity to learn? :smalltongue:

And remember, its 1d4 hours of Unconsciousness when merely Stabilized! :smallcool: Time outs are useful!

Oooh, use his rope to rig a harness so the barbarian can wear his unconscious body like a backpack and carry on!

[Mercurias]

Actions have Consequences! Yay! :smallsmile:

Are you letting players 'enjoy' the consequences of their actions? Or are you a Helicopter/Lawnmower Parent enabling their bad behavior without letting them 'savor' their much desired consequences? Why are you blocking their desired experience, let alone the opportunity to learn? :smalltongue:

And remember, its 1d4 hours of Unconsciousness when merely Stabilized! :smallcool: Time outs are useful!

Our DM has a house rule designed to make dropping to zero have serious repercussions: He requires a character to be stabilized first before they can be healed beyond zero and regain consciousness. Essentially, it takes two Actions in order to bring someone back up once they hit zero. He does it because he wants people to play smart and not take advantage of healing magic, but the way it works in practice means the healers are doubly punished when people play stupid and take a sword to the trachea.

I will definitely be making judicious use of Spare the Dying from now on and letting him sleep off his 0 health when possible. If he doesn't like it then he can not be a fool and take Cure Wounds for his next known spell.

[Maelynn]

Thanks very much for the insight, you all. I hadn't considered throwing a Spare the Dying cantrip on the Bard and carrying on. My character's roleplay is that of a Cleric of Helm who is a strong believer in the "Good does not mean nice" school. He's there to root out evil and make the world safer for the innocent, not enable recklessness. Stabilizing the idiot and moving on is basically perfect.

So that's about it for me. I was looking for an alternative to being treated like a walking band-aid or callously letting someone die. I really appreciate the help!

Please, humour all of us here and report back to tell us how that session went...

[Stygofthedump]

Please, humour all of us here and report back to tell us how that session went...

Seconded.
I'm interested to hear where this goes.
We have a similar bard but he more 'pretends' to be a daring swordsman and actually only rushes in when the outcome is sure.
Its actually quite funny the lengths he will go to to appear a brave hero... none the less his 11AC does get him knocked to 0 more than the actual melee guys.

[Laserlight]

Our DM has a house rule designed to make dropping to zero have serious repercussions: He requires a character to be stabilized first before they can be healed beyond zero and regain consciousness. Essentially, it takes two Actions in order to bring someone back up once they hit 0.

We said "You hit zero, you get a level of Exhaustion." The guy I let fail two Death Saves got three levels in two fights. He learned.

[DarkKnightJin]

I'm in the "let him drop to zero hit points" camp, but I think it would be a good idea to put the Bard's player on notice. At the beginning of the next session, tell him that you're not going to enable his antics any longer by healing him when he foolishly gets himself taken out.

My Cleric only has Healing Word prepared.
And he's made it very clear, in-character, that he's not 'wasting' a slot on them if they aren't in the process of bleeding out, and the fight isn't over yet.
Beyond that, he has a Healer's Kit that he will use to stabilize someone. Or to be stabilized if he should go down.
The Warlock has learned that he should try to stay away from enemies as much as he can. Even if he's usually the one biting the dirt during a fight due to some unlucky positioning. And usually not even really his fault.

[Finback]

If the player is so intent of going rogue (tee-hee) and getting into hi-jinks because it's what their character would do - why can't YOUR character do the same? You could equally have your PC and the barbarian and druid, go off to explore another part of the house.

And when flesh-ripping weasels descend from the skies and attack the bard, and they scream for help, you can say "can't hear you, in another part of the house". ;)

[Mercurias]

If the player is so intent of going rogue (tee-hee) and getting into hi-jinks because it's what their character would do - why can't YOUR character do the same? You could equally have your PC and the barbarian and druid, go off to explore another part of the house.

And when flesh-ripping weasels descend from the skies and attack the bard, and they scream for help, you can say "can't hear you, in another part of the house". ;)

I've done that before, and the DM has taken the tactic of putting the Bard on pause now whenever he splits the party so the rest of the group can do something while the Bard and Wizard have to sit and wait. So far, it's led to the Cleric, Druid, and Barbarian getting lightheartedly chummy and establishing that the Cleric has a romantic side I'm going to alternate between using for laughs and using for serious RP.

