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

[JValeur]

In my game we've had to deal with whack-a-mole a whole lot, especially since one of my players took the healer's feat. We've tried a couple of things to fix it, and the thing we're doing now is:

- When you are reduced to 0 hit points, you gain one level of exhaustion, drop unconscious and are dying.
- OPTIONAL: If you were reduced to 0 hit points because of a critical hit or a critical failure, you gain an additional level of exhaustion.
- When you fail a death saving throw, you gain one level of exhaustion.
- When you succeed on three death saving throws, you are stabilized.

This makes whack-a-mole a lot more costly, while also not making combat deathlier. I feel like the longer road to real death balances nicely with the added consequence of being stabilized and brought back into the fight. And, bear in mind, when a player has three levels of exhaustion they make death saving throws at a disadvantage, so it can quickly go down hill from there.

If your campaign is fast-paced, you can have level of exhaustions gained this way be removed at a rate of 1 per short rest, and 2 per long rest, allowing a character to get back on their feet quickly - but not in the same fight.

 

[shoak1]

In addition to needing to make death saving throws, we allow damage to unconscious PCs, up to their negative max hp (at which point they die). At the end of combat, any creature can stabilize a dying creature back to 0.

So whack a mole doesn't come up very often at our table, and when it does, the bad guys usually quickly decide to beat the moles to a bloody pulp rather than allowing them to keep popping up.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I feel the -10 rule would solve the whack-a-mole issue, but not the "more dangerous/deadly" objective, but that's really another topic

Traditional death at -10 (either with death saves, or with 1hp/rnd 'bleeding') would make it deadlier.

I'm not keen on in-combat healing, but I suspect simply removing it from the game (or removing the "whack-a-mole" aspect) may well alter the balance of the game quite significantly. In particular, I expect you'd see your Fighters and Barbarians spending quite a lot of time sitting out the game while everyone else has fun without them.

A valid concern. Eliminating/discouraging whack-a-mole without also overly discouraging in-combat healing would theoretically result in healing being provided to wounded allies before they drop - which would be less efficient, so mean more slots devoted to healing. not only keeping the melee types active in the combat, but reducing the spell resources available to the support types to do other things. So it depends upon the reactions of the players of support casters to the variant, how it would impact players of melee types or others prone to getting dropped for the team.

I'd add a rider to the "Unconscious" condition that, "If unconsciousness is caused by the character dropping to 0 hit points, it remains until the party takes a short or long rest." Though I'd probably also allow a restoration or similar spell to remove it, too.

That'd also lead to players sitting out the balance of the combat, though, wouldn't it?

 

[Psikerlord#]

Might be too deadly at -10 hp though, lots of damage inflation in 5e

 

[CapnZapp]

never mind

 

[Saeviomagy]

Since you didn't speak in your moderator color, allow me to interpret that as a regular post and clarify that I was calling out Saeviomagys eloquent defense of why whackamole isn't a problem and how it can easily be stopped, by contrasting all that energy with simply changing the rule, thus obviating the need to speak of the problem and how to fix it altogether.

I would argue that the effort isn't put into stopping whackamole, and simply put into making believable foes as opposed to white room combat encounters. The fact that it also happens to solve whackamole is icing on the cake.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would argue that the effort isn't put into stopping whackamole, and simply put into making believable foes as opposed to white room combat encounters. The fact that it also happens to solve whackamole is icing on the cake.

Sure.

I just happen to prefer the slightly comic book or action movie quality where we don't delve into the psychology of the bad guys, and delve into their fears and death anxiety.

In other words, you use the phrasing "believable foes" to make that sound like an attractive trait. I would argue it is not, and one reason we're playing a game is to get away from real world tragedy and cruelty.

Anyway, in every previous edition of D&D a monster strategy of hitting those that stand up and oppose you have worked fine. In no previous edition have I as a DM felt compelled to have my monsters act in cruel and cunning ways just because the rules force me to.

This edition clumsily change that fundamental trait, and instead of debating whether that is a good thing, or how to live with it, I fixed it.

Easily, quickly and to my complete satisfaction.

 

[Captain Panda]

Dunno if it has been mentioned yet, but I've found whack-a-mole is fixed pretty easily by adding a lingering injury from the DMG every time someone drops to 0. Getting knocked out and given 5 hp back shouldn't be business as usual, after all.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I just happen to prefer the slightly comic book or action movie quality where we don't delve into the psychology of the bad guys, and delve into their fears and death anxiety.

In either of those genres, fights against unnamed mooks are basically guaranteed to be won with zero risk. If a named baddy means serious business, they don't just leave the goody lying on the ground when they lose consciousness: they'll follow it up with something like I described above.