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

[FormerlyHemlock]

Fair enough. If another opponent isn't an immediate threat, a double-tap might be reasonable.

It might be reasonable under some circumstances to double-tap an unconscious GWF rather than attack the archer, but generally not IMO. It's like double-tapping the unconscious guy with the bazooka while someone with a 9mm is shooting at you. Sure the rocket is more dangerous, but it's not currently a threat, and the bullet can kill you just as dead.

I'd generally imagine the archer is out of range, probably around 150', and takes enough movement that attacking him with my bite on the same round as the knight isn't feasible anyway.

I think double tapping PCs often stems from a DM's metagame idea of winning (killing PCs) rather than winning from the monsters' perspective (survival). Killing an enemy who isn't a threat (whether that's temporary or permanent) is pretty pointless if his allies kill you.

Many DMs are overly preoccupied with fighting/killing PCs and not giving enough thought to the monster's reasons for conflict with the PCs, food or territory or whatever. They're too eager for monsters to fight to the death in the name of "challenging the PCs." It's not something I find believable at my table, except for bulettes and demons, who mistakenly believe they can't die on the Prime Material plane.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'd generally imagine the archer is out of range, probably around 150', and takes enough movement that attacking him with my bite on the same round as the knight isn't feasible anyway.

Sure, if attacking another opponent is outright impossible and you have a downed opponent at hand and attacks left, then double tapping is a no-brainer. But it's not a common situation in my experience, and it has little if anything to do with whack-a-mole healing.

No more or less than attacking anyone else, it's just a matter of who you decide to race to 0 hps (or death, in that case).

Sure it is. The conscious enemy is almost guaranteed to attack. The downed enemy is unlikely to. Therefore, finishing off an unconscious enemy is like giving your enemy free attacks against you in many situations. Although as I've said, if healing is common, that might change that equation.

That could be part of it. (Conversely, DMs who care about their players' fun may avoid finishing them when down or keeping them down, on the theory that RPing lying on the ground bleeding is un-fun.) OTOH, if the approach to the game world is that the PCs are not that unique, then enemies could be familiar with the idea of healer-aided adventuring parties, and realize that ganking the healer in the surprise round and/or finishing off cracked glass cannons is a good idea.

If PCs are virtually unique in the world, OTOH, their enemies would frequently be taken aback when they rally. At least, the first time.

Yeah, like I said upthread, my entire stance is predicated on the idea that classed characters are rare, classed adventurers are even more rare, and classed adventurers with healing abilities are extremely rare indeed. Which isn't to say that they're virtually unique.

Navy seals are an elite group. Not everyone knows a navy seal, and certainly not everyone's fought a navy seal. Particularly in a world without a media network, plenty of people would have little idea of what a seal is capable of. But a navy seal knows plenty of other seals. That's kind of how I envision adventurers and handle them in my games. They're not unique per se, but they do run in fairly exclusive circles. Not everyone's met an adventurer, and those who have may only have a vague idea what they're capable of (beyond being very capable).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Navy seals are an elite group. Not everyone knows a navy seal, and certainly not everyone's fought a navy seal. Particularly in a world without a media network, plenty of people would have little idea of what a seal is capable of. But a navy seal knows plenty of other seals. That's kind of how I envision adventurers and handle them in my games. They're not unique per se, but they do run in fairly exclusive circles. Not everyone's met an adventurer, and those who have may only have a vague idea what they're capable of (beyond being very capable).

Yep, me too. There are very few still-living classed NPCs in my game, and fewer still who are both above level three and potentially friendly. Except in wildspace--wildspace is for the creme de la creme, and there are lots of Navy SEALS there.

I think we have generally similar approaches to how we build our respective game worlds and NPCs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure it is. The conscious enemy is almost guaranteed to attack. The downed enemy is unlikely to. Therefore, finishing off an unconscious enemy is like giving your enemy free attacks against you in many situations.

If you have reason to hope your next attack will drop the conscious enemy, sure. If you have reason to believe the dropped enemy can't be healed in combat, sure. But neither of those things are really all that likely in the typical D&D combat. PCs have plentiful in-combat healing resources, potions are 'common,' and remaining hps aren't exactly in a glowing health bar over their heads.