[OverLordOcelot]

I think you missed my point. I was not implying stupid and spineless. A good person would not out spitefulness let someone die when he had the chance to intervene, as in, there is not a big bear about to bite his head off, or when logically it's wiser to throw a buff on those still capable of fighting.

That's obviously not the case in the OP's situation, as he's having to use spell slots to heal the guy. If they weren't in combat, he could just stabilize him and let him wait to wake up without burning a spell slot.


Second, a lawful person may be aware that when wilfully neglecting someone who gravely wounded and dying, with the sole purpose of neglecting him (again, excluding that he really has something better to do), is basically committing negligent homicide.

No, it's really not. Negligent homicide is when person A does something negligent that results in the death of another person, like firing a gun down the street without looking, or driving a car without paying attention to the street. It is NOT negligent homicide on the part of person A to sit down and read the newspaper if person B picks a fight with person C, and gets injured and is bleeding to death. It can be negligent homicide if someone's legal guardian doesn't care for a person under their care, but for that case the Bard's player would have to be considered incompetent to manage their own affairs and subject to the directives of the OP, which is not the case. Negligent homicide can also happen if a medical professional who has started treating a person or entered a doctor-patient relationship abruptly starts treatment, but not if a medical professional declines to intervene in the first place.

And that's in a modern legal system. Medieval and Ancient legal codes tended to be a lot colder and more vague than what we have today. Also a 'lawful' alignment doesn't mean 'has extensive knowledge of legal codes' in the first place.


Again, the point is: a) seeking out and purposefully taking those actions that lead to the bard's death vs. b) in the string of events the most reasonable action was to e.g. dispel hold person on the fighter.

Which post from the OP are you referring to with situation "a"? I do not see anyone advocating seeking out and purposefully taking actions that would make the OP responsible for the Bard's death, I see the OP choosing to use his spell slots for something other than letting the Bard keep charging into combat over and over.


The OP is not playing a Vengeance Paladin. I don't know his alignment. I just came up with an example where a good person who would normally try to keep others alive, would not suddenly change this unless he can't help it. It's a roleplaying game and depending on your character, it should not be that you change your character's personality in order to teach another player a lesson.

As I said before, "lawful" and "good" don't mean "spineless," "weak," or "must do whatever another player wants them to regardless of their own motivations". It's a roleplaying game and the vast majority of characters have really good reasons not to waste their divinely granted spells on enabling the bard to keep doing dumb stuff instead of using them to fight evil or gain treasure or preserve their own life. And if a character's starting personality would have them acting as a healbot, this is a great roleplaying opportunity for them to realize how misguided their starting path was and embrace a more pragmatic outlook for the benefit of good throughout the world. The reason I mentioned a vengeance paladin is that they are often lawful and/or good, but would be actively going against their oaths to act as you advocate.

[opaopajr]

We said "You hit zero, you get a level of Exhaustion." The guy I let fail two Death Saves got three levels in two fights. He learned.

Yay! The player learned that 'fire is hot'! A revelation! Should be a bestselling book, "The Joy of Consequences." :smallbiggrin:


[...] And when flesh-ripping weasels descend from the skies and attack the bard, and they scream for help, you can say "can't hear you, in another part of the house". ;)

Should be an adventure module endorsement blurb:
"Weasels Tore at My Flesh!" -- Men's Adventure Magazine


I've done that before, and the DM has taken the tactic of putting the Bard on pause now whenever he splits the party so the rest of the group can do something while the Bard and Wizard have to sit and wait. So far, it's led to the Cleric, Druid, and Barbarian getting lightheartedly chummy and establishing that the Cleric has a romantic side I'm going to alternate between using for laughs and using for serious RP.

Good. :smallsmile:

A good trick for time management of party splits is alloting each player 5 to 10 minutes... and however they split up you just tally up that time value per player in the split group. Then you run that as grouped time. This way the spotlight time ends up fairly shared as you juggle their sub-groups as GM.

