D&D 5E House rule idea for healing to avoid "whack-a-mole"

[Tony Vargas]

As for the actual whack-a-mole issue; I would define the problem as cheap healing being too good.

That is not the same thing you're talking about, though others are, so I still feel it's relevant.

To me the problem is how you would never heal somebody while he is still standing, since you gain a lot of healing if you wait until he reaches zero. There all surplus damage is simply wasted, and a cheap Healing Word gets the PC going again.

I'd quibble and say this isn't cheap healing being too good, but rather that practical healing isn't good enough, /unless/ you wait until the subject is punched down to zero by excess damage. If you heal proactively, he'll just get KOd, anway, because damage is tuned high to deliver fast combat.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm sure this fits at many tables, a bit grittier and more consequences. Just if you make the change realize it's weakening a rule who's goal is to get *players* back in the action on things that take a good amount of real-life time.

I didn't go into detail, but while the rule might have intended to get players back into action, what it really accomplishes is something far worse:

It heavily incentivizes monsters to keep beating on the fallen.

Since dropping foes no longer do much (and indeed only wastes your damage through over-damage), you need to actually kill them to reach your goal of reducing the number of foes.

This creates a nasty vindictive atmosphere at the table and I want none of it.

My -10 rule is expressly designed to let monsters be content when heroes fall and to move onto the next hero.

As for the healer's POV, the point is to spend your healing BEFORE your allies drop.

(Or even better, skip the in-combat healing and join in the monster bashing yourself! ☺)


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

I'd quibble and say this isn't cheap healing being too good, but rather that practical healing isn't good enough, /unless/ you wait until the subject is punched down to zero by excess damage. If you heal proactively, he'll just get KOd, anway, because damage is tuned high to deliver fast combat.

Sure, whatever

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Xaelvaen]

I have been experimenting with an 'over-damage' rule myself for players, though not a lot of input - yet. When they are reduced to 0, the over-damage is converted to death saves. For every 10 points of damage past 0 you would've been reduced, you start with one failed death save. Over damage by 30 or more hit points, and you're killed outright (save using one of my in-game resources to save lives). Over damage by 20 or more, and your fate hinges on a single d20 roll unless you're healed. Since I use non-cyclic initiative, it does add a bit of dynamic tension - "the cleric has already gone, will the cleric go before the next death save is needed?" - sort of thing.

 

[Uller]

But in my experience 5e Clerics seldom have to spend much of their cool powers on healing others, so perhaps it's merely time to take a step back and reevaluate what kinds of adventures you're running?

I run a variety of adventures...in this case, the 5th level is Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan. There is poison gas that damages the PCs ever hour (1d6 poison damage, no save). Take a short rest...fine...but you take 1d6 damage and risk a random encounter. It's a nice time pressure mechanic that is meant to keep them moving but without bashing the players over the head about it.

In the first fight, the cleric took a lot of damage early on and healed himself and another PC during the fight to keep himself and the other PC in it. There was no opportunity for a short rest of any length. Sometimes PCs get wounded quickly, no matter what kind of adventure you are playing (or any kind I would want to play). They want to heal to avoid going down rather than wait until after they do. Making that healing more efficient (I think) might free up the cleric player to be a healer but still be able to save his best spell slots for more interesting things.

The effect of this rule would have been allow him to maybe only spend a first level spell slots, an HD and a bonus actions on healing word for 1d4+4+1d8+2 (ave 13) instead of a third level cure wounds and an action for 3d8+4 (ave 17.5). Seems like a fair trade-off to me. If he wanted more, he could use a 2nd level slot and 2 HD for 2d4+4+2d8+4 (22)...still only a bonus action so he could still attack or cast a cantrip. Or if he really wanted he could spend his action, a third level slot and 3 HD and get 3d8+4+3d8+6 (50.5...enough to fully heal most 5th level PCs...that seems a fair trade for highest level slot and more than half the wounded character's HD. Can't do it very often.

To me, a PC with 5 HP but all his HD is not as badly wounded as one with maybe 15 hp and no HD. There is an internal reserve there and maybe healing (magic or otherwise) should let the PC tap into it. This reflects that.

Hidden Shrine is a one-off from our normal campaign so I may try it out for the remaining portion just to see how it goes.

 

[Uller]

Instead I suggest we track hp down to -10. EN World mobile app

Are they stone dead at -10?

If so, that makes the game a lot more deadly once you get to monsters capable of doing 15+ damage in a single attack...An Ogre does 2d8+4. If he attacks a PC at 5 hp, he has a pretty solid shot of killing him out right so you as the DM have to find excuses not to attack PCs that are in single digit hp or you risk killing PCs every fight...No thanks.

