D&D 5E Death Saves & Pop-Up Healing

[Greg Benage]

How are all the replies here dismissing that?

By eliminating those features with house rules? Maybe "dismiss" was the wrong word. Sacrifice?

 

[OptionalRule]

By eliminating those features with house rules? Maybe "dismiss" was the wrong word. Sacrifice?

I have no idea what you're on about and if you want to make a dismissive claim like that, particularly about ALL replies, you probably should back that up in some way. I haven't read every single house rule here but no house rule I'm reading here invalidates combat healing or creates a death spiral. The only thing that MIGHT do that is the exhaustion rule but you don't immediately start become less effective in combat and if that rule starts to create a death spiral, you might want to look at your design and why it's putting players down so frequently.

 

[Greg Benage]

I have no idea what you're on about and if you want to make a dismissive claim like that, particularly about ALL replies, you probably should back that up in some way. I haven't read every single house rule here but no house rule I'm reading here invalidates combat healing or creates a death spiral.

Wow. I honestly don't get the hostility. Incidentally, I wasn't talking about the house rules "invalidating" in-combat healing -- I was suggesting they incentivize or even require it. In the current system, you don't need a dedicated healer who does little else in combat other than heal to offset incoming damage. That's a feature, for me.

The most common house rule involves imposing a level of exhaustion at 0 hp. This both incentivizes dedicated healers and creates a death spiral: ability checks are at disadvantage, speed is halved, attack rolls and saving throws are at disadvantage, etc. In other words, being reduced to 0 hp reduces your combat effectiveness even after you're healed, which increases the likelihood that you'll be reduced to 0 hp again, which...etc.

 

[Yaarel]

It's a perennial problem with 5E. There's no lasting consequences of nearly dying. There's a lot of interesting house rules to solve the problem. This might just be one more to add to the pile, but I think it works well and solves a few problems without drastically changing much. There are changes to RAW, yes, but they're minor, I think. And the changes happen to solve a lot of related issues, I think.

So here goes...

Hit Points. When you reach 0 hit points, you continue fighting as normal, but you must make a death saving throw. Any damage you suffer while at 0 hit points automatically triggers a death saving throw.

Death Saving Throws. Roll a d20. If the roll is 10 or higher, you succeed. Otherwise, you fail. When you fail a death saving throw, you drop to 0 hit points and die.

This keeps characters on their feet and fighting longer (players get to keep playing the game), but risks outright death on a failed death save. No more pop-up healing as healing someone for one hit point because a pointless thing to do rather than the single most optimal thing to do.

If you wanted to make things even more deadly, you could introduce massive damage (more than 1/2 max hp) triggering a death save...or critical hits triggering a death save (hence the wording of the death save).

Regarding the original post, inflict an enduring wound, each time a player character reaches zero hit points. Use the Exhaustion table and rules, but pick which level effect, depending on the kind of the injury. For example, Exhaustion level 1 might instead incur disadvantage to ability checks because of a concussion.

The increasing Exhaustion levels will disincentivize the tactic of springing up from zero hit points.

Also, failing all death saves, might instead result in a permanent loss of the use of a limb or similar (DMs discretion), depending on the nature of the injury. Thus saves are for both "life and limb".

 

[OptionalRule]

Wow. I honestly don't get the hostility. Incidentally, I wasn't talking about the house rules "invalidating" in-combat healing -- I was suggesting they incentivize or even require it. In the current system, you don't need a dedicated healer who does little else in combat other than heal to offset incoming damage. That's a feature, for me.

The most common house rule involves imposing a level of exhaustion at 0 hp. This both incentivizes dedicated healers and creates a death spiral: ability checks are at disadvantage, speed is halved, attack rolls and saving throws are at disadvantage, etc. In other words, being reduced to 0 hp reduces your combat effectiveness even after you're healed, which increases the likelihood that you'll be reduced to 0 hp again, which...etc.

