D&D 5E "Combat exhaustion" at 0 hp?

[DND_Reborn]

Cool! My players (in two groups now since I moved states) love the idea of being able to contribute while on "death's door" and the extra thrill. Since we use a variable initiative, it gets tense when someone hits 0. However, I'm not sold on my current way of doing things (to discourage whack-a-mole, I've been imposing "death save failures" each time you hit 0; 3x and you're out.)

Like your system, when you reach 0 HP you make a Concentration check based on the damage that took you to 0 hp. If you fail, you fall unconscious. If you succeed, you can either move, take an action, or take a bonus action. You cannot take reactions.

Personally, I go back and forth on a lot of this sort of stuff. I want "more", but a balance with keep it simple still and not introducing a bunch of new things to the game. It is a difficult balance to achieve.

 

[Democratus]

You thesis is that unless you believe you are infallible, you will try every house rule that may be a positive change for something you don't like regardless if you find it flawed or find other solutions you like better? Sounds kinda absurd. Like you're trying to make a point to win an argument on the internet and not actually thinking about the ramifications of what you are saying level of absurd.

Not at all. I've been proven wrong on a number of occasions by trying out house rules that I absolutely thought would not work. Enough so that I know better than to think my white-room analysis gives me an airtight conclusion on what the effect will be.

The rule at my table is that we will try any proposed rule change for at least one session. Any proposal at all.

Recent examples would be:

• Tracing a line behind a target when a missile attack misses, and checking to see if it hits anyone else
• Dice-rolling mini game to be played between casters whenever Counterspell is cast (inspired by Big Trouble in Little China)
• Moving all healing spells into the Necromancy school
• Interruption of spellcasting via melee/missile as a reaction (inspired by 2nd edition and segments)

Sometimes it ends up being as bad as I feared. Sometimes it makes the game better.

I game at a table with reasonable humans who don't abuse the social compact. So nobody has proposed that all paladins are immune to magic or that bards become deities at 5th level.

Exhaustion when reaching 0 hp was suggested by one of my players. I worried that it may be too much "death spiral". But we always give proposals a try. So we gave it a shot. And it greatly improved our game.

I think the line is at a lot saner place. We get a limited amount of time to play. We'll make changes we think are net positive. If we have a potential solution we think is going to cause more hassle then then problem, most probably won't try it.

You're usually at a sane place when you play with sane people. I've run for hundreds, if not thousands, of players. And the number of irrational problem players (who were adults) I have encountered could be counted on one hand. So I'm not afraid to hand over some creative control to the people at my table.

 

[NotAYakk]

I game at a table with reasonable humans who don't abuse the social compact. So nobody has proposed that all paladins are immune to magic or that bards become deities at 5th level.

Quite right, Lore bards don't ascend until 6th level.

It would steal the suspense if you did it a level early.

 

[Dausuul]

That's pretty self explanatory. If someone analyzed the rule and found it flawed, why would they implement it in their game?

If this rule is so flawed, you would expect that people who did implement it would encounter problems in play. So far, however, no one has mentioned this.

That doesn't mean the rule has no flaws. Maybe the people who tried it are just ignoring the problems, or maybe their specific playstyle prevents issues that would pop up at other tables. But in the absence of a formal playtest, I think it's important to listen to the experience of folks who've actually tried it.

 

[Blue]

If this rule is so flawed, you would expect that people who did implement it would encounter problems in play. So far, however, no one has mentioned this.

That doesn't mean the rule has no flaws. Maybe the people who tried it are just ignoring the problems, or maybe their specific playstyle prevents issues that would pop up at other tables. But in the absence of a formal playtest, I think it's important to listen to the experience of folks who've actually tried it.

Agree with you. My point was that it was reasonable simple to explain why people who saw it as flawed didn't implement it, and that you can't just set the bar at "only listen to those who have implemented it". That way leads to selection bias.

Taking theoretical points say and addressing them with practical points is a much stronger way to put them to rest.

Though saying "I didn't see problems" without addressing specific concerns leads to what you mention where it may just be playstyle/table differences, or even just something they aren't looking for.

For example I play with one DM who regularly does 1-3 encounters a day with no short rests between them because he likes to "preserve tension". He'll tell you it works just fine - because it does at his table. Everyone is having fun. But if you specifically asked him if it changed the player choice towards more casters and hybrids like paladins and barbarians, and away from short-rest classes like fighter, monk and warlock, he's look at the last few campaigns and also agree that it has.

 

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW, using exhaustion in such a manner is definitely not for everyone! It is harsh and can make things difficult at times, causing players to force a rest (rarely) or use valuable spells (Greater Restoration) to remove them.

I can certainly understand to decrease the burden, allowing Lesser Restoration to remove one level, and Greater to remove all, or allowing a CON check after a short rest, etc. to remove a level works as a buffer. We don't use extra safety rules like that, but I can certainly understand if others do.

 

[Gadget]

Personally, if were to implement this rule, I would forgo the whole "combat exhaustion" and just use regular exhaustion. Then just house rule that Lesser Restoration can remove one level of exhaustion (maybe Greater Restoration can completely remove it, or two levels at least). This is what I was alluding to in my earlier post. Maybe other tables are different from my experience, but regular exhaustion just doesn't come up that much anyway (outside a certain Barbarian subclass at least, and that seems overly harsh).