D&D 5E House rule for in combat healing and yoyo at 0 HP

[FrogReaver]

So... is the actual problem being addressed really 'yo-yo healing', or is it the game not being lethal enough? Because most of the solutions are 'make the game more lethal' and if that's not the intent, it's just punishing players for a game design decision.

Killing them for going down (when in-combat healing cannot possibly prevent it), imposing penalties that ensure they'll be doing down again soon, making it more likely they'll die if they go down again--none of it actually fixes the issue of people coming back up from 0, it just tacks on an all new, all different problem.

Punishing people to discourage a problem doesn't solve the problem is it's not one the punished person can't control.

I'm taking 30 points of damage a round and the cleric is on a bad roll and giving me 12 back, it doesn't matter if I see the DM cutting a hickory switch and taking practice swings on the other side of the table, I'm going to go down to zero, either because the DM miscalculated (or worse used CR) or because the expected heals aren't keeping up with damage output--neither of which is my fault, but I'm the one about to have a sore red bum for some reason? That doesn't seem right.

I mostly agree… but In all fairness, you do get dodge and disengage to help with those scenarios, and that's before more class specific options.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Lethal, not lethal... I just want any solution to not involve active choice on the GM's part to murder a player character. If a PC goes down, then springs back up with a Healing Word, then goes down again, any sentient enemy should be making sure they stay down the next time, and I don't want to be in the position to decide that.

 

[ad_hoc]

Players at my table know many monsters will finish them off so they don't go down on purpose.

A simple rule is to do what Baldur's Gate 3 does and have them unable to take actions during their next turn.

They also allow the help action to revive a fallen ally to 1hp.

If you are looking for a way to make combat healing better you can allow bonus action potion use.

Something which should just be a rule.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i think the healing spells should heal extra hit die/max heal when used on a concious creature, makes it more efficient/worthwhile to heal an ally that's still standing.

 

[Vendral]

i think the healing spells should heal extra hit die/max heal when used on a concious creature, makes it more efficient/worthwhile to heal an ally that's still standing.

I missed including that part from my house rules, you do not get the extra temporary HP from healing spells if you are at 0 HP.
So in a way conscious creatures gain extra healing, or at least temporary HP.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Action economy is king, so yoyoing needs to exist or someone going down can snowball into everyone going down. This is especially bad because it disproportionately affects smaller parties versus larger ones.

So, bonus action healing is needed to not further eat into the action pool of the party. But, this forces a party to have that bonus action heal, which usually means Healing Word, regardless of character concepts.

So to get rid of the need for Healing Word... PCs just don't go down at 0hp, but continue taking actions as usual? And the cost for going down to 0hp would instead be... uhh...

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

PCs just don't go down at 0hp, but continue taking actions as usual? And the cost for going down to 0hp would instead be...

Weakening their actions? Like, disadvantage on attacks, give advantage to enemies saving against you? But many actions cannot be weakened, and if you make their actions less likely to work, isn't that still affecting action economy. This could still serve as a forced shift towards more support actions.

Cannot concentrate on spells? This takes away from support options, but seems fitting.

Have them take a persisting Wound? This would require introducing a whole new subsystem that is counter to how hitpoints work.

Keep making death saves while standing? If healing resets this, we're back to needing a bonus action heal, and Paladin Aura + Bless would make people immortal, unless successful enemy hits still cause death save failures, which then puts the GM back in the position of deciding to kill a PC.

They actually do go down, but the player now takes control of the friendly NPC that is always with the party, but normally never contributing during the combats, until now! Maintains the action economy, but what about more than one PC going down? Is that when the party's pack mule steps in too?

Hmm. I think I want to explore that last one, for my 3-player Drakkenheim game.

 

[Clint_L]

Our rule is that if you drop to 0 you have to roll on the Critical Hit table.

 

[Blue]

Thank you, you both avoided the most common problematic "fix" - penalizing characters more when they go down, usually with exhaustion, and properly identified the problem in your solution - it was more efficient to heal from zero.

 

[Nightfly]

Waiting to heal until after getting dropped is both terrible action economy*

I wish you were right, but I don't think you are. I think saving your healing spells until someone goes down is absolutely the correct strategy under the 5e rules as written. When a player gets reduced to -20 hit points and you Healing Word them for 4, you end up healing then for 24. How is that not the correct plan?

Baldur's Gate 3 uses something similar to your first rule - a downed character brought back to consciousness loses their action on their next turn. It does incentivise preventive healing.

That's a pretty good idea! Extremely simple but effective.