You can change rules or assumptions to get away from those oddities, though....

Although as I've said, if healing is common, that might change that equation. Yeah, like I said upthread, my entire stance is predicated on the idea that classed characters are rare, classed adventurers are even more rare, and classed adventurers with healing abilities are extremely rare indeed. Which isn't to say that they're virtually unique.

Case in point. That certainly changes the dynamic. Presumably that would mean that other abilities unique to the healing classes (Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin & Ranger, at least, IIRC), would be similarly unexpected and difficult to deal with.

Even so, the party could get a rep for having an extremely rare magical-healer (or other extremely rare, unexpected abilities) in their ranks and/or enemies could clue into the healer's abilities after seeing them in action - making a trope like the recurring villain that much more dangerous, for instance.

 

[Fanaelialae]

If you have reason to hope your next attack will drop the conscious enemy, sure. If you have reason to believe the dropped enemy can't be healed in combat, sure. But neither of those things are really all that likely in the typical D&D combat. PCs have plentiful in-combat healing resources, potions are 'common,' and remaining hps aren't exactly in a glowing health bar over their heads.

You can change rules or assumptions to get away from those oddities, though....

Barring factors such as regeneration, each hit against a creature is one less hit it can take before going down.

For example, let's assume that a PC, Hero, is fighting a pair of orcs. For purposes of this example these are both named villains, Blill and Blob, so the DM has decided that they will use the PC dying rules. It takes an average of two hits from Hero to reduce an orc to zero hp. Hero can make two attacks per round.

On round one, Hero hits Blill once and misses him once. The orcs make two attacks against Hero.
On round two, Hero hits Blill, knocking him to zero. He has one remaining attack which he can either make against Blob, or as coup de grace against Blill (which would leave Blill one death save away from death). Blob makes an attack against Hero.
On round three, Hero's attacks hit Blob once and miss him once. If Hero attacked Blob last round, Blob is now at zero HP. However, if he wasted his second attack on Blill last round, then Blob can attack Hero again this round.

As you can see from the above example, by choosing to coup de grace, the PC takes an additional attack during the fight. If Hero wanted to make sure that Blill was dead, he would have to attack him again in round three, guaranteeing Blob another attack.

IME, players usually assume that dropped enemies can't be healed in combat (because they lack healing abilities) until they see otherwise. IMO, monsters should generally approach PCs with this assumption unless they have a reason to know better.

There's no need to change rules or assumptions as long as you assume that PCs are not common. Even healing potions are not common. 50 gp is not a trivial amount to anyone other than the wealthy. By comparison, it costs 60 gp to maintain a middle class lifestyle for one month. In real world terms that means a healing potion would cost something like $1500. Which is hardly chump change for most of us.

Case in point. That certainly changes the dynamic. Presumably that would mean that other abilities unique to the healing classes (Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin & Ranger, at least, IIRC), would be similarly unexpected and difficult to deal with.

I would say that my assumptions are pretty close to classic D&D.

Classed characters were traditionally a small minority. Of those, certainly not all would be adventurers. Some clerics oversee a temple, while a fighter may have retired from the adventuring life after taking an arrow to the knee. Of the remaining classed adventurers, only a portion would be healers. Depending on whether you count Paladins and Rangers as healers, and assuming an even distribution of the classes, between one quarter and less than half of classed adventurers have healing powers.

Would you base your tactics in a fight on something only 25% to 42% of Navy SEALS can do, if you weren't even certain you were fighting a SEAL?

Even so, the party could get a rep for having an extremely rare magical-healer (or other extremely rare, unexpected abilities) in their ranks and/or enemies could clue into the healer's abilities after seeing them in action - making a trope like the recurring villain that much more dangerous, for instance.

Absolutely. I believe I said, earlier in this thread, that if an enemy had researched the PC's capabilities they might be more inclined to coup de grace. That said, I don't think random orc # 2 or the lich who has been trapped in a tomb for 1000 years is likely to have heard of the PCs, much less what they're capable of.