Maybe some (read: all) of your reply came off as passive aggressive and combative?

You're bundling up all the effects of exhaustion into a single line. All that doesn't happen with a single level and you don't enter a death spiral just by going down once. You don't suffer significant combat effects until 3 levels of exhaustion so again, if you're going down that often in combat, you probably want to look at your design.

 

[overgeeked]

Regarding the original post, inflict an enduring wound, each time a player character reaches zero hit points. Use the Exhaustion table and rules, but pick which level effect, depending on the kind of the injury. For example, Exhaustion level 1 might instead incur disadvantage to ability checks because of a concussion.

The increasing Exhaustion levels will disincentivize the tactic of springing up from zero hit points.

Also, failing all death saves, might instead result in a permanent loss of the use of a limb or similar (DMs discretion), depending on the nature of the injury. Thus saves are for both "life and limb".

Huh. I kinda like the seed if that. Combining death save fails with exhaustion and a lingering wound. Gives the death save something that’s in fiction to hang on. Maybe the death save and exhaustion are linked in that they clear with resting but the lingering wound stays. You don’t regrow a hand simply because you slept for 8 hours.

 

[Greg Benage]

Maybe some (read: all) of your reply came off as passive aggressive and combative?

Huh, I didn't intend it that way, but sorry about that.

You're bundling up all the effects of exhaustion into a single line. All that doesn't happen with a single level and you don't enter a death spiral just by going down once. You don't suffer significant combat effects until 3 levels of exhaustion so again, if you're going down that often in combat, you probably want to look at your design.

You enter the death spiral with the first level of exhaustion, unless you never make ability checks in combat. Worse, it carries over from one battle to the next, unless you get a high-level healing spell or a long rest. Worse still, it's not even simply a death spiral so much as a suck spiral, as it makes you worse at everything out of combat as well.

For the record, I tried an exhaustion house rule in the first campaign I ran in 5e. I didn't like it, for the reasons I've mentioned. I'm also old (school) and can be happy-as-a-clam playing "dead at 0." I'm not a zealot about any of this, and certainly don't mean to be combative. I simply meant to highlight some of the implications and dynamics of the current system that I consider features of the design and that are lost in the house rules.

I came to the conclusion that what I don't like about the current system is the whack-a-mole aesthetic of characters repeatedly being knocked unconscious and falling down, only to pop back up and keep fighting when the healing word comes in. So I fixed that part and left the features of the design intact.

 

[overgeeked]

Huh, I didn't intend it that way, but sorry about that.


You enter the death spiral with the first level of exhaustion, unless you never make ability checks in combat. Worse, it carries over from one battle to the next, unless you get a high-level healing spell or a long rest. Worse still, it's not even simply a death spiral so much as a suck spiral, as it makes you worse at everything out of combat as well.

For the record, I tried an exhaustion house rule in the first campaign I ran in 5e. I didn't like it, for the reasons I've mentioned. I'm also old (school) and can be happy-as-a-clam playing "dead at 0." I'm not a zealot about any of this, and certainly don't mean to be combative. I simply meant to highlight some of the implications and dynamics of the current system that I consider features of the design and that are lost in the house rules.

I came to the conclusion that what I don't like about the current system is the whack-a-mole aesthetic of characters repeatedly being knocked unconscious and falling down, only to pop back up and keep fighting when the healing word comes in. So I fixed that part and left the features of the design intact.

Some people want the game to be about unbelievable fantasy superheroes who never get a scratch that matters, others want the game to have some verisimilitude. If you're on the ground dying, you're not going to be perfectly fine and combat ready less than six seconds later. For it to not feel like a video game, it needs to have some kind of negative thing happen when you drop to zero that doesn't instantly go away the second you're no longer at zero. The suggestion of having exhaustion accumulate but not take effect until the current combat is over is a good one, I think. So if you drop to zero and pop back up say...six times, you're dead...either instantly or once the combat is done. If you have 1-5 exhaustion and you intentionally get into a fight...that's entirely on you as a player.