(Naturally losing track of time mid-"performance" is expected, but a phone timer app or players can help keep you on schedule.)

e.g. So a shorter session might be 5 min/player, and with a party of six they can split up as they like. Group A is 1 player, Group B is 3 players, Group C is 2 players. So it will be Group A 5 minutes, Group B 15 min., Group C 10 min. :smallcool:

[Helldin87]

What spells is he taking? He has the same slots as you. Did he take cure wounds?

Also what others are saying regarding 5e healing is true. It's much more efficient to wait until a PC actually hits 0 AND THEN heal them from 0 then it is to heal proactively to try to "top off" MMO-style. He can roll 2 death save failures before you actually NEED to heal him or stabilize him. Rolling for your soul is a good way to put things in perspective. Heck maybe he dies and rerolls a fighter with decent AC and second wind to allow him a little more leeway to be silly like that. What would your PC do?

Play how your character would play. Light clerics are not always about healing. In fact if you take your cue from your spell list you are a blasty-mcblasterson. Not saying you can't be a good teammate but you certainly can't be expected to spend your turns and your slots to allow him to play poorly.

Hope this improves. Good luck with the BBEG.

[Citan]

I'm entering my third session of Curse of Strahd. My party's running a Light Cleric, Moon druid, Conjuration Wizard, Berserker Barbarian, and the dumbest Bard I have ever played with. Ever.

I'll be honest and admit that I'm not super-fond of the Bard's player in general terms, but my main problem is from a resource management standpoint: The guy managed to require every spell slot both the Druid and I had in order to stay alive, and even then he dropped to 0 hit points three times.

The party is about to walk into the Chamber of the Big Bad Scary Thing, and the party agreed to take a long rest before going in. Given that I'm still level 2, with a whopping total of three spell slots to burn, I'm not inclined to waste them all on the Bard when he's putting himself needlessly at risk.

A good friend of mine, when he was teaching me how to play a healer in MMO's, taught me, "Healing stupid bleeds you dry, and then you'll let the party die." D'you think it's worth the backlash to let his character reap what he sows if it saves the campaign?


The Bard has a strange compulsion to split the party in order to one-on-one roleplay with the Wizard in an unexplored part of Death House. He does it constantly, and he's been ambushed four times. He also has an apparent need to be on the front line at all times, even though he has 13 AC.



I've talked to him about it twice, and he's told me that if I didn't like using my spell slots on him then he'd have the Druid heal him. I've also offered to have the Bard go behind me in our marching order because his AC is actually lower than the Wizard's when the Wizard is using Mage Armor. He told me he didn't want to because he didn't bring along a ranged weapon and didn't want to sit and use Vicious Mockery from the back.

Also, the Druid is about to start doing what Moon Druids often do, which is use a concentration spell and Wild Shape into a bear, where she won't be able to heal him.
Hi!

From what you said, case closed: let him die. You already followed the normal, constructive steps (OOC) and it didn't pan out, so you just have to let him have the consequences. It is actually fine roleplay too: characters are actually risking their lives everyday, when one of them constantly acts in a way stupid enough that it endangers them all for no reason, they are bound to drop the ball at some point. As long as your character warned his it's his choice, his consequences.

Note that when I say "let him die", it's not like standing upon the agonizing character and laughing out. Absolutely not. If you can save him, do it. Just don't put yourself in danger for that (unless it's in your character to save "whatever happens"), and don't use slotted spells for that (keep them as emergencies for the other characters who actually think about their team): Spare the Dying, potions, force-feeding a Druid's Goodberry are all ways to avoid death (bonus point of just stabilizing, as long as there is no immediate threat around making it moot: the guy cannot act so he at least won't worsen the situation). And if he dies as a result and start putting it on you, recall him that even the best people can never keep a suicidal living. They can just delay the inevitable end. And the important is not that Bard lives, but that party lives (especially considering there are still ways around death in 5e even if there are not available yet at your level).

