D&D (2024) Gain 1 exhaustion when dropping to 0hp?

[Li Shenron]

It's a good idea if you have lax players who count too much on getting healed and you want to keep them more active to avoid getting hit.

I'm not a super fan of the specific exhaustion levels in 5e, and even less the proposed ones for 1D&D, but each DM could decide whether to use one of the official versions or make up their own.

Also, exhaustion would probably need to be fully removed on long rests, to avoid the old annoying "we have to rest one week at the inn" trope.

Diff'rent strokes and all that, some gaming groups would consider having to rest for more than a single long rest a positive thing. There's been some criticism of the almost "full reset" from long rest since always.

 

[Olrox17]

Diff'rent strokes and all that, some gaming groups would consider having to rest for more than a single long rest a positive thing. There's been some criticism of the almost "full reset" from long rest since always.

Yes, some gaming groups would absolutely think that. As often happens, 5e's insufficient, half-baked modularity is at fault here. All 5e gives to those groups is the "slow natural healing" and "gritty realism" DMG variants, which aren't nearly enough for their needs.

That, however, doesn't mean that we should shove "gritty", "realistic" game mechanics down every group's throat.

IF we want to penalize a specific strategy (hitting 0 hp often and carelessly), we can do that with exhaustion levels, but we shouldn't let that specific gameplay choice dictate every campaign's tone. There are tables that enjoy "epic heroism" style.

So, my point is: a general rule that applies exhaustion levels to downed characters absolutely shouldn't become standard UNLESS we also implement new and better ways for PCs to counter exhaustion.
It's either that, or making this exhaustion rule part of the "gritty" optional 5e variants.

 

[tetrasodium]

It’s all a matter of what we want to accomplish, really.

If the idea is to “punish”, so to speak, constantly going to 0 hp and back, the exhaustion rule works even if we then give more ways to get rid of it, through the expenditure of limited resources like spell slots (lesser restoration is currently very weak and could use a boost) and hit dice, or specialized class features (like the ranger one).

However, if the idea is to make to game more challenging than it currently is, and/or more simulationist, more “gritty” and “realistic”…then I believe such rule wouldn’t be appropriate for your average high-magic high-heroism d&d campaign. In this case, I would oppose making such a rule standard, and I’d rather see it be presented as a variant, or an optional module.

That "punish"" & everything that stems from its toxic roor isa short sighted way of IA player gnoring the benefits by crossing their arms and declaring that they intend to change nothing about how they act while daring the gm to kill them. This kind of change has benefits in how it pressures PCs to make choices that mitigate really risk. Those choices can be personal ones like taking a dodge action or pulling back rather than over extending.for some. For others those might be putting more effort as a group into working together & making strategic use of teamwork and force multiplying abilities rather than going for pure damage or listening to the people trying to use them rather than ignoring those abilities.

When a player makes an effort to do better and still falls prey to these exhaustion levels they still aren't being "punished" unless they go back to the arms crossed dare rather than using it as a reason for the group to dig deeper & consider ways that they as individuals & a group can do better in future encounters where that or a similar set of circumstances leading up to the exhaustion gains is encountered.

 

[Olrox17]

That "punish"" & everything that stems from its toxic roor isa short sighted way of IA player gnoring the benefits by crossing their arms and declaring that they intend to change nothing about how they act while daring the gm to kill them. This kind of change has benefits in how it pressures PCs to make choices that mitigate really risk. Those choices can be personal ones like taking a dodge action or pulling back rather than over extending.for some. For others those might be putting more effort as a group into working together & making strategic use of teamwork and force multiplying abilities rather than going for pure damage or listening to the people trying to use them rather than ignoring those abilities.

When a player makes an effort to do better and still falls prey to these exhaustion levels they still aren't being "punished" unless they go back to the arms crossed dare rather than using it as a reason for the group to dig deeper & consider ways that they as individuals & a group can do better in future encounters where that or a similar set of circumstances leading up to the exhaustion gains is encountered.

I feel like you are not answering to me or my point, but rather to a strawman position that's not my own.
All I'm doing is dividing the gameplay effects this proposed rule change would have from the thematic effects it would have.

I appreciate the gameplay intent the OP's proposed rule can have (to discourage/penalize hitting 0 hp), but I'm wary of the (possibly unintended) thematic effects: "gritty realism" becoming the default feel of the game. I think I've explained what I meant in relative depth in my previous posts.

