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

[ad_hoc]

I still think the Exhaustion rules is an effective way to place a limit on whack-a-mole

The more I think about that the less I like it.

It doesn't actually solve the problem as you still want to cure the character asap anyway.

And it's just not fun. Not only did the character go down and you may miss a turn or two, but now the character is bad. This lasts at least a long rest, maybe more.

 

[Psikerlord#]

To answer your specific question:

Unfortunately, the design of D&D is such that going down to 0 hp is not meant to be an especially uncommon event.

Not at low levels (where you have few hit points) and not at high levels (where some attacks and effects deal LOTS of damage).

By making it difficult (impossible) to heal your ally back into the fight, you are increasing swinginess and deadliness by a significant amount.

That doesn't mean your idea is necessarily bad, only that it is a heavy nerf to player characters, and you need to be careful not to overwhelm the party with encounters that would otherwise be much less dangerous.

Also: how fun is it to be out of a whole fight? By this I mean - each DM should really ask her players what they think.

I'm not so sure about that - I think beign reduced to zero hp is quite uncommon, or at least using the default guidelines. Of course teh GM can always add more monsters. But increasing the dangerousness/deadliness is indeed part of the objective. I dont want to hamstring the party though for future engagements, which I why I fear exhaustion levels might be too much.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not so sure about that - I think beign reduced to zero hp is quite uncommon, or at least using the default guidelines. Of course teh GM can always add more monsters. But increasing the dangerousness/deadliness is indeed part of the objective. I dont want to hamstring the party though for future engagements, which I why I fear exhaustion levels might be too much.

Of course, it's quite meaningless to discuss the "default" guidelines, since when push comes to shove - it's only your dungeonmastering style that counts!

By this I mean to ask you that regardless of what you say I hope you agree that your proposed change is a significant hurdle added that isn't there in the "default" game.

If you and your players feel it adds tension, excitement and danger - go for it!

I'm just saying that it goes much further than what I believe is the minimum change needed to counter whackamole, and I provided an example suggestion of what a DM might try if he only want to stop whackamoling but does not necessarily want to significantly increase the danger of dropping to zero hp.

I think new DMs would be best helped if we keep the two aims distinct and separate, or at the very least that you change the topic of this thread to "...fix whack-a-mole AND increase dangerousness". Cheers

 

[CapnZapp]

Given that fights are designed to be run quickly, it should be enough not-fun that players will want to avoid it, but not so much not-fun that the players gets bored from the sidelines. If healing is too easy, then players won't care about taking damage or getting knocked down, since they'll just get right back up again as though nothing happened.

If Psikers' players feel that way, then we're good.

I am just saying a DM should not just take that for granted.

Just because "fights are designed to be run quickly" doesn't mean they always do. Even a three-round fight can easily take an hour of real-world playing time. And not all groups subscribe to the idea you should fill your adventure day with 6-8 individually trivial encounters; some groups like challenging fights that might take five or even ten combat rounds to resolve

Not saying they always do. Just saying it's best to gauge your players' interest instead of just discussing in sweeping terms.

PS. And for those keeping score at home, this is veering quite far from the original subject of "avoiding whackamole". I mean, you don't really have to have this issue, because you can fix whackamole without benching downed players. DS

 

[CapnZapp]

Fundamentally it is this:
Any damage done that takes a character below zero is effectively negated.
At higher levels it is not possible for a monster to instakill a character through direct damage from 1 hit point (ie - they cannot do the character's entire hit point pool in a single hit).
Typically one healer spends his entire round to cast a healing spell that cannot out-heal a single attack, let alone a foe's entire turn.

Therefore it's more efficient to heal the minimum amount of damage in the least expensive way.

To answer [MENTION=6801228]Chaosmancer[/MENTION] specifically and succtinctly:

The reason heal-from-zero is an issue now but wasn't then, is that 5th edition is the first edition where all damage past zero is simply not counted.

This opens up a previously unavailable healing strategy where you (ab)use the way negative hp doesn't count to provide the bulk of the healing for you.

---

This means that if a huge monster deals you 40 points of damage, if you had only 5 hp, 35 of those damage points simply evaporate. This is a HUGE savings in healing oomph.

Compare to if you had 75 hp. Then you'd take the full 40 damage and fall down to 35 hp.

Traditionally, a cleric assuming the role of combat-medic would cast a heal or cure spell from a high level slot to heal all those 40 damage.

But in 5E, the cleric can choose a different strategy. If he waits until you fall to zero hp, he can then cast a cheap Healing Word spell (cheap in that it only spends a first level slot; cheap in that it only requires a bonus action; cheap in that it can be cast from a distance so the cleric doesn't waste time moving back and forth on the battlefield).

This will bring you back up from unconscious, with a few hit points. Effectively 35 of those 40 incoming damage points are simply gone. And the best part is - the next time the monster hits you, 35 of those 40 damage points are negated once again.

Each time you the Cleric
1) save movement
2) save spell slots
3) save time (since you only spend your bonus action, you can use your regular action for offense, to help defeat the monsters)

 

[CapnZapp]

Why this is not a problem:
1. Continuing to attack a downed foe will cause them to die in very short order.
2. Foes typically outnumber adventurers, meaning they have surplus actions to do 1)
3. Foes should usually have a goal that is goes beyond the combat. Foes want to drive off, capture, or kill the PCs or simply survive. If whack-a-mole begins, then either it doesn't impact that goal OR it makes coup-de-grace inevitable for all but the most basic of foes, many of whom will continue to attack a downed adventurer anyway.
4. AOEs.