 

[Yaarel]

Huh. I kinda like the seed if that. Combining death save fails with exhaustion and a lingering wound. Gives the death save something that’s in fiction to hang on. Maybe the death save and exhaustion are linked in that they clear with resting but the lingering wound stays. You don’t regrow a hand simply because you slept for 8 hours.

Yeah.

For me, the lingering wound always leaves a scar of some kind.

Similarly, the loss of a limb (instead of death) doesnt grow back by itself!

Finally, D&D has a way to represent a broken bone. Leg break reduces speed, and arm break has additional consequences.

I am toying with enduring injuries being Exhaustion levels that require about a week (2d6 days), and about seven months (2d6 months), to be able to remove, depending on how many death saves the character failed. This would more accurately reflect a reallife healing process. But I havent decided on this kind of time table yet.

 

[tetrasodium]

I wouldn't read into it more than is there. This is a D&D message board. Folks here are going to be more inclined than the average player to fiddle with the rules.

I've considered house ruling it myself, but out of the three groups I play with I'm the only person who has. Let's not conflate mole hills with mountains.

I wouldn't downplay the severity either , PHB197 is a disaster of design by or for munchkin that the whole system is warped to support making fixing it more difficult than just "do it like in $oldVersion or $otherGame" because the system doesn't have the support(healing/defense/etc damage soak) for other options & is built with things like healing word multiple 1hp heal abilities etc to support that disaster of design. It's made worse because 7(?) years in wotc is still acting like anyone who has a problem with the ways of the one true munchkin style of gameplay is some kind of killergm who wants badwrongfun & should stop traumatizing poor innocent players rather than have even a bad UA to support them. Yes it had good intentions in addressing rough edges in old ways, but the result is that a naked 8 con wizard with a few levels of exhaustion is as sturdy as wolverine when faced with violence

 

[Buzzqw]

I'm an old school kind of master .. in my group these rules apply:

1) when you go to 0 points, you drop and you can't do anything (well, after 1 hour you must do a CON Saving Throw ad DC 15, fails and go to -1, pass and go to 1)
2) if you go to -1 then every round you lose another hit point (no saving)
3) you die when go negative at 10 + CON bonus * 2. So with Con bonus +2, you will die at -14

a medicine check on difficulty 15 takes you from 0 to 1 hit point
11 + (negative hit points) medicine check brings you to 0 hit points from negative hit point. So if you are at -6, you need a DC 17 medicine check
there are no saving throws each round.

A magical heal when you are at 0 hit points heals normally, if you are in negative ground magical heal brings you to just 1 hit point
A long rest recovers CON bonus + proficiency bonus (no hit dice recover!)

maybe a bit too harsh.. but so players play with more attention

(btw i have many more house rules.. it's just new DnD game, sorry book in italian for anyone interested!)

Andres

 

[Greg Benage]

Some people want the game to be about unbelievable fantasy superheroes who never get a scratch that matters, others want the game to have some verisimilitude.

I totally get that. And I'm certainly not arguing that death spirals are bad design. Actually, the bit of design I'm most proud of is the damage mechanic in Blue Planet, and it has a hard death spiral. For me, if I wanted verisimilitude out of D&D, I'd have to do more than add a soft death spiral to the hit points and AC system. The game as designed works pretty well as an attrition system, though, so I try to lean into that when I'm playing D&D.

 

[reelo]

I find the rules for Damage and Dying in "Crypts and Things" are perfect

 

[Bill Zebub]

Sorry if this has been mentioned (did not read entire thread) but Baldur's Gate 3 does two things:
1. A lot of enemies will intentionally attack unconscious PCs causing them to fail a death save for each hit.
2. In the absence of unconscious PCs they will go after low health PCs...especially those who have just been healed from unconsciousness.
3. On your next turn after regaining consciousness you are unable to take any actions, including Dodge or Disengage (and you just lost half your movement getting up from prone.) See #2 above.

