Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7142381" data-attributes="member: 996">If not those specific ones, similar ones.&nbsp; 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 &amp; fast combat emphasis.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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:&nbsp;This tangent got lost in the rush of the other tangent, but it's more interesting.&nbsp; 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)?&nbsp;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).&nbsp; But, yeah, if you're confident you'll drop an enemy, and the guy you're considering healing won't do significantly better...Well, that wouldn't've much evoked the classic game, now would've it?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7142381, member: 996"] 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: 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)? 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... Well, that wouldn't've much evoked the classic game, now would've it? [/QUOTE]

Verification