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

[Burnside]

Or not. My anecdotal experience is probably skewed; for the vast majority of it, I have been the DM and I don’t shy away from attacking PCs while they’re down if it makes sense in the moment (and for the creature doing the attacking). I’m pretty confident in assuming that’s not a universal approach.

Attacking PCs while they are down (which I do as well when it makes sense) does not discourage whack-a-mole healing. If anything, it encourages it.

For example: if I figure the monster is going to attack a downed ally, my bard pretty much HAS TO cast healing word on the downed character to prevent that character from getting two auto failed death saves and/or possible dying. Yes, the character is probably going to get immediately knocked out again, but that's fine - they are alive. If I hadn't momentarily revived them, they'd be dead.

If I'm a mid-level bard I have the level 1 slots to keep that game up for like 4 rounds:

1. Monster hits my ally and knocks them out
2. I revive the ally and hit the monster with vicious mockery
3. Ally is up, either tries to disengage or kill the monster
4. Monster hits my ally and knocks them out
5. I revive the ally and hit the monster with vicious mockery
Wash, rinse, repeat

OR
1. Monster hits my ally and knocks them out
2. Ally makes their first death saving throw
3. I revive the ally and hit the monster with vicious mockery
4. Monster hits my ally and knocks them out
5. Ally makes their first death saving throw
6. I revive the ally and hit the monster with vicious mockery
Wash, rinse, repeat

Strategically, it works. After four rounds of that, one of two things will happen:
A. The monster dies or flees because I wear it down with vicious mockery and/or my ally hits it during one of their brief moments of consciousness
B. The monster finally whiffs on the ally and the ally is able to retreat to safety during one of their brief moments of consciousness

The monster (depending on how bright it is) spends up to four consecutive rounds trying with variable success to accomplish the dubious goal of making my ally roll one death save. A smart monster will figure out what's going on and probably turn their attention to me - but in that case my whack-a-mole strategy has still succeeded in the intended goal of keeping my ally from dying.

The strategy of "keep healing them so they don't get knocked down in the first place", generally speaking, doesn't work in 5E because healing magic simply can't keep pace with damage in that way. Unless you are only running one or two encounters and then allowing a long rest.

 

[Siriak]

I honestly don't see the situation that the original poster described (waiting until someone drops to 0 hp to heal them) very often at all. In fact, I really don't see that many people playing clerics in 5e. They party I usually play will use potions and class abilities to keep from getting to close to 0 hp. When someone hits 0 hp, it is a noteworthy event.

 

[Burnside]

Also worth noting - the mechanics of the Grave Domain cleric actually actively encourage whack-a-mole healing. The Grave cleric's healing spells are automatically maxed when cast on a creature with zero hit points.

 

[Burnside]

I honestly don't see the situation that the original poster described (waiting until someone drops to 0 hp to heal them) very often at all. In fact, I really don't see that many people playing clerics in 5e. They party I usually play will use potions and class abilities to keep from getting to close to 0 hp. When someone hits 0 hp, it is a noteworthy event.

Can depend on party composition and availability of potions. Earlier this year, I finished (as a player) a two-and-a-half year Tomb of Annihilation campaign, which the DM ran more or less by the book. For most of the campaign, the party was bard, druid, warlock, rogue (druid and warlock died in final dungeon & replacement characters were brought it).

In the majority of combat encounters in the campaign, at least one character was dropped to zero hit points - often, more than one, or one character more than once in the same encounter.

 

[Stalker0]

Worst I saw it was in a final campaign fight. One player kept going down, but with potion uses was brought back up 5 times to still deliver pain continuously in the fight.

The player later admitted that though they were happy to be in the fight it was pretty darn silly.

 

[pukunui]

It used to, but no any more due to the house-rules we put in place to stop it.

What house rules did you put in place?

 

[Rune]

In pretty much any encounter worth having.

The implication being that combat encounters that pose little or no risk to life or resources are not worth having?

If so, I must say I find that implication bewildering; every bit of my practical experience as a DM reinforces the philosophy that a campaign’s pacing requires that some combats are not just simple, but actually trivial.

These give the players a chance to flex (briefly) without expending resources. Importantly, they also highlight the set-piece combats by providing contrasting points of reference for the players, thus making the set-piece encounters feel all the more epic.

If everything is always a challenge, the campaign is essentially a treadmill (and, in my experience, feels like it).

 

[jayoungr]

No because virtually every game I run or play in has a glamour bard, and with all those temporary HP, nobody ever drops to 0.

 

[overgeeked]

The implication being that combat encounters that pose little or no risk to life or resources are not worth having?

If so, I must say I find that implication bewildering; every bit of my practical experience as a DM reinforces the philosophy that a campaign’s pacing requires that some combats are not just simple, but actually trivial.

These give the players a chance to flex (briefly) without expending resources. Importantly, they also highlight the set-piece combats by providing contrasting points of reference for the players, thus making the set-piece encounters feel all the more epic.

If everything is always a challenge, the campaign is essentially a treadmill (and, in my experience, feels like it).

I tend to agree with the idea, but the actual combat rules take too long to bother with unless there’s actual risk and resource loss involved. For those trivial flex encounters I just use minions (one-shot kills) or more often tell the players to describe what they’re doing and don’t bother with rolls. My reasoning being, if it’s so trivial that there’s no risk and no loss of resources, then it’s too trivial to bother engaging with the combat rules and potentially eating up 30 minutes to an hour of table time.

 

[Campbell]

The implication being that combat encounters that pose little or no risk to life or resources are not worth having?

If so, I must say I find that implication bewildering; every bit of my practical experience as a DM reinforces the philosophy that a campaign’s pacing requires that some combats are not just simple, but actually trivial.

These give the players a chance to flex (briefly) without expending resources. Importantly, they also highlight the set-piece combats by providing contrasting points of reference for the players, thus making the set-piece encounters feel all the more epic.

If everything is always a challenge, the campaign is essentially a treadmill (and, in my experience, feels like it).

Spending a significant amount of game time on something that is neither challenging or does not have thematic heft is something I have about zero interest in. I'm not interested in flexing.