D&D 5E Dropping to 0 HP - House Rule Variant

[Lanefan]

Most importantly, when its one Specter's turn, its all of the Specters' turn and a cleric cannot react to a single specter downing an ally before the other 3 get their turn to wreak havoc.

This is actually a good argument for giving each opponent its own independent initiative rather than batching them together.

 

[FrogReaver]

My biggest problem is with Exhaustion as the mechanic because of what it penalizes, how it stacks, and how slow it goes away until 7th level.

I'm for removing whack-a-mole if you see it as a problem, but since you asked I'm against punitive "penalty for the day" for going down. It's not the only way to resolve it, and not one I support.

The easiest way to solve whack a mole is to have enemies target downed PC's. Of course at that point you've got to justify why you weren't being a butthole by having the enemy target the unthreatening downed PC instead of his more threatening allies. This solution puts the DM in a terrible spot IMO and it's why this method isn't actually employed by more DM's.

Then you have solutions like: 'PC stays unconscious for 1 minute even after being healed'. This leads to something very similar to a death spiral in that the PC dropping to 0 has caused all his actions for the encounter to disappear - which makes the encounter much harder for the remaining PCs.

Or maybe the solution is death at 0 hp. This works well - though healing becomes much more mandatory and PC death becomes much more likely (especially melee PCs). This also has the same death spiral like issue where the encounter gets alot harder for the remaining PC's.

Maybe the best alternative solution I've seen was 'character always loses at least 1 combat round when dropping to 0'. Whack a mole can still happen here, it's just no longer the obvious best tactic. Meaning there's at least some utility in healing allies before they drop.

Going down is usually a team failure, not a single character's. A caster goign down because a tank didn't block well. A healer choosing the wrong character to heal. Or it's a cause of luck - the giant critting, the wrong failed save that left them Held so all foes had advantage and auto-crit. Trying to assign a punitive all-day penalty to one character isn't concentrating a team penalty onto one person.

I think a character going down is a combination of factors - team failure, bad luck, bad player decisions. Which is actually one reason our system doesn't have the PC drop and lose his actions when he hits 0hp. Instead, he gets to keep his actions and make decisions to try and survive, putting his survival or the lack thereof much more on him than on his allies.

It goes back to tradeoffs. If you have a system where the 0hp PC can still act (solving this problem you mention), and you don't want any kind of death spiral (solving another potential problem), then the only option remaining to penalize dropping to 0 hp is to add some kind of post encounter penalty.

One of the roles commonly seen is front line melee specifically as a tank. Trying to interpose and protect the squishier members of the party. Because of what they do for the party, they will go down more. Taking a common role and providing a disincentive of common day-long penalties is counter to play. I strongly don't want to return to earlier editions where someone was forced to play a cleric to heal because the role wasn't as much fun, or in this case the same for another role becoming less fun because it is unfairly commonly the recipient of a punitive penalty.

I'm almost always the melee character and often have been the sole melee character. Our current rules are some of the least penalizing to melee characters (and even others) for team failures that I've ever used. Nor does anyone feel like they have to be any kind of dedicated healer because the 0hp character still can move and act to get himself out of harms way. In fact I'd say most in combat healing doesn't do a particularly good job of keeping a character from hitting 0 in the first place, nor do most combat healing spells heal enough to keep the character from hitting 0 again - which by our ruleset does trigger a death save. So while we usually pack a little healing, it's not often a good plan unless you are using something like the life clerics channel divinity or the paladins lay on hands.

While you say we won't have a useful discussion, I strongly hope to convince you that the quest to meet the goals put out in the first post should never be met with all day penalties to a single character.

I'm fine having that discussion as long as we are on the same page that this is what we are talking about. I prefer not having that be the main issue and arguing a bunch of other points only to later find out the crux of the whole debate centered on that point.

 

[Lanefan]

My biggest problem is with Exhaustion as the mechanic because of what it penalizes, how it stacks, and how slow it goes away until 7th level.

I'm for removing whack-a-mole if you see it as a problem, but since you asked I'm against punitive "penalty for the day" for going down. It's not the only way to resolve it, and not one I support.

Going down is usually a team failure, not a single character's. A caster goign down because a tank didn't block well. A healer choosing the wrong character to heal. Or it's a cause of luck - the giant critting, the wrong failed save that left them Held so all foes had advantage and auto-crit. Trying to assign a punitive all-day penalty to one character isn't concentrating a team penalty onto one person.

And it's the team who have to deal with the aftereffects of having one or more weakened characters until they recover...unless, of course, the team is ruthless/heartless enough to leave the weak behind and move on.

One of the roles commonly seen is front line melee specifically as a tank. Trying to interpose and protect the squishier members of the party. Because of what they do for the party, they will go down more. Taking a common role and providing a disincentive of common day-long penalties is counter to play. I strongly don't want to return to earlier editions where someone was forced to play a cleric to heal because the role wasn't as much fun, or in this case the same for another role becoming less fun because it is unfairly commonly the recipient of a punitive penalty.

Or it means that the party have to cool their jets and not try to do the whole adventure in one day.

 

[Asisreo]

This is actually a good argument for giving each opponent its own independent initiative rather than batching them together.

Its funny, though. Its usually a rule that makes the game faster and deadlier but its almost never used outside of the games I run (even when I remind the DM).

And one of the most common complaints of 5e is that its slow and easy. Its just funny because its like adding a turbo attack mod to a game then looking for a mod that makes the game more difficult.