These factors SHOULD combine to make players unsure that they can leave a character bleeding out, or even on low enough hit points that a single hit will take them down. If your players are not worrying about this, then I would submit that your NPCs are being played solely to be a combat challenge, rather than with thought to why they are doing what they are doing and what they want to achieve.

But you might not want your monsters to behave that bloodthirstily.

In previous editions, monsters could down a hero, and then move on to attack the next hero. Some of us LIKE that.

I actively dislike the suggestion that monsters should keep attacking downed foes.

For us, your cure is worse than the disease.

For us, it is a much simpler and more direct solution to revert the decision to not count negative hp. Why change your play style just to support a stupid design choice?

 

[Chaosmancer]

The more I think about that the less I like it.

It doesn't actually solve the problem as you still want to cure the character asap anyway.

And it's just not fun. Not only did the character go down and you may miss a turn or two, but now the character is bad. This lasts at least a long rest, maybe more.

Which is why in my own homebrew suggestion, I made it temp. exhaustion which goes away when the fight ends. Essentially, the magic that restarted your heart hasn't had time to regulate the beat yet, so you're pushing too fast too early.

After the fight and the adrenaline has gone done, you stabilize and lose the exhaustion. That way you are only penalizing players during the current fight, and they can start dropping dead instantly the sixth or seventh time you heal them up.

To answer @Chaosmancer specifically and succtinctly:

The reason heal-from-zero is an issue now but wasn't then, is that 5th edition is the first edition where all damage past zero is simply not counted.

This opens up a previously unavailable healing strategy where you (ab)use the way negative hp doesn't count to provide the bulk of the healing for you.

---

This means that if a huge monster deals you 40 points of damage, if you had only 5 hp, 35 of those damage points simply evaporate. This is a HUGE savings in healing oomph.

Compare to if you had 75 hp. Then you'd take the full 40 damage and fall down to 35 hp.

Traditionally, a cleric assuming the role of combat-medic would cast a heal or cure spell from a high level slot to heal all those 40 damage.

But in 5E, the cleric can choose a different strategy. If he waits until you fall to zero hp, he can then cast a cheap Healing Word spell (cheap in that it only spends a first level slot; cheap in that it only requires a bonus action; cheap in that it can be cast from a distance so the cleric doesn't waste time moving back and forth on the battlefield).

This will bring you back up from unconscious, with a few hit points. Effectively 35 of those 40 incoming damage points are simply gone. And the best part is - the next time the monster hits you, 35 of those 40 damage points are negated once again.

Each time you the Cleric
1) save movement
2) save spell slots
3) save time (since you only spend your bonus action, you can use your regular action for offense, to help defeat the monsters)

To talk around to my point, the major issue does not seem to be the heal-from-zero then.

Hear me out.

This stems from the desire to have the most efficient use of action possible, no matter what. In games I run (which tend to have less experienced players) getting hit for that initial 40 damage causes panic. The healer is being begged to heal the character, the damage dealers start seeing if they have any tricks left, the thought of retreat might even possibly enter their mind.

The idea of not healing, so that later healing could be done at less value for less wasted resource does not enter into their equation.


Now then, looking back at the OP's proposed solution. What is the most efficient use of the Healer's action if they want to still be combat capable and do the least amount of healing necessary?

They don't heal.

Even if you make that 1-3 minutes count as concentration so they can still do other things, the type of people who are analyzing the most efficient use of their abilities and time are not going to drop a Spirit Guardians or Bless to go over and try and heal Bob, even for 60 hp, at the cost of that being the rest of their fight. And they will do the analysis that the possibility of them getting hit (since half the time they will be next to the monster that killed Bob) and losing that concentration and therefore their spell, is very high.

So, if the issue is that players who are looking for the most efficient way to heal are willing to key party members "get killed" to not have to heal 35 points of damage, the original solution just means they aren't going to heal period, because it is a waste of their time and actions.


Tracking the negative hp could potentially be a better solution, because then they need to use more powerful magic, however, if a player is down to -35 hp, you'd need to heal them for almost 70 pts to get them back in combat shape, and healing spells don't get that powerful for a long time in game, so then you are expending approximately double the resources to get them back in the fight, and with rolling for random healing, you could still end up healing them for 0 effect, wasting a turn, and they may decide to let a character die, and then use a different ability to bring them back (depending on level and wealth) instead of wasting multiple slots trying to get enough curative magic fowing into them to get them back into fighting shape.


At least, that's how it is looking to me

 

[jasper]

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.

..

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

I don't think you been answer so I try. In 1E a lot of people used -10 hp rule. So the pcs had a couple rounds to heal you before you bleed out. And any healing stabilized you.
...brings them to 6 hp instead of -2... ... I a little confused here. If you are saying a pc at 6hp is bleeding and losing hp then heroes don't bleed in 5E.

 

[jasper]

I still not seeing the major problem. I assume "whack a mole " means pcs go from 0 hp to positive with any heal spell is a major problem. So what that the pcs go from zeroes to heroes.
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. And at 13 hp damage a hit at least 4 ogres must hit bobby
B) A 16hp Bard is smacked by a Bugbear down to -11hp. The other Bard throws Healing Word for 3 points. And at 13 hp damage one ogre must hit Shakes HiSS Spear once to put him down again. Causing Roger Bacon to burn another healing word.

 

[CapnZapp]

At least, that's how it is looking to me

That is why I suggested you keep track of negative hit points down to -10.

Just enough for a "heal from zero" to require a bit of effort. Just enough that it might be worth to heal sooner. (Which ties back to the "dropping to zero is uncommon" claim discussed earlier)

But those ten extra points of healing power required is still not such a huge deal. A character at, say, -70 hp is for all intents and purposes out of the combat. No healer can be expected to spend the time and effort on bringing back that character until after the threat has been dealt with.