 

[mellored]

Exhaustion being applied on 0 hp would make it an extremely commonplace game mechanic, and

Getting hit with a battle axe so hard that you fall unconscious should not be common place.

That's the problem this is trying to fix, while still give a buffer against being one shot by said battle axe.

there would need to be far more ways to deal with it, besides being a ranger or having greater restoration prepared.

Lembas (rare) The cakes will keep sweet for many many days, if they are unbroken and left in their leaf-wrappings, as we have brought them. One will keep a traveler on his feet for a day of long labour, even if he be one of the tall Men of Minas Tirith.*
When eaten as part of a short rest, it reduce your exhaustion level by 1.

There. The DM can now adjust the recovery rate.

*once they change the flavor enough to not be sued by Tolkien.

 

[Olrox17]

Getting hit with a battle axe so hard that you fall unconscious should not be common place.

That's the problem this is trying to fix, while still give a buffer against being one shot by said battle axe.

I already mentioned several times that I appreciate the intent of your proposed rule change. The current state of 5e, where people fall down and pop back up multiple times in the middle of combat (because of healing word, the healer feat, aura of vitality etc.) is quite ridiculous.

Lembas (rare) The cakes will keep sweet for many many days, if they are unbroken and left in their leaf-wrappings, as we have brought them. One will keep a traveler on his feet for a day of long labour, even if he be one of the tall Men of Minas Tirith.*
When eaten as part of a short rest, it reduce your exhaustion level by 1.

There. The DM can now adjust the recovery rate.

*once they change the flavor enough to not be sued by Tolkien.

I imagine this would be a magic item? Hmm, I personally don't like fixing gameplay issues with magic items.
How about:

• several spells now have an exhaustion-removing effects. Lesser restoration is an obvious candidate, but also cure wounds, IF cast with an higher level spell slot (1 level of exhaustion removed for every two slot levels above 1st). That would make cure wounds a bit more attractive compared to healing word. Greater restoration now removes up to 5 levels of exhaustion.
• you can remove a level of exhaustion during a short rest by spending 1/4 of your total hit dice (rounded up if the result is less than 1).
• rolling a 20 on a death saving throw also removes the exhaustion level you just got.

This is the bare minimum I would personally implement if I had to run a game with this house rule.

 

[mellored]

That, however, doesn't mean that we should shove "gritty", "realistic" game mechanics down every group's throat....
There are tables that enjoy "epic heroism" style.

I wouldn't call Getting knocked out 5 time in a day and having to spend 5 days recovering "gritty", and very far from realistic. It takes a few weeks to recover from a concussion, let alone multiple of them. So this still feels on the heroic side to me, just a little less super heroic.

But I do agree there should be a way to adjust it. And, IMO, the best suggestion so far is consumable items. Which seems to cover all the complaints..

• wizard can hand his to the fighter who protected him.
• DMs can easily adjust available and gritty-ness. Even durring the same campaign.
• Keep backwards compatability with old classes.
• Keep backwards compatability with old campaigns (easy to add a few).

I don't think spells would be the best idea. Every group would want a celestial warlock to spam lesser restoration. (Greater restoration cost money, so that's somewhat limited.)

Using hit dice seems bad. If your dropped to 0, you'll need to use them to recover your HP. Plus you get them back with a long rest.

Rolling a 20 on death saves seems fine, but likely something you could easily forget.

Oh! The new Heroic Inspiration. You can expend it to recover an exhaustion on short rest. It's also semi-passable.

 

[tetrasodium]

I feel like you are not answering to me or my point, but rather to a strawman position that's not my own.
All I'm doing is dividing the gameplay effects this proposed rule change would have from the thematic effects it would have.

I appreciate the gameplay intent the OP's proposed rule can have (to discourage/penalize hitting 0 hp), but I'm wary of the (possibly unintended) thematic effects: "gritty realism" becoming the default feel of the game. I think I've explained what I meant in relative depth in my previous posts.

I did answer your point. You presented a situation that would occur when a player gives an ultimatum refusal to change the very behaviors this sort of change encourages. I provided details on the positive changes this sort of change encourages both before the exhaustion gain as well as after in aneffort to show the mistsrgeted faulty whiteroom "situation". I didn't focus on solutions for your "position" because I told you why it's a misplaced concern that avoids the reasons for this sort of change. Now you are protesting the very idea that your hypothetical whiteroom might be off by one or more steps & calling for the focus to be exclusively on the results of that refusal to adapt.

