Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8069959" data-attributes="member: 29398">[USER=6932123]@Kinematics[/USER] ' idea isn't bad at all in some ways.  What it does is push a bit towards what I'd see as a desirable end result: that it somehow be made more useful to cure people before they get to 0 than after.Right now, sheer arithmetic says it's often better to cure someone after they reach 0 because due to the fact that negative hit points aren't tracked any excess damage done by the foe is wasted (unless it's a crazy amount), thus curing someone up from 3 h.p. to 9 h.p. suddenly becomes a far less efficient use of a spell (you only cure 6 h.p.) than curing the same person up from 0 (-14) to +1 (in effect you're curing 15 h.p.).And as 5e is already easy enough, the idea of there being some sort of penalty (short-term, long-term, or even both) to healing up from 0 is the way to go.  Were it me I'd somehow base it on how much extra damage you took (and yes this would mean tracking negative hit points, deal with it) such that someone who only went to 0 (-1) would take far less of a penalty on curing than someone who went to 0 (-12).</blockquote>