D&D 5E Bouncing heroes and healing tweaks

[Corwin]

It is not enough to absorb even one full hit, for sure. But as I mentioned, the players get the average damage output of the enemies as the fight unfolds, along with other information. They did see that the rogue would almost surely avoid one attack by using uncanny dodge, but his HPs would not be enough to absorb a second hit. 6-8 HPs were most likely enough to keep him on his toes for an extra round, which would definitely have been more effective, as the rogue's attack was way superior.

Not only that, but if that (let's say fire) giant hits the newly re-awakened hero, the bulk of the damage dealt would be wasted. Look at all the "damage" not taken by the party because someone only took 6-8 points, instead of 28! That's an effective savings on healing later. If the downed PC had not been restored (for those 6-8 HPs), that fire giant might have hit someone else for full effect. Potentially draining even more resources after the fight.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I guess I will try initially to just stick with the book, and show the danger of disregarding a fallen ally by making an enemy finish them on the ground. I will not use that in any fight, but will wait until they get to one against smart foes, who can plausibly respond to their preferred "whack-a-mole healing" tactic. Hopefully, it won't take more than one casualty.

Well, you know the psychology of your players and we don't...

I might say, though, that even with the somewhat weak healing of 5e, it is not always a losing proposition to heal. There are some good cases when healing does come ahead.

Absolutely true - unfortunately, the clearest case is when you heal a dropped ally just enough to take the next hit without risk of being instantly killed - that is, when leveraging heal-zero and dying rules.

This might happen when the enemy has better defensive capabilities that reduce overall damage output from the party, making offense weaker than what the numbers would suggest in the first place, combined with the adventuring group itself also having good defenses.

Nod. Those examples also make for longer combats, which have different dynamics in a variety of ways - including healing being a relatively 'stronger' option by the numbers (though, it's also less likely for allies to be dropped in the first place, so healing may also be less critical at any given moment).

Which just reinforces the point that different scenarios have different optimal choices.

The trick can be getting players who are in a tactical rut to /see/ that, too, though.

But trying to get that desperate last hit to stop the damage from coming is kinda guessing game too. And one that they are most often quite eager to try, even on some situations that they already know the odds are heavily against them.

Yep, maybe it's that it's one you see the result of right away (the monster drops or it doesn't) or maybe it's that the damage you do is still contributing to dropping the monster?

Not only that, but if that (let's say fire) giant hits the newly re-awakened hero, the bulk of the damage dealt would be wasted. Look at all the "damage" not taken by the party because someone only took 6-8 points, instead of 28! That's an effective savings on healing later. If the downed PC had not been restored (for those 6-8 HPs), that fire giant might have hit someone else for full effect. Potentially draining even more resources after the fight.

That's part of the argument for standing up a fallen ally, even with a fairly weak heal, yes, but the example was of prophylactic healing - the rogue was still up, but didn't have enough hps to take a hit, the hope was the 6-8 would be enough that that he'd still be standing after a hit from the giant. Which makes some sense to try if the initiative order goes healer-giant-rogue, rather than rogue-giant-healer... but that's getting into criticisms of cyclical initiative.

 

[Corwin]

That's part of the argument for standing up a fallen ally, even with a fairly weak heal, yes, but the example was of prophylactic healing - the rogue was still up, but didn't have enough hps to take a hit, the hope was the 6-8 would be enough that that he'd still be standing after a hit from the giant. Which makes some sense to try if the initiative order goes healer-giant-rogue, rather than rogue-giant-healer... but that's getting into criticisms of cyclical initiative.

In which case you'd usually be better off ready-ing your heal for after the giant's attack(s).

Otherwise, we call that, "Throwing good hitpoints after bad."

 

[Tony Vargas]

In which case you'd usually be better off ready-ing your heal for after the giant's attack(s).

Otherwise, we call that, "Throwing good hitpoints after bad."

Quite possibly...
though a Ready might not go off, and it consumes your Reaction if it does...

 

[Corwin]

though a Ready might not go off

How odd. Why not?

 

[Tony Vargas]

How odd. Why not?

If the condition you set isn't met, or the action you readied can no longer be taken.

 

[Corwin]

If the condition you set isn't met, or the action you readied can no longer be taken.

What kind of corner case are you straining to meet here? I don't get your point. Are you just being contrarian for its own sake? Why would the fire giant not attack? Has he not been doing so in this theoretical example that's been brewed up? In fact, isn't the whole point of your exercise that he is about to do that exact thing, presumably dropping the rogue to 0 hit points?

 

[Barolo]

What kind of corner case are you straining to meet here? I don't get your point. Are you just being contrarian for its own sake? Why would the fire giant not attack? Has he not been doing so in this theoretical example that's been brewed up? In fact, isn't the whole point of your exercise that he is about to do that exact thing, presumably dropping the rogue to 0 hit points?

The cleric player could have stated something like: "if the rogue drops" as the trigger for the readied action, and the giant just misses all attacks. Not very likely, and not very smart, but it happens.

Also, by reading an action, the cleric might change the combat circumstances, as he could have been out of reach for the giant, and has to approach melee in his turn to position himself to heal his ally, assuming he readied "cure wounds", which has a range of touch. Then the giant might think the cleric looks like a more worthy target, for reasons. Some smart monsters prioritize healers or spellcasters if they can, and the cleric might have revealed one of these capabilities already.

You might think then, why wasn't the giant just attacking the cleric to begin with? To which I respond that maybe it was because he was already engaged in melee with the rogue (and maybe even some other hero), and to leave the rogue's reach to deal with the cleric would result in one (or more) opportunity attack(s) against him.

Anyhow, I suspect that Tony just wanted to point out there can be downsides of choosing this particular option.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Yup, readying a spell is powerful, but also a good way to waste spell slots.

 

[Corwin]

The cleric player could have stated something like: "if the rogue drops" as the trigger for the readied action, and the giant just misses all attacks. Not very likely, and not very smart, but it happens.

Exactly. Corner case. Not of much value in the context of this discussion, IMO.

Anyhow, I suspect that Tony just wanted to point out there can be downsides of choosing this particular option.

And yet, every particular option can be seen to have has a down side. So maybe the only way to win is not to play the game?