D&D 5E Do You Think Spare the Dying is a Problem?

[Klaus]

"Spare the Dying" isn't a problem, IMHO, because it is part of the "campaign lethality" dial that each DM and group can adjust to their liking.

If you prefer games of heroic action, where PCs rarely die, you're good to go.

If you prefer grittier games, where PC death is a possiblity, you can adjust the dying rules so that the cleric has less time to reach the dying PC.

If you prefer deadly games, where PC death is commonplace, you simply remove the spell.

I'll be surprised if these "alternate lethality" rules modules aren't included in the core books.

 

[Mistwell]

Two Clerics who cast Spare-the-Dying on eachother, become immune to death.

No, they do not. There are many scenarios where one or both can die. Like, if they both drop in one round, or one or both takes massive damage, or if one is healed before dropping again after the first heal in the same round, or if they cannot safely stand within touch distance of each other, etc..

 

[am181d]

A PC died in my regular 5e game a few weeks ago, and this didn't come up. (The Cleric was himself down when the PC died.) So, no, I don't see this as an issue.

 

[Lanefan]

... they can remove Space the Dying, .. .

Space the Dying - sounds like something they'd do in Battlestar Galactica.

So essentially, what people are saying against this cantrip, is :

1) that a cleric standing next to a dying character should not be able to heal him up to 1 HP at all?

2) Or, that a cleric a cleric standing next to a dying character should not be able to heal him up to 1 HP by using only a swift action?

3) Or, that a cleric standing next to a dying character should not be able to heal him up to 1 HP repeatedly?

I think no one objects to #1. People appear to object to #2 and #3.

I have no play experience with this cantrip, but D&D has evolved and cleric healing is now:

a) quick. A cleric does not need to sacrafice an action to heal. (Except stronger heals.)

b) abundant. Consequently, a cleric standing near anyone should be able to heal him repeatedly.

The cantrip consequently appears aligned with this philosophy. If you want the cleric to pay an action for healing saving a dying friend, or if you want him to save one but not two dying friends during a battle, you're straying away from the recent design philosophy for clerics, in my humble opinion. The cantrip is then not what you want to critisize, but the very essence of this philosophy.

Then let's hammer at the philosophy, as if it's as you say I'm not a fan at all.

Healing by spell should be just like any other spell - time-consuming (it's a round's action for the caster and a partial action for the recipient if the recipient is also doing things) and interruptable (as any and all spells should be). Non-magical healing or stabilizing should be even more time-consuming (a few rounds at least) but less prone to interruption. I've never liked at-will cantrips of any kind.

That said, unless someone's at -9 (or whatever the current equivalent of dying *right now* is) in most cases downed-but-not-dead characters should usually be able to live long enough for the combat to end and for someone to get to them and patch them up - unless something else happens that finishes them off, but them's the risks.

Lan-"0 hit points is not called dying, it's called fine fighting form"-efan

 

[the Jester]

Broadly speaking, I think spare the dying is a bad spell for any group that doesn't like easy healing/no-death games. That includes my personal playstyle, by the way; I found StD to be extremely problematic when I ran some 7th through 9th level playtesting.

As I've suggested when we were discussing the so-called "death yo-yo", the problem is not with the cantrip, nor with the rules for stabilization, but with the rule for negative hit points.

I think this is right. With a reasonable "death threshold" for negative hps, StD isn't nearly as bad. As it is, it's so hard for hit point damage to actually kill a pc that StD is too good. At first I thought eliminating negative hps was cool, but then I playtested it, and now I think negative hps need to return. Maybe then StD could work as a higher level spell- something like a compromise with 1e's 3rd level cleric spell death's door.

I like Constitution + level as the magic number you can reach below 0 hps without dying.

 

[Dominar Rygel XVI]

I would rather see this as a 1st level spell and that it only stabilizes a dying creature.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Space the Dying - sounds like something they'd do in Battlestar Galactica.

Heh. Actually, let's be fair, in BSG it's more likely Space the Living. Or at least Space the Toaster.

 

[GMMichael]

As a touch spell, you must be near the target. Said target is almost invariably right in the middle of a very dangerous situation, because why else would he be dying? Simply reaching the target might earn you an unhealthy amount of opportunity attacks.

I'm currently refusing to play Next, but the above comment sheds all the light I need on the subject.

If anyone has a drop of sniper blood in his veins, he'll know what I'm talking about.

 

[Gamgee]

Spare The Dying's only real issue is that it highlights player's egos.

As a DM, you can ban the cantrip. But your ego has to accept the idea that your players might not appreciate you doing it.

That can be arranged. I'm here to give my players the best game possible. If it means I have to do things they might not like to give them a greater whole experience then so be it. People often don't know what they like until they've tried it. If they consistently dislike it and/or a lot of them then I will reconsider. So far I haven't had any issues with doing things like this to make a grim dark game more grim dark.

Going for a dark souls difficulty if it was combined with Deathwatch. So far my group is head over heels. Even if I logically explain my changes to them they don't listen. Only after I sit them down do they experience what I was getting at and enjoy it. Though a few times they haven't and I changed it. Vast majority of the time they tend to like the difficulty enhancing changes I implement.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

*sigh*

No. Just...no. I really have pretty much given up on the hopes of 5e being even a remotely playable game for me and my group. I'd already have to take away more than I'd have to add...so...well...uh...yeah. Pass.

That spell, I predict, will end up causing many a game-group fight at the table. If a DM allows it, the players will learn to be pampered little princesses who can do no wrong and will never "lose". If a DM disallows it, the player who's character dies because it wasn't available will cry bloody murder for the DM being "unfair and out to get the PC's".

Over time, DM's that disallow it will get the "killer DM" rep and less and less players will want to play with such a DM and/or the DM's group who like it that way. The so called "killer DM" will be looked down upon as a somehow inferior or otherwise lesser DM by the growing community of princess-players. This pampered-player-character slant will creep into supplements and adventures...with the default idea that character death is 'rare'. Eventually, 5e will start to stagnate, much like 4e, because it didn't try and maintain customer satisfaction, instead going for the quick-buck. In the end, the suits will sink to their knees, thrust their open arms outward and cast their gaze to the heavens and cry "Dear Gods! Why?! We don't understand! We gave everything, and still you, oh fickle deities of commerce, shun us! Why...?!?...". With the final exhale of their breath they will sit. Dejected. Arms at side, head hanging low, and their tears will drown the world in sorrow...

Or something like that anyway.


EDIT: Wow. Just re-read that. Hmmm...yeah, I think I'm definitely in the "old grognard camp". The good thing about the old grognard camp (that's "O.G.C (tm)" for short) is that we're mostly harmless old coots sitting on the front porch listening to our phonographs and yelling for all the kids to get off our lawn. Don't worry, kids, we'll be dead soon and you can take over our spot in a few years...

^_^

Paul L. Ming