My point is that coup de grace is not a go-to tactic for anything that isn't both suicidal and insane. In my campaigns, a monster's goal is not usually to take one PC to hell with him, but to survive. It takes two attacks to make sure that a target will never get up again (and thanks to Revivify, even that isn't a guarantee). That puts you two attacks further away from the goal of putting all of your opponents to zero and surviving the fight. For the average monster, killing a PC is pointless if that means that the rest of the party slaughters the monster. As DMs, we know that the likely outcome of facing the PCs will be the death of the monsters, but the monsters shouldn't know that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Barring factors such as regeneration, each hit against a creature is one less hit it can take before going down.

Sure, and that's all it is. And a dropped enemy is only dropped until someone heals it. As long as healing is an available factor, even a dropped enemy has an expected future DPR. That's the oddity the thread calls 'whack-a-mole.'

IME, players usually assume that dropped enemies can't be healed in combat (because they lack healing abilities) until they see otherwise.

Which is a fair assumption. Given the availability of healing to PCs, OTOH, it's a fair assumption that they will get healed. Whether the rules that make that a reality are unique to PCs, rare beyond the PCs, or common is a matter of campaign style.

I would say that my assumptions are pretty close to classic D&D.

You are certainly not alone in saying things like that. In classic D&D, a party couldn't really succeed - get through low level - without a healer, typically a cleric. So the assumption of PC healing was pretty nearly a given.

Classed characters were traditionally a small minority.

That wasn't really spelled out until later. In 1e, for instance, any human who wasn't '0 level' had a character class - probably fighter, but a class. The DMG presented fees for spellcasting as if casters of moderate or even high level were present in numbers in any city.

3e came out and said that PC classes were unusually - that most people were commoners, and most of the more exceptional ones were other NPC classes (but even one of those common NPC classes, the Adept, could heal).

4e was the only version of D&D to intimate that PCs might be nearly unique in possessing a lot of healing resources (Surges, second wind, leader powers).

My point is that coup de grace is not a go-to tactic for anything that isn't both suicidal and insane. In my campaigns, a monster's goal is not usually to take one PC to hell with him, but to survive.

Either suicidal or insane would probably be quite sufficient. Villains and their henchlings in genre, and even fanatics of other stripes or grimmer heroes, are often willing to fight to the death and 'sell their lives dear' - which in the context of a D&D world with magical healing and raising, might very well mean 'making sure' of a fallen foe over possibly taking down a second for the few seconds he'll stay down before being healed.

Absolutely. I believe I said, earlier in this thread, that if an enemy had researched the PC's capabilities they might be more inclined to coup de grace.

That's an adequate acknowledgement of the issue, I suppose.

Is it really desirable for PCs to have the ability to stand eachother up from mortal wounds, and for that to be the most efficient way of approaching in-combat healing (it maximizes hps restored because of the healing-from-zero rule) or might some DMs want to tweak the rules to make it a less optimal tactic (healing from negative, for instance)?

You can adjust campaign assumptions to minimize the impact that PC ability has on NPC actions - making PCs rare and NPCs generally ignorant of their abilities - and you have, which is fine, but it's just one way of partially dealing with the issue. A mechanical solution might be preferable to others.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sure, and that's all it is. And a dropped enemy is only dropped until someone heals it. As long as healing is an available factor, even a dropped enemy has an expected future DPR. That's the oddity the thread calls 'whack-a-mole.'

If you know healing is a factor then sure, a dropped enemy may have future DPR. What I'm arguing is that in the majority of cases, monsters probably haven't had to deal with healing. When orcs raid goblins or human villages, the odds are they are not going to face a healer, much less a plethora of them. As such, it's unlikely that their tactics would revolve around something that they've rarely or never had to deal with before. In the rare event that they have to deal with a healer, "kill the healer" is probably a sufficient tactic. Coup de gracing everyone and everything simply leaves you open to attack and makes it more likely that members of your own party will be killed.

Which is a fair assumption. Given the availability of healing to PCs, OTOH, it's a fair assumption that they will get healed. Whether the rules that make that a reality are unique to PCs, rare beyond the PCs, or common is a matter of campaign style.