Unfortunately 5e's structure of near plot armored PCs coupled with poor gm support causes players to feel justified in engaging in this sort of thing with righteous outrage should a gm make an effort to carve back excess in the core rules to positively influence the tone theme & game play itself at their table.

What you are calling "unintended" are the desired pressures that contribute to positive changes

 

[Olrox17]

I did answer your point. You presented a situation that would occur when a player gives an ultimatum refusal to change the very behaviors this sort of change encourages. I provided details on the positive changes this sort of change encourages both before the exhaustion gain as well as after in aneffort to show the mistsrgeted faulty whiteroom "situation". I didn't focus on solutions for your "position" because I told you why it's a misplaced concern that avoids the reasons for this sort of change. Now you are protesting the very idea that your hypothetical whiteroom might be off by one or more steps & calling for the focus to be exclusively on the results of that refusal to adapt.

Unfortunately 5e's structure of near plot armored PCs coupled with poor gm support causes players to feel justified in engaging in this sort of thing with righteous outrage should a gm make an effort to carve back excess in the core rules to positively influence the tone theme & game play itself at their table.

What you are calling "unintended" are the desired pressures that contribute to positive changes

I don't understand why you keep assuming the worst of these hypothetical players you're talking about. I'm guessing you had bad experience at the table with some people in the past, and nowadays you assume that people will just be negative towards anything outside of the ordinary? I guess I was lucky enough to play with players open to experimentation, so...I have trouble understanding your animosity.

I wouldn't call Getting knocked out 5 time in a day and having to spend 5 days recovering "gritty", and very far from realistic. It takes a few weeks to recover from a concussion, let alone multiple of them. So this still feels on the heroic side to me, just a little less super heroic.

I would insist in calling it "gritty" and "realistic" in the context of D&D 5e. Why? Because D&D 5e is the game where an 8 hours long rest will heal all your wounds, even if you came extremely close to death dozens of times in the last hour and are currently on your last leg. This is default 5e.
Is it super heroic? I guess you could say that...but according to the DMG, "epic heroism" is being able to take a long rest in ONE HOUR. This is the game that 5e is: take it, leave it, or house rule it to hell and back.

The "exhaustion on 0 hp" is a fine (maybe excellent, even) house rule, and would work well in tandem with the other "gritty" variants presented in the DMG for a more """realistic""" (air quotes ftw) D&D experience.
Would it work well as a default rule introduced in the 5.5 update, without further tweaks and balance adjustments? No, I don't think so. And I would bet good money that WotC doesn't, either.

That said, I will consider implementing this house rule if I happen to run a grittier-than-average 5e game in the future.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't understand why you keep assuming the worst of these hypothetical players you're talking about. I'm guessing you had bad experience at the table with some people in the past, and nowadays you assume that people will just be negative towards anything outside of the ordinary? I guess I was lucky enough to play with players open to experimentation, so...I have trouble understanding your animosity.

I would insist in calling it "gritty" and "realistic" in the context of D&D 5e. Why? Because D&D 5e is the game where an 8 hours long rest will heal all your wounds, even if you came extremely close to death dozens of times in the last hour and are currently on your last leg. This is default 5e.
Is it super heroic? I guess you could say that...but according to the DMG, "epic heroism" is being able to take a long rest in ONE HOUR. This is the game that 5e is: take it, leave it, or house rule it to hell and back.

The "exhaustion on 0 hp" is a fine (maybe excellent, even) house rule, and would work well in tandem with the other "gritty" variants presented in the DMG for a more """realistic""" (air quotes ftw) D&D experience.
Would it work well as a default rule introduced in the 5.5 update, without further tweaks and balance adjustments? No, I don't think so. And I would bet good money that WotC doesn't, either.

That said, I will consider implementing this house rule if I happen to run a grittier-than-average 5e game in the future.

That bold bit is the problem in this disconnect, it has nothing to do with past experience at the table with people & everything to do with the artificial constraints constraints of your position. The pain from going down & slow recovery are part of the goal because a desire to avoid those with changes to how players evaluate & react to risk is the needed pressure that achieves this kind of rule's desired positive result. The pressure to change & change in behavior that results are inseparable since one leads to the other, any question that requires an exclusion of one or calls for the nullification of the other breaks both parts.

Your position includes constraints that turn it into a loaded question in the way they require that the worst motives be assumed of someone wanting to use this sort of rule. When you present a situation that begins with as loaded question where malicious punitive reasons are a thing that must be assumed through exclusion of any other motive* simply pointing out the existence of beneficial & positive ones exposes the loaded question.

* even after those other motives were pointed out.