D&D 5E Do You Think Spare the Dying is a Problem?

[AmerginLiath]

I know that this is a resurrected playtest thread about a since-altered spell, but I have a general thought on the question asked: Spare The Dying isn’t a problem, it’s a solution. What I mean by that is that there’s the debate over what level of healing to have in different campaigns and how “easy” dying should be. Changing mechanics can be difficult, even in a fairly modular system, because of how things interact. By comparison, it’s easy to allow or disallow spells on a spell list depending on the nature of a campaign without unbalancing any mechanics — as long as a class has enough to choose from, one less spell on its list is t breaking anything. This particular spell is a perfect example of how to square the circle on healing issues: it’s there as a default for campaigns that want PCs to be able to get back onto their feet more easily; however, removing it simply means PCs default to death saves and Medicine checks, or else more resource-intensive healing magic.

(As a way of example, my group has played a Dragonlance mega-campaign on and off for twenty five years in real time and covering a century in campaign time. The source material doesn’t have resurrection spells as a normal thing — characters are only raised by artifacts or acts of gods in the books — so we’ve simply always removed those spells from spell lists in campaigns, which is less problematic given that we tend to all run multiple characters. But it’s led to cool adventures where a death has led to tracking down the rare means to raise a key individual with a lost relic — in one very DL story, my character ended up sacrificing his own life to get the item needed to raise his dead friend. Removing spells from a spell list doesn’t change mechanics but can lead to many interesting moments inside the plot.)

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry but no.

Divisive spells like that need to be opt-in, rather than opt-out

"If you don't like it just remove it" is a horrible thing to say to an already overworked DM. Drop this feat and that subclass and these three spells... what, reading the entire PHB in full analysis mode is too much for you?

Even worse, he or she needs to take that argument over and over again, each time he meets a new group.

If they had presented these spells in sidebars with clear "with DMs approval" text akin to Wild Sorcerers, then yes, I can see it as a solution.

But as opt-out? No way. D&Ds success depends on most DMs being able to trust WotC enough to greenlight the PHB in its entirety.

 

[Tallifer]

Houserules fix everything. (Even though I do not see any problem with Spare the Dying, but that is because my campaign is not about character death but rather about startling new experiences.

OOPS! I did not notice until too late that this thread's topic is out of date with the current rules.

 

[jgsugden]

Sorry but no.

Divisive spells like that need to be opt-in, rather than opt-out

If you go through the boards, most spells in the game have been argued over and determined, by enough people, to be divisive and contentious.

Fireball and Hypnotic pattern is too powerful. Polymorph negates fighters. Light is superior to dancing lights. Illusion spells are too strong. How the %@# does phantasmal force work? Flesh to stone is underpowered. Healing spirit? Wish? Skywrite?

They made a great game. Not everything appeals equally to all players. Spare the Dying might not create the exact environment you like, but it is one that works. Nothing NEEDS to be changed, but you are welcome to make changes as you see fit.

 

[shadowoflameth]

We're in our 3rd campaign since 5th came out. Each party has had a cleric and no one has used Spare the Dying even once. I don't think it's a problem. The Death Yo Yo is possible of course but I haven't seen it happen. Guides on EN Char Op forums have called it Red meaning not good at all let alone overpowered. Besides stabilizing someone with magic should be better that doing so with medical skill (because magic ought to be better than real life).

 

[CapnZapp]

They made a great game. Not everything appeals equally to all players. Spare the Dying might not create the exact environment you like, but it is one that works. Nothing NEEDS to be changed, but you are welcome to make changes as you see fit.

What are you talking about? For Spare the Dying the system worked.

I'm not saying the playtest version would have been the stupidest spell, but I completely sympathize with the 2014 people of this thread. Being able to keep someone stable and up for eternity without even losing your action is just annoying as frak. Absolute shyte like that deserved to be taken out.

Anytime the game tells the player "this effect lets you do or not do this, no roll required" it is just a giant finger in the face of the DM. Nothing should get past a check (which the DM then can fudge if the story demands it).

Can't be surprised? Auto-detect creatures within a mile? Come on - every single such stupid thing is just bad lazy design.

Nothing wrong with giving a hero spidey-sense, or be a bad-ass ranger that can smell dinosaurs from a mile away.

But there needs to be a roll or condition involved, if only so the DM has plausible denial when the script tells the party the bad guy got away, or got the drop on them, or whatev.

Being a mighty dragon and get beeped by the low-rent druid just because some hack dev was lazy and didn't bother story-proofing his ability is damn annoying, since it would have been so easy to write it well. And don't get me started on probably the stupidest counter-proposal of all time, the hat of no-druids, or mind blank, or hide alignment. Stuff like "my fire spells ignore your puny fire immunity" only breeds twinkie monsters with "super immunity" and then the game goes down the drain.

