D&D 5E Tweak Instant Cure spells to fix whack-a-mole

[Tony Vargas]

For me, this is would preferable to whack-a-mole, but if the party is not willing to heal people as they approach zero, that means to me the penalty for dropping to zero is not hefty enough - it's not dangerous enough.

And/or the cost of healing in slot or action being too high...

...or the healer being a jerk.

 

[LapBandit]

Dropping to 0 is 1 level of Exhaustion and a rolled Injury at the table I play and DM at. Makes it VERY important to not let it happen.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Dropping to 0 is 1 level of Exhaustion and a rolled Injury at the table I play and DM at. Makes it VERY important to not let it happen.

that is a strong disincentive indeed!

 

[Saeviomagy]

D) Each time a monster downs a hero, its allies bend over backwards to attack the helpless hero while he or she is lying down. Every monster comes across as heartless and cruel, preferring to strike the defenseless to heroic combat against the heroes that still defy it.


That is the real problem. The way you "solve" whackamole by cranking up the deadliness to eleven.

Except you don't need to do it every time. You just need to do it occasionally, enough to make playing whack-a-mole risky. If zero foes in your world EVER finish off a downed foe (or do something else, like stuff them into a sack, or pick them up and remove them from battle, or use their unconscious status to guarantee a spell like planeshift to somewhere nasty), then that seems unrealistic to me. It feels like monsters are not playing for keeps.

 

[CapnZapp]

Except you don't need to do it every time. You just need to do it occasionally, enough to make playing whack-a-mole risky. If zero foes in your world EVER finish off a downed foe (or do something else, like stuff them into a sack, or pick them up and remove them from battle, or use their unconscious status to guarantee a spell like planeshift to somewhere nasty), then that seems unrealistic to me. It feels like monsters are not playing for keeps.

Sure, but I don't want monsters to add a nastiness to my games just to fix the rules, thank you very much.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Is it a preference for random deadliness over planned deadliness?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Except you don't need to do it every time. You just need to do it occasionally, enough to make playing whack-a-mole risky. If zero foes in your world EVER finish off a downed foe (or do something else, like stuff them into a sack, or pick them up and remove them from battle, or use their unconscious status to guarantee a spell like planeshift to somewhere nasty), then that seems unrealistic to me. It feels like monsters are not playing for keeps.

Why would one group of goblins choose to keep playing whack-a-mole, while another group of goblins decides to play for keeps? What is the substantive difference between these two groups that would cause them to make such different decisions, when presented with similar information?

If killing a downed PC is the logical course of action for one group of enemies, then it should also be the logical course of action for any similar group of enemies.

 

[Colder]

If killing a downed PC is the logical course of action for one group of enemies, then it should also be the logical course of action for any similar group of enemies.

I'm not so sure. Even if you fought the exact same group of enemies at several points in time, they could very well have different sets of priorities every time that leads them to make different decisions. I don't think "the logical course of action" actually exists (in fiction or nonfiction) because very many different decisions could be equally sound.

 

[Saeviomagy]

If killing a downed PC is the logical course of action for one group of enemies, then it should also be the logical course of action for any similar group of enemies.

1. The logical course of action is not the only course taken. Enemies can be stupid, single minded, arrogant, honorable etc.
2. If the group of enemies have a different objective (survive, kill the PCs, kill one specific PC, get some loot, delay the PCs, capture the PCs, die a glorious death in battle or something else), then they will take different courses of action.
3. Enemies do not have perfect information. Without perfect information you cannot always execute the logical course of action, especially against a group of foes as diverse as adventurers. Adventurers get advantage of more-or-less knowing how tough their foes are simply by looking at them and having previously encountered them, monsters typically do not.
4. The tactical situation will dictate what is logical. If that last monster only has the option (because of movement, or crowd control or whatever) of attacking the AC 25 paladin with disadvantage, then maybe have him stab the fallen guy instead.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think that if a campaign is full of identical groups of monsters, consistantly with the same tactical situation, the same disposition, the same goals and all acting on perfect information, that's going to get tedious.

Also, you're right. If you've got a group of goblins, why would they keep playing whack a mole? Really, why would they? Are they just aware that their role is to suck and then die?

Whack a mole is only beneficial if someone who is downed is 'safe'. The penalties for misjudging that are dire. All you have to do is not make it a guaranteed state of affairs, and whack a mole becomes a losing game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

3. Enemies do not have perfect information. Without perfect information you cannot always execute the logical course of action, especially against a group of foes as diverse as adventurers. Adventurers get advantage of more-or-less knowing how tough their foes are simply by looking at them and having previously encountered them, monsters typically do not.

It's not so much that that anyone has perfect information, as it is that they have the same information. For example, if the party member wearing heavy robes happens to be fire-resistant, but neither group of goblins has any way of determining that beforehand, then they'll both react similarly to that particular lack of information.

In any given encounter with goblins, it is very likely that they will have no idea who the PCs are, and will try to kill them because that's what goblins do. Exceptions could easily exist, but those will be exceptions rather than the rule. The biggest variable governing their behavior, in regards to the topic at hand, is how quickly they recognize the healer and what's going on; but even that seems like it would vary more between tables (how the spell is described, how common healing is in that world, how civilized goblins are and whether they recognize holy symbols) rather than between different groups of goblins at the same table.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think that if a campaign is full of identical groups of monsters, consistantly with the same tactical situation, the same disposition, the same goals and all acting on perfect information, that's going to get tedious.

YMMV. I've played with someone before who never wanted to see the same monster more than once, and wanted every encounter to be entirely unique in every aspect. Personally, I want to see the same sorts of enemies at least half a dozen times, so I can see how they act in different situations as the dice allow. No two combats are ever identical, even if it's the same numbers and types of enemies operating with the same knowledge and motivations.