Granted.

You are certainly not alone in saying things like that. In classic D&D, a party couldn't really succeed - get through low level - without a healer, typically a cleric. So the assumption of PC healing was pretty nearly a given.

IME, that's not true. I've played in a number of 2e campaigns without any kind of priest in the party. You had to adjust your playstyle accordingly, but it was quite feasible.

Heck, in BD&D clerics didn't even get spells until 2nd level.

That wasn't really spelled out until later. In 1e, for instance, any human who wasn't '0 level' had a character class - probably fighter, but a class. The DMG presented fees for spellcasting as if casters of moderate or even high level were present in numbers in any city.

3e came out and said that PC classes were unusually - that most people were commoners, and most of the more exceptional ones were other NPC classes (but even one of those common NPC classes, the Adept, could heal).

4e was the only version of D&D to intimate that PCs might be nearly unique in possessing a lot of healing resources (Surges, second wind, leader powers).

1e was a bit vague, but it has this to say on DMG pg 35:
Human and half-orc characters suitable for level advancement are found at a ratio of 1 in 100. Other races have an incidence of 1 in 50. However, as most of these characters will be other than low level adventurers and already in a situation they are satisfied with... about 1 in 1000 population will be interested in offers of employment as a henchman.

So 1% to 2% of the population has a class, and of those only about 0.1% will be available for employment as henchmen (classed adventurers). Assuming an even distribution of classes (not reasonable in 1e, given that rogues and warriors were generally accepted as more common than priests and mages, but for the sake of argument...) we end up with about 0.025% of the population as adventuring healers. Given medieval population densities, that's not a lot of adventuring healers spread out across the world.

In 2e, pgs 17-19 discussed the rarity of the adventuring classes:
The great mass of humanity, elf-kind, the dwarven clans, and halflings are "0-level" (zero-level) characters.
It further discusses how the majority of wizards and priests (as well as most of the other classes) are not adventurers.

Certainly there were fees for spellcasters, but these were typically for non-adventuring spellcasters. The wizard who spends all his time locked in his tower with his books, or the high priest of a temple.

Either suicidal or insane would probably be quite sufficient. Villains and their henchlings in genre, and even fanatics of other stripes or grimmer heroes, are often willing to fight to the death and 'sell their lives dear' - which in the context of a D&D world with magical healing and raising, might very well mean 'making sure' of a fallen foe over possibly taking down a second for the few seconds he'll stay down before being healed.

I suppose we'll just have to differ on this point. That's not how I play the majority of my villains. They want to succeed, but even more than that, live to fight another day.

That's an adequate acknowledgement of the issue, I suppose.

Is it really desirable for PCs to have the ability to stand eachother up from mortal wounds, and for that to be the most efficient way of approaching in-combat healing (it maximizes hps restored because of the healing-from-zero rule) or might some DMs want to tweak the rules to make it a less optimal tactic (healing from negative, for instance)?

You can adjust campaign assumptions to minimize the impact that PC ability has on NPC actions - making PCs rare and NPCs generally ignorant of their abilities - and you have, which is fine, but it's just one way of partially dealing with the issue. A mechanical solution might be preferable to others.

I don't deny that some people might have a problem with it. I have yet to see it become an issue in my games, but I fully acknowledge that some players might abuse the system. Of the 5e campaigns I've run, there has always been a healer of some sort who could cast Healing Word, but the players don't generally play whack-a-mole. If they've been downed, they usually go on the defensive. Another party member will distract the monsters so that the injured PC can disengage and fall back.

However, I don't agree with it being the most effective tactic except from a purely theoretical point of view. There have been plenty of times when a PC was knocked to zero and missed his turn because the healer's initiative was after his. Or the healer healed him but then a monster attacked him and knocked him back to zero before he could even act. There are plenty of ways this approach can bite the party in the rear. When it works it can be very effective, but it's shortsighted and has the potential to go very wrong.

