D&D 5E Whack-a-mole gaming or being healed from 0 hp

[CapnZapp]

So why bother with it then? I reckon you're seeing moles in needing of whacking where there aren't any. Such a notion never even crossed my mind in all my years of playing D&D before seeing the title of this thread.

Just a quick note: the reason you didn't see it before was because negative hp was tracked (unless, as has been pointed out, you're that old, in which case, you were that dead )... Cheers!

But let's read an explanation for the current system, from the now-wiped-but-not-really-since-this-is-the-intarwebs:

The reason the rule was introduced was because the designers hated it when a cleric spent her entire action healing a comrade in a previous edition, only to roll a 1 on the healing die. A dying character at –6 hit points is now at –5 hit points (though probably at least stabilized). A few more bad healing rolls might mean that character sits out the rest of the fight and sucks up the cleric’s actions in the process. In addition, it’s just easier to dispense with having to add positive numbers to negative hit points.

It can be argued, however, that the above rule is too favorable to a dying character, too “gamist” at the expense of simulation, and really anti-intuitive, breaking the rules of regular math which, come on, aren’t all that difficult. Ultimately, it could be argued that “always heal up from 0” is just not in accord with every previous edition of D&D.

What do you think?

What I think is: it's not so much that the rule is favorable to the character, it's more how the rule makes combat healing INCREDIBLY MUCH MORE effective if you wait until 0 hp. The problem isn't that the healing is guaranteed to wake you up. The problem is how this rule alone erases more incoming damage than any other game effect, once you analyse it rationally and play accordingly.

And my players are scarily effective at minmaxing.

I choose to think this was simply overlooked by the designers and playtesters at the time. After all, a casual reading of the rules does not spell out the consequences a logical approach leads to - not that healing is friendly or even how much damage you can soak at 0 hp, but what we here and now call "double tapping".

The fact that all this set-up to get adventurers back up on their legs has a trivial counter. But a counter that takes the game into a dark and vicious direction, a direction I do not want the game to take.

Then don't follow the rules to their logical conclusion. Just ignore that bit and keep playing.

That's easy to say but impossible to do. Pandora's box and all that.

No, this entire thread exists because once I got the whack-a-mole imagery in mind, I could not un-image it.

And since I can't choose either of two bad choices 1) kill the fallen and 2) not kill the fallen, I need an out.

Reintroducing at least a few negative hit points seems to be the simplest out there is.

Remember, the problem that got negative hp nixed was that a bad roll meant your heal was ineffective. With a cap at -10 this is only true for healing effects of the lowest level.

In other words, if you wish to ensure that your buddy gets back on his or her feet, shoot off at least a level 2 heal (level 3 if you want to cast Healing Word as a non-Life cleric). Level 1 heals might be cheap, but they're best used while the ally is still standing (or considered a life-saving stabilizing effect first, and hp heal second).

To me, this is all good. Again, cheers.

 

[CapnZapp]

I run a little more grim of a game. Anytime you go negative CON in HP, you are dead. If you go negative HP, but not past your CON, you still make your death saves. If you make 3, you live, but you are at 3 exhaustion levels. Additionally, just because you fall down due to 0 HP, doesnt mean the thing you are fighting isnt going to give you a coup de grace. It's changed the dynamic. The PCs are quicker to use healing before going into combat, are hesitant to go into combat, they go into combat smarter if not trying to avoid it altogether if possible.

As long as everybody involved realizes this is a pretty large reduction in "effective hp", cool.

What I mean is that D&D is a game where you can easily take damage equal to half your maximum hp or more in a single round or even in a single monster's turn.


By the normal rules you can still act and do pretty much your regular thing even if you're down from 100 hp to 30 or even 10, since you won't suffer instant death from taking 50-60 damage (an ordinary amount of damage at the level where you have a hundred hit points).

But with your rule, suddenly the zone from 1-45 hp becomes "retreat hp". You are no longer effective at 45 hp, since you can at any time, at no fault of your own, be taken straight from 45 to -15 hp and thus dead, assuming a 15 CON.

Not saying there's anything inherently wrong with your houserule. Again, assuming everybody is aboard the fact you have just effectively halved the number of hit points available to characters in full assault mode.

Regards,

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm a little confused here.

I'm really not seeing the problem here.

Monster smacks down PC Red
Next monster attacks PC Blue, since PC Red is down
First PC in initiative order attacks monster AND brings up PC Red
Next monster attacks PC Red but misses
Next monsters realizes it can't reach PC Red and instead attacks PC Yellow
PC Red attacks monster

...

Monster smacks down PC Blue
Next PC in initiative order attacks monster AND brings up PC Blue

and so on and so on.

You're not seeing the problem because you haven't yet realized the party has become invincible if they all sport Healing Words. No matter what the monsters do (unless they can catch all PCs in a Fireball when they are all softened up), the PCs refuse to stay down, and few PCs ever lose their action.

