D&D 5E Does “Whack-A-Mole” Healing really happen in games?

[Argyle King]

Are you sure you disagree? Sounds like you agree with what I'm saying about Yo-yo healing being an inefficient tactic.

Because everything you said is correct and it furthers my point rather than disprove it.

I do disagree. (see below)

Your off by quite a bit there. I'm not sure you looked at the healing word spell either as the mechanics of that spell don't cost the cleric their damage.
View attachment 130575
The only time it would cost the fighter 7 in your example is if the initiative order was monster>fighter>cleric... Luckily for the fighter healing word is limited to the spell lists of clerc druid bard & one alchemist archetype making it something that can only be cast by four popular classes with the ability to heal.

Which leads to two scenarios (depending upon what damage the opponent can do):

1) Yo-yo healing still happens because there's little downside to allowing the fighter to drop to zero.

2) Standing the fighter back up with 1d4+ HP means the fighter is now actively perceived as a target and at risk of being driven to insta-death below zero.

In both cases, it's a problem of mitigating threat (as said).

Edit: In the case of #1, using a bonus action is the only thing required to bring the fighter back to combat and damage output. There's no loss in combat effectiveness for the fighter being at low HP.
In the case of #2, the small amount of healing done with said bonus action does not remove the fighter from danger (and arguably increases the danger of death to the fighter); at that point, the cleric needs to decide how best to use something more than a bonus action -is it to stand up the fighter or to somehow remove the enemy (?).

The original question is whether or not "yo-yo healing" occurs. I would say that it does, and there are a lot of times when the choice to not heal (until absolutely necessary) is the better option.

 

[Argyle King]

That doesn’t make any sense to me at all. Attacking an unconscious PC from 5 ft away means two failed death saves on the spot. The vast majority of monsters have melee multiattacks. If the fallen PC can be targeted by an attacker, the other PCs can’t afford to forgo healing. And if they won’t get a chance to heal them in time, they can’t afford to let it get that far.

Permanently removing one PC from the field is always going to be good news for the enemy. If they have the intelligence or instincts to recognize it.

In such a scenario, would the multi-attack still not produce the same result?

Using healing word (as indicated by others above) while the fighter is still threatened means being up and active while on the brink of dropping to zero again.

The first hit drops the fighter back down; subsequent hits are targeting a downed foe and mean failed death saves.

Hypothetically, something more powerful could be used than healing word, but that means using more than a bonus action. In such a scenario, is the cleric choosing to not cast something else in exchange for the hope that the fighter doesn't still die anyway?

Does an enemy perceive a difference between an unconscious PC and a dead PC? How noticeable is that difference versus the difference between an unconscious PC and a PC who is up and fighting (but wounded)?

 

[billd91]

In such a scenario, would the multi-attack still not produce the same result?

Using healing word (as indicated by others above) while the fighter is still threatened means being up and active while on the brink of dropping to zero again.

The first hit drops the fighter back down; subsequent hits are targeting a downed foe and mean failed death saves.

Maybe the better solution for the PCs is for the fighter to withdraw on his turn in favor of someone else taking the hits. Then he might be able to come back into the fight after more than just a healing word.

Does an enemy perceive a difference between an unconscious PC and a dead PC? How noticeable is that difference versus the difference between an unconscious PC and a PC who is up and fighting (but wounded)?

My take on that is: usually not. My NPCs/monsters generally move on to another active enemy if they drop one of the PCs to 0. They don't know how to inflict a death save.

 

[Argyle King]

Maybe the better solution for the PCs is for the fighter to withdraw on his turn in favor of someone else taking the hits. Then he might be able to come back into the fight after more than just a healing word.


My take on that is: usually not. My NPCs/monsters generally move on to another active enemy if they drop one of the PCs to 0. They don't know how to inflict a death save.

I would agree that the fighter should withdraw on his turn, in that scenario.

Your take is how I've seen most DMs approach things. In which case, it tends to be better to draw the enemy away from the downed ally before healing.

