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

[The Crimson Binome]

How might one go about doing that, especially in an edition where combat can be quite swingy?

Are you talking about third edition, or something earlier? Fifth edition is only swingy if you choose it to be so. Most characters have a pile of hit points between themselves and unconsciousness, and there are very few ways to bypass that.

I suppose it can be swingy at the low end, if you absolutely insist on challenging your characters to the limits of their level, but the low levels are designed to pass quickly and those fights shouldn't last very long anyway. A string of three critical hits will occur one time in eight-thousand. Since we're talking about the possibility of house rules, though, you still have the option to fix critical hits by making them cause lingering wounds instead of extra damage.

If someone drops in the first round without being at low level, or taking a string of critical hits, then the party is in over their head and should learn to better gauge their risks in the future. If someone is walking around with only a few HP left, because they had insufficient healing available to get back up to a healthy number, then either the party is in over their head or they were wasteful; and in any case, they are all well aware of the risks involved.

I would argue that the opposite is true, at least from the players' perspective. The more PCs that are in the fight, the quicker it will go. The fewer there are, the longer it will take for them to beat the enemy ... unless, of course, the enemy beats them first.

If you're fighting an encounter where a PC drops early on, then it should be far from a forgone conclusion that the PCs will win.

But why do you feel that you *have* to have them do that? Why not just accept that having PCs bounce back up quickly is part of the game and roll with it?

Enemies aren't allowed to metagame and make decisions based on the assumption that PCs are supposed to win. As far as their decision-making process is concerned, this is the real world, and it's a matter of life or death. They are allowed and expected to be as intelligent as their stats and circumstances allow.

From the player perspective, it makes for a hollow victory to win because the enemies were played far dumber than they should have been.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I say just throw more fireballs at the party and take them out more than one at a time.

 

[Uchawi]

To better address whack-a-mole overall, you need a more detailed or complex system to address what hit points mean at any given time. Most likely that system would address the decline to zero hit points in a more granular fashion, and provide more long term penalties when you go below zero, but at the same time allow the characters to act in some limited capacity. You would still need to provide some type of buffer between going unconscious and outright dying on the spot. There are too many stories where the character is at the end of the ropes, with their last dying breath, that somehow recover. The problem is how this effect is used by an author, versus a game where everyone helps creates the story, and anyone can experience the escape from death's door.

 

[Hussar]

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

Hrmm. I actually rather like that. That's simple and quite elegant.

Although at higher levels wouldn't the cleric simply burn a higher level slot to charge up the healing word? And, would the first healing only bring you to -10 (presuming you were below that threshold)?

But nice. Fixes all your issues rather simply.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

Where is this bonus action healing coming from? Stabilizing a creature with or without a kit requires an action. In any event, I would rule that stabilizing a creature via medicine or healers kit takes a regular action. Such an activity falls beyond the scope of simply interacting with an object.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hrmm. I actually rather like that. That's simple and quite elegant.

Although at higher levels wouldn't the cleric simply burn a higher level slot to charge up the healing word? And, would the first healing only bring you to -10 (presuming you were below that threshold)?

But nice. Fixes all your issues rather simply.

Thanks.

I have no issue with higher powered heals bringing you right up.

-10 is the minimum, just like 0 is today.

No matter how much damage you've taken, assuming you live through all the death saves and possible instant death, being healed 1 hp always takes you to -9 hp, just like it takes you to 1 hp today.

Regards,

 

[CapnZapp]

I say just throw more fireballs at the party and take them out more than one at a time.

I'd like your post, but am on tapatalk!

 

[CapnZapp]

A widely-used variant in 1e and the standard (I think) in 2e was death at -10 instead of 0. I'm not sure how 2e handled being between 0 and -10; 1e was (not surprisingly) very unclear, and most DMs just made up some houserules.

Lan-"not dead yet"-efan

Okay, thanks!

 

[MoonSong]

If you say so.

Personally, it sounds like your definition of a healbot is someone who takes one for the team because he's an idiot. He's heroic because he risked something. That is not my definition of heroism (even though I do understand that it is the definition for some people).

The player whose PC you healed probably doesn't get more of an emotional charge because you healed his PC one way over another. Healing potion. Healing Word. Cure Wounds. Aura of Vitality. What matters to him is that his PC is conscious.

As Tony Stark said "I'd rather just cut the wire". Work smarter instead of harder. I get an emotional charge out of the teamwork and success aspect of it. I get the Paladin conscious AND I take out one of the Undead to further help/protect my team.

The faux heroism. Meh.

I guess then you never play a heal focussed PC on first to 3.5 edition either, because obviously ending the fight quicker is so much better in the action economy that taking time to move towards a fallen ally is foolish.....

Really, there are two things that make playing healer rewarding:

1) letting you party remain on good condition at the end of the day
2) helping a wounded teammate

5e just killed the first one. Healing word just takes all of the good out of the second one. Why, because it is the I-Win button of healbots. If there was an option that let fighting types autokill enemies from afar, without a chance of failure, as a bonus action and that couldn't be used in the same round as a regular attack, would you really just use that one instead of using attacks? it is a safer option that works better with the action economy and makes more sense, it doesn't matter your individual fun, only that the party is as most optimally successful as possible...

Thanks.

I have no issue with higher powered heals bringing you right up.

-10 is the minimum, just like 0 is today.

No matter how much damage you've taken, assuming you live through all the death saves and possible instant death, being healed 1 hp always takes you to -9 hp, just like it takes you to 1 hp today.

Regards,

You could just ban healing word, really, cure wounds has an actual cost in the action economy. It is more meaningful and harder to accomplish. Give up the whole turn or even more to reach the fallen comrade and heal him/her and then you have players actually caring about being hit. Healing word is like a Black lotus, and deserves the same spot on the banned heap.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I guess then you never play a heal focussed PC on first to 3.5 edition either, because obviously ending the fight quicker is so much better in the action economy that taking time to move towards a fallen ally is foolish.....

Really, there are two things that make playing healer rewarding:

1) letting you party remain on good condition at the end of the day
2) helping a wounded teammate

5e just killed the first one. Healing word just takes all of the good out of the second one. Why, because it is the I-Win button of healbots. If there was an option that let fighting types autokill enemies from afar, without a chance of failure, as a bonus action and that couldn't be used in the same round as a regular attack, would you really just use that one instead of using attacks? it is a safer option that works better with the action economy and makes more sense, it doesn't matter your individual fun, only that the party is as most optimally successful as possible...




You could just ban healing word, really, cure wounds has an actual cost in the action economy. It is more meaningful and harder to accomplish. Give up the whole turn or even more to reach the fallen comrade and heal him/her and then you have players actually caring about being hit. Healing word is like a Black lotus, and deserves the same spot on the banned heap.

Healing word is fine as written. To keep pop-up from being an issue, you can simply rule that anyone reduced to 0 hp needs 1 minute minimum to recover before being able to take any actions. Healing word is then best spent keeping people from dropping instead of popping them right back up after absorbing massive damage. If your ass goes down in a fight, it STAYS down until the combat is decided in most cases. This is a huge incentive not to save healing magic until someone drops.