And the analogy works because its fine if you actually prefer the gameplay of the mod but still want a challenge, but its a bit weird to complain about balance when you've never really tried the game without the mod.

Uh, hopefully the meaning didn't get lost in the analogy.

 

[Quartz]

Goal: Provide a disincentive to players to allow themselves to drop to 0 HP that doesn't result in a death spiral or 5MWD.

Are you sure you're looking at it the right way? The fighter - who does not have healing ability - going toe-to-toe with the beastie knows she can be taken out with a big hit. Instead, how about asking how to provide a disincentive to players to allow other PCs to drop to 0 HP that doesn't result in a death spiral or 5MWD.

Remember you do not want to penalise PCs for doing their jobs!

 

[Gadget]

I think the OP's suggestion is good at avoiding the 5MWD, assuming the PC survives the unconscious "timeout;" or rather avoids it at least as well as the current rules do. But I'm not sure it avoids the death spiral, as others have pointed out. Then again, the base rules have the PC go unconscious, with all its attendant penalties, upon reaching 0hp, so it could be argued that the current rules are death a death spiral, as well as wac-a-mole like. In a game where there was a tacit understanding at the table that adversaries will generally not attack downed PCs, it could work. There needs to be some disincentive to reaching 0hp, after all. There are a couple of problems though.

• Retreat becomes even harder if you have an unconscious companion to worry about. Perhaps the intention is to have PCs retreat before 0hp is reached since they know wac-a-mole is not an option, but that is not always avoidable or predictable.
• losing 1/4 (or a different fraction of party actions and strength) is really sort of a party death spiral for the encounter, when you think about it. If the encounter is that close, having all that action economy go way for the combat can be devastating, that's why "focus fire" has always been such an effective tactic for PCs to use after all.

Personally, I'd be okay with the suggested implementation, at least on a trial basis.

 

[OB1]

Are you sure you're looking at it the right way? The fighter - who does not have healing ability - going toe-to-toe with the beastie knows she can be taken out with a big hit. Instead, how about asking how to provide a disincentive to players to allow other PCs to drop to 0 HP that doesn't result in a death spiral or 5MWD.

Remember you do not want to penalise PCs for doing their jobs!

This is precisely what I meant.

I think the OP's suggestion is good at avoiding the 5MWD, assuming the PC survives the unconscious "timeout;" or rather avoids it at least as well as the current rules do. But I'm not sure it avoids the death spiral, as others have pointed out. Then again, the base rules have the PC go unconscious, with all its attendant penalties, upon reaching 0hp, so it could be argued that the current rules are death a death spiral, as well as wac-a-mole like. In a game where there was a tacit understanding at the table that adversaries will generally not attack downed PCs, it could work. There needs to be some disincentive to reaching 0hp, after all. There are a couple of problems though.

• Retreat becomes even harder if you have an unconscious companion to worry about. Perhaps the intention is to have PCs retreat before 0hp is reached since they know wac-a-mole is not an option, but that is not always avoidable or predictable.
• losing 1/4 (or a different fraction of party actions and strength) is really sort of a party death spiral for the encounter, when you think about it. If the encounter is that close, having all that action economy go way for the combat can be devastating, that's why "focus fire" has always been such an effective tactic for PCs to use after all.

Personally, I'd be okay with the suggested implementation, at least on a trial basis.

Right, should have clarified that I'm okay with an in combat death spiral, but want to avoid that carrying over into other encounters (and why I thought the suggestion to get rid of the tiers and have a single 10 minute period was a good one, and really, the more I think about it the more I think a single minute would be fine).

And now I've had another thought. Instead of Unconscious, what if the PC was under the effect of SLOW for 1 hour (or until fully healed or greater restoration cast). Half speed, -2 AC and Dex Save, no reaction, 1 Action (single weapon attack) or one Bonus. Roll for spells this round or next round. Not as severe as being unconscious, still a serious penalty, but a chance for heroics and a new set of tactics to compensate should you find yourself in that position. Feels very cinematic, the fallen warrior who gets back up but isn't at full strength, yet fights on...

 

[Steampunkette]

The big problem is: That doesn't penalize everyone else when one player hits 0.

That player is the one who is going to get weakened or taken out of combat for however long whatever status effect you apply to them lasts.

You'd need to input a system of Morale or something similar so that other players are demoralized 'til that player is above 0, again, in some way... Which would probably annoy everyone at the table, rather than actually make things interesting.

 

[Quartz]

It's sort of self-balancing right now. If the fighter knows that the party are going to leave her when she goes down then she'll be less inclined to go into combat. Or maybe she'll use her Action Surge to run away from the beastie leaving the healer to face it? But I would suggest avoiding intra-party conflict.

And if the fighter were to perchance die from being left, only a RBDM would take the cue from the player of the fighter being angry at being left to make the fighter come back as a wight or some other undead hell-bent on the death of those who left her...

 

[Quartz]

This is actually a good argument for giving each opponent its own independent initiative rather than batching them together.

Could you do this much more easily by giving the boss monster extra Lair Actions? Every time a PC takes an action the boss gets a Lair Action which can be used to direct a minion. Sort of like Legendary Actions, but only in the lair. Plus LA on Initiative 20 as usual. When the boss gets slain the chief minion becomes the new boss and gets LAs. If you want to be nasty, have both the boss and the chief minion get LAs from the start.