The only thing that I was arguing against was the idea that whack-a-mole necessitates coup-de-grace. From a metagame standpoint it is potentially the most effective tactic for killing a PC, but from an in-world perspective it relies on knowledge that the monsters may not have and tactics that are questionable in more common engagements. Even then, as I stated, my argument was predicated on the idea that PCs are rare.

If you want to discourage whack-a-mole healing, why not simply say that the first healing spell merely stabilizes the PC? If you want to be more generous, let level 3 or higher spells stabilize and heal. After all, Revivify is a 3rd level spell that can get you up from dead (at the very least, mostly dead).

If you want to really scare your players, use Chill Touch when their HP is low. They won't be able to heal for a round, so no whack-a-mole. You could invent a whole line of spells and magic items inspired by Chill Touch. Blue Slaad are good for similar reasons, since their Chaos Phage disease prevents the recovery of HP. Nailed the party fighter with that during a big fight last session; he was sweating until the druid cast Lesser Restoration (but that brought the druid into melee range so I was able to panic them again by focusing on the squishy druid).

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you know healing is a factor then sure, a dropped enemy may have future DPR. What I'm arguing is that in the majority of cases, monsters probably haven't had to deal with healing.

I can't go with 'majority of cases' as it's a very world/tone/style/DM- dependent sort of thing.

If the world is relatively high-magic, or PC-classed adventurers are less than unique, or if the PCs are known to the enemy, healing would be a known factor.

IME, that's not true. I've played in a number of 2e campaigns without any kind of priest in the party. You had to adjust your playstyle accordingly, but it was quite feasible.

Prior to 3e the only dependable healing resource was the Cleric (or other character with CLW). You could pace a campaign slowly enough to get by on natural healing (plenty of weeks-long rests between fairly short adventuring forays), or the DM could place so many healing potions and other items that it wasn't an issue. I've rarely seen either done, and the latter I've never seen last long.

Human and half-orc characters suitable for level advancement are found at a ratio of 1 in 100.

In a major city, an equivalent of Rome, say, that's 10,000 level-advancing humans, and PC classes were about the only form of level advancement available. If a D&D world had the population of even just Europe during the Middle Ages, there might, demographically speaking, be a million humans running around with class levels. And it's not like the ones who get glowy healing spells from the gods would be exactly low-profile.

Certainly there were fees for spellcasters, but these were typically for non-adventuring spellcasters. The wizard who spends all his time locked in his tower with his books, or the high priest of a temple.

Sure, but they indicate that familiarity with magic and what it can do isn't necessarily that rare.

I don't deny that some people might have a problem with it. I have yet to see it become an issue in my games, but I fully acknowledge that some players might abuse the system.

Casting healing spells in combat is hardly an abuse.

However, I don't agree with it being the most effective tactic except from a purely theoretical point of view.

That's the only PoV where a sweeping sense of 'most effective' would make any sense.

Of course, no one has to use the theoretically-most-effective tactic. You can spread damage around instead of focusing fire, or cast Sacred Flame for a few points of damage instead of standing up the Paladin so he can Smite again.

The only thing that I was arguing against was the idea that whack-a-mole necessitates coup-de-grace.
From a metagame standpoint it is potentially the most effective tactic for killing a PC, but from an in-world perspective it relies on knowledge that the monsters may not have and tactics that are questionable in more common engagements.

Well, or a tweak to mechanics to make it less of an issue in the first place.

Heal-from-negative instead of heal-from-zero, for instance, removes an incentive for the caster to wait until an ally has dropped. Making prone a more difficult condition to deal with (an AoO or move action or both for standing up, for instance) would add a disincentive to letting your allies drop.

 

[KarinsDad]

I disagree. At least in my campaign worlds, classed characters are rare, and classed adventurers even moreso. Classed adventurers with healing capabilities then, are a subset of a very exclusive group. As such, "halfway smart" foes are unlikely to expect to face such characters. Even smart foes won't necessarily expect it, unless they've taken the time to research the party's abilities.

The ancient dragon presumably knows that healing spells exist, but if only a tiny portion of the creatures who have tried to plunder its hoard over the centuries possessed such abilities, it's not going to approach every fight with that assumption. It KNOWS that very few beings possess such powers. It KNOWS that even on the off chance that they do possess healing magic, it probably won't make a difference (based on the mountain of adventurer bones).