And who's talking about Disengaging? You fall, you rise, you stand up and hit the monsters. The fact you are at 1 hp is utterly inconsequential. Maximum offense is the name of the game.

Yes, all of this is a tad extreme. But I did it to make y'all see the light. I fully understand you can't see my dilemma until you see the consequences of the 5E rules from my perspective. But be warned, once you do, you can't turn back...

 

[Hussar]

The problem becomes where to draw the line. -10 means that any creature capable of dealing 10+the PCs current HP can instantly kill the PC. But what is a good number? How deadly do you want to make things?

 

[Hussar]

Monster smacks down PC Red
Next monster attacks PC Blue, since PC Red is down
First PC in initiative order attacks monster AND brings up PC Red
Next monster attacks PC Red but misses
Next monsters realizes it can't reach PC Red and instead attacks PC Yellow
PC Red attacks monster

...

Monster smacks down PC Blue
Next PC in initiative order attacks monster AND brings up PC Blue

and so on and so on.

You're not seeing the problem because you haven't yet realized the party has become invincible if they all sport Healing Words. No matter what the monsters do (unless they can catch all PCs in a Fireball when they are all softened up), the PCs refuse to stay down, and few PCs ever lose their action.

And who's talking about Disengaging? You fall, you rise, you stand up and hit the monsters. The fact you are at 1 hp is utterly inconsequential. Maximum offense is the name of the game.

Yes, all of this is a tad extreme. But I did it to make y'all see the light. I fully understand you can't see my dilemma until you see the consequences of the 5E rules from my perspective. But be warned, once you do, you can't turn back...

PC with 1 hp attacks monster, fails to kill it and drops again. Remember failed death saves carry over. It's quite possible that he has to make a save before being healed.

"Every PC has Healing Word"? What kind of bizarre group are we talking about?

 

[pukunui]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]: I still think you're seeing a mountain where there isn't even a molehill.

There are plenty of ways to address your problem *without* resorting to changing the rules. The first one that springs to mind would be to actually throw the recommended number of daily encounters at your group in order to wear them down. Doesn't matter if they use a bunch of healing words to keep each other in the fight early on ... they can't cast healing word at will, so eventually they're going to run out.

They'll run out even faster if you throw encounters at them that require them to use those limited spell slots of theirs to cast other spells. Make it so casting healing word to keep your buddy up is a hard choice, not an easy one, because that spell slot might be better used to cast something else.

You can also use the good ol' 'divide and conquer' tactic. Separate those PCs! Keep them far enough apart that they can't even throw a healing word at their buddy all that easily.

That sort of thing.

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: Failed death saves don't carry over. They reset as soon as you regain any hit points or become stable.


As an aside: The only issue I have with the healing rules is the Medicine check to stabilize someone. The idea that you can stop someone from dying in 6 seconds or less without using any magic seems far more problematic to me. And yet, I can't be bothered house ruling it because I don't think it would be worth it. It's just a fantasy game, after all, not a real life simulator.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=54629]pukunui[/MENTION] - Thanks for that. Got my 4e mixed in there. Oops.

Other than that, though, my point, I think, still stands. Players who decide that they're invincible will be quickly disabused of the notion. Even the stupidest creature is just going to put the PC permanently down after the bloody thing has stood up twice.

Or, better yet, baddie drops the fighter (or whatever), free action to drop a weapon, free interaction to pick up a weapon. Is that rules legal? I drop my club and snatch the fighter's magic sword and start beating on someone else with it. Hijinks ensue. Or, even just the free interaction to kick the fighter's weapon away. All sorts of things you can do.

 

[Zardnaar]

If you think healing word is bad try a Rogue:Thief with the healer feat. Bonus action 1hp healing limited by the amount of med kits one has instead of cleric spell slots. My clerics generally only use 2 level 1 spells (bless, healing word) rarely a guiding bolt or the +2 AC spell.

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem becomes where to draw the line. -10 means that any creature capable of dealing 10+the PCs current HP can instantly kill the PC. But what is a good number? How deadly do you want to make things?

I'm planning to change nothing, except that hit points bottoms out at -10, not 0.

Just like you didn't die at 0 now you don't die at -10.

The only expected change is that lowest powered heals will likely only stabilize you, not wake you up to full capacity.

Cheers

 

[CapnZapp]

PC with 1 hp attacks monster, fails to kill it and drops again. Remember failed death saves carry over. It's quite possible that he has to make a save before being healed.

"Every PC has Healing Word"? What kind of bizarre group are we talking about?

Having failed death saves carry over is one house rule solution mentioned, yes.

I prefer to not add any burden to the fallen character, however. So I prefer to avoid adding exhaustion or anything else to the downed character, including this.

I just want to up the cost slightly to make the whack a mole strategy somewhat less optimal, so I don't feel stupid for not double tapping fallen PCs just to make them stay down.