The only proper solution is to. Not. Do. Absolutes.

The worst kind of game is one that empowers the player to shove the PHB in his DMs face and go "no they don't, says right here that trick doesn't work".

 

[5ekyu]

What are you talking about? For Spare the Dying the system worked.

I'm not saying the playtest version would have been the stupidest spell, but I completely sympathize with the 2014 people of this thread. Being able to keep someone stable and up for eternity without even losing your action is just annoying as frak. Absolute shyte like that deserved to be taken out.

Anytime the game tells the player "this effect lets you do or not do this, no roll required" it is just a giant finger in the face of the DM. Nothing should get past a check (which the DM then can fudge if the story demands it).

Can't be surprised? Auto-detect creatures within a mile? Come on - every single such stupid thing is just bad lazy design.

Nothing wrong with giving a hero spidey-sense, or be a bad-ass ranger that can smell dinosaurs from a mile away.

But there needs to be a roll or condition involved, if only so the DM has plausible denial when the script tells the party the bad guy got away, or got the drop on them, or whatev.

Being a mighty dragon and get beeped by the low-rent druid just because some hack dev was lazy and didn't bother story-proofing his ability is damn annoying, since it would have been so easy to write it well. And don't get me started on probably the stupidest counter-proposal of all time, the hat of no-druids, or mind blank, or hide alignment. Stuff like "my fire spells ignore your puny fire immunity" only breeds twinkie monsters with "super immunity" and then the game goes down the drain.

The only proper solution is to. Not. Do. Absolutes.

The worst kind of game is one that empowers the player to shove the PHB in his DMs face and go "no they don't, says right here that trick doesn't work".

I am tempted to quote a line from Star Wars last jedi but wont.

First... the auto-stabilize-as-bonus-action was not removed - it just shifted to a rogue variant using a med kit.

Second... the extremes for absolutes you put forth are mostly not-absolutes.

Can't be surprised often comes with "conscious" as a requirement.
Auto-detect within a mile (and a lot of other detects) runs afoul of a good number of already existent "cannot be detected" effects and abilities (which also serve as patterns for NPC/Monster/item abilities a Gm can add in.)

to some, perhaps more than a few, a game where not every single thing is at the mercy of dice or Gm whim is not a bad thing at all.

In my games, when players see one of the consistent things in my game become inconsistent, they dont grab for PHB and wave it anywhere in particular, they *in character* start wondering "what that means?" That happenes even more when it is an ability that does not require a skill check... but even when usually reliable skills are surpassed they take it as a sign of something beyond the ordinary.

there a lot of game to be played between "GM decides and has "deniability" cuz there are checks for everything" and "players waving PHB under the Gms nose" and many many many games are played in that happy in-between extreme zone every day.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I don't know about Spare the Dying, but I think that Animate Dead is a problematic spell.

 

[tglassy]

I wouldn’t be worried about how balanced it is because balance doesn’t exist in these games. There are simply mechanics. Some spells will always be better than others, because reasons. Because of this, there will always be underutilized spells, because everyone will pick the other spells instead. A wizard who picks the underutilized spells will be perceived as being weaker. There’s no balance there.

And there shouldn’t be. Life isn’t balanced. You wanted the animal companion. You wanted a wolf to follow you around. You’re going to make some serious sacrifices for that. You’re going to look at the Fighter and envy the number of attacks and feats/asi he gets. You’re going to feel pathetic when the dual wielding Paladin gets three crits in a row on one turn and uses all 3 of his 3rd lvl Divine Smites on one bad guy (I’ve seen it happen, something like 120 pts of Damage on one turn).

But you wanted your wolf, so you got your wolf, and when the rest of the team is down, you’ll be able to drag your bloody self away to safety with said wolf.

The main issue is what kind of game do you run? Spare The Dying is unnecessary simply because dying is so hard in this edition. I believe the developers realized this in the play test. They originally gave it a +1 to HP, but what they realized is that even without that, there are so many ways to get that +1 hp that having it on a cantrip became redundant. So, instead it heals a person until they are stable, but doesn’t wake them up. Useful, sure, but nothing three good saves can do by themselves, or anyone could do with a bandage and a good roll. But it’s magic, so no roll needed. Ok, I can get behind that. Makes it marginally more useful.

 

[jgsugden]

What are you talking about? For Spare the Dying the system worked...

Ugh.

The rules,as is, appeal to many players. Your views, while absolute in your eyes, are not shared by a lot of other experienced players.

This spell, as well as many others, appeal as is to many players and offend others. If it offends you, discuss what offends you and then make changes for your game, but believing that your view is the only correct view and WotC has tochange a game that many people do not want to see changed is nt the best approach.