D&D 5E (2014) Tweak Instant Cure spells to fix whack-a-mole

[Yunru]

This is more equivalent to what I am talking about: Two smokers; One chips a tooth, the other doesn't. The one with a chipped tooth says that smoking chips teeth, while the other says "Maybe since I don't have any chipped teeth, the cause is actually something other than the smoking?"

Not equivalent forms of logic. Chipping teeth has nothing to do with smoking. Exploiting a system has everything to do with said system.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not equivalent forms of logic. Chipping teeth has nothing to do with smoking. Exploiting a system has everything to do with said system.

Doesn't one of the official fallacies apply here? Just because some people don't encounter a problem, that doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist?

That seems like it goes along with the fallacy that some people use, where a mechanic isn't broken if the DM can house rule around it. I'm not saying the fallacies are equivalent, but they're related.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Not equivalent forms of logic. Chipping teeth has nothing to do with smoking. Exploiting a system has everything to do with said system.

Yes, right... but it isn't caused by the system.

In the example I made I am using smoking as analog for the D&D rules in the book - that being the thing which is the same between your group and mine.
Then I am using a chipped tooth as analog for the whack-a-mole mentality - that being the thing which your group (apparently) has, and my group does not.

That chipping teeth has nothing to do with smoking is precisely why I chose the analog that I did - because having a mindset that wants to exploit a system if that is possible is equally as unrelated to the system itself as chipping teeth is to smoking.

Having a smoke doesn't chip your tooth. Being able to get back into a fight after being healed at 0 hp doesn't make you embrace whack-a-mole play. Some other thing is responsible.

In the case of chipped teeth, maybe it's eating stale cookies - I've chipped a tooth on one of those before.

In the case of being prone to exploiting a game's rules, maybe it's something being done because a related assumption of what is "good" is actually in opposition to what the people involved genuinely would prefer, creating a need to undermine the results of that assumption - or to be clearer, maybe "whack-a-mole" play showing up in the game is a direct result of making each individual encounter have a higher chance of reducing characters to 0 hp than the group would prefer, but they haven't tried toning down each encounter because they assume (possibly even correctly) that they would find easier encounters boring.

Heck, I'm not even saying "don't solve the problem" here - I'm just saying "make sure you aren't wrong about what the problem is, because that could make it really hard to actually fix." Calling something a mechanical problem when it isn't doesn't help anyone.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not equivalent forms of logic.

I don't see how they're not. There's a well-known issue with an obvious proximate cause, but not everyone notices (or at least, not everyone complains of) the problem. You're asserting that, because the correlation isn't 100%, causation is impossible. Now, correlation doesn't prove causation, but less than 100% correllation doesn't disprove causation, either.

Though, really, 'whack-a-mole' gets brought up in more than just the odd isolated anecdote. Denying that it's a thing doesn't seem productive. Neither does dismissing the issue or any attempt at solutions by simply pointing the finger at the complainant.

It is often more advantageous to not use resources for healing at all, which also means characters aren't popping back up repeatedly as indicated by the "whack-a-mole" designation.

In those situations, where, for instance, PCs simply aren't dropped because they own the encounter from the beginning with good tactics, efficient use of resources for offense & mitigation, and general superior player skill (or just wimpy encounters), sure. That's pretty far from the 'more dangerous' feel that Psikerlord says he's going for, though, so I'm not sure how it's relevant.

Yes I find the game is far too easy with whack-a-mole going on. That's my main issue.

Would it feel more dangerous or harder with support casters healing allies /before/ they went down, instead? Because that's what punishing (or doing away with) heal-from-0 would seem to incentivize.

I want dropping hps to create a sense of urgency/suspense in the players - a feeling that this is dangerous combat. Whack-a-mole healing prevents that.

Proactive healing would also prevent it.

Maybe you should just cut healing word, give Cure Wounds a 1 minute cast time, and similarly adjust other healing abilities/items?

Healing becomes (but for the fighter's second wind, which is in no way whack-a-mole) an out-of-combat activity. Combat becomes more dangerous.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Denying that it's a thing doesn't seem productive.

I made no such denial. That's twice I've pointed that out to you.

Neither does dismissing the issue or any attempt at solutions by simply pointing the finger at the complainant.

I've dismissed no issue, nor have I dismissed any attempts to solve the the issue. I also haven't pointed any fingers.

... I'm not sure how it's relevant.

That seems to be as a result of you confusing what I've said for something else.

Here it is as plain as I can make it: Whack-a-mole play isn't a problem caused by the mechanics of the game, even if it is accurate to say that whack-a-mole play is enabled by the game mechanics, the root cause lies elsewhere.

 

[Tony Vargas]

even if it is accurate to say that whack-a-mole play is enabled by the game mechanics

It clearly is 'enabled' (caused) by heal-from-zero, or, if you want to slice the hair a different way, heal-from-zero 'contributes to the problem.'

the root cause lies elsewhere.

If you're sure it's not the mechanics of the game, and claiming you're not pointing the finger at the people playing it, what's left?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If you're sure it's not the mechanics of the game

I am. If it were the mechanics, anyone using the mechanics would experience the problem.

...and claiming you're not pointing the finger at the people playing it...

Perhaps I am using the phrase differently than you do, but I'm not pointing the finger at people playing because I'm not saying "You did this" to them about their problem.

...what's left?

All of the variables that differ between groups not having the problem and groups having the problem - which I thought was obvious.

 

[Yunru]

I am. If it were the mechanics, anyone using the mechanics would experience the problem.

By that logic everyone playing 3e experienced PunPun. Except they didn't.

All of the variables that differ between groups not having the problem and groups having the problem - which I thought was obvious.

Nice snide answer (someone getting defensive?), except there are no variables between those two. You're asking people to consider an integer in the range of 0 to 1 that isn't 0 or 1: it doesn't exist.

 

[Amatiel]

Mechanic that I added to my campaign for Dying is as that whenever you fail a Death save, or are droped to 0 hit points, you gain ONE level of exhaustion. I extended death saves from 3 failed saves = death, to requiring six levels of exhaustion = death.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am. If it were the mechanics, anyone using the mechanics would experience the problem.

You can be certain for that reason, if you like. I'm afraid I don't find the logic of anything less than a 100% correlation being conclusive disproof of causation to be at all compelling.

I'm not pointing the finger at people playing because I'm not saying "You did this" to them about their problem.

What else is left after you eliminate the system as a contributing factor?

All of the variables that differ between groups not having the problem and groups having the problem - which I thought was obvious.

Since they're using the same system, that leaves players, themselves, and (if you're not just blaming them for the problem), some other variables...

...what are those 'variables,' and how do you think they're relevant?