D&D 5E Tweak Instant Cure spells to fix whack-a-mole

[AaronOfBarbaria]

By that logic everyone playing 3e experienced PunPun. Except they didn't.

That's not the same logic at all.

...except there are no variables between those two.

That can't possibly be true. You and I cannot be using the same rules, making the same assumptions, building the same challenges, expecting the same results, and arriving at such incompatible results as you having "whack-a-mole" and me not. There literally must be some variable - something different between our two groups - that explains the different results.

You're asking people to consider an integer in the range of 0 to 1 that isn't 0 or 1: it doesn't exist.

I'm not.

I'm asking people to consider that the cause of a problem might be less obvious than it first appears to be to them.

 

[dmnqwk]

If you're really looking to alter whack a mole into something more appropriate, just consider the depth they go into negative:

A) A 105hp barbarian is fighting a group of ogres who manage to reduce him to -2hp with a lucky swing. The Cleric throws a 5th level cure spell for 42 points.
B) A 16hp Bard is smacked by a Bugbear down to -11hp. The other Bard throws Healing Word for 3 points.

If you're going to treat both scenarios as the same, you're really not looking to fix a problem, but change the issue into something else. I mean, if you believe the 2 scenarios above are identical then really why have an issue with whack-a-mole?

If you're of the understanding that the Barbarian barely went down but received a massive boost, while the Bard took a hefty blow and was close to death before receiving a minor blow, then you should look at creating a table to cope with things:

Modifiers:
+1 if the cure value was greater than their negative health.
+1/+3 if the cure value was greater than 50%/100% of their health.
-1 For each time they go down after the first.
-1/-3 If they suffered a blow for more than 50%/100% of their total health.

Roll 1d6:
0 or less. The cure spell stabilizes them, but they remain unconscious for 1d4 hours.
1-3. They are incapable of taking any actions for 1d6 rounds but may move at half speed.
4+ They are cured as per current rules.

If you'd prefer, you could create a "lingering effects" table instead, which focuses on penalties for characters who are dropped, such as disadvantage on attacks or partial deafness (25% spell failure when casting spells with verbal components).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...what are those 'variables,' and how do you think they're relevant?

I'm tired of this.

Either you are deliberately choosing to insist you don't understand me, or I have exhausted every way I can think of to communicate to you and failed to do so successfully.

So I will leave this conversation with one example of a variable that is likely different between my group and groups experiencing "whack-a-mole" play, that is not something that the players should be "blamed" for as that, to me, implies fault or wrongdoing on their part which is why I said I wasn't blaming the players before:

Expectation of when and how a PC will arrive at 0 hit points.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It clearly is 'enabled' (caused) by heal-from-zero, or, if you want to slice the hair a different way, heal-from-zero 'contributes to the problem.'

For those of us not intimately familiar with the healing rules of previous editions, and still wanting to contribute to this discussion, how does the "heal-from-zero" become an issue?

Is it simply that if a player who had 30 hp was hit for 38, reducing them to -8, can now be healed for the full value of a spell? So healing word which rolls 6, brings them to 6 hp instead of -2... which honestly seems like a waste of time to me, since they'd still be bleeding out and dying and your action was to do nothing to change that circumstance.


Because, from my perspective, perhaps not entirely understanding the intricacies of the system, it seems that the route cause is the desire to use the absolute most efficient healing possible. So, instead of trying to heal an ally so they will not be killed, allowing them to be killed and then bringing them back.

It makes sense mechanically, but for me, and perhaps others, it makes so little sense from the role-play and story aspects as too seem a little absurd.

Technically, it is even more efficient for a wealthy party to allow the party member to die completely then bring them back with the single action Revivify, which memory informs me brings them back to full hp, instead of healing them for 4 with a healing word, and then using that 1st level slot for Bless or Guiding Bolt.

So... I am confused to a large degree of the nature of this problem.

 

[Yunru]

That's not the same logic at all.

I'm sorry but I'm going to stop dancing around it: you're talking . You just said 'if the mechanics were the problem, we'd all see it.'
PunPun is the direct result of a mechanical problem with 3e, namely Manipulate Form (I believe it was called). By your own logic, everyone would be seeing PunPun in action. The fact that we didn't means your base assumption must be false.

Now I've methodically and (quasi-)scientifically (since you bandied that word about earlier) disproved your assertion that <100% Correlation = No causation, feel free to prove your statement that it's "not the same logic at all."

 

[S'mon]

A very simple solution is just to use negative hp (die at negative max hp) so the fallen have to be healed up from negative, but any healing stabilises them. I do that in my Wilderlands game. In my Golarion (Pathfinder world) game I use the standard rules, they suit a less gritty more high magic feel. But my enemies routinely finish off the fallen so generally they're waiting for a Revivify at the end of the fight...

 

[Yunru]

I'm tired of this.

Either you are deliberately choosing to insist you don't understand me, or I have exhausted every way I can think of to communicate to you and failed to do so successfully.

So I will leave this conversation with one example of a variable that is likely different between my group and groups experiencing "whack-a-mole" play, that is not something that the players should be "blamed" for as that, to me, implies fault or wrongdoing on their part which is why I said I wasn't blaming the players before:

Expectation of when and how a PC will arrive at 0 hit points.

Oh nice. Here's another: Belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It's just as quantified as yours.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You just said 'if the mechanics were the problem, we'd all see it.'
PunPun is the direct result of a mechanical problem with 3e, namely Manipulate Form (I believe it was called).

Your misstep is that I said "if a mechanic we are both using were the problem, we'd both see it."

PunPun is a result of a mechanical problem, but not everyone playing 3e will see that problem because they aren't all using the mechanic responsible for the problem. That's the difference, and it's a big one.

 

[Yunru]

Your misstep is that I said "if a mechanic we are both using were the problem, we'd both see it."

PunPun is a result of a mechanical problem, but not everyone playing 3e will see that problem because they aren't all using the mechanic responsible for the problem. That's the difference, and it's a big one.

Yeah no. That's so simple a false statement a child could disprove it.
Step 1: Find a group willing to use any content.
Step 2: Watch as PunPun isn't run.

For your *ahem* "logic" to be true, everyone playing with the material needed to make PunPun must encounter PunPun, which simply isn't true.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I stand by my statements in this thread, but this is the point at which I am going to call it quits on participating because it has stopped being a discussion.