In the event that the DM approaches things differently and targets downed foes, I would adjust how I approach things.

 

[Don Durito]

It happens. It's not intentional but it happens.

It happens more if you're blowing past the CR to make the fight are real threat (which you pretty much have to be doing if the PCs are going down in every fight - but hey we all do it from time to time).

It doesn't really bother me. Sooner or later someone will roll a 1 and die.

 

[Rune]

In such a scenario, would the multi-attack still not produce the same result?

Using healing word (as indicated by others above) while the fighter is still threatened means being up and active while on the brink of dropping to zero again.

The first hit drops the fighter back down; subsequent hits are targeting a downed foe and mean failed death saves.

Hypothetically, something more powerful could be used than healing word, but that means using more than a bonus action. In such a scenario, is the cleric choosing to not cast something else in exchange for the hope that the fighter doesn't still die anyway?

Does an enemy perceive a difference between an unconscious PC and a dead PC? How noticeable is that difference versus the difference between an unconscious PC and a PC who is up and fighting (but wounded)?

In the first case, if the PCs are high-level enough, dimension door or plane shift are probably more likely. But before that, keeping the tank alive through powerful healing tends to be a high priority in my experience. Intentional whack-a-mole healing would be impractically dangerous.

As for your closing questions, the answers are dependent on both the creature and the circumstance. But I don’t think it requires any great intelligence to finish off a foe, even if you can’t tell if they’re already dead or not.

To test that, I think about what a typical party of PCs would do if the roles were reversed. I think that, after the first battle in which a cleric keeps bringing their enemies back, they never take that chance again. But maybe my murderhobos are more murdery than others’?

 

[overgeeked]

Wow, your players don't know how many hp their own characters have??

The players track their character’s stats, hp, etc. But I expect them to roleplay their characters based on information the character would have. Any version of “that monster deals 1d8+3 damage per hit with a +4 to-hit and my AC is low, so I’m not going near that thing” gets more than a bit of stink eye from me. The character knows the monster is tearing the party a new one and that one good hit would finish him. Not the stats of monsters or the character’s game stats.

 

[tetrasodium]

Maybe the better solution for the PCs is for the fighter to withdraw on his turn in favor of someone else taking the hits. Then he might be able to come back into the fight after more than just a healing word.

How do you figure that is "better for the PCs" when a first level spell cast as a bonus action from up to 60 feet away can entirely absorb two attacks from an opponent as long as neither of those attacks amount individually amount to the fighter's maxhp on their own?

even if the first attack drops the fighter and the second seats two death saves another first level healing word will reset the absorb shields to do it again next round....
"Better" for them how?

 

[Asisreo]

I do disagree. (see below)



Which leads to two scenarios (depending upon what damage the opponent can do):

1) Yo-yo healing still happens because there's little downside to allowing the fighter to drop to zero.

2) Standing the fighter back up with 1d4+ HP means the fighter is now actively perceived as a target and at risk of being driven to insta-death below zero.

In both cases, it's a problem of mitigating threat (as said).

Edit: In the case of #1, using a bonus action is the only thing required to bring the fighter back to combat and damage output. There's no loss in combat effectiveness for the fighter being at low HP.
In the case of #2, the small amount of healing done with said bonus action does not remove the fighter from danger (and arguably increases the danger of death to the fighter); at that point, the cleric needs to decide how best to use something more than a bonus action -is it to stand up the fighter or to somehow remove the enemy (?).

The original question is whether or not "yo-yo healing" occurs. I would say that it does, and there are a lot of times when the choice to not heal (until absolutely necessary) is the better option.

Are you saying yo-yo healing is a good strategy or a bad strategy?

 

[Argyle King]

Are you saying yo-yo healing is a good strategy or a bad strategy?

It tends to be good because of the binary nature of the ability of a D&D character to fight.

There may be scenarios in which it's not the best strategy, but -overall- it tends to work because of how the game is built to function.