[Corran]

It is actually fine roleplay too: characters are actually risking their lives everyday, when one of them constantly acts in a way stupid enough that it endangers them all for no reason, they are bound to drop the ball at some point.
I'll preface it by saying that I am not answering directly to you Citan, also I am not disagreeing with anything you said in your post. I just provide some thoughts about how I would probably roleplay the situation.

There is another reading to this (in fact, there might be several other readings): That of incompetence and of dead weight. It's not that the character is stupid or that he is making the wrong tactical decisions, it's that the character is weak and can't keep up with the rest. Thus endangering them is not done by accident, on purpose, or because of wrong decisions, it is just inevitable, just like it would be if say you placed an amateur (at sth) in a team of highly professional individuals (at the same thing). The amateur would drag them down assuming the professionals would have to keep an eye out for him.

The above reading of the situation, creates for rp that I personally would enjoy more than I would enjoy basing any rp on the assumption that the bard character is stupid. When the bard drops, you don't heal him and you even propose to move along as he is dead weight and he is drugging you down. If the druid heals the bard, now you have a great angle of roleplaying with the druid, that between a compassionate if a bit naïve individual (the typical hero) and a very pragmatic yet cold-logic uncompassionate individual (the typical anti-hero I assume?). Also, that creates a better basis for roleplay with the bard as well. Instead of going with ''you are stupid and dumb'' you go with ''you are weak and you are going to get us all killed''. There is a big difference between these two, though it also depends on the player of the bard to be able to grasp it and do sth with it, roleplaying wise (granted, not the easiest thing to do). But the grounds for some interesting roleplaying, even with the bard pc now exists, while with the ''you are stupid and dumb'' approach, there is not all that much the other player can work with.

The problem (the root of which was not in roleplay) remains the same, but honestly you can't do much to solve this problem other than stopping to play your character as a healbot (which is in your hands to make that decision already), or other than the hoping that the bard character will actually die in combat. But in the meantime, instead of getting angry about tactics and how another player might be playing their character in a dumb way (combat wise), do sth with the spicy roleplaying opportunity that presents itself.

[Bel-Torac]

You gotta show him some tough love and let him die (or get a dark gift if you guys use that) or else you won't make it past the next chapters. CoS is really tough and has zero room for error. One stupid person will tpk the party at any moment.

Don't know what your pvp rules are, but you should try to get everyone else to help grapple and, "sacrifice him". You'll know what we are taking about next session.

[Mercurias]

In answer to a couple of questions about the roleplay aspect of the Party:

-The Cleric is Lawful Good. He carries himself a crusader and protector of the innocent, but not lawful stupid.
-The Wizard seems like he's running True Neutral. He's a Haunted one and is doing the edgy conflict between being paralyzed by his fears and confronting things head-on.
-The Druid seems either Chaotic Good or Chaotic Neutral. She definitely seems to want to do the right thing in Death House, and she seems to respect people who want to do good.
-The Bard is Chaotic Neutral. He's tried more than once to convince the Wizard to abandon the group, and when that didn't work he tried to talk the group into abandoning the house and running.

Leaving someone to die isn't really my Cleric's speed, but stabilizing them and letting them lay on the floor when they're a liability in combat would be perfectly acceptable.

My next game is on Monday night. I'll let folks know how it goes.

[GreyBlack]

Depends on how dumb their idea was.

Hint: it's always okay if they're dumb enough. All you have to say is, "It's a waste of my resources to keep your character up. I would prefer to use my slots keeping the effective people up."

[BreaktheStatue]

In answer to a couple of questions about the roleplay aspect of the Party:

-The Bard is Chaotic Neutral. He's tried more than once to convince the Wizard to abandon the group, and when that didn't work he tried to talk the group into abandoning the house and running.

Wait, he's trying to convince the wizard to leave the party with him? Why? Does the player just not want to play the game? This sounds like it could be more than just an inexperienced player...

[opaopajr]

Wait, he's trying to convince the wizard to leave the party with him? Why? Does the player just not want to play the game? This sounds like it could be more than just an inexperienced player...

