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

[Mouseferatu]

Whereas I have found healing word makes the game far more enjoyable.

Does it make healing easy? Yes. But on the other hand, in my group, the ability to heal and do something else in the same round is is a game-saver. I have several players who love the concept of playing a cleric or a healer, but none of them like regularly being stuck devoting their entire round to healing. It was one of the things we loved about 4E--the fact that so many cleric powers allowed you to heal and do something else. Healing word is the 5E equivalent of that. I understand that there are people for whom that devalues the healer role, but for us, it makes it worth playing.

On the main topic, I have a thematic objection to whack-a-mole healing, but it hasn't really been an issue for me in practice. My players would much rather keep an ally standing than bring them back from 0, regardless of whether it's the optimal choice on a mechanical level. And we all--myself included, as DM--hate it when a player is stuck missing a turn. So while I'm paying close attention to the suggested solutions, so far I don't feel the need to implement any of them in my own game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

From the perspective of the PC of course Healing Word is great, as would be any kind of ranged healing.

From the perspective of the *game*, however, ranged healing of any kind is poor design; I'm with MoonSong on this one in that trying to heal someone in combat should probably have some risks attached - first in getting to the fallen at all and second in getting your spell away without being interrupted.

That said, without ranged healing if someone goes down your better move is probably to draw away their opponent somehow, finish the fight, and worry about healing afterward.

Lan-"not everyone needs to be doing something all the time"-efan

I prefer that everyone DOES have something to do all the time, it just might not be with a particular character due to being incapacitated or whatnot. Character down for a bit in the midst of the action? Run a
participating NPC or monster. It is a chance to keep the player involved in the action even though the character may be knocked out or dead. If the player would rather sit there and sulk instead then that is their chosen option.

 

[Henry]

In our 5e game last night, two characters went down in combat (both came VERY close to the "= negative HP" threshold) and were brought back to positive points via healing magics. None of the players at the table voiced any concerns, and I doubt they would if polled, either, because it's been an accepted part of D&D as long as I've played (since my AD&D games in the 1980s) and as long as all of them have played, either (if I recall, most of them started with 3e and 4e). Even though Gary G. Put in a -10 hp optional rule with a "shock of near death" clause back in AD&D, when I started playing with a regular group with more than 1 person, they were using what amounts to the 3rd edition D&D -10 hp rules back in 1987 in that group. While I can understand players with a desire for more simulation in their combat might want it, no group I've played with in 3 decades ever wanted anything different, I think because they've perceived Death Spiral mechanics to really suck in gameplay, even ones as tame as death's door rules.

 

[Lanefan]

In our 5e game last night, two characters went down in combat (both came VERY close to the "= negative HP" threshold) and were brought back to positive points via healing magics.

During combat, or after? And if during combat, under what circumstances?

I don't think anybody anywhere has a problem with patching up downed allies after the battle's over. It's the ability to get downed allies going again (repeatedly, if necessary) in mid-combat at range that leads to the whack-a-mole issue; and the ability to do so while at the same time doing something else that leads to the devaluation of the healer role. But a healer type making a choice to spend the time (and take the risk) of dashing in to tend to a fallen ally in the midst of combat...that's the stuff of drama.

Lanefan

 

[Celtavian]

During combat, or after? And if during combat, under what circumstances?

I don't think anybody anywhere has a problem with patching up downed allies after the battle's over. It's the ability to get downed allies going again (repeatedly, if necessary) in mid-combat at range that leads to the whack-a-mole issue; and the ability to do so while at the same time doing something else that leads to the devaluation of the healer role. But a healer type making a choice to spend the time (and take the risk) of dashing in to tend to a fallen ally in the midst of combat...that's the stuff of drama.

Lanefan

We usually had a powerful healer in the group in 3E. The healer would be able to get someone up from negatives if needed. It happened occasion when struck by huge 3E crits. I built a healer that could use heal at range and quicken it. She could do 300 points very quickly. Then again that was her schtick. It's very hard to defeat a group with a well built healer in 3E.

 

[Hussar]

How do you quicken a Heal spell? Quicken is +4 levels and Heal is a 6th level spell.

 

[Celtavian]

How do you quicken a Heal spell? Quicken is +4 levels and Heal is a 6th level spell.

There was a trait that allowed you to lower a spells level for metamagic purposes by 1. I chose the heal spell. Later on I picked up preferred spell heal, which allows you to cast your preferred spell without changing its level. She was an Oracle of life. So you had 6 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells. I built her to take damage and heal damage. She couldn't be critical hit. She had toughness. I focused on Con and Cha. She was a beast at the end of the day. A DM nightmare because it was extremely difficult to kill her and she could mitigate almost any damage opponents did to the party. Fun to play, but made the game easy mode.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Grognard reminder for discussion context:

In AD&D, the Death's Door optional rule could potentially let you survive below 0 HP. You lost 1 HP per round until someone spent a full round staunching your wounds, and if anything ever brought you to -10 HP you died automatically. A Cure Wounds spell could restore you to 1 HP, but no higher until you had a full day of rest, and until then you could not fight and were "barely able to move"; only a Heal spell could return you to full HP and activity before then. In any case, even with a Heal spell you still had all your spells wiped from memory and had to rememorize them.

If you wanted to adapt this approach to 0 HP to 5E, you'd want to say that once you hit 0 HP, any cure method that does not include at least a Greater Restoration leaves you stunned until the next long rest and also at only 1 HP. Additionally, you lose all your spell points/slots. It's not a bad rule really; there's plenty of incentive to remain above 0 HP but there's no long-term damage to track. The major potential failing is the fact that the player might get bored if his PC is out of action too long, but at many tables that isn't a problem: the DM finds something else for them to do like play a monster, or else the players are simply accustomed to splitting the party frequently anyway (sigh) so they know how to handle waiting.

It would be a pretty major change from the default 5E rules though, and it would make monsters like banshees extremely deadly, because one failed Con check could wipe out all of your spells and basically take you out of the game for a full game day.

 

[Hussar]

There was a trait that allowed you to lower a spells level for metamagic purposes by 1. I chose the heal spell. Later on I picked up preferred spell heal, which allows you to cast your preferred spell without changing its level. She was an Oracle of life. So you had 6 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells. I built her to take damage and heal damage. She couldn't be critical hit. She had toughness. I focused on Con and Cha. She was a beast at the end of the day. A DM nightmare because it was extremely difficult to kill her and she could mitigate almost any damage opponents did to the party. Fun to play, but made the game easy mode.

Heh. How many splats did this take?

 

[Celtavian]

Heh. How many splats did this take?

Let me see. I think Preferred Spell came out in Ultimate Magic. I don't know what book the traits came out in. I took it from the SRD. So Core Book plus two splats.