D&D 5E Bouncing heroes and healing tweaks

[Barolo]

We have a few house rules that everyone enjoys.

1) When you go to negative hit points, you gain one level of Exhaustion upon being healer and getting back up.

This helps with the yoyo effect, and effectively makes the PCs care more for each other and everyone staying above 0 HP. All three groups I play in use this rule now - it's really working great for us, and adds a bit of consequence to neglecting your (and others') hit points.

Haven't read the entire thread so if this house rule has been covered already, sorry. But what I do is two things:

1) Dropping to 0 incurs 1 level of exhaustion.

Thank you very much! This exhaustion idea is really interesting, would you care to share the general impact it has on adventuring pacing?

2) When you are down and dying, we don't roll ANY death saving throws until someone checks on the character. It adds a lot of drama when someone goes:

Player: "I check on Will."
GM: You've been down and bleeding for four rounds, right Will?
Will: Yep.
GM: Make four death saves (or however many is needed).
Group: Stares at Will's rolls with great anxiety.

This idea is simply golden, I think with this on I can be more forgiving about my villains modus operandi. It brings a kind of tension which I suspect my players will be eager to avoid, thus potentially "solving" our issue.

2) Healing spells and potions can only be used while the target is conscious.

Those two things become major disincentives to allow companions to drop to 0 and to let your own character drop to 0.

Ummm, this could be interesting too. Do you also have an "in world" justification why they do not work?

 

[Ricochet]

Thank you very much! This exhaustion idea is really interesting, would you care to share the general impact it has on adventuring pacing?

Only a little bit. Adventurers struggle on with a level or two, and embrace the handicaps and distribute work and roles accordingly. It makes the setting more gritty, so I suppose some players wouldn't enjoy always being a few steps from optimal. On the other hand, they feel really powerful when they are fully fit!

This idea is simply golden, I think with this on I can be more forgiving about my villains modus operandi. It brings a kind of tension which I suspect my players will be eager to avoid, thus potentially "solving" our issue.

It is a great addition to the game. "Look, Selma just dropped, and OH CRAP, the villain just smashed her again for good measure (auto crit on hit, and thus 1-2 failed death saves). We KNOW no-one can get to her until next round sometime, so she has to roll at least once, which might be the one roll to end her.

The rule Dropbear8mybaby suggests about no healing or potions on unconscious is a bit too far imo. Exhaustion is a good enough reason to avoid dropping below 0.

 

[discosoc]

As written, 5e doesn't really encourage defensive play. You can't heal more damage than the enemy deals, so combat healing is usually a bad idea. And healing a downed character is rarely tactically better than killing an opponent, since at best you're simply trading your action for his. I'm honestly kind of surprised that 5e didn't just do away with character death entirely.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Haven't read the entire thread so if this house rule has been covered already, sorry. But what I do is two things:

1) Dropping to 0 incurs 1 level of exhaustion.
2) Healing spells and potions can only be used while the target is conscious.

Those two things become major disincentives to allow companions to drop to 0 and to let your own character drop to 0.

If not those specific ones, similar ones. One of the problems I see with that sort of solution (increasing the consequences of dropping) is that 5e in-combat healing isn't really up to the challenge - it's quite hard to stay ahead of the damage being dealt under 5e's rapidly-scaling hp/damage & fast combat emphasis. While you might create concern for keeping PCs from dropping, it's unlikely to translate to successfully doing so consistently - exhaustion, in particular, is a PITA to deal with, and can tend to force long rests. Being unable to stand up fallen allies adds a death spiral effect during the encounter, and will tend to force short rests (d4 hrs to wake up naturally at 1 hp). In addition, another common problem DMs find with 5e being squeezing enough encounters in between rests - if the OPs not seeing that, if resting isn't happening enough in his campaign, then maybe that wouldn't be an issue.

Speaking of house rules:

I've recently been considering a possible new houserule on this very same front:

When you make a ranged attack or cast a spell, while an enemy is withing melee range of you, that enemy gets to choose between forcing you to make your roll at disadvantage as normal--or--they can instead choose to make an opportunity attack. Their choice.

The thinking being, they are either focusing on attempting to disrupt your aim, or they are taking the opportunity to strike while your guard is down.

This tangent got lost in the rush of the other tangent, but it's more interesting. My question is, would it only apply to spells that get disadvantage for being cast in melee (cantrips that target AC, mostly, I suppose), or would you let it work on spells that force saves (even though there's no disadvantage - or advantage on saves - to chose not to impose)?

As written, 5e doesn't really encourage defensive play. You can't heal more damage than the enemy deals, so combat healing is usually a bad idea. And healing a downed character is rarely tactically better than killing an opponent, since at best you're simply trading your action for his.

If his action were significantly higher-damage than yours (ie you're not likely to kill an enemy on your turn, but the ally might), it'd make sense if the party was pursuing a simple race-to-0-hps strategy - and if there wasn't an enemy acting between you and that ally who might drop him (if there were, Corwin's Ready idea might be a good one). But, yeah, if you're confident you'll drop an enemy, and the guy you're considering healing won't do significantly better...

I'm honestly kind of surprised that 5e didn't just do away with character death entirely.

Well, that wouldn't've much evoked the classic game, now would've it?

 

[Corwin]

This tangent got lost in the rush of the other tangent, but it's more interesting. My question is, would it only apply to spells that get disadvantage for being cast in melee (cantrips that target AC, mostly, I suppose), or would you let it work on spells that force saves (even though there's no disadvantage - or advantage on saves - to chose not to impose)?

I had only considered spells currently affected by disadvantage to ranged attack rolls for being in melee. It would be forced, and unduly punishing IMO, to impose such a thing on a caster trying to use shocking grasp, for example.

 

[LapBandit]

We too play with a level of Exhaustion when you are brought back from 0 HP and intelligent enemies will finish downed characters. Also, if a crit took you down, you get a Lingering Injury.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I had only considered spells currently affected by disadvantage to ranged attack rolls for being in melee.

So relatively few spells - mostly cantrips?

It would be forced, and unduly punishing IMO, to impose such a thing on a caster trying to use shocking grasp, for example.

I was thinking more like Fireball or Sacred Flame or the like - or even defensive & utility spells - an OA for a melee attack would seem off, though, I agree.

 

[Corwin]

So relatively few spells

If you say so. I wasn't planning on adding, or removing, anything from the list of things negatively impacted by being in melee while attempting. The rules as-is clearly cover what triggers it already. I'm just contemplating adding an option available to the opponent(s) when it comes up. That's it. If you think 5e inadequately covers punishing casters for being in melee, maybe you could offer options or a house rule to fill in where you think the devs fell short?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm just contemplating adding an option available to the opponent(s) when it comes up. That's it. If you think 5e inadequately covers punishing casters for being in melee, maybe you could offer options or a house rule to fill in where you think the devs fell short?

Spellcasting in general provoking, with loss of the spell & slot if the OA inflicts damage seems an obvious enough one. Variations might include exceptions for spells with touch range, or a concentration save to avoid losing the slot or even to complete the spell in spite of interruption.

 

[Corwin]

Spellcasting in general provoking, with loss of the spell & slot if the OA inflicts damage seems an obvious enough one. Variations might include exceptions for spells with touch range, or a concentration save to avoid losing the slot or even to complete the spell in spite of interruption.

Something like that definitely changes the intended difficulty paradigm a lot more noticeably than my proposition. Do you consider spellcasters "overpowered" and in need of a serious nerfing?