Sure.I think this is the part of the equation most people aren't trying to solve. Maybe the problem of 'yo-yoing' from 0 has to do with the frequency at which people hit 0?
Yep. Risk isn’t being appropriately included in the analysis. Though healing now for 24 vs casting spirit guardians which helps ally disengage and run away due to slowing the enemy. Maybe healing isn’t actually the more effective option there.This ignores the cost in action economy of the character that goes down, not to mention the possibility of that character getting outright killed in the intervening round.
I never suggested it was, just that letting an ally drop is a bad move unless the combat is essentially already in the bag.Yep. Risk isn’t being appropriately included in the analysis. Though healing now for 24 vs casting spirit guardians which helps ally disengage and run away due to slowing the enemy. Maybe healing isn’t actually the more effective option there.
Yes. Being more vicious at 0 is one solution. It does carry its own baggage though. I’d recommend trying it and just being up front with players that enemies are going to more often try to kill downed PCs.A huge amount of the "0 HP yoyo" is because DMs aren't vicious at 0 HP.
In a typical encounter, someone at 0 HP can be dead before anyone else gets to heal them.
Instead, we have DMs that build super-deadly 5 minute encounter day fights to be "exciting", and then treat PCs with kid gloves once they drop them to 0 HP to not kill the PC.
If a character at 0 HP surviving to be healed is a rare event, then PCs won't treat it as a yo-yo healing opportunity, because healing spells don't work on the dead. Revivify (or stronger magic) is the only option, costing a 300 gp diamond, a full action, and touch range.
Then by late T2/T3 you start having foes that steal, damage or destroy corpses.
Thus, 0 HP isn't threatening enough to avoid. So you added mechanics to up its threat again.
Trust me, if double-tap is common, your "wait to heal until they have 0 HP" goes away. In fact, PCs are likely to start fleeing when at low HP because they fear being dropped to 0 HP. Because 0 HP is a prelude to rolling a new PC, not getting up next turn slowed.
Not all the enemies, but stuff like stunning does similar (Remove a single target) but has bonuses, like the bonus damage. So compared to that, heals aren't doing the best.Fun story. If you look at heals the same way you do dpr then you’ll find that using your highest level of spell for cure wounds does provide enough hpr to offset the dpr of a single level appropriate foe. On first glance that seems solid. I don’t think we want heals invalidating all of team monsters damage when all of them are attacking 1 PC.
Stunning also has a chance to miss and do nothing. It really should do more than healing when it connects - because heals always connect.Not all the enemies, but stuff like stunning does similar (Remove a single target) but has bonuses, like the bonus damage. So compared to that, heals aren't doing the best.
1.5 times a single target DPR seems fair. Enough 'oomph' to a heal that it feels worthwhile to use
The problem is that a game where healing is good universally ends up with either rocket-tag, or non-threatening combat.I play support characters quite often and while I will often cast a cure wounds spell to try to prevent a character going down, in the majority of cases I would have been better off using those resources beforehand, to prevent that damage.
Preventing damage through effectively ensuring that there are less enemies hitting your party in the first place will almost always be more efficient that trying to cure it afterwards.