A fellow adventuring party is different because they are much like the PCs. They know the party's tricks because they can use them themselves.

Obviously, this is predicated on the idea that classed adventurers are rare. YMMV

I tend to agree, but with one caveat.

Most of the classed adventurers in 5E have a way to heal. So, I would lean this a bit more into the realm of if most of the foes look like warriors, then do not expect healing. If some of the foes look like shamans or casters of some type, then expect the possibility of healing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I can't go with 'majority of cases' as it's a very world/tone/style/DM- dependent sort of thing.

If the world is relatively high-magic, or PC-classed adventurers are less than unique, or if the PCs are known to the enemy, healing would be a known factor.

As I have said before, my comments are based on the idea that the PCs are rare. If that's not the case in your campaign, that's fine, but then this simply doesn't apply to your campaign world.

Prior to 3e the only dependable healing resource was the Cleric (or other character with CLW). You could pace a campaign slowly enough to get by on natural healing (plenty of weeks-long rests between fairly short adventuring forays), or the DM could place so many healing potions and other items that it wasn't an issue. I've rarely seen either done, and the latter I've never seen last long.

Healing potions existed, but we certainly weren't drowning in them. You simply worked with what you had. Back in those days, it wasn't unusual for adventures to be attrition based. Beating the orc with pie was basically a foregone conclusion (unless it turned out to be something other than an orc) but the question was how many resources you'd use up, HP being a major resource. A group with skill and luck might be able to take the pie without any loss at all (perhaps by ambushing the orc with bows or using some other clever ruse).

I think the highest we ever got was around 9th level (that party had no healer), and that was months of regular play. Leveling just wasn't that fast in those days unless you house ruled XP.

In a major city, an equivalent of Rome, say, that's 10,000 level-advancing humans, and PC classes were about the only form of level advancement available. If a D&D world had the population of even just Europe during the Middle Ages, there might, demographically speaking, be a million humans running around with class levels. And it's not like the ones who get glowy healing spells from the gods would be exactly low-profile.

How many Rome sized cities does a typical campaign world honestly have though? Rome was a pinnacle of civilization for that time period. And even given those numbers, at best 250 of those people (remember that 0.025%?) would be adventuring healers that monsters might have to face at some point.

Sure, but they indicate that familiarity with magic and what it can do isn't necessarily that rare.

In a big city, sure. But how many monsters visit the big city? That's like saying that just because NYC has multiple all-night nightclubs, everyone in third-world countries knows all about all-night nightclubs.

Casting healing spells in combat is hardly an abuse.

I was referring to players who abuse the heal from zero rules to soak up extra damage. I never suggested that casting healing spells was an abuse of the rules.

That's the only PoV where a sweeping sense of 'most effective' would make any sense.

Of course, no one has to use the theoretically-most-effective tactic. You can spread damage around instead of focusing fire, or cast Sacred Flame for a few points of damage instead of standing up the Paladin so he can Smite again.

I don't follow. I pointed out concrete examples of how abusing the heal from zero rules can bite the party on the posterior. This isn't some theory-crafted discussion about using ineffective tactics. Just because something sounds good on paper doesn't mean it will be as effective every time in play. Certainly, abusing heal from zero CAN be an effective tactic but it also carries risks that some people dismiss out of hand. I can tell you from experience that those risks should not be ignored.

Well, or a tweak to mechanics to make it less of an issue in the first place.

Heal-from-negative instead of heal-from-zero, for instance, removes an incentive for the caster to wait until an ally has dropped. Making prone a more difficult condition to deal with (an AoO or move action or both for standing up, for instance) would add a disincentive to letting your allies drop.

You can tweak the mechanics all you want. Nowhere did I say you shouldn't. Heal-from-negatives is certainly a viable solution.

Again, I was addressing those who felt that the logical solution to whack-a-mole was coup de grace. I don't understand where this is coming from since, prior to my previous post where I did offer some ideas on tweaking the mechanics, I didn't refer to tweaking the mechanics at all.