The first two are just DM strategy, while the third is a house rule. But together they create a pretty powerful incentive to not let your health dip too low.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Some people want the game to be about unbelievable fantasy superheroes who never get a scratch that matters, others want the game to have some verisimilitude.

I agree that there is a range of preferences as you describe, but I would hesitate to describe the more challenging end of the spectrum as "verisimilitude." Verisimilitude would involve a LOT of crippled ex-adventurers, most of them with deep psychological scars. In even the grittiest, most dangerous RPG the PCs are still unbelievable fantasy superheroes.

P.S. I guess what I'm really trying to say is that you could probably express that opinion without denigrating one playstyle and dignifying the other.

 

[cmad1977]

It’s not a perrennial problem though.

 

[overgeeked]

I agree that there is a range of preferences as you describe, but I would hesitate to describe the more challenging end of the spectrum as "verisimilitude." Verisimilitude would involve a LOT of crippled ex-adventurers, most of them with deep psychological scars. In even the grittiest, most dangerous RPG the PCs are still unbelievable fantasy superheroes.

I wouldn't consider Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay the "grittiest, most dangerous RPG"...but it is filled with "crippled ex-adventurers, most of them with deep psychological scars", many more buried six feet under, and the PCs are decidedly not "unbelievable fantasy superheroes".

 

[Bill Zebub]

I wouldn't consider Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay the "grittiest, most dangerous RPG"...but it is filled with "crippled ex-adventurers, most of them with deep psychological scars", many more buried six feet under, and the PCs are decidedly not "unbelievable fantasy superheroes".

I've never played so I don't know how it's structured. Does it have dragons (of the typical fantasy sort) and, if so, is it possible for a PC to survive the average damage from one dragon bite?

 

[tetrasodium]

Sorry if this has been mentioned (did not read entire thread) but Baldur's Gate 3 does two things:
1. A lot of enemies will intentionally attack unconscious PCs causing them to fail a death save for each hit.
2. In the absence of unconscious PCs they will go after low health PCs...especially those who have just been healed from unconsciousness.
3. On your next turn after regaining consciousness you are unable to take any actions, including Dodge or Disengage (and you just lost half your movement getting up from prone.) See #2 above.

The first two are just DM strategy, while the third is a house rule. But together they create a pretty powerful incentive to not let your health dip too low.

With 1&2 it's a lot different when a computer algorithm acts that way than when the very human GM does so. What you describe is a form of "combat as war" as opposed to "combat as sport", The GM needs to walk a line between convincingly playing the opponents so characters are challenged by opponents wo seem to be pulling out all the stops given what those opponents could reasonably know and simply executing the party with maximum efficiency. There is also the rather serious hurdle that A:most monsters don't have enough attacks to drop a PC & then attack twice more before someone can grant at least 1hp of healing & B: A video game can fine tune encounters against character power level to a much greater degree for any given location through the initial development & testing period.

 

[Bill Zebub]

With 1&2 it's a lot different when a computer algorithm acts that way than when the very human GM does so. What you describe is a form of "combat as war" as opposed to "combat as sport", The GM needs to walk a line between convincingly playing the opponents so characters are challenged by opponents wo seem to be pulling out all the stops given what those opponents could reasonably know and simply executing the party with maximum efficiency. There is also the rather serious hurdle that A:most monsters don't have enough attacks to drop a PC & then attack twice more before someone can grant at least 1hp of healing & B: A video game can fine tune encounters against character power level to a much greater degree for any given location through the initial development & testing period.

I wouldn't make every monster do it the same way every time, but would factor in the intelligence/viciousness of the monster.

(Also, if monsters got death saves I bet players would hit the ones who were down.)

As for the multi-attacks, it also depends on initiative order: if another bad guy gets its turn before the healer, well...