"Sabotage!" /plays Beastie Boys song... no, not that, the other one! :smalltongue:

[Bel-Torac]

If you want to roleplay him going down, just say you thought his character was dead so you don't stabilize him.

[Mercurias]

Wait, he's trying to convince the wizard to leave the party with him? Why? Does the player just not want to play the game? This sounds like it could be more than just an inexperienced player...

He's an experienced player. He's just how I described him in the title of the thread.

We're in a short break an hour into the session. He's already been dropped to zero once when he insisted on going looting without two of the party members, then whined until 1/3 of the party's casting power was used to get him above half health. I let him know again that he needed to get his own healing spells if he wants to keep taking with his soft bard face.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

He's an experienced player. He's just how I described him in the title of the thread.

We're in a short break an hour into the session. He's already been dropped to zero once when he insisted on going looting without two of the party members, then whined until 1/3 of the party's casting power was used to get him above half health. I let him know again that he needed to get his own healing spells if he wants to keep taking with his soft bard face.

This is soo exciting. Do you all live stream?

Remember them medicine checks others suggested. Tell him, quite honestly, that you're trying to save resources as that's best for the party.

[Stygofthedump]

For gods sake let him die!

[Mercurias]

Final Update: The Bard used through two of my three spell slots post-battle, because the party couldn't exactly leave him unconscious on the floor in Death House. He seemed fine being unable to fight so long as he could find loot.

I'm sure he'll be less of a munchkin and easier to handle once he's got the AC he wants, and ultimately my Cleric cares more about his mission being completed than fighting over +1 gear. This is fine.

[Bel-Torac]

Final Update: The Bard used through two of my three spell slots post-battle, because the party couldn't exactly leave him unconscious on the floor in Death House. He seemed fine being unable to fight so long as he could find loot.

I'm sure he'll be less of a munchkin and easier to handle once he's got the AC he wants, and ultimately my Cleric cares more about his mission being completed than fighting over +1 gear. This is fine.

Well he learned nothing.

[GorogIrongut]

People have given you lots of good advice. And I'll be interested to see how it goes...

I personally, however would do it differently. Whenever I play a cleric, my spells are for the furtherance of the desires and goals of my deity (with a little wiggle room for my character's own agenda. Your deity will soon get fed up healing the bard... over and over and over and over again.

Make the bard earn his healing. Conversion is always a good step. Depending on your deity, donating gold to their cause is another good step. Make the bard take tangible, in character action every time they want to benefit from the might of your deity. When the bard has to end up donating half their loot to an orphanage if they want to be healed, they will start thinking twice about playing suicidally stupid.

Even better get the DM to help you. Make it less about your character wanting to heal and have actual real game consequences. Every game where I've asked the DM to gimp my healing, they haven't had a problem with it. The look on the bard's face will be priceless, if you go to heal him past the pre-established healing ceiling, you go through all the motions... and then no healing happens. You may have lost that spell slot, but your character's anger will then be real.

'<insert deity's name here> has spoken. If I keep pushing the issue they may take away all of my spell casting ability. And wasting my spell slots for no effect is beyond stupid. May I suggest you set aside some of your loot to purchase an excess of healing potions to help you with this problem? Perhaps one day... <insert deity's name here> will change their mind.'

[ad_hoc]

Final Update: The Bard used through two of my three spell slots post-battle, because the party couldn't exactly leave him unconscious on the floor in Death House. He seemed fine being unable to fight so long as he could find loot.

I'm sure he'll be less of a munchkin and easier to handle once he's got the AC he wants, and ultimately my Cleric cares more about his mission being completed than fighting over +1 gear. This is fine.

I'm getting the sense that you played a heavily modified Death House.

Too bad.

[NaughtyTiger]

Well he learned nothing.

the bard or the cleric?

cuz in the end, the bard is still stupid, and still alive. the cleric is out spells...
the bard learned that clerics will cleric...

[MilkmanDanimal]

-The Bard is Chaotic Neutral.

Oh, that explains so much right there. "Chaotic Neutral" is almost invariably "I want to be a **** to everybody else, and pretend it's because I'm playing my alignment".