My goal with combat is to make most combats fun for all my players by having them try to keep themselves and others in the fight and able to be effective as long as they can and to use the resources available to them to do it. Only when the party really starts running low on resources should players start dropping and staying down....and then they find a place to rest (and I usually let them).

 

[OB1]

I have been experimenting with an 'over-damage' rule myself for players, though not a lot of input - yet. When they are reduced to 0, the over-damage is converted to death saves. For every 10 points of damage past 0 you would've been reduced, you start with one failed death save. Over damage by 30 or more hit points, and you're killed outright (save using one of my in-game resources to save lives). Over damage by 20 or more, and your fate hinges on a single d20 roll unless you're healed. Since I use non-cyclic initiative, it does add a bit of dynamic tension - "the cleric has already gone, will the cleric go before the next death save is needed?" - sort of thing.

I like this, it has a nice scale to it and should rightfully do the job of having PCs start to make serious judgments about staying in a fight anytime they are down 50% of HP or more. I wonder if the damage number should maybe be 1 full HD + Con Mod per failed Death Save? Seems like the Barbarian should be able to go further into negatives than the Wizard, but that may be too fidily.

Very tempted to replace my rule, where players make an immediate death save anytime they drop to 0 or below at DC 10 or the over-damage amount, whichever is higher and failed death saves only resetting on a short rest (or lesser restoration) with this.

Interested in what your players think of your rule and how it plays out in a combat.

 

[CapnZapp]

Are they stone dead at -10?

No, you still start racking up death saves at zero or negative hp.

The only difference is that you actually track hp down to -10. Any damage in excess of bringing you to -10 is still wasted.

If you have 4 hp and are hit for 7 damage, you're at -3, not 0. If you're then healed five points, you're at +2, not +5.

Nothing else changes. The only thing that changes is that a single point of healing is not guaranteed to bring you back in the fight even if you just took gobs and gobs of damage.

This small change has huge implications.

Before the rules strangely encouraged you to hold off healing until your ally drops (hopefully wasting lots of damage) and then bringing her back up with, say, a quick and convenient Healing Word or - even more strange - a single point of Lay on Hands. Getting dropped wasn't nearly enough to make you stay down, so I couldn't in good conscience have monsters keep doing only that, or the game felt like running in "kiddie mode" where there is no actual danger. The PHB rules naturally leads to monsters making sure to kill off downed heroes before switching to attack a "fresh" hero, which I find exceedingly bad for the game.

 

[Xaelvaen]

I like this, it has a nice scale to it and should rightfully do the job of having PCs start to make serious judgments about staying in a fight anytime they are down 50% of HP or more. I wonder if the damage number should maybe be 1 full HD + Con Mod per failed Death Save? Seems like the Barbarian should be able to go further into negatives than the Wizard, but that may be too fidily.

Very tempted to replace my rule, where players make an immediate death save anytime they drop to 0 or below at DC 10 or the over-damage amount, whichever is higher and failed death saves only resetting on a short rest (or lesser restoration) with this.

Interested in what your players think of your rule and how it plays out in a combat.

We just started playing around with it earlier this week. We just finished ToA and the players experienced a pretty heavy whack-a-mole sensation with a few of the last battles, so I whipped up this concept. So far, it has only mattered once when one of my players went off on their own to investigate a seedy underworld. She was out of "Inspiration" and got a 1 on her Deception check - felt so horrible for her. It came to blows (Wizard/Rogue Bladesinger), and while she could hold her own (we roll stats, not point buy), the party arrived just as she hit 0 - with a 21 point over-damage attack.

Before the Warpriest (Homebrewed Cleric with a warlord feel) could take an action, she had to roll that death save - she'd never been so excited for an 11 in her life I believe.

So, in the one instance, it has worked phenomenally.

On the note of your threshold, I like the concept behind that, though I'm not sure I'd take it to Class Hit Dice - I've had some seriously tough Dwarven Clerics in the past. Perhaps 8 + Con Mod (I use 8 because the average Constitution in my group is somewhere around 14-15; everyone always puts it mid-ground -except- the barbarians, and because 8 + numbers is already in everyone's head from Spellcasting / DCs.). Could also try 5 + Effective Average Hit Point gain. So Barbarian would be 12 (5 + 7 from the d12), and that way the tough Dwarves with +1 HP per level would be taken into account.

 

[OB1]

No, you still start racking up death saves at zero or negative hp.

The only difference is that you actually track hp down to -10. Any damage in excess of bringing you to -10 is still wasted.

If you have 4 hp and are hit for 7 damage, you're at -3, not 0. If you're then healed five points, you're at +2, not +5.

Nothing else changes. The only thing that changes is that a single point of healing is not guaranteed to bring you back in the fight even if you just took gobs and gobs of damage.

This small change has huge implications.

That's a really elegant solution Capn, I think I'll tack this on to my solution.