Effects without damage?

[The Human Target]

So I have a player in my game who is interested in playing a straight up Pacifist Healer cleric.

I think it will be very interesting to see played, both in combat and in social situations.

My question is this dear readers.

Would it be unbalanced to let him use powers that deal damage to bloodied enemies without stunning himself, if he chose to negate all damage to that attack?

So say let him use Sacred Flame on a bloodied gnoll, choose not to do any damage at all, but still grant temp hitpoints or grant a saving throw?

Just so he's not using astral seal over and over again vs bloodied foes at low level and not use his two other at-wills (since he's a human?)

What say you?

 

[BobTheNob]

Hmmm, it is a real plus if you were to allow it. I understand the motivation and desire for this ability, but its a tough call.

At the end of the day, the pacifist cleric is both potentially very powerfully and difficult to play. If you take away the difficult to play, you are just left with potentially very powerful.

If this were my game, I would politely deny the request and instead aid the player in creating the best darn pacifist he can put together within the rules as they stand

 

[Kobold Boots]

Last post of the night for me, I've been online too long.

If this were a solo campaign based on role-play I'd allow it.
In a game based on heroic fantasy where others need to play non-pacifist roles and your number of players are limited.. I'd not allow it.

Why? Published modules are balanced for 5 full players with full options. I use published mods from time to time.

Why? Because at some point someone's going to ask himself why he's protecting someone that won't be reliable in a foxhole when it's him and one other guy with the rest of the party down.

Why? Because pacifist cleric screams "Look at me I'm the healer.. shoot me first.."

Too many issues with it in terms of game play in a normal campaign. Now if you're going to scope the campaign around the healer.. that may work.. If you're going to have lots of players.. that will likely work..

 

[The Human Target]

Hmmm, it is a real plus if you were to allow it. I understand the motivation and desire for this ability, but its a tough call.

At the end of the day, the pacifist cleric is both potentially very powerfully and difficult to play. If you take away the difficult to play, you are just left with potentially very powerful.

If this were my game, I would politely deny the request and instead aid the player in creating the best darn pacifist he can put together within the rules as they stand

He's already got fear as his encounter power and yeah as we level up he can take more non-damaging powers. Its the at-wills that bother me.

I'm just worried he might get bored with it at low levels. I'll just see how it goes this session and the next before I make a call.

Thanks.

And other opinions are as always still veeeeery welcome.

 

[The Human Target]

Last post of the night for me, I've been online too long.

If this were a solo campaign based on role-play I'd allow it.
In a game based on heroic fantasy where others need to play non-pacifist roles and your number of players are limited.. I'd not allow it.

Why? Published modules are balanced for 5 full players with full options. I use published mods from time to time.

Why? Because at some point someone's going to ask himself why he's protecting someone that won't be reliable in a foxhole when it's him and one other guy with the rest of the party down.

Why? Because pacifist cleric screams "Look at me I'm the healer.. shoot me first.."

Too many issues with it in terms of game play in a normal campaign. Now if you're going to scope the campaign around the healer.. that may work.. If you're going to have lots of players.. that will likely work..

Thats the thing. he can still attack people. He just can't attack bloodied people with damaging powers.

I'm fine with giving it a go, I just wonder if it gets too monotonous early on.

 

[Aulirophile]

So I have a player in my game who is interested in playing a straight up Pacifist Healer cleric.

I think it will be very interesting to see played, both in combat and in social situations.

My question is this dear readers.

Would it be unbalanced to let him use powers that deal damage to bloodied enemies without stunning himself, if he chose to negate all damage to that attack?

So say let him use Sacred Flame on a bloodied gnoll, choose not to do any damage at all, but still grant temp hitpoints or grant a saving throw?

Just so he's not using astral seal over and over again vs bloodied foes at low level and not use his two other at-wills (since he's a human?)

What say you?

Start at level 5. Not so boring then.

And no, because his power selection should be very restricted. Pacifist Clerics are powerful, but has a specific mechanical downside.

 

[The Human Target]

Start at level 5. Not so boring then.

And no, because his power selection should be very restricted. Pacifist Clerics are powerful, but has a specific mechanical downside.

Too late, he wants to pick up pacifist at level 2.

Plus we want to go 1-30.

 

[Aulirophile]

Ah well. I hate levels 1-5. Actually in 4e I'm not a big fan of levels 1-10. I really like what they did with Paragon Paths.

Anyway, he can still kill minions (they never become bloodied) and Astral Seal in a standard party is more damage then Sacred Flame mathematically (the +2 to hit for 3-5 characters is a better DPR contirbution then an average Cleric is going to do). Plus he can bloody things, he just can't attack bloodied things. So it isn't like a surprise.

I've just played with a Pacfist Cleric. Their healing words can restore, on average, more HP then the surge value of a con-based Warden by level 6. This is not a small accomplishment. They don't need any other buffs.

 

[The Human Target]

Ah well. I hate levels 1-5. Actually in 4e I'm not a big fan of levels 1-10. I really like what they did with Paragon Paths.

Anyway, he can still kill minions (they never become bloodied) and Astral Seal in a standard party is more damage then Sacred Flame mathematically (the +2 to hit for 3-5 characters is a better DPR contirbution then an average Cleric is going to do). Plus he can bloody things, he just can't attack bloodied things. So it isn't like a surprise.

I've just played with a Pacfist Cleric. Their healing words can restore, on average, more HP then the surge value of a con-based Warden by level 6. This is not a small accomplishment. They don't need any other buffs.

Now thats very helpful.

 

[mysticknight232]

In my LFR campaign, our Cleric is 100% pacifist healer and he's a great healer and debuffer. I can't envision any reason why we'd allow him to start doing dmg to bloodied foes since I think that would be broken. He won't even think about healing anybody until we're near death otherwise it'll almost be a wasted heal because of all the healing bonuses he has (at lvl 3 only). If he were to be able to deal dmg as well, I think that would be an insance build.

So, I'm no DM, but I think the restrictions on the feat are there for a reason, but it makes the Cleric a super healer.