[ZorroGames]

Oh, that explains so much right there. "Chaotic Neutral" is almost invariably "I want to be a **** to everybody else, and pretend it's because I'm playing my alignment".

When I play CN I aim for, “My choice, my consequence; your choice, your consequence.” Yes, I try to achieve our goals and do not actively seek PvP but neither am I bound to make bad tactical or strategic decisions to totally save your bad decisions. Mitigate the worst aspects but do not helicopter parent the player.

Edit: But yes I have seen that too. Sigh.

[MilkmanDanimal]

When I play CN I aim for, “My choice, my consequence; your choice, your consequence.” Yes, I try to achieve our goals and do not actively seek PvP but neither am I bound to make bad tactical or strategic decisions to totally save your bad decisions. Mitigate the worst aspects but do not helicopter parent the player.

Edit: But yes I have seen that too. Sigh.

Oh, I've seen people play Chaotic Neutral characters well; I'd say Jester on Critical Role is Chaotic Neutral, and she still manages to be useful and great in all sorts of ways. It's just that in almost all cases, "Chaotic Neutral" means the character is just going to be a **** to everybody. I've just seen too many people take CN to mean "do whatever I want without considering consequences".

[Willie the Duck]

Final Update: The Bard used through two of my three spell slots post-battle, because the party couldn't exactly leave him unconscious on the floor in Death House. He seemed fine being unable to fight so long as he could find loot.

I'm sure he'll be less of a munchkin and easier to handle once he's got the AC he wants, and ultimately my Cleric cares more about his mission being completed than fighting over +1 gear. This is fine.

Well, as I mentioned in my advice post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23672299&postcount=34), yes, yes you could (particularly if you warned him ahead of time). You could have gone over the unconscious bard, said, "welp, now he can do no more harm," and threw him over the shoulder of the strongest party member. After-which a long discussion could be had about, "what did I tell you about abusing my right to play my character such that you could play yours as a foolhardy loose-cannon? Do you understand how much you appear to be deliberately being inconsiderate to my appreciation of this game? Do you understand that bard of infinite hit points (at my expense) has come to an end?"

I understand why you couldn't go through with it, or chose not to take the advice, but I highly suspect that your fellow player did not get the message and you will be continued to be frustrated with this situation.

[opaopajr]

... I feel a learning opportunity was passed up. :smallfrown:

(Chaotic Neutral can be fun, but it tends to feel more rewarding when it can savor the consequences of its own actions. Why do you spoil the CN player's earnest desires? :smallamused:)

[Bel-Torac]

the bard or the cleric?

cuz in the end, the bard is still stupid, and still alive. the cleric is out spells...
the bard learned that clerics will cleric...

The bard since he is still doing stupid things.

The cleric could just not heal him and become a different type of good alignment (like chaotic or neutral) after that if he wants to roleplay it. CoS does change characters. I've seen good characters barely cling to their sanity and evil characters get more evil. I played a neutral character and he got dark fast.

[Solid_Snek]

I'm entering my third session of Curse of Strahd. My party's running a Light Cleric, Moon druid, Conjuration Wizard, Berserker Barbarian, and the dumbest Bard I have ever played with. Ever.

I'll be honest and admit that I'm not super-fond of the Bard's player in general terms, but my main problem is from a resource management standpoint: The guy managed to require every spell slot both the Druid and I had in order to stay alive, and even then he dropped to 0 hit points three times.

The party is about to walk into the Chamber of the Big Bad Scary Thing, and the party agreed to take a long rest before going in. Given that I'm still level 2, with a whopping total of three spell slots to burn, I'm not inclined to waste them all on the Bard when he's putting himself needlessly at risk.

A good friend of mine, when he was teaching me how to play a healer in MMO's, taught me, "Healing stupid bleeds you dry, and then you'll let the party die." D'you think it's worth the backlash to let his character reap what he sows if it saves the campaign?

Long term Cleric player here...

Yeah... Once a character starts being a hindrance, stop enabling the hindrance.

Stabilize the bard and use them as a trap finder.